SPE-177252-MS

Abrasive Perforation Technique Optimize Production and Avoid

Reservoir Damage in COCA Field Ecuador
Luis Carrera J., Oscar Morales, Sierra Fabricio, Nayda Teran and Alexandra Monge, Petroamazonas E.P, Jhonny
Alvarez, Halliburton.

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Quito, Ecuador, 1820 November 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
There are several techniques to optimize production and avoid reservoir damage caused in the different
phases of the development of oil wells (perforation, completion, production and workover), ranging
from the control of water, chemical stimulation, mechanical stimulation,fracture, re-perforation of
producing areas, etc.
In the case of phase completion, holes are perforated through canyons to connect the reservoir with the
wellbore and get well production, however this technique, often not doing its job, because it does not
exceed the damaged area, produced in the drilling phase, when applying sludge systems or the primary
cementing is performed, brings further cause damage to the compacted in the vicinity of each hole area.
Abrasive perforation technique was used in 1958 approximately and thanks technological advances in
the field of materials and chemistry, has had substantial improvements, has created new expectations for
avoid formation damage and hence an improvement in the production of oil producing wells.
In order to analyze and predict the well Productivity, it is necessary to perform an appropriate
perforating analysis; this can be achieved integrating Petrophysics, Geomechanics, Reservoir and
Production Domains. For an advanced Perforating design a clear understanding of rock characteristic,
depth of damaged zone and reservoir behavior is used in the Perforating simulation. This enhances the
right selection of charges and ensures they will overpass the altered zone.
Abrasive perforation technique has been used to optimize production from oil wells and avoid the
reservoir damage to the drilling and completion phase, replacing conventional techniques shooting. This
methodology was implemented in Coca Field. This helped to optimize and predict the productivity of
the wells.

Introduction
The Coca field is one of the first fields of oil production in Ecuador. In 1970 the first well was drilled,
however the production phase began in 1991. In 2011 it was decided to start a new drilling campaign,
2 SPE-177252-MS

through seismic studies conducted where two areas that had not yet been drained.
The wells of the new campaign had a very rapid decline, which led to studies by taking cores for PVT
data, performing analysis porary throat, rock mechanics, aplication of new methods of shooting, so it
was decided to apply the abrasive perforation technique.
The abrasive perforation technique was introduced in the oil industry in the late 60s and was to perforate
the casing with high pressure abrasive fluid. In Ecuador never before it has been made holes using this
technique, however the previous analysis of petrophysical, rock properties and reservoir, the mechanical
condition of the well and all the own phases of the technique entailed to get positive results.

Reservoir damage
The productivity of an oil well is affected by several parameters such as permeability, the thickness of
the sandstone, reservoir pressure, fluid viscosity, the formation damage, etc.
The study of formation damage is regarded as one variable of the most important in affecting the
productivity of an oil well. This concept has been analyzed in depth, achieving identify several factors
that make it up, here is a summary of these factors:
Damage during the drilling.- Mainly has the promoted by drilling fluids, the well geometry (inclination
or wellbore deviation) and primary cementing.
Damage during the completacin.- Mainly has produced by the shooting, and caused by completion
fluids.
Damage during the production.- As fines migration, asphaltene and paraffin and change relative
permeability, primarily.
To avoid the damage caused by the above factors, in each phase of the development of a well (drilling,
completion, production and workover), and optimize the production of it, there are several techniques
such as:
The study of throat porary to determine a mud system that minimizes leakage to the producing
area.
Analyzing primary cementing systems according to the properties of the reservoir and the
permeability of nearby wells
Make use of techniques of shots that do not cause much damage as the abrasive perforation
technique
Use completion fluids that do not cause swelling of clays.
Determine the chemical injection to avoid precipitation of asphaltenes and paraffins.
Conduct studies to establish the optimum "draw down" to avoid the fines migration.

Abrasive perforation technique.

Abrasive Perforation Technique is necessary to cut peroration inside the casing, cement and
communicate the oil reservoir to the wellbore. The number of perforation (spf) can be increased to suit
the reservoir requirements.
This technology is basically a flow through an orifice based on the Bernoulli principle where the
pressure energy is converted into kinetic energy related to fluid velocity. The technique for creating this
type of perforations uses an abrasive fluid consisting of sand and gel. Thus the material of the
formations is removed to achieve a perforation or tunnel through the oil reservoir, creating a clean
3 SPE-177252-MS

perforation without damage with a flow area which is much greater than that obtained with conventional
systems guns.
The success of this technique depends on the following important parameters:
The drilling fluid must be sufficiently viscous, which should have an optimal concentration to
meet the following aspects:
o Obtain low pressure losses
o Raise the solids to surface.
o Create a laser effect at the time of perforation. In this way all the energy is optimized and
focused on a single point, the point of perforation.
Tubing used to transport the abrasive fluid must be able to withstand high pressures less than the
burst pressure of the pipe (7000 psi) and 8 8.8 bpm as flow rate required.
The nozzle should have a diameter geometry (0.25 in) to help achieve pressure losses necessary
to achieve the kinetic energy required to cause abrasion and remove the casing, cement and
formation material.
Once perforation has been made with the abrasive fluid, a cleaning process is performed, to do this, an
organic acid compound is used which help to clean traces of gel that are around the holes created due to
the perforation fluid.
Well case history
To optimizing production and minimize damage from oil wells fromations, this paper presents two wells
of Coca field in Ecuador whose both petrophysical, geological (rock mechanics) and reservoir are
similar. The first well (Well A) was perforated using conventional perforating technique which use
explosives and the second well (Well B) using the technique of abrasive perforating fluid which only
uses gel and sand to created perforations.
Petrophysical, geological and reservoir characteristics of the Hollin sandstone in the
two wells
The evaluation of electric logs, cuttings analysis and core analysis results, allowed to determine the
average values of: oil net thickness, effective porosity and oil saturation, by petrophysical evaluation of
Wells.

UPPER
HOLLIN

Fotography 1. Upper Hollin: Sand with glauconite.

4 SPE-177252-MS

MAIN
HOLLIN

Fotography 2. Main Hollin: Sand with caolinite.

At the core taken in well C near the two wells in study, it shows that "Upper Holln" have glauconite
(Photography 1) and "Main Holln" have kaolinite (Photography 2).
The following values are used for the petrophysical evaluation of Hollin Sandstone, obtained from core
analyzes of well C

SANDSTONE
PARAMETER SYMBOL
Uper Hollin Main Hollin
Cementation exponent m 1,67 1,7
Saturation exponent n 1,7 1,73
Constant a 1 1

Table 1. Parameters used to evaluate the petrophysical of the Hollin sandstone in the field COCA

In addition, to the Hollin sandstone the following cutting parameters (cut-off) were used:

SANDSTONE
PARAMETER SYMBOL
Uper Hollin Main Hollin
Clay volumem VCL < = 40% < = 40%
Porosity > = 8% > = 10%
Water Saturation Sw < = 50% < = 50%
Table 2. Parameters of cut-off the Hollin sandstone in the field COCA
5 SPE-177252-MS

Fotografa 3. Fotografas de una muestra de arenisca Hollin donde se visualiza caolinita en la matriz
The following photos show the kaolinite mineral present in the matrix of the upper Hollin sandstone.
This clay mineral causes plugging in the pores of the rocks due to high rates of Draw Down (above 40%
- 50%) in the wells of COCA field in Ecuador.

The fluid properties depend on the pressure and temperature under in-situ conditions. The study of PVT
showed that upper hollin sandstone has a viscosity of 4.1 cp.
6 SPE-177252-MS

Petrophysical interpretation of wells A and B

ho = 19 pies
Por = 14 %
Sw = 20 %
K = 138 mD

Grfico 1. Petrophysical evaluation of Upper Hollin Grfico 2. Petrophysical evaluation of Upper Hollin
sandstone in Well A sandstone in Well B
The following averages values were obtained from Petrophysical evaluation in well A (Hollin Superior
reservoir): Net thickness 24 ft, Efectve porosity 16%, Water saturation 20%, Shale percent Volumen
10% and Permeabilily 180 md.
The following averages values were obtained from Petrophysical evaluation in well B (Hollin Superior
reservoir): Net thickness 19 ft, Efectve porosity 14%, Water saturation 20%, Shale percent Volumen
14% and Permeabilily 162 md.

Comparative analysis of production wells A and B

Within the comparative analysis of the wells A and B formation damage it was analyzed. Whereas both
rock properties and reservoir are similar according to open hole logs and reservoir characterization.
Permeability and porosity values are totally diferent for noth wells. Perforating techniques for well A
which uses explosives and Perforating technique using abrasive fluid to the well B vary completely from
the perforating method to the way the perforation is created.
In the well A, use a conventional perforating technique based on low dynamic balance. This technique
uses surgency cameras, combined with the burning propellant (potassium perchlorate). In contrast, the
reservoir in well B was connected to the wellbore using the technique of abrasive fluid which uses gel
and sand to performed the tunnels or perforations in the reservoir.
To achieve the perforations in the well B. 0.25 "diameter Jets were used at a flow rate of 8.8 bpm and an
estimated surface pumping pressure of 6,000 to 7,000 psi. 16 stages of abrasive fluid were made.
Below is presented a table used for the comparative analysis where the rock properties and reservoir
wells A and B are described.
7 SPE-177252-MS

Convencional Abrasive
PARAMETER Technique Perforation.
(Well A) (Well B)
Sand Hollin Sup. Hollin Sup.
Porosity %

Petrophisical
16 14
BSW 2,5 5
V shale % 10 14
K average (md)* 100 27
180 162
Rd (ft) 600
Pr (psi) 4200
Pb (psi) 250
Reservoir

T (F) 220
API 26
Uo (cp) 4,1
Bo (bbls/stdB) 1,08
Salinity (ppm) 1500
Total Perforated Interval length (ft) 41 18

10023 -10029 11163 - 11168

Perforations

Intervals perforated (ft)

10041 - 10076 11173 - 11186
Perforations per feet (ppf). 5 4
Perforation Length (in) 14 10
Perforation diameter (in) 0,4 2
Confining pressure (psi) 1.500
Geomechanics

Compressive strength (psi) 19.681

Youngs Modulus (psi) 4,51E+06
Poissons Ratio 0,201

Table 3. Reservoir And Petrophisical Properties.

The table shows the following parameters: petrophisical, reservoir and perforations characteristics
which were used to simulate the IPR curves. In the table can be demonstrated that Well A which was
perforated using conventional techniques has bather permeability Than well A. Also, Well A has longer
interval than well B.
In graphic 3, the IPR curves shows the Open Hole curves of Wells A and B. These curves represent the
ideal well productivity, without any damage (just open hole). From these two curves it can be deduced
that well productivity for well A is better than well B, because it has better properties of porosity and
permeability, as well as a larger reservoir thickness.
8 SPE-177252-MS

Graphic 3. Open Hole IPR curves to wells A and B

Graphic 4. IPR curves well A Graphic 5. IPR curves well B

In graphic 4, shows the actual well IPR curve A shows (in red) is affected by damage equivalent to S =
15. Then, conventional perforating Technique did not mitigate the damage due to the drilling and this
technique further increase the damage becouse of the material of the casing, cement and explosives.
In graphic 5, shows the actual well IPR curve B (red) shows that the abrasive perforation thecnique
increase well productivity thanks to stimulation that is reflected in a value equal to -3.36 so negative
damage occurred (Stmulated), S = -3.36.
The curves were obtained in software using the actual parameters of the wells described in Table 3.
To determine the benefit of using the abrasive perforation technique, historical production curves are
analyzed and the cumulative curves of oil from wells A and B, remembering that the well A have better
petrophysical characteristics that the well B, both wells produce of sandstone "Upper Hollin".
As shown in the graphic 6, the production curve of the well A is less than the curve of the Well B,
considering that the reservoir properties are similar. This difference is based on reducing the damage
caused in the drilling phase of the well B, thanks to the application of the abrasive perforation technique,
resulting in a better connection of the reservoir with the wellbore due to increased penetration and area
flow.
9 SPE-177252-MS

Graphic 6. Historical production of oil from wells A and B

In the graphic 7, the curves of cumulative production for the wells A and B are observed, where you can
appreciate the well A, fired with a conventional technique, cumulate lower volume of oil that the well B,
that was drilled with abrasive perforation technique. In 274 days of production, the cumulative
difference between A and B wells, results in a volume of approximately 189.000 barrels which means a
124% increase of oil.
In resume, the use of abrasive perforation technique helped improve productivity of the well B.

Graphic 7. Oil cumulated, wells A and B

Conclusions
The following conclusions were obtained once the wells were on production:
Selection of the better intervals to produce
Low Uncertainty of well productivity prediction
Confirmed effective communication between borehole and reservoir
Skin reduction due to a better perforating selection and design
Making proper decisions when analyzing project cost versus production.
The oil recovery is more efficient using this new technology besides avoid of the damage caused
by various factors during drilling and well completion.
10 SPE-177252-MS

Currently, conventional methods of shooting, has not been able to significantly reduce the damage
caused to the formation, this new technique opens a window to mitigate to the maximum or even
disappear that damage.
Abrasive perforation technique has been applied successfully and effectively as a solution to optimize
production and avoid reservoir damage.
Formation damage caused by conventional firing techniques can be minimized by using proper abrasive
fluid to create perforations.
One of the main benefits of using an abrasive fluid to create perforations is the flow area which is much
larger than those obtained with conventional techniques. This helps minimize plugging tunnels performed.
This job presents an innovate workflow that allows proper planning and designs to predict and optimize
productivity with success in different kind of reservoirs. This methodology accurately predicted the
productivity of the wells, opening a new scenario where the projects profitability can be analyzed.

Acknowledges
Special thanks to the team of petrophysics, reservoir geology and operations of PETROAMAZONAS
EP and Engineer Jhonny Alvarez (Halliburton), who contributed with preparation the results presented
in this paper.

Nomenclature
Pb = Bubble pressure
K = Permeability
Rd = Drainage Radius
Pr =Reservoir Pressure
T = Reservoir Temperature
=Oil Viscosity @ 4200 psi
Bo = Oil formation factor
BSW = Water cut
API =Oil gravity
Ppf = Perforation per feet
Vcl =content of clay
m =cementation exponent
n =saturation exponent
a =Constant
Sw =water saturation
=porosity

References

Kritsanaphak, K., Tirichine, S., and Abed, M.L., 2010, Using Hydrajet Perforating Technique as an
Effective Alternative to Explosive Perforating for Algerian Oil and Gas Fields. Paper IADC/SPE
136066 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 1-3 November 2010.

Surjaatmadja, J. B., Bailey, A., and Sierra S., 2009, Hydrajet Testing Under Deep-Well Conditions
Points to New Requirements for Hard-Rock Perforating. Paper SPE 122817 presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver, 14 16 April 2009.
11 SPE-177252-MS

Pekarek, J.L., Lowe, D.K., and Huitt, J.L., 1963, Hydraulic Jetting Some Theoretical and
Experimental Results. Paper SPE 421 presented at 37th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, Los Angeles,
California, 7 10 October 1962.

Pittman, F.R., Harriman D.W., and John, J.C., 1961, Investigation of Abrasive-Laden-Fluid Method For
Perforation and Fracture Initiation. Paper SPE 1607-G presented al 31st Annual California Regional Fall
Meeting of SPE, Pasadena, California, 20 21 October 1960.

Ousterhout, R.S., 1961, Field Applications of Abrasive-Jetting Techniques. Paper SPE 67, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, April 10, 1961.