SPE

Society of PetroIet.rn Engineers

SPE 21657
Evaluation of Underbalanced Through-Tubing Pe!rforating
and Closed Chamber Test Interpretation Techniques
M.M. Manohar and C.W. Morris, Schlumberger; S.R. Brunner, Chevron U.S.A. Inc.;
and D.O. Hill, Schlumberger
SPE Members
Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 7-9,1991.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information .:ontained in an abstract by the author(s). Contents of paper,
. as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to by the The. ma!enal, presen!ed: does no! necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE '"!1eellngs are subJee.t to publication review by Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. may not be COPied. The abstract should contaIn conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Rlc1ardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
Underbalanced, through-tubing perforating
operations represent a compromise between the pressure
differential needed for effective perforation cleanup and the
differential that causes sand production or tends to the the
gun and cable. This paper explores the dynamic variables
involved in through-tubing perforating and describes a new
model developed to evaluate the underbalance perforating
conditions and predict the effects on the wireline gun
system. Using this model, formations can be aggressively
perforated with the optimum safe underbalance pressure, and
completion operations can also be combined with closed
chamber test techniques to accurately evaluate the completion
efficiency and initial reservoir parameters.
Utilizing new wireline technology to measure
downhole pressure and temperature during perforating,
operational data were obtained from numerous field tests to
validate the dynamic model. The results indicate that the
model reliably predicts the maximum underbalance to avoid
sanding, the change in gas cushion pressure, the volume of
reservoir fluid influx and the gun/cable movement Examples
from Louisiana Gulf Coast wells are used to illustrate the
application of the design model and the associated closed
chamber test technique.
The transient pressure data from the closed chamber
test are used to accurately evaluate reservoir parameters and
completion efficiency. The data are analyzed by assuming
the formation is subjected to an impulse rate created by
briefly flowing the well. In addition, by measuring the
surface and bottomhole pressure during the perforating
operation, the approximate fillup rate can be determined as
well as the cumulative volume of fluid entry. In the field
examples presented, these data are utilized in other
interpretation techniques, such as rate convolved pressure
analysis, and the derived formation parameters are compared
with conventional well test results.
References and figures at end of paper
255
mmODUCTION
Underbalance perforating operations ensure a surge
of resc:rvoir fluid such that gun debris and crushed rock in
the pelforation tunnel are swept into the borehole, providing
better flow performance for subsequent production. For
maximum cleaning effect, it is desirable to perforate with the
maximum possible amount of underbalance pressure. The
degree of perforation tunnel cleaning is directly proportional
to the amount of underbalance and fluid influx. In general,
the larger the underbalance and fluid influx, the better the
cleaning effect. The pressure differential required for
perforation cleanup ranges from 200 psi to more than 5000
psi and has usually been established by trial and error in each
field.
1

2
,3
However, practical experience dictates that problems
(sand production, casing collapse, etc.) will develop if too
high an underbalance pressure is used. In unconsolidated or
poorly consolidated formations, the mechanical strength: of
the fOlmation must be considered to avoid sand productton
and/oI the movement of the fine particles that could cause
plugging of the matrix. Excessive underbalance pressure
during the perforating operation can lead to significant sand
produl:tion and to the sticking of wireline tools being in the
well.
In the case of through-tubing perforating, a
gas/liquid cushion is commonly used to obtain the desired
underbalance pressure. The drag force exerted on the gun-
cable nystem when the fluid accelerates upward must also be
considered when perforating underbalanced. The pressure
diffen:ntial must be designed to avoid blowing the wireline
gun and cable up the hole during the initial fluid surge. In
general, the larger the underbalance and fluid influx, the
larger the drag force exerted on the gun-cable system.
Thus, the optimum through-tubing perforating
operation is a balance between the pressure differential that
will cause sand production and that needed for effective
clean-up of the perforations, which avoids lifting the gun
l?f Through-Tubing Perforating ?" , __
2 an" clo"'e" Chamh,>r .,."",t I ...... " 'I h ... I
and cable excessively. In the past little real guidanc:e has column height, gas column height and pressure, the effect of
been avaibalbe to the production engineer who wants to movement on liquid and gas columns, the amount of
select a liquid column height and surface prc:ssure underbalance and fluid influx. Fluid column height, gun
optimalfor perforating. This paper explores the dynamic weight and the amount of underbalance can be adjusted until
variables involved in through-tubing perforating and a safe, effective solution is predicted. Practical
formulates a model such that formations can be aggressively considerations, such as the lubricator length and maximum
perforated with the optimum, safe underbalance. allowable total tool length, often limit the weight that can be
added to the tool to stop movement.
When the well is perforated underbalanced,
formation fluid begins to flow into the wellbore immediately
after the guns fIre. This initial flow provides an opportunity
to conduct a pressure transient test based on the
measurement of downhole flowing pressure. This test is
analogous to a "slug test" using conventional drillstem test
(DST) techniques, where the flow is induced by opening a
production valve in the DST string. Many variations are
possible during the test period; e.g., a well can be open or
shut-in at the surface, the well mayor may not flow to the
surface, and the test could be complemented by one or more
flow and periods.
A number of variables, including damage from
drilling fluids or cementing operations, chemical
incompatibilities between completion and formation l1uids,
and formation heterogeneity, affect the completion pr,:x:ess.
Each completion should be evaluated to confirm flow
effIciency and to determine, if any, remedial actions are
needed. If performed, the evaluation of completions has
traditionally been an expensive and time consuming process
involving hours of conventional well testing and production
logging.
This paper describes the combination of perforating
and testing operations designed to evaluate the completion
effIciency. Measuring the downhole pressure, temperature
and, optionally, the flow rate throughout the perforating and
testing sequence allows quick analysis of fomlation
parameters such as permeability, skin factor and initial
reservoir pressure.
BACKGROUND
Delermjnjn2 the Underbalance Pressure and.
Eyaluatjn2 the Dynamjc WeJlbore/Wjreliu
Conditions
Little fIeld data is normally available to the engineer
to assist in predicting the well flow performance as a
function of underbalance pressure or to confIdently esdmate
the maximum safe underbalance that can be used without
blowing the gun-cable system up the hole. However, :recent
publications
1
,2.3,4.5 have begun to address the uncertainty of
estimating the optimum underbalance pressure usc:d for
perforating.
Field experience indicates that suggested ranges for
underbalance pressure, derived from empirical models, may
be unsafe for many through-tubing perforating open.tions.
High velocity movement of the completion fluid slug
immediately after perforating may cause entanglement of the
wireline cable. In addition, these empirical models do not
consider other important factors, such as reservoir fluid
influx volume, liquid column height, surface pressure or
providing for a closed chamber test of the
characteristics.
An analytic model has been developed to predlct the
dynamic forces acting on a gun-cable system when
perforating underbalanced (Figure 1). The model considers
wellbore and gun-cable geometry, tool weight, :liquid
256
The driving force behind the upward movement of
the liquid column after perforating is the pressure difference
between the top and bottom of the column. Clearly,
formation permeability can have a signifIcant effect on the
flow after perforating. A low permeability reservoir results
in a much slower pressure buildup downhole than a high
permeability reservoir. This pressure buildup for the case of
closed chamber testing is complicated by the fact that the
well initially starts to flow because of the pressure difference
(underbalanced backsurge), but then is rapidly restrained by
the pressure buildup in the confIned wellbore. The shoot-
and-test interpretation is a combination of multirate pressure
drawdown and buildup in a very short time period. 6,7
For the evaluation of the dynamic forces acting on
the gun-cable system, it was found empirically that, if the
formation permeability was more than about 25 md, it could
be assumed that the bottomhole pressure surges
instantaneously from the underbalance pressure level to the
static reservoir pressure when the guns are shot. The
bottomhole pressure change caused by the flow of very
small volumes of fluid and the unique nature of the transient
drawdown-buildup conditions in the wellbore made the
small pressure changes insignifIcant with regard to the
reaction of the gun-cable system to the dynamic forces. Only
in relatively low permeability formations would reservoir
pressure drawdown affect the results. In those cases, the
reservoir pressure is determined from a modifIed constant-
pressure flow solution proposed by Jacob and Lohman.
8
The basic model is a balance of the forces acting on
the fluid column. Once the acceleration of the liquid column
is calculated, then a simple integration over time yields the
velocity, which in turn is integrated to give the position of
the liquid column. Knowing the velocity and position
information, the magnitude of fluid-imposed forces on the
wireline gun-cable system can be determined. The average
friction coeffIcients have been empirically determined for the
casing or tubing wall surface and for the electric line cable,
Cfw and Ctc, respectively. The following equations are then
used to calculate the drag forces on the tubing/casing and
cable:
F!::.p - Fgravity - Fed - Fwd
= rna (1)
2
Fed =
0.5 pi} (CodHCje) (2)
2
Fwd =
0.5 pi} (CidHCjw) (3)
It has been found empirically that 0.22-in-diameter
electric line cable becomes unstable (i.e., coils up) when
cable tension is reduced to about 100 lb. This is considered
the critical cable tension, and it is important to keep the
downhole cable tension above this critical value. The
minimum tension point occurs at the top of the liquid
column, and the tool movement criteria is applied at this
depth.
SPE 21657 M. Manohar, C. Morris,
The resulting model of the wellborelwireline system
dynamics is solved using the discrete time-step method. The
assumption must be made that for very small time intervals,
uniformly accelerated rectilinear motion adequately describes
!he fluid column movement. Using very small time
the values for acceleration, velocity and
displacement are calculated. The cable tension is determined
and compared with the critical value. The liquid column
volume is then appropriately increased, all necessary
parameters are recalculated, and the cycle is repeated until the
liquid slug velocity decreases to zero or the cable tension
drops below the critical value for tool movement. Finally,
the total formation fluid influx per perforation is calculated.
A schematic flowchart of the model is shown in Table 1.
It is possible to achieve a particular bottomhole
pressure several different ways. A long, lightweight liquid
column gives the same bottomhole pressure as a short,
heavyweight liquid column. In each case the amount of
underbalance pressure is the same; however, the short liquid
column results in better perforating performance because it
moves substantially farther uphole after perforating before
!he compression of the gas cap above the liquid slug slows
its movement. This means more reservoir fluid influx per
perforation and, therefore, more cleaning effect However, a
relatively short liquid column moving a long distance up the
wellbore could exert sufficient drag on the tool and cable to
lift the tool and cause problems. Therefore, a clear
requirement exists to design the cushion for the best
perforating cleanup conditions without tool movement.
AnalYsis of Transient Pressure Data After
Perforatjng
Other recent technological advances have been the
development of downhole pressure and temperature tools
(Le., the Measurements-While-Perforating Tool [MWPT])
that allow real-time measurement of downhole conditions
during through-tubing perforating and the new well test
interpretation methods
6
.
7
for closed chamber tests. By
measuring downhole pressure during the fluid surge and
subsequent pressure buildup, the transient pressure data can
be utilized to provide accurate estimates of the reservoir
parameters (Le., permeability and skin factor) as well as to
supply direct measurements of the actual underbalance
pressure and initial reservoir pressure.
Several approaches can be taken to analyze the
pressure data acquired after perforating a well. The test may
be analyzed as a compressive Impulse* test or, since the
wellbore fill-up constitutes a variable rate test, rate
convolution methods may be used. Ayoub et a1.
6
have
developed the Impulse interpretation technique depends upon
an initial short production period approaching instantaneous
flow. The Impulse pressure response would match directly
on the derivative type curve. In practice, however, the flow
period is not instantaneous. As pointed out by Ayoub et al.,6
the shut-in pressure data follows the derivative type curve
when the time of the flow period becomes short compared to
the duration of the shut-in period. Pressure data during the
flowing period matches the drawdown type curve. The
permeability-thickness product can be calculated from the
pressure match, and the wellbore storage coefficient and skin
factor are calculated from the time match.
* Mark of Schlumberger
S. Brunner, D. Hill 3
Tariq et al.
9
discuss the case where the surface valve
is closed during perforating and the test becomes analogous
to the closed chamber testing technique of a drillstem test.
The compression of the gas column on top of the liquid
cushion introduces a variable storage phenomenon that must
be taken into account with the bohomhole and surface
pressure data. If the well is closed at the surface, pressure
buildup during the flow period is slower and the final static
pressure is reached after a longer period of time. Using
bottomhole. surface pressure data, with the knowledge of
gas properties m the gas column, the flow rate history during
the fill-up period can be estimated. These estimated flow
rates can then be used for variable rate pressure analysis.
Since the fill-up period after perforating involves
continuously changing flow rates, some type of variable rate
approach is necessary for analysis.
9
One method represents
the continuously varying flow rates as a series of straight
line chords.
lO
The response of the variable flow rates is then
continuously superposed using the superposition theorem.
This approach is called sandface rate convolution. For the
convolution method, a plot (on cartesian scales) of rate-
normalized pressure versus rate convolved time yields a
straight line in the radial flow regime. The slope of that
straight line yields the permeability-thickness product, and
the associated intercept of the line gives the skin factor.
RESULTS AND EXAMPLES
Results from numerous field test wells were
examined using the underbalance design model described
above. All the jobs utilized the MWPT so that appropriate
downhole data were available. These through-tubing
perforating jobs (where a gas/water cushion was used)
include six cases where the tool was, in fact, lifted up the
wellbore. The model accurately predicted this result in all
cases. In general, the cause of tool movement was a short
liquid column combined with a large underbalance pressure.
Tool movement, if it occurs, takes place within the first few
seconds after perforating.
Each job was compared with the model prediction in
terms of the surface pressure increase (when available) and
cable tension change. The comparison, shown in Table 2,
indicates that the model reliably indicates the
wellbore/wireline response to the perforating operation. Four
of the documented jobs with surface pressure data show that
the pressure change predicted by the model is within 20
percent of the measured value.
The surface cable tension comparison (measured at
the winch unit) is a less reliable indication of model accuracy
since the tension measurement can be distorted by the
amount of pressure applied at the lubricator to prevent
leaking. This is especially true when surface pressure is
applied to the gas cushion. Additional error is introduced by
the variable gun material loss for different size jobs.
However, even the cable tension loss predictions are within
an order of magnitude of the actual measured data in most
cases.
Consider the following specific example of a well
perforated using the MWPT. The model was used to
simulate the underbalance conditions and cushion volumes
for completion in this high permeability formation. On
reaching bottom and filling the well to the proper fluid
column height, surface pressure was brought up to the level
expected to yield the correct bottomhole pressure. Figure 2
257
Figure 6 is an Impulse analysis plot. On this graph,
the Impulse pressure group (in psi-hrs) is plotted as a
function of elapsed time (delta t). Arepresentative type curve
was then overlaid on the Impulse data, and for a given set of
reservoir rock and fluid properties, the permeability was
calculated to be 15.05 md from the pressure match, and skin
factor was calculated at -2.86 from the time match. In this
case, a good estimate of permeability and skin appears to
have been obtained from the fill-up data since radial flow
was reached approximately 30 min into the test
Evaluation of Underbalanced Through-Tubing Perforating
4 and Closed Chamber Test lnternretation Techniaues SPE 21657
illustrates the actual well log recording during the petforating pressure of 2100 psia and the subsequent buildup to a final
operation; sutface pressure, cable tension, dowillhole reservoir pressure of 4532 psia after petforating. At the
pressure and downhole temperature are plotted in real time at conclusion of the test on the way out of the hole, the fluid
the sutface. The moment of firing is indicated on the log by level was tagged at 870 feet This change in fluid level (from
the rapid bottomhole pressure and temperature response:. The 6670 feet at the beginning of the test to 870 feet at the end of
downhole pressure rose from 1819 psia to the full the test) correlates to an influx of 22 barrels during the fill-up
pressure of 2036 psia within two sec from the moment of period.
petforating, indicating a rapid surge of fluids into the
wellbore. The sutface pressure increased much more
gradually from 400 psia to 520 psia. The slow increase in
sutface pressure indicates that the top of the fluid column
moved upward, compressing the air column above it. The
rate of sutface pressure rise can be used to determine the
position of the top of the fluid column as a function of time.
Calculations indicate that the column moved upward 61 ft in
14 sec. The pressure change measured within the gas
column was 120 psi and is in close agreement with the
predicted pressure increase of 103 psi.
Example 2
The downhole flow rate profile (Figure 9) was
derived using an algorithm that calculates a downhole gas
rate assuming gas bubbling through a standing liquid
column. Specific inputs are bottomhole and surface
pressure, tubing/casing configuration, cushion fluid length
and density, and sutface temperature.
Figure 10 is a sandface rate convolution plot with a
semilog straight line drawn through the data at late time
(radial flow). Based on the slope and intercept of the line,
permeability and skin were calculated to 0.012 and -0.1,
respectively. These answers compare very well with the
Impulse answers.
Figure 8 is an Impulse plot of the downhole transient
pressure data. Based on the type-curve match parameters,
the reservoir permeability was calculated to be 0.017 md
with a skin factor of +3. It can also be seen that the data has
not yet reached radial flow (Le., flattening of the Impulse
data).
Figure 7 presents the bottomhole pressure, sutface
pressure and bottomhole temperature data acquired during a
petforating job in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana. This well
was perforated at four shots per ft from 13,072 ft to 13,090
feet using a 1-11/16-in Enerjet* gun. In order to achieve the
desired underbalance, the operator filled the well with
completion fluid and applied an additional 500 psi of
nitrogen gas pressure at the sutface. After petforating, the
well remained shut in for approximately 3.6 hrs. Figure 7
shows that the bottomhole pressure continued to build at a
steady rate during this time period, indicating that the
reservoir could be of low permeability.
This example shows that when uncertainty exists
during type-curve matching procedures (i.e., non
uniqueness), sandface rate convolution methods may be
used to calculate reservoir parameters. It is important,
however, that the pressure data acquired be of good quality
since any errors associated with such measurements reflect
directly on the calculated flow rates. Uncertainties associated
with deduced flow rates may be eliminated by measuring
pressure and flow rate (with a flowmeter) simultaneously
during a petforating operation.
Example 3
Example 1
The measured sutface cable tension curve shows a
200-lb drop over 6 sec (Le., changing from 1420 Ib to 1220
Ib). This drop is caused by the loss of the petforating gun
material and the upward-moving liquid column imparting an
upward drag force on the cable. The tension drop is not due
to significant upward tool movement at the momtmt of
petforating, since this should have resulted in a sudden
rather than a relatively gradual drop in cable tension.
Excluding the petforating gun weight loss from the
measured data, the predicted cable tension decrease of 37 Ib
is in reasonable agreement with the measured results.
Well Test Interpretation
Figure 3 shows the MWPT measured response in
another well of relatively lower formation permeability
(about 38 md). The underbalanced bottomhole pre:ssure
(3210 psia) increased to about 90 percent of the final
recorded downhole pressure of 4742 psia in 3 min but
continued to build up slowly over the next 88 min. The
surface pressure increased from 14.7 psia to 1572 psia
during the test, compared to the predicted increase of 1251
psia. The temperature increases rapidly about l3F
(probably caused by the gun gases) and then drops off to
stabilize at 218F after about 3 minutes. The measured cable
tension loss was small (Le., decreasing only 45-lb from the
initial 885-lb value). Although the tool was not in danger of
being moved uphole in this case, the predicted cable tension
change was 25 percent ,or 330 Ib after 3 sec.
These examples partially illustrate the influence of the
reservoir permeability and fluid parameters on the system
response to the petforating operation. As the fonnation
becomes less permeable, the initial backsurge of
fluids decreases in volume and velocity so there i:, less
chance of moving the tool uphole.
The following examples are actual MWPT tests run
in South Louisiana wells. Common petforating practice in
the Gulf Coast dictates that wells be closed at the surface
during the perforating operation. This being the case, most
data sets can be analyzed as compressive Impulse tests.
This well was petforated six shots per ft with a 1-
11/16-inch Enerjet* gun system from 11,851 feetto 11,877
feet. Figure 4 shows that the fluid level was tagged at 6770 This well was petforated with a 1-1l/16-inch
feet while running into the hole with the MWPT. Figure 5 is
Cartesian plot of the pressure data __E_n_efJ__et_*_g_u_n_a_t_s_ix_s_ho_t_s_p_e_r_ft_fr_om __ll_,_909 __fe_e_t_to_l_l_,9_1_4_---J
258
SPE 21657 M. Manohar, C. Morris,
feet. From the MWPT down log, the fluid level was tagged
at 4680 ft prior to perforating. Figure 11 shows the complete
pre- and post-perforating pressure and temperature record.
The change in pressure profile (and corresponding change in
temperature) from 0.10 hr to 0.30 hr indicates where the
surface production valve was inadvertently opened by
operations personnel.
Figure 12 is the associated Impulse analysis plot.
Based on the match point parameters, the permeability and
skin factor were calculated to be 39 md and -1.4,
respectively. Total fluid recovery during the 1.6-hr test was
18 bbl.
Two days later, after the well was allowed to clean
up and stabilize at a constant rate of 1573 MscflD, a
conventional buildup test was performed. Figure 13 is a
type-curve match of that buildup data. The welVreservoir
system was modeled as a homogeneous reservoir with
wellbore storage and skin effects between two intersecting
faults. The intersection angle between the faults is 45
degrees with the well on the bisector, 470 ft away from the
intersection of the faults. Based on the match point
parameters, the permeability and skin factor were calculated
to be 38 md and +3, respectively. These answers are in good
agreement with those obtained from the Impulse
interpretation method.
CQNCI.USIONS
Many interrelated conditions must be considered
when designing an efective, safe through-tubing perforating
job. Systematic underbalance design techniques have been
developed to allow the engineer to optimize the through-
tubing perforating procedure for maximum cleanup,while
maintaining a safe operation. The results include:
(1) Maximum underbalance pressure to avoid sanding.
(2) Minimum underbalance pressure for formation cleanup.
(3) Fluid cushion (gaslliquid column) design (Le., height,
fluid density, etc.) to minimize tool movement.
(4) Maximumreservoir fluid influx per perforation.
Combined with real-time downhole pressure and
temperature measurements, which allow accurate control of
the well conditions prior to perforating, the underbalance
design procedure significantly increases the chances for a
successful completion operation.
After reviewing the recording and interpretation of
downhole pressure data acquired in conjunction with
underbalanced perforating, the following concluding
statements can be made:
(1) Pressures acquired during the fill-up period can be
analyzed for fonnation parameters.
(2) The Impulse method offers a quick and relatively easy
way to analyze post-perforating data for penneability, skin
factor and formation pressure.
(3) Answers obtained from the Impulse analysis technique
were shown to compare favorably to answers obtained from
conventional buildup tests.
(4) If an accurate record of surface pressures is obtained, the
rate offill-up (downhole flow rate) may be deduced and
259
s. Brunner, D. Hill
used in a variable rate analysis technique to estimate
reservoir parameters.
REEERENCES
1. W.T.: "Perforating Underbalance - Evolving
Techniques," Distinguished Author Series, IPT (October
1984): 1653-1662.
2. Krueger, R.E: "An Overview of Fonnation Damage and
Well Productivity in Oilfield Operations," Distinguished
Author Series, IPT (February 1986): 131-152.
3. Kiing, G.E., Anderson, A., and Bingham, M.D.: "A
Field Study of Underbalance Pressures Necessary to Obtain
Clean Perforations Using Tubing-Conveyed Perforating,"
IPT (June 1986): 662-664.
4. Morris, C.W. and Ayoub, lA.: "Engineered Perforating
Design and Evaluation," paper SPE 18840, presented at the
SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
March 13-14, 1989.
5. Crawford, H.R.: "Underbalanced Perforating Design,"
paper SPE 19749, presented at the 64th Annual Technical
and Exhibition of SPE, San Antonio, October 8-
11, 1989.
6. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D.P., and Chauvel, Y.L.:
"Impulse Testing," SPEFE (September 1988): 534-546.
7. Simmons, J.E: "Convolution Analysis of Surge Pressure
Data," IPT (January 1990): 74-83.
8. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: "Nonsteady Flow to a
Well of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer,"
AGU (August 1952): 559-569.
9. Tariq, S.M. and Ayesteran, L.: "Analysis and
Applications of Pressure, Flowrate, and Temperature
Measurements During a Perforating Run," paper SPE
15475, presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition of SPE, New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
10. Meunier, D., Wittman, M.J., and Stewart, G.:
"Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ
Measurement of Afterflow," JPT (January 1985): 143-152.

a = acceleration, ft/sec
2
Cod = cable outside diameter, in
Ctc = cable drag coefficient, dimensionless
Cid = casing or tubing inside diameter, in
Cfw = wall drag coefficient, dimensionless
Fcd = drag force on cable, Ibf
Fwd = drag force on wall, Ibf
Fdp = force due to pressure difference, Ibf
Fgravity = force due to gravity, Ibf
5
6
Evaluation of Underbalanced Through-Tubing Perforating
and Closed ChambElr Test Internretation Techniaues SPE 21657
H = liquid column height, ft
h =formation thickness, ft
k = permeability, md
mn(P) = gas pseudo-pressure function, psi
P =p ~ s s u r e , p ~ a
$ = skin factor, dimensionless
P = density, Iblft
3
'6 =liquid column velocity, ft/sec
260
TABLE 1 - UNDERBALANC! D!SIGN P R O G R , ~ M FLOW CHART
I O. a 01 Y 0, x 0
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED RESULTS FOlil WELLS SHOT UNDERBALANCED
UNOER8AU\NCE ACTUAL CABlE PREDICTEDCABlE CHANGE
WELL PRESSURE IDSiI TENSION lOSS Ilbl TENSION lOSS Ilbl IN WHP In-oil CCMo1ENTS
1 230 N/A 37 120 measured
103 predicted
2 1404 45 330 1572 measured
1251 predicted
3 322 25 67 150 measured
120 predicted
4 286 10 44 30 measured
27 predicted
5 700 170 205 900 measured
1040 predicted
6 346 20 77 N/A Res. Pres. not stabilized,
7 2434 460 > critical level N/A Tool blown uphole.
8 2341 190 > critical level N/A ToOl blown uphole.
9 1306 240 360 N/A
10 64 45 39 N/A
11 2268 550 " critical level N/A Tool blown uphole.
12 57 10 121 N/A
13 1000 N/A " critical level N/A Tool blown uphole.
14 240 195 170 N/A
15 2191 700 950 N/A
16 600 N/A " critical level N/A Tool blown uphole.
17 1000 large " critical level N/A Tool blown uphole.
18 508 N/A 38 NIA lOW permeability.
19 250 N/A 12 N/A
20 490 85 50 N/A lOw permeability.
21 717 32 169 N/A
261
SPE 21651
,216;1
FIGURE 1 - W!LL80RE/WIRELJNE RESPONSE TO UPWARC
FLOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER PERFORATING
CABLE


f URE BOnOMHOLE
r

........../
.t
IRED GUNS
....
.....,
.....
UNDERBALANCE
PRESSURE

"-
P--i> PIT--i>
FIGURE 3 - MWPT RECORDED RESPONSE liN
LOW PERMEABILITY FORMATION
J
1
2040
120
\
-
BonOMHOLE
PRESSURE
(ps,g)
(deg F)
PIT --i>
Figure 4
BonOMHOLE
)
r
1460
110
2000
700
FIRED GUNS 1
... -"""1
UIiJDERBALANCE
PBESSURE
"-
FIGURE 2 - MWPT RECORDED RESPONSE
IN HIGH PERMEABILITY FORMATION
P--i>
\


;
i PREo pURE
r
1000 (Ib)
o (psi g)
t

;::
eel
.GG.G 5GO.00 I
--lTNsfLW'-i
I
I
5000
250
(pslg)
(deg F)
GAS COI1PRESSIOII
o
o
3000
4000
(Ib)
(psig)
o
o
t

;::
DoNn Log Before Perforating for FILid Level Determination
262
SPE 21657
:0
':\IlUIU
::l-iC
....
Ie'
19
1
lee
lee
I
md- fd
mo
kh = 45l md-ft
k :; lS.OS mci
5 = -2.86
p* '" 4532 psia
19-
1
DELTA TtI1E. HR5
10-
1
Figure 6
Example 1: IM'U.SE Analysis Plot
DELTA TItlE. HRS
Figure 8
Example 2: M'U.SE Analysis Plot
lliJ-
Z
_7
Ie -
19-
3
19
11J
:9:]
-- I
I
" . "'''' -;"r'" I
,. /./ i
I I
i
19=
:r
I /'
I kh = 0.374
,;
I
k = 0.Ol7

5 = - 3

i
lei
2.0
3.6
I.B
32
1.6
2.8
1.4
24
ro:=======
O.B 1.0 1.2
Time (hours)
1.2
0.6
Figure 5
Example 1: Pre- and Post Perforating Data
OB
0.4
1.6 2.0
Time, hr
Figure 7
Example 2: Post Per10rating Pressll'e and Temperatll'e Data
",I" ="=
0.4
0.2
I
.................,."............................... I
666666666666
6666A6666...... f,.666A
'1&.66 .9

f
.
.
O-'L
::::;:(7)
wll>
,-0
0-
IUI
:;:G
0-
CJUI
(/)0.
27240
26910
2600.00
860000 F I I I I i I I I I
00
40000
I.OGOOE 104
4BOO
4500
4200
0
], 3900
..
5 3600
'"
'" ..
.t 3300
"
:g 3000
I
E
.2 2700
(;
lD
2400
2100
lBOO
0.0
'" g:
SPE 21651

.,
c:
:!l
Cl
'"
'"
'"

,- '"
III




E:
'"

Cl
'"
'"
:3
Figure 10
Example 2: Sandlace Rate Convolution Plot
"
,,////
'" '" '"
rJCJo [J CJ
'"
k =
kh ""
5 =
.10FI 0010:5 00\83 00377 00798 GIAOI 04446 1126 I
lit, lir
72 " 001233 md I ,1../ I
022186 rrld It
-0 IOI'JI 66
I'" / I -
0.6 iii iii I i I 1-1
-3.2 -2.B -24 -2.0 -16 -1.2 -08 -0,4 0.0 01 O,B
Role-Convolved Time Funclion
60
:154
C:l: 4,B
,
E 42
<1
36
"
6 30

Jl 2,4
IB
1.2
"
o 105 .
"
'"
'"
" o 120
"
o 135 J"
o 150 I I
'"
'"
'"
o045
0030J
0015
1
Tr!'!" II I i III'iiilll'l'lTCi I
0,000 Iii I i I I i I I
00 0.4 08 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2,B 32 3.b
Time, hr
Figure 9
Example 2: Computed DoNnhoIe FloNrates
"U
0090
U
:;; 0075
VJ
<{
(J (J 060
a

234,00
o
0- LL
:;;(J
IcJ W
1-0
217,50
IBOO,OO
0- .-
(Jill

o
o
o
",,,, ..

'"

J 150.00 I eJ f r iii I I i I
000 0.15 0,30 0.45 0.60 0,75 0,90 105 120 135 150 1.65
Time, hr
Figure 11
Example 3: Post Perforating PreSSlJ'e and TemperatlJ'e Data
seE 21657

Curve
Type Curve
[I
[I
[I
[I
[I Impul5e" Data
[I
D
kh .. 117 rrd-ft
s= -1.4
P" = 4747 psia
10
0

Time, hr
Figure 12
MWPT Analysis Plot
kh = 114 rrdft
I!l. s=3
:::I P" = 4613 p5ia
e
eJ
10
1
:::I
'"

a.
il

-iij 10
0

Q
-
a
a
o PreSlSure Data
a Derivatrv-e Data
10
1
10
2
DimensionleSlSTimEl, TO/CD
Figure 13
Conventional Buildup Analysis Plot
265