SPE 86542
Underbalance Pressure Criteria For Perforating Carbonates
Servio T. Subiaur, PEMEX; Craig A. Graham, Schlumberger; Ian C. Walton, Schlumberger; and David C. Atwood,
Schlumberger
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 18–20 February 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Underbalance perforating has long been recognized as one of
the best techniques for mitigating perforating damage. Earlier
studies have attempted to establish the level of underbalance
necessary to stimulate perforation clean-up in sandstone.
These models are stated in terms of the underbalance pressure
thought necessary to remove damage from perforations for a
given matrix permeability (some models also give
consideration to fluid properties and perforation geometry).
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the extent to which
these correlations for underbalance perforating may be
applicable to carbonates.
Single shot laboratory flow tests were performed with
limestone and dolomite cores to determine the extent of
perforation damage as a function of underbalance pressure.
The calculated perforation skins from the carbonate
perforating experiments are not well described by the earlier
sandstone correlations. In particular, the primary reliance on
rock permeability as a prognosticator of perforation clean-up
does not work for carbonates. Rather than relying upon the
initial underbalance pressure and matrix permeability as has
been done previously for sandstones, perforation skin for
carbonates is best related to peak underbalance pressure and
rock strength. The underbalance pressure condition is not
surprising. Progressive perforation clean-up with increasing
underbalance is intuitive and has been well noted by previous
investigators. This study extends the concept by making
reference to a peak dynamic underbalance pressure occurring
during perforating. Relating rock strength instead of rock
permeability to perforation clean-up is a relatively new idea
that may also have merit for sandstones. The results of this
study suggest that the initial mechnism of perforation clean-up
is primarily related to failure of the perforation tunnel wall
under stress as opposed to fluid surge flow.
Introduction
For cased hole completions communication between the
wellbore and producing formation is re-established through
the perforations. It is accepted that underbalance perforating
can facilitate perforation clean-up and thus permit more
effective flow. Other researchers have investigated the level
of pressure underbalance necessary to clean-up perforations in
sandstone. The extent to which perforating underbalance
correlations and their underlying assumptions may be applied
to carbonates was unknown.
This report describes nine single shot laboratory flow tests
performed at the Schlumberger Productivity Enhancement
Research Facility (PERF) in Rosharon, Texas to evaluate
underbalance pressure perforating strategies in carbonates.
The perforating experiments were carried out under simulated
downhole conditions. The perforation damage and subsequent
clean-up were evaluated as functions of rock and simulated
wellbore conditions. The perforating experiments were
conducted with Bedford Limestone and Silurian Dolomite
cores and 15 gram and 21.7 gram deep penetrating charges.
The 15 gram and 21.7 gram charges are hereafter refered to as
charge A and B respectively. The perforation tests were
conducted at initial wellbore underbalance pressures ranging
from 500 to 4000 psi. Five of the nine perforation tests were
shot into limestone core targets using both charge A and B.
Four of the nine perforation tests were shot into dolomite core
targets with charge A.
The results of the perforating experiments with carbonate
target cores are not well described by published sandstone
correlations. In particular, the primary reliance on rock
permeability as a prognosticator of perforation clean-up does
not work for carbonates. Rather than relying upon the starting
underbalance pressure and matrix permeability as has been
done previously for sandstones, perforation skin for
carbonates is best related to peak underbalance pressure and
rock strength.
Underbalance Correlations
Several authors have proposed correlations to estimate the
level of underbalance pressure necessary for perforation clean-
up. This earlier work focused on sandstones and is not
necessarily applicable to carbonates.
King, Anderson, and Bingham1 compared the level of total
pressure underbalance and formation rock permeability to the
success of acid treatment for 90 wells. Successful acidization
was defined as improving the production rate by 10% or more.
2 SPE 86542
They showed that the level of total underbalance necessary to
achieve ‘clean perforations’ (i.e. perforations which did not
benefit from acidization) decreases with increasing formation
permeability. They proposed that perforation clean-up was
governed by the rock permeability and pressure differential.
They envisaged perforation clean-up as resulting from flow
through the formation matrix. Accordingly, high permeability
rocks would more readily clean-up while very low
permeability rocks may not clean-up regardless of the pressure
differential. Their study is based on sandstone formations and
does not consider limestone and limey sandstones.
Behrmann2 used a viscous drag force model to derive
perforation skin as a function of underbalance pressure. His
drag force equations depend on reservoir porosity,
permeability, and diameter of the perforation tunnel. The
work is based upon single shot laboratory experiments. Gold
and Berea sandstone targets were perforated using 3.2 and 15
gram charges. Behrmann’s correlations can also be used to
estimate the perforation skin in those cases where the
conditions are not right to fully remove the perforation
damage. In contrast to Tariq3 turbulent flow perforation
model, Behrmann’s equations do not require oil
compressibility and viscosity terms.
Walton4 offered an alternate explanation of the perforation
clean-up mechanism. He proposed that underbalance
perforating promotes productive perforations, not by
increasing fluid surge, but by initiating mechanical failure of
the damaged zone. Walton’s theory predicts the optimum
pressure underbalance in terms of the rock matrix strength,
strength and extent of the perforation crushed zone, as well as
the effective stress conditions. He illustrates his theory with
data from several different sandstone lithologies.
Experimental Setup and Procedure
The perforating test program simulated perforating an oil
reservoir with brine across the perforations and the well open
to surface. The cores used for this study are from Bedford
(Indiana) Limestone and Silurian Dolomite outcrop rock.
Core properties, a summary of the experimental conditions,
and experimental results are shown in Tables 1 through 3.
The detailed experimental facility and procedures are
discussed further in the Appendix.
The cores were first dried and then vacuum saturated with
3% KCl brine. With the core under an effective confining
stress of 3000 psi, K-1 kerosene was flowed through the cores
until they reached irreducible brine saturation. The axial and
cross-diameter permeabilities to kerosene at irreducible brine
saturation were measured for each core. The initial
permeability to kerosene serves as a benchmark by which the
effective productivity of the perforated core can be measured.
The flow outlet was to ambient pressure and inlet pressure was
allowed to vary as governed by the flow rate and
core permeability.
The design of the pressure vessel allows for the duplication
of the downhole conditions including: confining stress, pore
pressure and wellbore pressure. The core sample is enclosed in
rubber sleeves to prevent communication with the confining
fluid. An end attachment to the core sample is used for
imparting the pore pressure. A simulated wellbore (SWB)
holds the wellbore fluid (3% KCl brine) and perforating gun.
The shaped charge is placed inside a modified perforating gun
in the wellbore at a standoff of 0.5” from the shooting plate
(0.375” steel and 0.75” class H cement) to simulate the well
casing. Pore and SWB accumulators simulate the far field
reservoir and wellbore respectively.
For perforating, the pore pressure was set at 5000 psi for
each of the tests and the wellbore pressure varied to obtain the
desired underbalance or overbalance pressure in accordance to
the test design. The confining pressure was 8000 psi for all
tests for an effective stress (confining less pore) of 3000 psi
for all the tests.
The tests are divided into three categories based on core
and perforating charge type. The first two perforation tests
were conducted to evaluate the perforation productivity of
Bedford Limestone target cores perforated at initial wellbore
underbalance pressures of 2000, and 3000 psi. Charge A was
used for Tests 1 and 2. Tests 3 through 6 were conducted to
evaluate the perforation productivity of Silurian Dolomite
target cores perforated at initial wellbore underbalance
pressures of 500, two at 1000, and 3000 psi. Charge A was
also used for these tests. The target cores for tests 7 through 9
were Bedford Limestone. These tests were conducted at
initial wellbore underbalance pressures of 1000, 3000, and
4000 psi with charge B and associated gun.
After perforating, the pore and wellbore pressures were
allowed to equalize before readying the core for controlled
pumped flow. Pressure in the SWB was bled down to
atmospheric pressure. The confining pressure was reduced
simultaneously to maintain constant effective overburden
stress on the core. K-1 kerosene was then pumped through the
core with an accurate low rate screw pump. Kerosene entered
around the perimeter of the core, flowed radially through the
core into the perforation and exited the core through the
perforation tunnel. A constant flow-rate setup is used to flow
the perforated core until a stable productivity is established.
After all flow was completed the core was split open for
inspection and measurement of the perforation tunnel.
Results
The results are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. The tests
are divided into three categories: Bedford (Indiana) Limestone
perforated with charge A (Table 1), Silurian Dolomite
perforated with charge A (Table 2), and Bedford (Indiana)
Limestone perforated with charge B (Table 3). The results are
in agreement with earlier findings of progressive clean-up of
the perforation tunnel with increasing levels of initial
underbalance (Figure 1). In Figure 1 perforation skin is
plotted against the initial underbalance pressure. The
progressive perforation clean-up with increasing underbalance
pressure that has been well noted by previous investigators is
also evident in Figure 1. However, the perforation skins for
the higher permeability dolomite cores are consistently higher
than the perforation skins for the lower permeability limestone
cores (Figure 1). This finding is contrary to the conclusion of
earlier studies that stipulate that for a given underbalance
pressure higher permeability rocks should show more
perforation clean-up than lower permeability rocks.
SPE 86542
Discussion and Interpretation
Earlier findings of progressive perforation clean-up with
increasing levels of initial pressure underbalance are
corroborated by this study. The relationship between the level
of perforation clean-up and pressure underbalance is intuitive
and has been noted in previous studies of underbalance
perforating in sandstone. In this respect the correlations
developed for sandstones help define an important parameter
for defining the clean-up of perforations in carbonates.
However, the fact that the perforation skins for the higher
permeability dolomite cores are consistently higher than the
perforation skins for the lower permeability limestone is
contrary to the earlier findings with sandstone. For this reason
earlier correlations developed for sandstones, which rely
primarily upon matrix permeability, are not applicable
to carbonates.
In Figure 2, the carbonate test data are plotted along with
King’s underbalance criteria necessary to eliminate acid
stimulation in oil wells, but not specifically to achieve ‘clean
perforations’ with kc/k=1. The measured perforation skin is
displayed next to each data point. All tests have positive
perforation skins. King’s data is based on sandstones and
therefore should not necessarily be expected to work for
perforated carbonates. The higher permeability limestone and
to a greater degree the dolomite perforation data do not fit
King’s underbalance criteria. Moreover, the line delineating
perforation clean-up cannot be simply shifted or readily
modified to accommodate the carbonate data. There does not
appear to be a direct relationship between underbalance
pressure and permeability. According to King’s criteria it
appears that carbonate rocks are more susceptible to
perforation damage than sandstone rocks. That is, many of the
carbonate core perforating experiments showed significant
perforation skin despite possesing conditions which the King
correlation suggests are sufficient for clean perforations.
The carbonate test data are plotted along with Behrmann’s
perforation skin criteria for Berea sandstone perforated with a
15.0 gram charge in Figure 2. Behrmann used Berea and Gold
sandstone cores for his study. The discrepancy between
Behrmann’s correlation for Berea Sandstone and the carbonate
test data shows the problem of applying an underbalance
perforating correlations developed with sandstone to
carbonates. The dolomite data points fall above the
correlation (higher perforation skin) and with one exception
the limestone data points fall below the correlation (lower
perforation skin). From the large scatter in the data, this Berea
Sandstone correlation is clearly not applicable to carbonates.
One might be able to draw separate correlations for each of the
dolomite and limestone series. Two charge sizes (15.0 and
21.7 grams) were used in this study in an effort to evaluate the
effect (if any) of charge size on perforating clean-up in
carbonates. In terms of perforating skin, a systematic
difference between perforating was not noted in the limestone
core targets.
Figure 4 shows the pressure response in the SWB at the
time of perforating. Although there can be a casual relation
between initial and dynamic underbalance pressure, initial
underbalance pressure does not always reflect the near time
(less than ~0.2 seconds) pressure responses which are thought
3
to be primarily responsible for perforation clean-up. The
initial underbalance pressure does not correspond to the
dynamic underbalance following charge detonation. From
recent perforation flow research5, a dynamic underbalance
pressure is chosen over the initial underbalance pressure as a
measure of the underbalance pressure. It is the pressure
conditions after and not prior to perforating that influence the
level of perforation clean-up. Quantifying dynamic
underbalance remains problematic. For this study peak
dynamic underbalance is defined as the difference between the
pore pressure, measured at the back of the core, and minimum
SWB pressure. Two important assumptions are being made
here: 1) the SWB pressure reflects the pressure inside the
perforation tunnel and 2) similarly the pore pressure at the
back of the core reflects the pore pressure immediately around
the perforation tunnel.
Walton4 proposes that perforation skin is a function of the
level of mechanical failure of the damage zone. This new idea
is useful in reconciling the results of the limestone and
dolomite tests. While conventional theory with sandstones
proposes that perforation clean-up is enhanced in high
permeability rocks, Walton’s theory predicts enhanced
perforation clean-up in lower strength rocks. For many
sandstones there is a casual relation between permeability,
porosity and rock strength. Thus high permeability sandstones
tend to have low strength and vice-versa. Under these
circumstances it is difficult to differentiate between the
permeability and strength models for prediction of perforation
clean-up. For the carbonate rocks tested here there is no
consistent relationship between permeability and strength.
This allows us to distinguish between the permeability and
stress dependent models of underbalance perforating clean-up
Figure 5 shows the perforation skins for the flow tests.
The perforation skin is plotted against the peak dynamic
underbalance pressure divided by the nominal unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) of the rock and an empirical
correction for the intial rate of pressure drop following charge
detonation. There seems to be a mathematical basis for this
empirical rate correction, which we hope to more fully
develop in the future. Reliance upon these parameters yields
a better estimate of the perforation skin for Bedford Limestone
and Silurian Dolomite. All testing was carried out at an initial
effective stress of 3000 psi. Perforating tests at other stresses
will be necessary to demonstrate whether effective stress, as
opposed to the dynamic underbalance pressure, is a better
measure of the stress for purposes of predicting perforation
skin. According to Walton, this should in fact be the case.
The prediction of perforation skin may be further refined with
measurements of pore pressure nearer the perforation tunnel.
The discrepancy in perforation skin between earlier
sandstone correlations and these carbonate tests is probably
related to rock strength, lithology, and the definition of the
effective underbalance pressure. Perforation clean-up in
sandstone may also be a function of rock strength.
Unfortunately, earlier perforation tests lack dynamic pressures
and rock strength data to test this hypothesis. All the tests in
this study were conducted with 5000 psi pore pressure and
8000 psi confining pressure for an effective stress of 3000 psi.
Under these test conditions the dynamic underbalance pressure
4 SPE 86542
and rock strength are sufficient to predict perforation skin.
Testing at other starting effective stresses may verify Walton’s
hypothesis that the optimum underbalance for perforation
clean-up is a function of the effective stress, the rock strength,
and the strength and extent of the perforation damage zone.
Conclusions
These tests verify earlier findings of a general progressive
clean-up of the perforation tunnel with increasing levels of
initial underbalance pressure. However, the measured
perforation skins for the carbonate target cores are not well
characterized by earlier sandstone correlations. In particular
the primary reliance on rock permeability as a prognosticator
of perforation clean-up does not work for carbonates. Rather
than relying upon the initial underbalance pressure and matrix
permeability as has been done for sandstones, perforation
skins for carbonates are best related to peak underbalance
pressure and rock strength. The underbalance pressure
condition is not surprising. Progressive perforation clean-up
with increasing underbalance is intuitive and has been well
noted by previous investigators. This study makes reference
to the peak dynamic underbalance pressure occurring during
perforating. Relating rock strength instead of rock
permeability to perforation clean-up is a relatively new idea
that may also be applicable to sandstones.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Schlumberger and PEMEX for
permission to publish this paper, Larry Behrmann for
constructive comments during its preparation. Assistance by
Brian Taylor and Solomon Zepeda in conducting the
experiments is much appreciated.
References
1. King, G.E., Anderson, A., and Bingham, M.: “A Field Study of
Underbalance Pressures Necessary to Obtain Clean Perforation
Using Tubing Conveyed Perforating,” JPT (June 1986) 662-
664; Trans, AIME, 281
2. Behrmann, L.A.: “Underbalance Criteria for Minimum
Perforation Damage,” paper SPE 30081 presented at the 1995
SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, May 15-16
3. Tariq, S.M.: “New Generalized Criteria for Determining the
Level of Underbalance for Obtaining Clean Perforations,” paper
SPE 20636 presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept 23-26, 1990
4. Walton, I.C.: “Optimum Underbalance for the Removal of
Perforation Damage,” paper 63108 presented at the 2000 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct 1-4,
2000
5. Walton, I.C., Johnson, A.B., Behrmann, L.A., and Atwood,
D.C.: “Laboratory Experiments Provide New Insights into
Underbalance Perforating,” paper 71642, presented at the 2001
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Sept 30 – Oct 3, 2001
6. API RP 43: “Recommended Practices for Evaluating of Well
Perforators,” American Petroleum Institute, fifth edition,
Washington, DC (Jan. 1991).
7. Halleck, P.M and Dogulu Y.S.: “The Basis and Use of the API
RP43 Flow Test for Shaped-charge Oil Well Perforators,” JCPT
May 1997
SI Metric Conversion Factors
psi x 6.895 E+00 = kPa
in x 2.54 E+02 = m
SPE 86542 5

Core Test 1 Test 2

Setup Pressures
Confining Pressure 8000 8000
(psi)
Pore Pressure (psi) 5000 5000
Simulated Well 3000 2000
Pressure (psi)
Effective Stress 3000 3000
(psi)
Initial Under- 2000 3000
balance (psi)
Peak Dynamic 2640 3350
Under-balance (psi)

Core Properties
Rock Type Bedford LS Bedford LS
UCS Plug (psi) 7478 7219
Core Length (in) 15.875 16.75
Core Diameter (in) 7 7
Porosity (%) 12.5 12.4
Axial Permeability 8.5 7.8
(md)
0-180 Diametral 6.9 8.0
Perm (md)
90-270 Diametral 7.2 7.8
Perm (md)
Average Perm (md) 7.5 7.9
Axial PI 0.222 0.19
0-180 Diametral PI 0.95 1.11
90-270 Diametral 1.00 1.08
PI

Perforation
Charge A A
Gun Standoff (in) 0.5 0.5
Total Length in rock 165 117
(mm)
Clear Length in 135 112
rock (mm)
Average Diameter 4 4
(mm)
Post Shot PI 0.409 0.421
(radial)

Post Perforation
Flow
PI(post)/PI(pre) 0.470 0.384
CFE 0.459 0.569
Skin 4.6 2.9

Table 1: Experiment setup conditions and a summary of the experimental results (Bedford Limestone, Charge A).
PI is defined as flow rate/differential pressure in units of cc/sec/100 psi.
6 SPE 86542

Core Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

Setup Pressures
Confining Pressure 8000 8000 8000 8000
(psi)
Pore Pressure (psi) 5000 5000 5000 5000
Simulated Well 4500 4000 4000 2000
Pressure (psi)
Effective Stress 3000 3000 3000 3000
(psi)
Initial Under- 500 1000 1000 3000
balance (psi)
Peak Dynamic 1750 2160 2150 3160
Under-balance (psi)

Core Properties
Rock Type Silurian Dolomite Silurian Dolomite Silurian Dolomite Silurian Dolomite
UCS Plug (psi) 4971 4614 6699 5721
Core Length (in) 17.625 17.5 17 17.5
Core Diameter (in) 7 7 7 7
Porosity (%) 17.9 17.3 16.3 18.6
Axial Permeability 142.2 68.8 108.6 83.1
(md)
0-180 Diametral 173.4 88.9 92.2 86.5
Perm (md)
90-270 Diametral 174.4 80.1 106.4 80.9
Perm (md)
Average Perm (md) 162.6 78.8 102.1 83.5
Axial PI 3.5 2.03 2.83 2.03
0-180 Diametral PI 24.0 9.51 12.8 11.5
90-270 Diametral 24.1 12.3 14.7 12.0
PI

Perforation
Charge A A A A
Gun Standoff (in) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Length in rock 225 285 165 185
(mm)
Clear Length in 115 280 152 178
rock (mm)
Average Diameter 7 10 12 14
(mm)
Post Shot PI 8.07 6 5.6 6.3
(radial)

Post Perforation
Flow
PI(post)/PI(pre) 0.336 0.550 0.408 0.536
CFE 0.224 0.259 0.294 0.327
Skin 11.2 8.2 6.5 5.2

Table 2: Experiment setup conditions and a summary of the experimental results (Silurian Dolomite, Charge A).
PI is defined as flow rate/differential pressure in units of cc/sec/100 psi.
SPE 86542 7

Core Test 7 Test 8 Test 9

Setup Pressures
Confining Pressure 8000 8000 8000
(psi)
Pore Pressure (psi) 5000 5000 5000
Simulated Well 4000 2000 1000
Pressure (psi)
Effective Stress 3000 3000 3000
(psi)
Initial Under- 1000 3000 4000
balance (psi)
Peak Dynamic 2480 3580 4000
Under-balance (psi)

Core Properties
Rock Type Bedford LS Bedford LS Bedford LS
UCS Plug (psi) 4005 4055 4200
Core Length (in) 18 18 18
Core Diameter (in) 7 7 7
Porosity (%) 16.7 17.1 16.7
Axial Permeability 3.0 3.4 3.6
(md)
0-180 Diametral 3.4 3.7 4.5
Perm (md)
90-270 Diametral 3.1 4.1 4.7
Perm (md)
Average Perm (md) 3.2 3.7 4.2
Axial PI 0.07 0.08 0.09
0-180 Diametral PI 0.47 0.51 0.63
90-270 Diametral 0.43 0.56 0.65
PI

Perforation
Charge B B B
Gun Standoff (in) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total Length in rock 230 165 260
(mm)
Clear Length in 120 130 200
rock (mm)
Average Diameter 6 9 8
(mm)
Post Shot PI 0.206 0.48 0.935
(radial)

Post Perforation
Flow
PI(post)/PI(pre) 0.459 0.897 1.464
CFE 0.316 0.731 0.814
Skin 7.3 1.1 0.7

Table 3: Experiment setup conditions and a summary of the experimental results (Bedford Limestone, Charge B).
PI is defined as flow rate/differential pressure in units of cc/sec/100 psi.
8 SPE 86542

Perforation Skin versus Initial Underbalance Pressure

12
Limestone, Charge A
162.6 md
Dolomite, Charge A
Limestone, Charge B
10

8 78.8 md
Perforation Skin

3.2 md

102.1 md
6
83.5 md
7.5 md
4

7.9 md

2
3.7 md
4.2 md
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Initial Underbalance Pressure (psi)
Figure 1: Perforation Skin versus Initial Underbalance Pressure

3
Permeability versus Initial Underbalance Pressure
10
Limestone, Charge A
Dolomite, Charge A
Limestone, Charge B

11.2
2 8.2
10
5.2
Permeability (md)

6.5

Acid does not improve production

Acid improves production

1
10 4.6 2.9
5.3
1.1
0.7
7.3

0
10
2 3 4
10 10 10
Initial Underbalance Pressure (psi)
Figure 2: Carbonate Core Skin compared to King Sandstone Correlation
SPE 86542 9

Perforation Skin versus Drag Force

12
Limestone, Charge A
Dolomite, Charge A
Limestone, Charge B
10

8
Perforation Skin

6 Berea sandstone correlation

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
dP*k**0.5/phi*CD**0.3
Figure 3: Carbonate Core Skin compared to Behrmann Berea Sandstone Correlation

Well Pressure versus Time

10000
Test 1
9000 Test 2
Test 3
8000 Test 4
Initial Pore Pressure = 5000 psi Test 5
7000 Test 6
Test 7
Well Pressure (psi)

Test 8
6000
Test 9

5000
3
5
4000
4
1 7
3000
8
6
2000 9 2

1000

0
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time (seconds)
Figure 4: Wellbore Pressures during Perforating
10 SPE 86542

Perforation Skin versus 'Dynamic' Underbalance

12
Limestone, Charge A
Dolomite, Charge A
Limestone, Charge B
10

8
Perforation Skin

0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Peak Dynamic UB/UCS * Initial Pressure Rate**0.4
Figure 5: Carbonates Skin Correlation compared to Dynamic Underbalance and UCS
SPE 86542 11

Appendix A: Perforating Procedure
The perforating test procedures are based upon the
recommended practices for evaluation of well perforations as
set forth in the fifth edition of the API RP 436.
Core Preparation and Initial Permeability
Each core is dried for 24 hours at a temperature of 200o F.
Next a vacuum is pulled on the core for a minimum of 8
hours. The weight of the dry core is recorded. The dried and
evacuated core is flooded in the evacuation chamber with 3%
KCl brine while the rate at which the saturating fluid is
admitted is carefully monitored so that it does rise faster than
the capillary rise of the fluid in the core. After saturation the
core is lightly wiped to remove free brine from the surface and
weighed again. A porosity determination is made from the dry
and saturated core weights.
Determination of the axial permeability involves flowing
kerosene along the axis through the full face of the core. A
rubber sleeve around the core diameter isolates the core from
the confining fluid. Flow is continued along the core axis
until the core reaches irreducible brine saturation and its
permeability to kerosene measured.
Following the determination of axial permeability to
kerosene, the core is prepared for cross-diameter flow.
Determination of cross-diameter permeability involves using
two sets of opposing rods. Each set of rods extends a quarter
of the way around the core diameter. The core and rods are
placed in a rubber sleeve to isolate the core from the confining
fluid. The top faceplate seals that end of the core. The bottom
faceplate has openings for pore fluid inlet and outlet while
sealing the bottom of the core face from confining fluids.
Kerosene flows through the inlet in the bottom faceplate,
around the inlet rods and across the core diameter. Kerosene
gathers at the outlet rods and flows through an outlet in the
bottom faceplate. A second cross-diameter permeability is
then made perpendicular to the first cross
diameter permeability.
Perforation Experimental Setup and Procedure
After the initial permeability of the test core to kerosene at
irreducible brine saturation has been determined, the core is
mounted in the pressure vessel as shown in Figure A1. The
design of the pressure vessel allows for the duplication of the
pressure conditions downhole: confining pressure, pore
pressure, and wellbore pressure. The simulated wellbore holds
the wellbore fluid (3% KCl brine in this case). The core is
enclosed in rubber sleeves to prevent communication with the
confining fluid. Pore pressure is maintained through an end
attachment. The shaped charge is placed inside a modified
perforating gun in the wellbore at a known standoff from the
shooting. The shooting plate is 1.125” thick (0.375” steel and
0.75” class H cement) and is used to simulate the downhole
casing and cement. Shooting leads are routed from the gun
through fluid-to-air connectors to the shooting box.
Perforating conditions for the tests are summarized in Tables 1
through 3. After perforating, the pore and wellbore pressures
are allowed to equalize before readying the core for flow.
A constant flow setup is used to flow the core sample.
Kerosene is pumped through the core with an accurate low
rate screw pump through the perforated core and the
productivity of the perforated core sample is calculated from
pressure and flow data. An effective stress of 3000 psi is
maintained on the core throughout the flow. Upon completion
of all flow, the core is removed from the test vessel and the
perforation entrance hole is measured and inspected. Lastly,
the core is split open for inspection of the perforation tunnel.
Appendix B: Calculation Notes
Definition of PI, CFE, and skin
Core Flow Efficiency (CFE) is defined as the measured radial
flow rate divided by the calculated radial flow rate into a
theoretical perforation of the same depth and diameter. CFE
can be viewed as the ratio of the productivity of the actual
perforation relative to an ideal undamaged perforation.
Qmeasured
CFE =
Qcalculated
where:
⎡ ⎤
∆P ⎢ k1 D k 2 rR ⎥
Qcalculated = ⎢ + ⎥
µ ⎢ ln R ( R − r ) ⎥
⎣⎢ r ⎦⎥
and:
D = perforation depth
r = perforation radius
R = core radius
k = permeability, bedding perpendicular to the axis:
k1 = k h
1
k 2 = (k v k h )
2 3
Productivity Index (PI) is defined as the flow rate divided
by the total pressure drop. In this paper the PI is measured in
units of cc/sec/100 psi. The geometry and state of the
perforation affect the PI, however, the determination of PI
does not directly take the perforation depth and diameter
into consideration.
Skin is a composite variable. It represents the additional
(or reduced) pressure drop associated with a given completion.
A positive skin denotes that the pressure drop in the near-
wellbore zone is greater than would have been expected from
the normal, undisturbed, reservoir flow mechanisms.
Conversely, a negative skin denotes that the pressure drop in
the near-wellbore zone is less than would have been expected
from the normal, undisturbed, reservoir flow mechanisms.
12 SPE 86542

⎛k ⎞ rp + t c ⎛ 1 ⎞ r
rp = perforation radius
S = ⎜⎜ o − 1⎟⎟ ln =⎜ − 1⎟ ln e tc = damage zone thickness
⎝ kc ⎠ rp ⎝ CFE ⎠ rp
This calculation assumes Darcy flow, which is a good
assumption under these test conditions.
where:
A more detailed derivation of the equations for perforation
S = skin CFE and skin can be found in a paper by Halleck and Dogula7.
ko = initial permeability
kc = perforation damage zone permeability
re = core radius

7
∆P

5 3
4
2
1

12 10
6

11
8 9

Figure A1: Schematic view of experimental facility. Showing 1. Confining chamber with confining fluid (kerosene) 2. Simulated wellbore with
wellbore fluid (KCl Brine) 3. Core sample with pore pressure and pore fluid 4. Gun with the shaped charge 5. Shooting leads 6. Shooting
Plate 7. Micrometer valve 8. SWB pressure gauges 9. Confining pressure gauge 10. Pore pressure gauge 11. Pore fluid accumulators 12.
Wellbore fluid accumulators