Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
Electric, acoustic, and nuclear logs, as well as rock properties
information from cores and downhole tests, such as leakoff,
minifrac, hydraulic fracturing, and pressure buildup, are
normally available in the gas fields in Northern Mexico. The
existing information was used to fully determine rock
properties and to select the optimum perforating technique to
minimize formation damage and to help produce gas from this
type of reservoir.
The critical drawdown and formation compressibility were
evaluated based on the integration of rock mechanical
properties from dipole sonic and from density logs with core
analysis information determining proper dynamic-to-static
calibration parameters.
The process to design the perforating technique to
maintain a balance between hole diameter for future hydraulic
fracturing and maximum penetration to reduce the skin
damage in this type of reservoir is presented in the paper. The
results from different wells, as well as the advantages and
disadvantages of the technique, are compared.
Introduction
The main objective of the perforating process is to establish
communication to the reservoir to be able to have production
efficiently and effectively. This process is particularly
important in the low permeability, overpressured tight gas
formations even so it is apparently simple because most of the
formations require hydraulic fracture for commercial
production. In fact, it has been a challenge when selecting the
perforating technique to maintain a balance between charge
penetration, hole size, and reservoir pressure for some well
completions. If the perforating technique is not optimized for
the particular reservoir, the results of the initial flow test,
fracture extension, and well production are, in most of the
cases, more expensive and less efficient.
charge interference and the use of other metals for the jet has
contributed to the increase in penetration and perforating
efficiency. The development and introduction of fast pressure
gauges at beginning of this century allowed the analysis if the
events occurring almost instantaneously during the jet
perforating process (Figure 2).
The introduction of flow laboratories (Figure 3) where
rock samples are subject to actual downhole conditions,
including reservoir pressure, overburden pressure, and
effective stress, allowed the evaluation of the performance of
standard charges in any specific reservoir.6 In addition, it is
possible to customize the design of charges for any specific
application, optimizing the results (Figure 4).
There is a great deal of information related to design and
selection of perforating systems for various reservoir
conditions, depending on the production objectives and
techniques. This paper presents an overview of the these
techniques and reviews the experience of integrating the
reservoir parameters and geomechanical information with the
charge performance and mechanical condition of the wells to
plan the perforating job. This type of integration will help to
improve the perforating job performance and any additional
applications performance, such as hydraulic fracturing in the
overpressured tight gas reservoirs in Northern Mexico.
Underbalance Perforating. The underbalance perforating
technique was introduced very early in the development of
various perforating techniques7. It was more highly developed,
however, after the successful introduction of tubing conveyed
perforating (TCP) in the 1970s as a method of inducing an
initial surge period to clean the perforation and minimize the
skin damage.
As early as 1956, Allen and Worzel7 showed that
overbalance perforating resulted in a less effective
perforation because the perforation tunnel was filled with
crushed sand, charge debris and pieces of metal from the
liner in addition to formation matrix plugging near the
perforating tunnel, even after the backflow from the formation
(Figure 5). Based on these observations, they recommended
perforating with some differential into the wellbore. In 1969,
Terry Walker, Jack Brown, and George Briggs conducted tests
with an average of 500 psi underbalance, using hollow steel
carrier (HSC) guns. They observed that the atmospheric
pressure inside the carrier was an important factor for
additional cleanup of the perforations, especially in gas
reservoirs where the formation damage during the perforation
was larger because of the change in fluid compressibility.7
After the successful introduction of the TCP technique
(which allowed larger differential pressure into the wellbore),
King et al.8 completed a study of at least 90 wells to determine
the minimum underbalance required for a proper cleanup of
the perforations, considering that excessive differential
pressure can cause the casing to collapse or the formation to
disaggregate. They observed that in formations with
permeabilities in the range of 1md to 900md, there was an
exponential relationship between formation permeability and
minimum underbalance required to have clean perforations
(linear relationship in the log-log plot). The procedure used
includes the comparison of production when damage was
removed using acid after the perforating job for gas and oil
SPE 108480
SPE 108480
phases because the rock strength and stress can induce either a
shear failure (sand production) or rock grain texture damage in
the vicinity of the perforation tunnel. The optimum
underbalance condition related to geomechanical properties of
the reservoir has recently been documented in various
papers. 1320 It has also been observed that in low permeability
gas reservoirs, very high underbalance values (4,000 psi) are
not required to clean gas cores at irreducible water
saturation.16 In gas cores saturated with brine (which is the
case for tight gas reservoirs), increasing the underbalance to
2,000 psi did not improve flowing efficiency.17
When rock properties information is available, optimizing
the balance between uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)2021
and critical drawdown pressure values with the reservoir
pressure and length of the HSC gun at atmospheric pressure to
design the perforating job has proved to add value to the
reservoir performance and the subsequent hydraulic fracturing
operations.
Extreme Underbalance Perforating. The extreme
underbalance perforating technique began to be used recently
in Indonesia for natural flow gas reservoirs. It is based on
working at the maximum safe underbalance before the critical
drawdown pressure is reached to perforate the well and
achieve maximum flow and minimum skin.2224
This technique has also been successfully used in the
medium- to high-permeability gas reservoirs in the Burgos
basin for several years, but it did not produce the same results
in the deep overpressured tight gas sands.
Dynamic Underbalance Perforating. Dynamic underbalance
perforating is the latest perforating technique, based on
controlling the transient pressure behavior when the jet is
going into the reservoir with the wellbore.6, 25 Highly
sophisticated software has been developed that is capable of
predicting the behavior of the pressure and fluid within
fractions of seconds after the charges are initiated until they
reach steady state. This development allowed the design of the
required volume and specific timing to generate the required
dynamic underbalance for the specific formation while
keeping the near balance condition, which is the ideal
condition for the reservoir rock, as showed in recent
papers.2021 Normally, the flowing performance using this
technique is much better because of the effective removal of
fines from the crushed zone, the optimum tunnel shape (Figure
8), and an instantaneous surge that permits better flow
performance without damaging the rock around the wellbore.
Simulations for standard static underbalance and nearbalance
dynamic underbalance are shown in Figures 9 and 10
respectively.
Oriented Perforating. The oriented perforating technique has
been used and documented for hydraulic fracturing
applications (Figure 11) when the reservoir is known to be
subject to horizontal stress difference of at least 8% because of
tectonics or nearby faults in the Burgos basin. The need to use
this technique is more acute in deep tight gas reservoirs where
fracture pressure gradients sometimes exceed 0.9 psi/ft and the
anisotropy effect is reflected in large values for tortuosity and
SPE 108480
SPE 108480
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank PEMEX and Halliburton
for permission to publish this paper. We would like to
recognize the participation of PEMEX and the service
companies in the application of this type of technology to add
value to the client.
References
1.
2.
SPE 108480
Authors
Humberto Campos is the Chief of Well Services
Department in Activo Burgos PEMEX. Humberto holds an
Electronic Engineering degree from Instituto Tecnologico de
la Laguna, and a Master Degree in Science from Instituto
Politecnico Nacional, Humberto has been working for
PEMEX for more than 27 years since 1980 when he stared in
Poza Rica District as a flied operations engineer and later in
different locations Veracruz, Comalcalco, Mexico City and
Reynosa.
Sergio Martinez is a Technical Advisor in Reynosa,
Sergio has been more than 20 years in different positions in
Welex and Halliburton Logging Services working in Mexico,
USA and Italy. Sergio has occupied different operational and
management positions
Calvin Kessler, is the Reservoir Deliverability and
Producibility Manager for Wireline & Perforating Service
Line at Halliburton Energy Services. He has a BS PE and MSMining from New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology. He is a member of SPWLA, SPE, API, AADE,
and CCSG, and has more than 32 years of experience with
Halliburton.
Hugo Pizarro is the Perforating, TCP and Slick Line
Technical Specialist for Halliburton Energy Services Wireline
and Perforating Product Service Line in Latin America. Hugo
holds an Electronic Engineering degree from Universidad
Politecnica de Venezuela. Hugo has been working for
Halliburton for more than 17 years since 1990 when he started
in HRS and in 1995 he moved to HLS in Venezuela. Hugo has
worked in different positions from field operations until
management and technical support.
Juan Torne is the technical manager for Halliburton
Energy Service Wireline and Perforating Product Service Line
in Latin America, Juan holds an engineering degree from
Universidad del Cauca in Colombia. He is a member of
SPWLA and SPE, and has been with Gearhart and Halliburton
for over 22 years. He has worked in Venezuela, Indonesia,
Egypt, and Mexico in various positions, from field operations,
technical and interpretation support, operations management,
and technical marketing,
SPE 108480
Liner
Detonator
Explosive
Main Load
Explosive
Booster
Powder
SPE 108480
SPE 108480
12000
80
Perforation event
70
60
8000
50
6000
40
30
4000
20
2000
10
Hydrostatic head
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
Time - seconds
Pressure - MPa
Pressure PSI
10000
10
SPE 108480
SPE 108480
11
Abbas et al.
Breakdown Pressure (psi)
150
5000
100
4000
50
3000
0
2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-50
100
200
Width Function
Gun/Charge Type
Gun Position
Shot Phasing
2-1/2" Millennium
Eccentered
180 deg
Shot No.
Orientation, deg
Gun Clearance, in
Formation Penetration, in
Exit Hole Dia 1st Csg, in
1
0.0
0.0
8.87
0.31
2
180.0
1.33
9.25
0.26
9.06 in
0.27 in
compressive strength
12
SPE 108480
EXPLORACIN Y PRODUCCIN
REGIN NORTE
POZO: D-101
E.M.R. = 64.88
94.46 m
COLUMNA GEOLGICA
AFLORA
INICI PERF.:05-FEBRERO-03
TERM. PERF: 16-MAYO-03
INICIO TERM: 01-JUNIO-03
19 m
148 m
MIOCENO
CATAHOULA
403 m
INTERVALOS ATRACTIVOS
PARA PRUEBAS DE PRODUCCIN
1219 m
PP-1
3815-3825
PP-2
3525-3540 2.560
2.725
10-13
6-10
10-13 60-70
65
PP-3
3345-3360 2.46
6-8
1012 60-70
PP-4
2254-2270 1.671
4-8
12-15 60-80
OLIGOCENO
VICKSBURG
1940 m
1151 m
EOCENO SUP.
JACKSON SUP.
2246 m
A 2225 m, GL = 200 U
Dens. de 1.45 A 1.43 gr/cm
2254m
P.P. 4:
2270 m
EOCENO SUP.
JACKSON MED.
2693 m
3345m
A 3006 m, GL = 228 U
Dens. de 1.88 A 1.81 gr/cm
P.P. 3:
3360 m
3525 m
A 3529 m, GL = 569 U
Dens. de 2.01 A 1.93 gr/cm
3540 m
3815 m
3825 m
Shg
4258 m
SPE 108480
13
Penetration as (target)
Target
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
Effective
Stress
(psi)
Penetration*
(in)
Concrete
6,600
15.49
Berea
7,000
100
10.25
9.21
6.68
Berea
Nugget
7,000
13,000
1,500
100
Comments
14
SPE 108480
0.30
Porosidad
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
PNC, psi
Figure 16 Rock Failure in Burgos Basin as a function of the Effective Confinement Pressure
Figure 17 API 19B Test for the Shaped Charge HSC System
SPE 108480
15
D-1
cf =
a
1 + be c
10
1
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.18
0.22
0.26
0.30
Porosidad
100
Newman (C & H)
Newman (Horne)
Burgos
10
1
0.06
0.10
0.14
0.18
0.22
0.26
Porosidad
0.30
16
SPE 108480
WHP>0
Overburden
Hydrostatic Pressure
Reservoir Pressure
CS 6480psi
Ph = Pr (UCS)
CS 15068psi
Ph < Pr (1800psi)