Advances in

Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 296-305, 2022

Geo-Energy Research
Original article

Application of underbalanced tubing conveyed perforation in

horizontal wells: A case study of perforation optimization in a
giant oil field in Southwest Iran
Erfan Mohammadian1 *, Milad Ebrahimi Dastgerdi2 , Abbas Khaksar Manshad3,4 *, Amir H.
Mohammadi5 , Bo Liu1 , Stefan Iglauer6,7 , Alireza Keshavarz6,7
1 Key Laboratory of Continental Shale Hydrocarbon Accumulation and Efficient Development, Ministry of Education, Northeast Petroleum
University, Daqing 163318, P. R. China
2 Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Omidieyh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khozestan, Iran
3 Department of Petroleum Engineering, Abadan Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan, Iran
4 Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Soran University, Kurdistan Region 44008, Iraq
5 School of Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Howard College Campus, Durban 4041, South Africa
6 School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Dr, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia
7 Centre for Sustainable Energy and Resources, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Dr, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia

Keywords: Abstract:
Underbalanced perforation Underbalanced perforation can substantially reduce formation damage and improve the
tubing conveyed perforation efficiency of production operation. The field in question is a giant oil field in Southwest
productivity ratio Iran, with over 350,000 bbl/day production rates. Reservoir X is the main reservoir of the
horizontal wells field and includes 139 horizontal wells out of the total of 185 production wells drilled in the
field. Despite its technical difficulties, under-balance perforation has been proven to result
formation damage in high productivity ratios and has been shown to reduce workover costs if appropriately
Cited as: conducted. Therefore, this study investigated a customized underbalanced tubing conveyed
Mohammadian, E., Dastgerdi, M. E., perforation to enhance oil production. First, post-drilling formation damage was estimated
Manshad, A. K., Mohammadi, A. H., Liu, using Perforating Completion Solution Kits. Next, high-density guns (types 73 and 127)
with high melting explosives were selected based on the reservoir and well specifications.
B., Iglauer, S., Keshavarz, A. Application By conducting a sensitivity analysis using schlumberger perforating analyzer program, shot
of underbalanced tubing conveyed angles of 60◦ and 90◦ , shot densities of 16 and 20 shots per meter, perforation diameters of
perforation in horizontal wells: A case 8 and 10 mm, and helix hole distribution were selected as optimized perforation parameters
study of perforation optimization in a and resulted in productivity ratios up to 1.18. The current study provides a case study
giant oil field in Southwest Iran. of applying a combination of two previously proven technologies, tubing convoyed and
Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, underbalanced perforation, in Iran’s giant oilfield. The method used and the outcome could
6(4): 296-305. be used to analyze the efficiency of applying the technology in other green or mature fields.
https://doi.org/10.46690/ager.2022.04.04

1. Introduction the wellbore through the casing and the cement behind it into
the hydrocarbon-bearing zone. This technique has been widely
Perforations are holes in the formation that establish a con-
used in onshore and offshore completions of hydrocarbon
nection between the wellbore and production zone to achieve
reservoirs and geothermal wells (Marbun et al., 2021). The
optimum productivity (Dastgerdi et al., 2020). Perforation
global energy demand has led to a marked increase in the
operation typically involves creating several openings from
development of unconventional hydrocarbon resources. Most

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Mohammadian); [email protected] (M. E. Dastgerdi); [email protected]
(A. K. Manshad); [email protected] (A. H. Mohammadi); [email protected] (B. Liu); [email protected] (S. Iglauer).
2207-9963 © The Author(s) 2022.
Received May 10, 2022; revised May 28, 2022; accepted June 4, 2022; available online June 7, 2022.
 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305 297

unconventional resources are low to ultralow permeable, so on a good understanding of rock and fluid properties, drilling
directional drilling and high-efficiency completion methods are damage, and well type. UB-TCP was chosen as the default
inevitable (Liu et al., 2014). perforation technique for the field to ensure hole safety,
Moreover, perforation in injection wells is also of great increase the success ratio, and minimize formation damage.
significance. Waterflooding has been the most frequently used Hence, the main aim of the current study is to achieve high
improved oil recovery method (Hofsaess and Kleintz, 1998; perforation efficiency by implementing UB-TCP in a giant
Ahmed, 2010). Perforations directly affect well injectivity, and field, specifically reservoir X (the actual name of the reservoir
productivity (Abobaker et al., 2022). Hence, an optimized per- is changed to X due to confidentiality of the data). Before
foration program is required to ensure the desired injectivities selecting perforation parameters, the extent of formation dam-
are attainable. Conventional drilling often causes damage to age in the reservoir was estimated. The formation damage
the formation due to infiltration of the drilling mud into the estimation and pay zone characteristics were used to choose
surrounding permeable formation. Hence, when conventional a suitable perforation assembly. Lastly, to obtain optimum
(overbalanced) perforation is conducted, the existing debris results, an analysis of perforation parameters, including per-
in the formation can cause suboptimal perforations that are foration density, perforation diameters, hole distribution, and
partially filled with debris. Various researchers have acknowl- phase angle, was conducted to achieve quality perforation
edged the presence of this damage zone due to perforation and and ultimately enhance productivities from the giant field
stated that it could significantly reduce the permeability of the (reservoir X) in Iran.
formation and inhibit production (Wang et al., 2021). Over-
balanced perforation results in substantial formation damage, 2. Field and reservoir characteristics
increased workover costs, and ultimately loss of productivity, The giant oilfield is located west of Ahwaz city, in
specifically at directional and horizontal wells. To achieve Khuzestan province SW Iran. The alluvium of the Holocene
high-performance perforations, it is necessary to understand age completely covers the field. The penetrated formation
the sophisticated interactions between explosive charges, per- from top to bottom is Aghajari, Gachsaran, Asmari, Pabdeh,
foration guns, wellbore characteristics, and reservoir prop- Gurpi, Ilam, Laffan, Sarvak, Kazhdumi, Dariyan, Gadvan,
erties. The literature has reported up to 70% reduction in Fahliyan. The field has four main reservoirs named W-Z due
permeability due to conventual drilling (Klotz et al., 1974; to confidentiality. Reservoir X contains black oil with an API
Krueger, 1988). The latter is more severe when drilling low of 19.9◦ and holds over 90% of the field’s reserve and hence
permeable unconventional resources where permeabilities are is the chief producible reservoir of the field. The lithology
often less than one millidarcy (mD). Formation damage can be of the existing wells mainly consists of limestone, claystone,
mitigated via an underbalanced perforation operation (UBP) in and is interbedded with anhydrite, salt bed, and shale. The
which an under balance is established between the formation permeability of most reservoirs in the field is 30-36 mD.
and wellbore pressures. Afterward, the perforation guns are The black oil from reservoir X has viscosities up to 4 cp.
fired to create a controlled entrance of reservoir fluids into the The primary driving mechanism of the reservoirs is rock and
wellbore. This results in better cleaning of the perforations fluid expansion, and the formation is mainly homogeneous
and improving the well’s productivity and injectivity (Bale (Dastgerdi et al., 2020). The reservoir characteristics of the
and Satti, 2020), and if completed successfully, minimizes the field is shown in Table 1.
formation damage near the perforation zone (Abobaker et al., Analysis of pressure-volume-temperature data from offset
2021). In UBP, the perforations are immediately back surged; wells, pressure, and temperature for major reservoirs in the
this results in the debris being expelled into the well upon field was estimated as shown in Fig. 1. The formation pore
entrance of formation fluids to the wellbore. pressure coefficient is 1.02-1.26 in X, Y, and W. However,
Underbalanced perforation is often conducted via a tubing Z formation shows an abnormal pressure with FPCC between
conveyed perforation assembly (TCP). Recently, advances in 1.3-1.6. All the reservoirs show a normal temperature gradient
well production technologies, which enable higher-shot den- in the range of 2.3-2.6 ◦ C/100 m (11.1-11.2 ◦ F/ft).
sities and larger perforating guns, have resulted in the more The original oil in place of the field is over 25,340 MMSTB
frequent application of TCP combined with well testing in and reservoir X, being the primary reservoir, holds about
modern completion designs. The assembly often comprises 92% of it (23,251 MMSTB) (Liu et al., 2013). The current
a perforating gun, shock absorbers, packer, and several in- target production level of the field is over 350,000 bbl/day for
struments (Gilliat et al., 2014). Underbalanced perforation has phase one of the field development. From the 185 wells to
become an essential part of well testing, specifically when a be drilled in the field, 139 are horizontal production wells
drill stem test (DST) is involved (Deng et al., 2020). UBP is in reservoir X. The horizontal section in the reservoir is
ideal as DST includes hardware that enables underbalance and from 600 to 800 meters. Given the high number of wells
perforation using high shot density guns. This assembly also to be drilled and the large horizontal sections, increasing
offers proper well control and often saves time because the productivity through perforation optimization is significant.
perforating guns are run below the test string. Reservoir X is completed with 4-1/2” production liners in
The performance of perforations mainly determines the horizontal wells in X3 & X8 (formations of reservoir X) and
productivity of the well. Hence, a gun/charge system must be 7” production liners in X4 & X6. Due to the importance of
selected to provide the required production rates and operation the reservoir in the giant field of interest, this study is focused
safety in a particular well environment. This is mainly based
298 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305

Table 1. Rock and fluid properties of formations X-Z of the giant field.

Reservoir X W Y Z
Reservoir depth (m) 2,709-2,850 3,436-3,610 3,750-3,875 3,995-4,088
Netpay (m) 118 12.7 15 100
Pressure (psi) 4,600-5,029 4,992-5,438 6,010-6,300 7,800-9,300
Lithology Carbonate Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone
Permeability (mD) 34.2 35.8 366.0 29.5
Crude oil gravity (API) 19.95 30.85 32.24 33.3
GOR scf/STB 267-441 916-1,589 706-1,391 1,090-1,996
Oil viscosity (cp) 4.40-5.40 0.32-0.52 0.33-0.58 0.29-0.53

4500 4500
(a) (b)
4000
4000
3500
3500 3000
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
2500
3000
2000
2500 1500
1000
2000 A B X M Y Z A B X M Y Z W
500
1500 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Pressure (psi) Temperature (˚C)

Fig. 1. Pressure and temperature gradients of the field.

on perforation of horizontal wells in X reservoir.

3. UB-TCP assembly
Fig. 2 shows the schematic of a simplified TCP assembly Circulation valve
that is to be used for perforation operation in the field (in
Reservoir X). TCP is often used with several accessories
that enable various operations such as testing, workover, and 7 “RTTS packer
a controlled underbalanced condition required for UB-TCP.
The accessories can regulate the post-detonation surges in the Shock adsorber
formation as well. The main accessories included with the
UB-TCP assembly are packers, circulating sub, dropping bar 7“Casing
firing head, tubing, screen sub, and shock absorber. Packer is
an essential part of the assembly. A 7” RTTS packer made by
Halliburton is used in the intermediate casing to isolate the
production zone. The RTTS packer is often accompanied by
a circulating valve that can be used as a bypass valve. As the Sleeve sub
packer sets, the circulating valve locks in the closed position.
Bar activated
During testing or squeezing operations, the lock prevents the Vent
valve from being pumped open. The shock absorber is installed
above the gun to lessen the impacts caused by gun detonation. Perf. Gun
A sleeve sub is used to connect the annulus and tubing when Firehead
necessary. Activated Vent is used to enabling the primary Bull plug 4 1/2 “Casing
underbalance conditions UB-TCP operations. The drop-bar
firing head consists of an internal firing pin and a drop bar. Fig. 2. Schematic of UB-TCP assembly to be used in reservoir
With the impact of this drop bar, hydrostatic pressure is applied X.
 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305 299

1.Convey TCP / Wireline perforation

selection
No
Well angle, thickness of Wireline-
prod. Zone, shot densities convoyed Perf.
Yes

2.Operation
Production DST test
types/setting
test
conditions
Gun’s retrievability/
Choose a DST
casing size compatibility
compatible assembly
Yes No
Stab guns through Guns below production
permanent packer packer

3.Well angle
/equipment Do the packer/gun assembly weight and well
weight deviation allow using wireline?

Yes No
Guns and packer to be Gun and packer to be run
run via wireline on tubing

Fig. 3. TCP/ wireline perforation selection procedure.

to increase the pressure in shear rings, which release the balls. of formation damage versus operation (drilling) duration is
This type of head is mainly used in deviated and vertical estimated for the reservoir of interest. Moreover, the forma-
wells. Lastly, a bull plug is attached to the string to isolate tion damage in rock matrix and well-developed fractures are
the assembly where no-fluid entry is required. assessed. Lastly effects of drilling parameters such as mud
Performing tubing convoyed underbalance perforation re- density, formation pressure and permeability on extent of
quires careful assessment of various parameters. Fig. 3 illus- damage is quantitatively predicted. The next step is to choose
trates the steps for choosing proper underbalanced perforation a perforating assembly (gun, charge, and bullets). This is based
equipment (Cosad, 1995). It begins with checking sets of on the estimated formation damage, well characteristics, and
conditions, including well inclination (deviation > 59◦ ), shot desired perforation plan (required depth, diameter, and the
densities above five spf (shot per foot), the need for perforation number of perforations).
of a long production zone, and compatibility of equipment In the next phase, a sensitivity analysis is used to find
with the hole size. If these conditions were rejected, wireline optimum perforation parameters based on the selected perfo-
conveyed perforation operation is suggested. However, since ration assembly. The schlumberger perforating analyzer pro-
the focus of the current study is horizontal wells in the gram (SPAN) is utilized to estimate optimum shot density,
reservoir, the above conditions are met. UB-TCP is achievable perforation diameter, and phase angle. Once the optimized
both for DST and the production phase. In the case of values were selected for the above parameters, the required
the DST test, the firing equipment is integrated with DST underbalance is calculated based on optimized perforation
assembly and run into the hole. For production perforations, parameters and the formation’s rock and fluid properties. In the
the following essential criteria are diameter and retrievability last step, the required underbalance pressure is calculated for
of the perforation gun. If the latter is not satisfied, conveying reservoir X. To quantify the critical (the minimum) value of
the gun with a wireline is assessed based on well deviation the underbalanced required for near-zero perforation damage,
and hole angle. Eq. (1) for permeabilities over 100 mD, and Eq. (2) for those
below 100 mD is utilized (Behrmann, 1996):
4. Methodology
687D0.3
Fig. 4 illustrates the workflow of optimization of param- P= (1)
eters used in this study. Phase one starts with estimating K 1/3
formation damage resulting from drilling in the reservoir of 1480D0.3
P= (2)
interest. To do this, PCSKTM was utilized. The software uses K 1/2
reservoir rock and fluid parameters and drilling parameters where K is permeability in mD, D is perforation diameter
to estimate the formation damage (skin) extent. The depth in inches, and P is pressure in psi. Majority of commercial
300 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305

1. Estimation of
drilling damage
Start of
optimization

Formation

damage

2. Perforation
assembly Type of Bullet Explosive
Gun
selection type
selection

SPANTM
3.Perforation
parameters/
underbalance Hole Hole
Shot density Phase angle
diameter distribution

Underbalance End of
calculation optimization

Fig. 4. Perforation optimization flowchart.

software, including SPAN, use the same equations to predict completion and sand management requirements (if necessary).
underbalance, as was the case in the current study. The next part is the gun selection and explosive selection. Once
those are chosen, penetration tunnel length, shot phasing, shot
5. Results and discussion density, and perforation entrance hole diameter can be deter-
Several perforating parameters control the productivity of mined. Lastly, the perforation parameters are chosen for the
the perforated wells; perforation length, perforation diameter, selected gun and charge, leading to an optimum productivity.
degree of the damage around the perforation tunnels, shot
5.1 Formation damage estimation
density, and perforation phasing angle (Abobaker et al., 2021).
Some of the listed parameters are easy to quantify and control. Zone of altered permeability, aka damaged zone (zone of
For instance, shot density and phasing angle may be readily positive skin), is caused by infiltration of fluid and solids
determined and controlled from the surface. However, there is components of drilling and cementation operation to the
no means of measuring the perforation parameters such as the formation. An accurate estimation of skin factors is essential
degree of damage around the perforation tunnels, perforation for optimizing perforating parameters. Oil production will in-
length and diameter under subsurface conditions. The common crease significantly if the charges penetrate beyond the damage
practice is to measure the perforation length, diameter, and zone (Bennion et al., 1996; Ezenweichu and Laditan, 2015).
perforating damage on the core targets in laboratory conditions Although direct evaluation of the formation damage is often
and correct the lab measured values for subsurface conditions. challenging, it can be estimated for each well type based on
The success of any perforation operation is mainly dependent the fundamental data from its reservoir and drilling parameters
upon choosing suitable equipment that meets the field pro- such as density, viscosity, pH, filter loss, mudflow rate (Kang
duction demands and is compatible with reservoir properties, et al., 2014). The expected mud system used for drilling wells
i.e., sand production, formations with overpressure, and high- in reservoir X is water-based drilling fluid (CaCO3 + KCl +
temperature gradients (Moradi et al., 2020). polymer).
The first step in choosing the perforation operation is In reservoir X, the mud density is 1.2-1.3 g/cm3 ; the mud
to consider the general interaction of the reservoir and the invasion time is approximately 40 days. The change of damage
perforation. Hence, the process in this research started with depth with invasion time under given formation properties and
formation damage estimation. In addition to formation dam- drilling operation parameters is shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen
age, estimating differential pressure between reservoir and that wellbore damage increases over time. The damage reaches
wellbore, ideally, an underbalanced condition, is preferable a depth of 492 mm on day 40. By controlling mud density and
for an optimized perforation job. The next step is choosing the mud invasion time within approximately 18 days, the mud
the proper perforation method based on the type of well invasion depth in X can be limited to about 357 mm. However,
 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305 301

due to the presence of well-developed fractures, the magnitude Wellbore damage evaluation is crucial in choosing shaped
of the damage could be as high as three times that of the charges and productivity prediction.
matrix. Hence the uncertainty in the assessment of formation Similarly, under the given condition of shaped charge
damage significantly increases. properties, we can design reasonable mud parameters and
The drilling damage of the target oil layer was assessed drilling speed to assure that the shaped charge will penetrate
using PCSKTM based on rock and fluid properties and drilling the damage zone more efficiently. Lastly, formation pressure’s
mud parameters. The results are shown in Fig. 6. It should effects on formation damage are reverse permeability and
be noted that the results need to be rectified if the mud mud density (Jilani et al., 2002). In formations with higher
parameters during the drilling operation differ significantly pressures, lower formation damage is expected. This is mainly
from that of the design process. As is apparent from the due to the higher resistance the mud filtrate and solids face as
figure, the formation exhibits well-developed fractures and they infiltrate the near-wellbore formations.
matrix damage due to the invasion of drilling mud. The results
indicate that the average formation damage of reservoir X is 5.2 Charge and gun selection
65 mm. The perforation depth is a function of formation strength,
Various factors such as permeability, formation pressure, perforation gun, bullet, and the type of explosive. The perfo-
and mud density largely contribute to the extent and degree of ration efficiency depends on length and diameter, the type and
formation damage due to the drilling. Figs. 7(a)-7(c) illustrates extent of the formation damage, shot density, and the phase
the effect of formation permeability, formation pressure, and angle. High shot density guns are specifically designed for
density of drilling mud on the depth of the (drilling) damage each casing size to enhance shot density, hole size, penetration,
in the reservoir. and phasing (Cosad, 1995). All TCP operations in the field are
As expected from Fig. 7(a), higher mud densities result conducted with high shot density guns selected by considering
in higher skin factors. This could be attributed to the higher the temperature gradient of the reservoir and the casing size
concentration of solids in heavier muds that increase the and grade used in the area (4-1/2 and 7” production casings
migration of fine particles to near-wellbore permeable areas in reservoir X). The highest allowable diameter of perforation
and leads to more formation damage (Fattah and Lashin, guns and bullets was considered. To fulfill the high production
2016). As seen in Fig. 7(b), formation pressure directly affects quota of the field (350,000 bbl/day), deep penetration perfo-
the formation damage. The invasion of solid particles and rations are required. Hence, the following were selected for
mud filtrate is higher in high-permeability zones around the each reservoir:
wellbore. Hence, higher permeability formations have higher • Type-73 (73 mm) perforation gun is recommended for
skin factors. If microfractures develop in a well, the effect of 4-1/2” casing.
mud invasion damage on productivity will be more severe.
1600
Deoth of drilling damage (mm)

600 1400 1510

Drilling damage (mm)

1200
500
1000
800
400
600

300 400 495

200
65
200 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Only matrix Well-developed frac Damage degree
Drilling time (days) Fig. 6. Drilling damage in the matrix, well-developed fracture,
Fig. 5. Drilling damage versus mud invasion time. and damage degree in reservoir X.
Formation damage (mm)

1800 700 1200

1600 (a) 650 (b) 1100 (c)
Formation damage (mm)

Damage (mm)

1400 1000
600
1200 900
550 800
1000
500 700
800
450 600
600 500
400 400
400
200 350 300
0 300 200
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 4 6 8 10 12 14 10 15 20 25 30 35
Mud density (g.cm-3) k (mD) Pressure (psi)

Fig. 7. Formation damage versus mud density (a), permeability (b), and formation pressure (c) in reservoir X.
302 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305

700
of different explosives. Reservoir temperatures up to 293 ◦ F
600 (145 ◦ C) were measured in the field. RDX explosives will be
Temperature (˚F)
unstable at those temperatures. Hence, HMX explosives were
500
chosen for the perforation of all production wells in the field.
400
5.3 Perforation parameter optimization
300
RDX In this section, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to better
200 HMX understand the relationship between perforation parameters
HNS
100 and productivity ratio (PR). PR represents the flowing ef-
PYX & NONA
0
ficiency of actual completion well, or the communication
1.00 5.00 25.00 125.00 effectiveness between formation and wellbore. Based on the
Time (hours) drilling formation damage analysis, the depth of formation
damage is 357.5 mm in reservoir X.
Fig. 8. Explosive temperature resistance curve (Bellarby,
2009). 5.3.1 Perforation diameter
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to analyze the rela-
1.40 tionship between perforation diameter and productivity ratio,
Pollution as shown in Fig. 9. As expected, the productivity ratio of oil
1.20
thickness =357.5 wells increases with perforation depth and diameter. The figure
Produtivity ratio

1.00 showed that a perforation diameter of 16 mm (shown as KJ)

0.80 resulted in the highest PR at all perforation depths. Notably,
0.60
productivity increases substantially once the penetration goes
beyond the drilling damaged zone. However, in areas too far
0.40 away from the damaged zone, the slope of the increase in the
KJ=7.0 KJ=10 KJ=13 KJ=16
0.20 PR and perforation depth slows down in all series (perforation
0.00 diameters). Therefore, the economic viability of the operation
0 200 400 600 800 1000 lastly determines the optimum penetration depth at distances
Formation damage (mm) far beyond the damaged zone.
Based on the selected gun and charge specifications for
Fig. 9. Relation between perforation diameter and productivity
different reservoirs in the field the following recommendations
ratio.
could be made:

• Type-127 (127 mm) perforation gun is recommended for • Peroration diameters over ≥ 8 mm and ≥ 10 mm is
7” casing. recommended for type-73 and type-127, respectively.
• The deep penetrating bullet is recommended for all the 5.3.2 Shot density
wells.
Factors such as cement slurry remaining in the internal A sensitivity analysis was conducted to find the optimum
shot density with shots ranging from 8-40 shots per meter
casing, wellbore inclination, gun burr, and gun deformation
(SPM). Fig. 10 illustrates the perforation depth versus produc-
that may cause gun sticking problems should be considered
tivity ratio for various shot densities. It can be observed that
carefully to ensure the safety of perforating operation (Tang
the productivity rate (PR) increases as shot density increases.
et al., 2009). However, the final decision of perforator system
At the pollution thickness of 357 mm, the productivity ratio
should be made based on the evaluation of well productivity,
technical requirements, and economic feasibility. Considering for SPM of 8 and 40 (minimum and maximums of the
range) is 0.70 and 0.85, respectively. The increase in PR is
the high pressure and high temperature (150 ◦ C) in some of
significantly higher at depths beyond 357.5 mm, at which
the reservoirs in the field, the internal pressure strength of the
formation damage (pollution damage) due to drilling exists.
gun needs to be at least 120 MPa to reduce the expandability
However, the slope of the increase in PR reduces at high
and burr height of the gun.
perforation depths. Therefore, considering the limitations of
When selecting shaped charges, two factors need to be
the selected perforation gun, the following shot densities are
considered. First, the selected charges should be able to
suggested:
withstand the high-temperature environment without degrada-
tion long enough to complete the perforating job. Second, • 20 holes/m for type-73 perforation gun in Reservoir X.
the charge performance fulfills penetration requirements to • 16 holes/m for type-127 perforation gun in Reservoir X.
get the expected well productivity. High melting explosives
5.3.3 Phase angle
(HMX) and royal demolition explosive (RDX) cyclotrimetyl
trinitramin are the most frequently used explosives choices A sensitivity analysis was conducted to choose the opti-
for perforation (Cosad, 1995). HMX survives up to 100 hours mum phase angle (from 0 to 180◦ ). The results are shown
at around 300 ◦ F, whereas RDX only lasts two hours at the in Fig. 11. It can be seen that the perforation degree of 180
same temperature. Fig. 8 illustrates the temperature rating results in the lowest PR (at least 13% reduction in PR) along
 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305 303

1.4

1.2 Pollution
thickness =357.5
Produtivity ratio

0.8

0.6
KJ=8 KJ=12
0.4 KJ=16 KJ=20
KJ=24 KJ=28
0.2 KJ=32 KJ=36
KJ=40
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Formation damage (mm)
Fig. 10. Relationship between perforation depth, shot density Fig. 12. Helix perforation distribution. (1) illustrates the well-
and productivity ratio. bore and (2) shows the perforations made into the formation.

1.2 Table 2. The underbalanced values of perforation.

Pollution
1 thickness =357.5
Underbalance value (psi)
Permeability (mD)
Produtivity ratio

0.8
Oil reservoir Gas reservoir
0.6 K > 100 200-500 1,000-2,000
0.4 10 < K ≤ 100 1,000-2,000 2,000-5,000

0.2 0 45 60 90 120 135

K ≤ 10 > 2,000 ≥ 5,000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 on Bell’s recommendation, for an oil reservoir that has perme-
Formation damage (mm) ability less than 100 mD, the underbalanced pressure between
1,000 and 2,000 psi is recommended. Table 2 shows the
Fig. 11. Relation between phase angle and productivity ratio.
required values of underbalanced based on permeability based
on Bell’s recommendation. A heterogeneous formation (large
all the perforation depths. On the other hand, PR fluctuates in variations in permeability) also acts like a damaged formation,
a narrow range of (0.75-0.76) for the rest of the phase angles. in which none of the perforations are likely to result in the
Although the optimum PRs can be observed in phase angles same flow. Those with higher permeability values respond
45◦ , 60◦ , and 90◦ , based on the selected gun (type-73, and better to low pressure differences and hence will clean up more
127), the following was recommended: readily than low permeability zones, or zones in which skin
• Phase angle 60◦ with type-73 perforation gun in Reservoir is higher. By adjusting well pressure based on the cleanup
X. of all perforations, only perforations from high permeable
• Phase angle 90◦ with type-127 perforation gun in Reser- zones will result in an optimum flow rate. Hence, the effective
voir X. shot density is reduced, and as a result, PR reduces, too
(Bell, 1982). An underbalance of 1,500 means that if the
5.3.4 Hole distribution (perforation pattern)
formation pressure is 4,000 psia, the hydrostatic pressure needs
Helix perforation is often the most frequently applied to be lowered to 2,500 psia to have an optimized perforation
perforation (hole) distributed method specifically in horizontal operation.
and deviated wells (Xie et al., 2018). This technique allows Using diameter of 0.83, porosity of 0.16 and permeability
the largest vertical distance between holes (casing strength of 34.1 mD at the formation of interest, Behrmann’s equation
guaranteed), resulting in a uniform downhole pressure, min- is used to estimate the minimum underbalance of 46.68 psi.
imum distortion of the perforating gun’s body, and safer Behrmann’s equation is frequently used in the industry and
operation (Zhang et al., 2018). Hence, it was recommended is also included in SPANTM program. Lastly, a summary of
for reservoir X. Fig. 12 shows a schematic of helix hole optimum perforation parameters obtained for reservoir X is
(perforation) wellbore and number 2 shows the perforations summarized in Table 3.
into the formation.
6. Conclusion
5.4 Underbalance pressure estimation To enhance productivity and minimize formation damage,
The required under balance for perforation varies based on the application of UB-TCP was studied in reservoir X, which
lithology, production fluid, and the zone of interest permeabil- has numerous production wells with extended horizontal sec-
ity. A general range was proposed based on studying data from tions (up to 800 meters). First, to design suitable perforations,
more than two thousand fields worldwide (Bell, 1982). Based the drilling formation damage was estimated as a function
304 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305

Table 3. Summary of perforation parameters in reservoir X.

Perforation gun Bullet

Gun OD Shot density Hole Phase Hole Penetration Explosive Explosive Underbalance
(inch) (SPM) diameter (mm) angle (◦ ) distribution depth (mm) type weight (g) pressure (MPa)

5 16 ≥ 10 90 Helix ≥ 800 HMX 23-38 7-14

2-7/8 20 ≥8 60 Helix ≥ 800 HMX 16 7-14

of reservoir characteristics and drilling parameters (type and assessment of perforation skin factor for vertical perfo-
density of mud, formation pressure, and permeability) using rated wells in near-wellbore region. Journal of Petroleum
PCSKTM software. The formation damage can be limited to Exploration and Production Technology, 2022, 12(1):
357 mm in the drilling period of 18 days in reservoir X. In 117-133.
the next part, HDS perforation guns (73 and 127 mm) and Ahmed, T. Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fourth Edition).
temperature-resistant explosives of HMX types were selected Gulf Professional Publishing, Cambridge, United King-
for the reservoir based on the high production quota expected dom, 2010.
from wells and well characteristics. Bale, D. S., Satti, R. P. A fast computational model for
Lastly, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using SPANTM wellbore pressure transients while perforating with dy-
to find optimum hole distribution, phase angle, shot density, namic underbalance. Journal of Petroleum Science and
and the range of overbalance required for the reservoir. The Engineering, 2020, 185: 106-126.
minimum necessary underbalance was calculated using the Behrmann, L. A. Underbalance criteria for minimum perfora-
optimum perforation parameters and formation properties. tion damage. SPE Drilling & Completion, 1996, 11(3):
The highest productivity index could be achieved when shot 173-177.
spacing is 16 and 20 shots in the reservoir. By choosing Bell, W. Perforating techniques for maximizing well produc-
the optimized values of 60◦ and 90◦ , for phase angle and tivity. Paper SPE 10033 Presented at SPE International
perforation diameters of over 8 and 10 mm, PRs up to 1.18 Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium, Beijing,
were attainable. China, 18-26 March, 1982.
By carefully estimating formation damage, selecting com- Bellarby, J. Well Completion Design. Elsevier Science, Ams-
patible perforation assembly, and conducting a thorough anal- terdam, Netherlands, 2009.
ysis of the perforation parameters, low drilling damage and Bennion, D. B., Thomas, F. B., Bietz, R. F. Formation damage
high productivities can be obtained when applying UB-TCP and horizontal wells-A productivity killer? Paper SPE
to reservoir X. 37138 Presented at SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
Acknowledgement 1-4 November, 1996.
The authors wish to thank the Science and Technology Cosad, C. Choosing a perforation strategy. Explosives Engi-
Project of Heilongjiang Province (No. 2020ZX05A01) and neering, 1995.
China Petroleum Science and Technology Innovation Fund Dastgerdi, M. E., Manshad, A. K., Mohammadi, A. H. Opti-
Project (No. 2020D-5007-0106). mization of perforated liner parameters in horizontal oil
wells. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production
Additional email Technology, 2020, 10(8): 3505-3514.
[email protected] (A. Keshavarz). Deng, Q., Zhang, H., Chen, A., et al. Effects of perforation
fluid movement on downhole packer with shock loads.
Conflict of interest Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020,
195: 107566.
The authors declare no competing interest.
Ezenweichu, C. L., Laditan, O. D. The causes, effects and
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms and conditions of minimization of formation damage in horizontal wells.
the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) license, which permits Petroleum & Coal, 2015, 57(2): 169-184.
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the Fattah, K. A., Lashin, A. Investigation of mud density and
original work is properly cited.
weighting materials effect on drilling fluid filter cake
References properties and formation damage. Journal of African
Earth Sciences, 2016, 117: 345-357.
Abobaker, E. E. R., Elsanoose, A., Khan, F., et al. Comparison Gilliat, J., Bale, D., Satti, R., et al. The importance of pre-job
of crushed-zone skin factor for cased and perforated wells shock modeling as a risk mitigation tool in TCP oper-
calculated with and without including a tip-crushed zone ations. Paper SPE 170260 Presented at SPE Deepwater
effect. Geofluids, 2021, 2021: 3689964. Drilling and Completions Conference, Austin, Texas, 10-
Abobaker, E. E. R., Elsanoose, A., Khan, F., et al. A new 11 September, 2014.
 Mohammadian, E., et al. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2022, 6(4): 296-305 305

Hofsaess, T., Kleintz, W. Injectivity decline in wells with Improvement of loads calculation of the perforated liner
nonuniform perforation properties. Paper SPE 39586 Pre- in a geothermal production well. Renewable Energy,
sented at SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, 2021, 174: 468-486.
Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-19 February, 1998. Moradi, B., Ayoub, M., Bataee, M., et al. Calculation of tem-
Jilani, S., Menouar, H., Al-Majed, A., et al. Effect of overbal- perature profile in injection wells. Journal of Petroleum
ance pressure on formation damage. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2020, 10(2):
Science and Engineering, 2002, 36(1-2): 97-109. 687-697.
Kang, Y., Xu, C., You, L., et al. Comprehensive evaluation Tang, K., Chen, H., Chen, F., et al. Cause analysis and
of formation damage induced by working fluid loss in precautions of horizontal well perforator sticking in Moxi
fractured tight gas reservoir. Journal of Natural Gas gas field. Oil Drilling & Production Technology, 2009,
Science and Engineering, 2014, 18: 353-359. 31(6): 110-114.
Klotz, J. A., Krueger, R. F., Pye, D. S. Effect of perforation Wang, Z., Li, H., Lan, X., et al. Formation damage mecha-
damage on well productivity. Journal of Petroleum Tech- nism of a sandstone reservoir based on micro-computed
nology, 1974, 26(11): 1303-1314. tomography. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2021,
Krueger, R. F. An overview of formation damage and well 5(1): 25-38.
productivity in oilfield operations: An update. Paper SPE Xie, J., Cheng, W., Wang, R., et al. Experiments and analysis
17459 Presented at SPE California Regional Meeting, on the influence of perforation mode on hydraulic frac-
Long Beach, California, 23-25 March, 1988. ture geometry in shale formation. Journal of Petroleum
Liu, H., Guo, R., Dong, J., et al. Productivity evaluation Science and Engineering, 2018, 168: 133-147.
and influential factor analysis for Sarvak reservoir in Zhang, R., Hou, B., Shan, Q., et al. The study on hydraulic
South Azadegan oil field, Iran. Petroleum Exploration fracture initiation and propagation of coplanar perforation
and Development, 2013, 40(5): 627-634. technology in the horizontal well. Paper SPE 189374
Liu, H., Wang, F., Wang, Y., et al. Oil well perforation Presented at SPE Middle East Drilling Technology Con-
technology: Status and prospects. Petroleum Exploration ference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 29-31 January,
and Development, 2014, 41(6): 798-804. 2018.
Marbun, B. T. H., Sinaga, S. Z., Purbantanu, B. A., et al.