Laboratory Simulation of Flow through a Perforation

Brooks, James E.; Haggerty, Dennis

doi:10.2118/144187-ms

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…injection/stimulation) or reservoir to perforation (i.e. production) (Brooks and Haggerty, 2011;Gruesbeck and Collins, 1982;Li et al, 2012;Razi et al, 1995). In this work we investigate novel viscoelastic fluids and determine flow performance from a perforation into an open fracture with a view to optimise carrying capacity -the fluid's ability to suspend proppant during shear flow as a result of its viscoelastic properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wellbore to fracture proppant-placement-fluid rheology

Dogon

Golombok

2016

Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wellbore to fracture proppant-placement-fluid rheology

Dogon

Golombok

2016

Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a consequence, the last few decades have seen the advent of perforating flow laboratories (Grove et al 2011, Grove et al 2012, Halleck. 1997, Brooks et al 2011 to study perforation systems and their flow effectiveness in more detail (using API-RP 19B Section II and IV). A perforating flow laboratory can be a valuable engineering simulation tool to provide insight into the following: -Perforation tunnel geometry (shape, penetration, damaged zones, hole size) (Brooks et al 2011) -Damaged zone around the perforation tunnel -Tunnel cleanup mechanisms -Underbalance optimization (Walton et al 2001, Manalu et al 2005) -Productivity analysis (Halleck 1997) -Development and validation of numerical models (Sun et al 2012, Sun et al 2013, Gladkikh et al 2009) -Selection of gun systems -Deployment techniques Reduction and management of perforating debris (in particular, charge case debris) is a critical aspect that determines the success of a perforating job in complex well completions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1997, Brooks et al 2011 to study perforation systems and their flow effectiveness in more detail (using API-RP 19B Section II and IV). A perforating flow laboratory can be a valuable engineering simulation tool to provide insight into the following: -Perforation tunnel geometry (shape, penetration, damaged zones, hole size) (Brooks et al 2011) -Damaged zone around the perforation tunnel -Tunnel cleanup mechanisms -Underbalance optimization (Walton et al 2001, Manalu et al 2005) -Productivity analysis (Halleck 1997) -Development and validation of numerical models (Sun et al 2012, Sun et al 2013, Gladkikh et al 2009) -Selection of gun systems -Deployment techniques Reduction and management of perforating debris (in particular, charge case debris) is a critical aspect that determines the success of a perforating job in complex well completions. It is well known that steel and zinc-case charges are commonly used shaped charges for perforating, with the zinc case charge being the low-debris option as it yields smaller (powdered) debris which can easily be flowed back, and is acid soluble, avoiding significant operational issues that often result from the larger debris of steel cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Insights into Optimizing Perforation Clean Up and Enhancing Productivity with Zinc-Case Shaped Charges

Satti

White

Ochsner

et al. 2016

SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of creating perforation tunnels is a critical aspect in well completion because it has a direct influence on the efficiency of relevant stimulation treatments and the overall productivity of the well. An overwhelming majority of perforating jobs in the industry are performed with shaped charges or jet perforators. A shaped charge consists of a liner, a main explosive load and primer charge all compressed within a metal case that is typically made out of steel or zinc. The zinc case charge is the low-debris option as it yields smaller (powdered) debris which can easily be flowed back, and is acid soluble, avoiding significant operational issues that often result from the larger debris of steel cases. In recent years, there have been operational concerns with zinc-case charges related to their impact on formation damage, increased detonation energy that may be detrimental to downhole equipment and most importantly, the compatibility of exotic wellbore fluids with the burn characteristics of zinc-case shaped charges.As part of a study to develop a perforated completion design and execution strategy for deepwater subsea wells offshore Africa, the perforation flow laboratory was utilized to evaluate the flow performance and tunnel clean-up characteristics of zinc-case shaped charges in Buff Berea sandstone. A wide range of downhole scenarios including static underbalance and/or dynamic underbalance and the interaction between them, as well as overbalance conditions were considered in this study. Measured data demonstrated that the critical factor that drives perforation clean-up is the overall underbalance, not just the static or dynamic underbalance. Further, the testing program was extended to investigate compatibility issues (formation of precipitates) at elevated temperature in various wellbore fluids such as sodium bromide and calcium chloride. Advanced interpretation techniques including core analysis, computerized tomography, scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) were also used to provide insight into the physical state and composition of the debris in the perforation tunnel.The results of this study indicate that the benefits of zinc-case shaped charges can be fully realized when optimal magnitude of dynamic underbalance is achieved. Optimal dynamic underbalance ensures maximum clean-up of the finely powdered debris from the perforation tunnel and enhances productivity. Correspondingly, it was also observed that insufficient dynamic underbalance leads to tunnel plugging by debris reducing the productivity of the tunnel. The mineralogical analysis of the tunnel debris also showed there were no detrimental effects of the reaction between sodium bromide and zinc material (less than 5% of the total debris consisted of precipitates).This study demonstrates an engineering approach to evaluate and understand perforating strategies with zinc-case shaped charges using the capabilities of the flow laboratory and advanced analytical techniques. The results...

show abstract

Perforation Cleanup by Means of Dynamic Underbalance: New Understanding

Grove

Harvey

Zhan

2013

SPE Drilling &Amp; Completion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Dynamic-underbalance (DUB) perforating is a completion technique that uses a perforating system engineered to create a rapid underbalance immediately upon formation perforation (within tens of milliseconds or faster). This technique—properly applied—improves well deliverability by effectively cleaning the newly created perforation tunnels, regardless of initial static pressure conditions (overbalanced, underbalanced, or balanced). The authors are engaged in a multiyear program of perforate-and-flow laboratory experiments [along the lines of American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice (API RP) 19B Section 4], carefully controlling and measuring wellbore transients and measuring post-shot productivities. Experiments thus far have been limited to static balanced conditions to ensure that any cleanup observed would be attributable solely to wellbore dynamics rather than to preshot static pressure conditions. Our results provide new insight into perforation-damage and -cleanup mechanisms. We observed that a dominant source of perforation damage can be the reduction in effective flowing perforation length, and a primary mechanism of DUB cleanup is to increase this effective length. Although increasing the permeability of the crushed zone that may surround the tunnel (a conventional simplified treatment of perforation damage and cleanup) does indeed improve the productivity of real wells, the additional processes of enlarging tunnel diameter and reducing crushed-zone thickness further improve productivity. Increasing the effective tunnel length provides yet another means of productivity gain and, under many circumstances, is the dominant beneficial effect. We present productivity predictions of various downhole scenarios to demonstrate and quantify these effects. These findings indicate that the performance differential (between DUB and non-DUB techniques) at downhole conditions can be more significant than previously recognized. Future work will explore varying initial static pressure conditions (underbalance, overbalance) in conjunction with shot-time wellbore pressure transients. Work is also ongoing to probe the limits of the findings reported herein, particularly the influences of formation properties (permeability, strength, and lithology) and drilling damage.

show abstract

Laboratory Simulation of Flow through a Perforation

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Wellbore to fracture proppant-placement-fluid rheology

Wellbore to fracture proppant-placement-fluid rheology

New Insights into Optimizing Perforation Clean Up and Enhancing Productivity with Zinc-Case Shaped Charges

Perforation Cleanup by Means of Dynamic Underbalance: New Understanding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About