Underbalance Criteria for Minimum
Perforation Damage
LA. Bohrmann, SPE, Schlumberger
Bummary
A simple viscous drag force equation has been applied to single-shot
laboratory perforatiorr/flow experimental data to obtain perforation
damage skin vs. underbafance. The equations are applicable for oil
wells in consolidated, nonsanding formations and are a function of
reservoir porosity, permeability, and diameter of the perforation
tunnel in the rock,
llte equations are independent of oil compressibility and viscos-
ity. The dependency on perforation diameter suggests that larger
charges are more damaging than smafl charges and that big hole
charges are more damaging than equal-size deep penetrating
charges. The equations can be used to calculate an optimum under-
balance or a single-shot perforation skin for less than optimum un-
derbalance. The single-shot skin can be used in well-flow analysis
simulators to obtain a well perforation skhr.
Introduction
An estimate of the perforation damage skin before perforating a well
would allow an operator to evafuate alternative perforating and oth-
er completion options to obtain a financially optimum completion.
Removafof perforation damage is typically accomplished through
underhalance perforating or acid stimulation. Fracturing is used to
bypass the damage. This paper addresses the determination of the
minimum underbalance required to obtain clean (nondamaged) per-
forations. It also provides equations to calculate the expected perfo-
ration damage when less than the minimum under-balance is used.
Single-shot perforatirrg/flow experimental’6 have provided a ba-
sic understanding of perforation damage and underbalance cleanup.
Most of the data suggest that underbalances higher than current field
practice are required to obtain clean perforations. The data do not
suppcm early theories that turbulent flow is required to clean perfo-
rations. Although turbulent flow does occur at very early times with
low-viscosity fluids, it is not considered the dominant factor affect-
ing cleanup. TWOforces are considered. The first is the pressure dif-
ferential across a particle during the initial fluid decompression
from the radial pressure gradient. The second is the subsequent tran-
sient, weakly compressible radial flow (lamintw or turbulent). This
latter force is used as a starting point to obtain semiempirical under-
bahmceJskirr equations using the referenced data sets,
Background
Perforation Damage. Impact of the reservoir rock by the high-ve-
locity shaped-charge jet results in high shock pressures ( 1.5 million
psi at tunnel entrance to 150,000 psi at the perforation tip), which
comrninutes the adjacent rock, fractures sand grains, fails inter-
grain cementation, and deborrds clay particles. Additional effects
may include the transient injection of explosive products and well-
bore fluids into the perforation, creating a relative permeability
problem andor injecting wellbore debris into the perforation. The
primary perforation damage observed in laboratory experiments re-
sults from the grain fragmentation, creatin small particles that re-
duce pore throat size and thus permeability. $ In general, the porosity
in this damaged region is not significantly changed. Some “fines”
(secondary) damage has been observed and attributed to clay de-
borrding. The extent of damage is a function of rock strength (poros-
‘+vW 1* SOCWOfpettium Er@nsers
Original
SPE manuscriptrsceivadformviswMay1S, 19SS Revisedmanuscriptreceived
April8, 199SPspar peerapprovedApril23, 199S Papr (!SPEW81 ) fimtpmsenledat the
199SSPE EuropeanFonnaticmosma~ ConferenceheldinThe Hague,Ths Netherlands,
May1S-16.
SPE Drilling& Completion,September 19%
Perforating and Testing Center
ity). litiology, pore fluid compressibility, charge size and design,
clay content, and perhaps grain size.
In very had rock, it appears that microfractrrtes are created that
provide a fluid conduit bypass of the perforation damage. With
3,000 psi underbstlance, negative perforation damage skins have
been obtained in high-strength reservoir and outcrop rock cores.7
Failure and collapse of the perforation tunnel can occur in weak
but consolidated rock. Tunnel failure is thus a function of the rock
strength, effective stress, and underbalance. A transient increase in
effective stress occurs during the underbaksnce perforating process.
If this stress exceeds the rock failure, then progressive collapse of
the tunnel will occur. This can lead to faihsre of the rock between
perforations. This rock failure removes the ~rmeability damaged
zone (this is good), but may leave substantial sand debris in the ~r-
foration tunnel (this maybe bad),4
Larger chrrrges create a larger extent (absohrte and scaled) of the
damage zone and therefore either have a larger skin for the same un-
derbalance or require a larger underbalance for zero skin. More ef?i-
cient charges (increased penetration for equal explosive mass)
should be less damaging.
Perforation Cleanup. Perforation damage cleanup during under-
balanced perforating is the result of the transient decompression of
the reservoir fluid around the perforation once the reservoir/well-
bore pressure differential is established during the perforation pro-
cess. It is assumed that cleanup of the perforation damage is from
the dynamic forces (pressure differential and drag) on the fractured
sand grain particles that progressive y move/erode these particles
from the perforation tunnel walls, thus removing the permeability
damaged region. This is a very simple model and avoids questions
about observed perforation damage not adjacent to the perforation
tunnel, effect of wellbore fluids on damage/cleanup, nettability, etc.
Because these forces are highesl during fluid decompression, post-
shot pseudosteady-state flow does not roducc any substantial addi-
tional cleanup of the primary damage. ? However, post-shot flow can
help remove secondary (fines) damage.
Perforation cleanup is only weakly dependent on fluid viscosity
and, except for very viscous oils, perhaps greater than 100 cp can be
neglected. Wellbore fluid, brine, solvent, oil, and acid may have an
effect on cleanup because some of the wellbore fluid can be injected
into the perforation at shot time.
Recent laboratory experiments, ‘llsble 1, in Berea sandstone with
400+ cp oil gave skins at underbalances typical for tests with 1.5 cp
oil. t,2 All perforation tunnels were frr.e of loose sand debris. These
results suggest (I) a small and perhaps negligible viscosity depen-
dency on underbalance requirements, and (2) turbulent flow is not
required to clean perforations. The key issues fmm the test results
given in Table 1 are(1) apparent effect of wellbore fluids on perfora-
tion damage and (2) negligible effect of viscosity on perforation
damage with brine or kerosene wellbore fluids. When the wellbore
fluid was heavy oil, the perforation damage skin did not change with
underbalance and was similar to balanced tests where kerosene was
troth the pore and wellbore fluid. 1,2
A good summary paper on perforation damage and cleanup is
given by Halleck.8
Field Data and Various Correlations. King et aL9 provide the pr-
imary source of field data that correlates minimum underbakmce to
reservoir permeability. Crawford10 combines King’s work with
sonic velocity data to ive additional equations dependent upon
sanding potential. Tariq f 1analyzed King’s original plus new data to
propose analytic equations for minimum underbalance based on on-
set of turbulent flow (a critical Reynolds number) through the perfo-
173
 TABLE 1-HIGH VtSCOStTV OIL TEST DATA 1

I Test No.
Diametral
Permeability
Wellbore
Fluid
Underbalance
(I@
Viscosity
(W) Skin I
104 211 Kerosene 1,500 422 0.0
105 294 Heavy Oil o 422 3.0
106 202 Heavy Oil 1,000 422 2.4
107 168 Heavy Oil 1,500 422 2,6
1Oft 447 Wins 1 MS-l MM? 19

ration. Unfortunately, Tariq’s model requires a knowledge of the per-
foration damage zone tilckness, perforation tunnel dhrneter in the
r~k, and the “critical” Reynolds number, which must be a function
of the fluid viscosity. The Tariq undetbidance equation has the under-
balance ptessute increasing as viscosity squ~ however, recent lab-
oratory data do not suppoti tlds relationship. Therefore, the Tariq
“critical” Reynolds number would have to decrease as the viscosi[y
increased. This would quickly give Iaminar Darcy flow, which vio-
lates Tariq’s initial assumption of cleanup requiring turbulent flow,
and therefore the validity of the Tariq model is questionable.
Tltaory
Pressure Dtierential. Assuming that after the creation of the per-
foration tunnel there is only loose fractured sand (no liquid or high
pressure gas) in the tunnel, then a differential pressure boundary
condition exista at the tunnel walls equal to the reservoir pressure.
A decompression wave moves radially from the tunnel wall, reduc-
ing the reservoir pressure. This pressure reduction is a function of
the fluid and rock properties. If the pressure reduction at any given
radius is fast enough, then a substantial pressure differential across
a fractured sand grain can be developed. Unfortunately, computer
simulators are not currently available that treat shock decompres-
sion thmugb a porous media. Simulations using both continuum
mechanics and transient porous media codes suggest that the poten-
tial force fmm this pressure differential will only be important for
very low-viscosity fluids or very high permeabilities, The exper-
imental data base fmm which the following underbalance equations
are developed dces not include either of the above extremes, and
therefore the pressure differential force is assumed negligible.
Drag Force. If a continuous “cleaning” model is accepted where
perforation damage is removed from the perforation tunnel walls
outward, then at some radius there will be insufficient forces to
move particles. Except in the most extreme cases, the flow at this
boundary will be kmtinsr for a clean perforation near the perforation
damagehirgin reservoir interface. Although turbulent flow may ex-
ist at early time near the initial perforation rsdiius, the minimum drag
force to clean perforation damage will therefore occur at some dis-
tance fmm the initial tunnel radius and will, in general, be Iaminsr.
Thus, the analytical model presented in this paper will be limited to
the determination of optimum undertsalance for near-zero perfora-
tion damage assuming only laminar viscous drag.
The drag force is
FD=CDJW%V2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(1)
1,4
~ 1.2
where CD = drag coeff]ciem, p = fluid density, v = fluid velocity,
and A = particle cross-section area. The drag coeftlcient is
CD= 1/flRe , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . (2)
where NRC= Reynolds number and y = a shape coefficient equal to
one for a sphere. The Reynolds number is given by
NRe= pvt)lp, . . . ...).. ............................ (3)
where d = a characteristic pore size and # = fluid viscosity.
Assuming spherical grains with an average and constant area,
then
F~av@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)
From Van Everdingen, 12the transient radial flow into a wellbore
or perforation is given in terms of dimensionless flow, Q, and di-
mensionless time, t. The total flow per unit length of perforation tmr-
rrel is
@-(mIfcm oflengtb)=27r@C#APQ, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
where @J=interconnected porosity (fraction), C = fluid compress-
ibility (I/bar), r = tunnel radius (cm), and M = pressure differential
(bar).
The total time is
7@c)=@C?t/k, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(6)
where k = rock Permeability, Pore flow velocity at the perforation
radius, r, is
vr=(dQr\d~l&ea, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ...(7)
where Area = 2m-@.Therefore,
Vr = (k&/@# r)(dQ/d~), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B)
where dQ/dt is a dimensionless flow rate. Thus, the drag force is
FDtr(kAMr@r)(dQ/@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9)
The dimensionless flow rate, dflJdt, is a function of the dime-
nsionlesstime, t, and the ratio of the test core/perforation radius, r~r,
which is typically 10 or larger for the referenced experiments, This
means from Van Everdhgen that the dimensionless flow rate, up to
about time r = 30, is only a function of r, F%. L
The problem now is to decide how to treat the dimensionless flow
rate. An example of real times and flow rates will be used in this
evaluation. Consider a Berea test core with 20% porosity, 2tXt md,
oil viscosity of 1.52 cp, oil compressibility of 0.00005/tsar, perfora-
tion tunnel radius of 0.5 cm, and a differential pressure of 100 bar.
The flow rate and total fluid flowed percentimeterof tunnel vs. time
.- - ..

1’
Q8
0.6
a4
-- ”---- -
a2
I
o t 01234567 8910
o 10 23 so a so a mm, n4nnc
~lkm
Fig. 2—Total flow snd ftow rste vs. tlms, from van Evsrdingan,
Fig. l—Dimensionless flow rstes, from Vsn Evsrdingen. rdr= 10.

174 SPE Drilling& Completion.September 1996

 Gold sandstone, 3.2 gm charge Beraa sandstone, 3.2 gm charge
3s” 31
3.
2.5-‘,
2.5- ‘
\ 2-
2-
.
$ l.5- 81,5-
.
1-
\
1- ..
0.5- . .
0.5-
o- .
. .
.
4.57 0.
0 400 m 1200 laoo 0 400 awl 1200 Iaoo
CMa Put@/t3”tP~ OatraH@%O@s

Fig. 3-Pasrforatlng akin va. drag. Fig. 4-Perforating skirtvs. drag.

is shown in Fig. 2. The Van Everdingen solution is for a stationary
tunnel radius, whereas the proposed perforation damage cleanup
model has an increasing tunnel radius as the damage is cleaned up.
This will increase the early-time flow rate and total flow but will de-
crease the flow veloeit y proportional to the inverse of the tunnel ra-
dius. The dimensionless time of 30 is equivalent, for this example,
to 0.82 milliseconds. During this time, the flow rate has decreased
to 113of its initial value and 1/3of the total flow has oecrrrred. It is
suggested that cleanup will occur during this time and that a critical
(minimum) drag force will have been reached. Because the dimen-
sionless flow rate changes only slightly from a dimensionless time
of 20 to 40. a constant value is assumed for the critical dimension-
less flow rate. It is noted that at a shock veloeity of 0.11 mrn/micm-
seeonds, the shock from the decompression wave has traveled 89
mm, or about one round trip transit time for a 4-in. (100 mm) diame-
ter test core.
For most of the referenced test data,],z there was no transient post-
shot flow, 13therefore perforation cleanup could only occur from the
fluid decompression. From Bartusiak’s Fig. 7,5 the peak measured
flow rate after a 1,500 psi underbalance test where post-shot flow
was allowed was 66 mUs or 3.3 mlJs/cm for a 7.9 in. perforation,
about 1/1o of the decompression flow rate at 0.82 millisecond, Fig.
2. Therefore, it is postulated that the fluid flow during decompres-
sion surge provides the drag force to dislodge the fractured grains
and begins the process of removing them from the tunnel. The sub-
sequent transient flow helps sweep any remaining fractured grains
out of the perforation tunnel but is not significant in providing fur-
ther perforation damage cleanup.5
The critical drag force is therefore
FDakAp/b@, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
A number of different correlations (for example, Collins, Ward,
and Slichter) 14 have been suggested for the “characteristic pore
size.” All gave similar correlations with the test data, therefore the
simple correlation of Ward was chosen, where
bakfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (11)
The critical drag force is thus
F@kfiAP/@D, .................................
where D is the tunnel diameter.
Data Correlation
Three sets of data’ ,2,5were used to determine an empirical value for
the critical drag force: ( 1) a 3.2-gram charge shot into 4-in.
(100-mm) diameter Berea sandstone; (2) a 3.2-gram charge shot
into 4-in. (100-mm) diameter Gold sandstone; and (3) a 15-gram
charge shot into 7-in. (178-mm) diameter Berea sandstone. For each
set of data, a plot of single shot skhr (experimental measurement) vs.
the proposed drag force (Eq. 12) will yield the critical drag force at
the intercept of zero sk[n. The three plots of Eq. 12 gave very differ-
ent intercepts. The perforation tunnel diameter dependence had to
be reduced to obtain a correlation between all data sets. The reasoa
Berea aandatone, 15 gm oharge
le-
12-
\ .
a- = .
i .
4- 1
.
0- : \
.~
0 1200 lam
rnna Pv@310.LW3
Fig. S-Perforating akfn va. drag.
for this will require a more detailed study of both the damage and
cleanup mechanisms. The correlation that gives consistent results
was to reduce the tunnel diameter dependency to @.3. Plots of the
three data sets are shown in F@. 3 through 5. The critical underba-
lance for near zero perforation damage is therefore
AP=l,480r@3/k%,k>100 md, ................. . (13)
where AP is in psi, # in percentage, kin md, D in inches, and 1.480
is the average intercept from Figs. 3 through 5.
One of the deficiencies of the data set is the small range of per-
meabilities tested; Berea had a nominal permeability of 200 md
while Gold sandstone permeabilityy was about 100 md. Application
of @ 13 to recent low-permeability reservoir core and outcrop
roek7 gives very high underbalances relative to test data. For most
of the tests, there was no perforation damage and the single shot
skins were negative. To accommodate the lower-permeability rock
test data, the permeability dependency was redueed from k0.5 to
k033. The 0.33 exponent is an arbitrary numtxr to allow an engi-
neering estimate of the critical underbalance for the lower perme-
ability reservoirs. Obviously, this whole subject of @oration dam-
age and cleanup is much more complex than the simple engineering
(12)
approach discussed in this paper.
For reservoir permeabilities less than 100 md, the following equa-
tion is proposed for the minimum underbalanee for near zero perfo-
ration damage skin.
AP=687@3/kln,k <100md. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (14)
For reservoirs with pcrmeabilities greater than 100 md, use Eq.
13.
To calculate perforation damage for underbalances less than
those given in the above equations, the following equations are pro-
posed to calculate skin for a single perforation.
Skins = (CD/20)2 *(2.64 – 0.00395*AP kl’3/@@-3),
fork< 100md. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)

SPE Drilling& Completion. September 19% 175

I
I TABLE 2—WELL SKIN CALCULATIONS
Formation Casing Average Total
Gun Penetration, Hole Diameter, Tunnel Diameter, Single Permeability Ratio wall Productivity
No. in. in, in. Shot Skin kl-wlk Skin Ratio
1 4 0.26 0.55 1.76 0.40 5.46 0.59
1 4 0.26 0.55 0 1 3.09 0.72
2 14 0.31 0.64 3.64 0.20 2.35 0.77
2 14 0.31 0.64 0 1 0.03 1.00
3 22.3 0.37 0.76 12.1 0.07 1.36 0.64
3 22.3 0.37 0.76 0 1 -1.06 1.17

Skins.= (CD/20)2 *(2.64 – 0.00183*AP ktD/#@3), TABLE 3-RATIOS OF WELL PRODUCTtVf’fV

fork> 100md. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
D = EHIUNI*[3.27 – 0.61 ln(UCS)], for deep penetrating charges,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
where CD= liner charge diameter in mm, EHN80 is the casing en-
trance hole in N80 casing, and UCS is the unconfined compressive
rock strength in Kpsi.
Again, the need for two sets of equations is caused by limited data
at both the high and low ends of reek perrneabilit y. For strong (low-
permeability) reek, another parameter needs to be added to Eqs. 14
and 15 to account for the “micro fracturing” of the brittle rock. For
weak (high-permeability) rock, a rock-strength parameter needs to
be added to @s. 13 and 16 to account for perforation tunnel failure.
Vkcosity dependence is accommodated through the particle
shape factor given in Eq. 2. Analysis of the limited data in Table 1
suggests a shape factor between 0,8 and 0.9. This would provide a
viscosity dependency in Eqs. 13 through 16 with an exponent be-
tween 0.1 and 0.2.
Use of the proposed underbalance and skin equations will help
answer two frequently asked perforating questions: (I) how much
underbalance is requited to have clean or 100% effective perfora-
tions, and (2) if the optimum underbalance is not possible, what is
the expected perforation damage skin? The perforation damage
skins given in Eqs. 15 or 16 arc for single-shot test cores ordy. These
skhs must be translated into a reservoir skin for a given wellbore,
perforation, and reservoir configuration. A reservoir in-flow simu-
lator is required. Typical input to these simulators, in addition to per-
foration depth, entrance hole, and reservoir properties, are the ratio
of perforation damage zone to reservoir permeabllities, h@k. and
the damage or crushed zone thickness, td, which up to now have
generally heen guessed.
Application and Discussion
If we assume extent of damage, td= 0.6 in., then the following
equation can be used to calculate an equivalent permeability reduc-
tion, k#.
Ratioof Well Productivity
No perforation damage/perforation
Gun Number Damage
1 1.22
2 1.30
3 1.39
The rock compressive strength and effective stress are used only
in the calculation of the downhole penetration and tunnel diameter.
The skins associated with a 500 psi un&rbalance are given in ‘llsble
2. The sensitivity of the charge size (tunnel diameter) is clearly seen
in the increasing optimum underbrdance for the larger perforating
guns.
Table 2 shows the obvious advantage of deep penetrating large
charges (phasing also helps) for increased productivity. However,
‘lhble 3 shows that a larger underbalance is required for deeper
penetrating charges to have the same relative production ratios as
for smaller charges. Table 3 also shows that substantial increases in
well productivity is possible with higher underbalance than typical-
ly used.
Conclusions
Optimum underbalance and perforation damage skin equations
have been developed and normalized to single-shot laboratory per-
foration flow data. Although the detailed physics of perforation
cleanup have been simplified, the combined theoreticaUempirical
solutions provides additional means to estimate either an optimum
underbalance for “neat-” zero perforation damage or to estimate the
skin from perforation damage with less than optimum underba-
lance. A direct comparison with King et al. kdata is subject to guess-
ing the posity and charge size. However, given reasonable porosi-
ties, the optimum underbalance calculated from this paper will be
two to four times that given by King. This is not necessarily unex-
pected because King et al. do not suggest that their data represent
no perforation damage, only that matrix acidization is not effective
if sufficient underbalrmce is used.

k@c=ht (r#%)/[ln(rjr~/~) +SkinJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)

A= particle cross-section area, L2, cm2
where rp = D12, and r~ = rp + t~. c= fluid compressibility, Ubar
Three examples, using Eqs. 13, 16, and 18, will be presented to CD= liner charge diameter, L, mm
&monstrate the calculation of optimum underbalance and perforrs- CD= drag coefficient
tion skin for an underbalance insutllcient to yield no perforation D= tunnel diameter, L, cm
damage. EHN80= casing entrance hole in N80 casing, L, in.
Reservoir pmpe~”es, urtderfw&rnce, and guns. FD= drag force
Rock unconfined compressive strength: 7,000 psi, k= rock permeability, L2, md
Effective stress: 3,000 psi, k@= ratio of perforation damage zone to reservoir
Permeability: 200 md, permeabiiities
Porosity: 18%, NRe= Reynold’s number
Underbalance 500 psi, typical for 2(X)md P= underbalance pressure, rrt/Lt2, psi
Gun 1 11l/lb, 4 Spf, t)” phase, AP = pressure differential, bar for transient flow equation
Optimum underbalance 1,570 psi, 0= dimensionless flow
Gun 2 2 l/.,4 spf, +!– 45° phase, dQMt = dimensionless flow rate
Optimum underbalance 1,651 psi, r=r- = tunnel radius, L, cm
Gun 3 4%, 5 spf, 72° phase, rO/r= ratio of the test core/perforation radkts
Optimum underbalance 1,735 psi. t= dimensionless time

176 SPE Drilling& Completion, September 1996

 damageor cmshed zone thickness, L, in. ‘tldsa Centemial Petroleum Engineering Symposium, Tulsa, OK, Aug.
time, t, seconds 29-31.
unconfined compressive reek strength, rn/Lt2, psi 9. King, G.E., Anderson, A,, and Bingham, M.: “A Field Study of Urrder-
bal~ce Pressures Necessary to Ob&in Clean Perforation Using Tubing-
fluid velocity, Ut, cm/s
Conveyed Perforating,” JPT (June 1986)662-664; Trans., AIME, 2S1.
fluid density, #cc 10. Crawford, H. R.: ‘TJnderbalmrccd Perforating Design,” paper SPE
a shape coefficient equal to one for a sphere 19749 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
a characteristic pore size hibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8- I 1.
fluid viscosity, rn/Lt, cp 1I. Tariq, S.: “New, Generalized Criteria for Determining the Level of Un-
interconnected porosity, fraction derbatance for Obtaining CleanPerforations,” psper SPE 20636 pres-
ented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibkion,
New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
Acknowrledgmemts
12. Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: ‘The Application of the LaPlace
Thanks to Schlumberger Well Services for allowing publication. Transformation to Ftow problems in Reservoirs,” Trarr$., American
Many thanks to Dr. Phil Halleck for many stimulating discussions Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 1S6,Dallas (1949).
and review of the manuscript. 13. API RP 43 “Recommended Practices for Evacuation of Well Perfora-
tors,” American petroleum Inst., fifth edition, Washington,DC (Jan.
1991).
Rafarancos
14. Flow Through Porwus Media, RogerJ.M. de Wlest (ed.)Academic Press
1.Behrrnann, L.A, et al.: “Measurement of Additional Skin Resulting ( 1969) 97-99.
From Perforation Damage,” paper SPE 22809 presented al the 1991
SPE Annturf Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9,
S1Metric Convoraion Factora
2. Hsia, T-Y. and Behrmsnn, L. A.: “Perforating Skin as a Function of R~k
Permeability and Underbalance,” paper SPE 22810 presented at the bar X 1.O* E+05 =Pa
1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallss, Oct. Cp x 1.O* E–03=Pa. s
6-9. in. X2.54* E+ OO=cm
3. Puckoell, J. K..and Behrrnann, L. A.: “An Investigation of the Damaged md x 9.869233 E–04 =flm2
Zone Created by Perforating: paper SPE 22811 presented at the 1991 psi X6.894 757 E+ OO=kPa
SPE Annual Technical Conference rmrfExhibition, Dallas, Ott, 6-9.
“CorrvrsrsirmIsctar is sweet. SPEDC
4. Behmrann, L. A., Pucknell, J. K., and Bishop,S.R.: “Effectsof Undcrba-
lance and EffectiveStress on Perforation Damage in Weak Sandstone:
Initial Results,” paper SPE 24770 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual
Lawrence A.Bahrmann Is manager of advanced studks at the
T=hnical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7.
Schlumberger perforating ond Testing Center in Rosharan, TX.
5. Bartusiak, R., Behmrann, L. A., and Halleck, P.M.: “Experiments Inves-
He holds a SS degree from the U. of California, Berkeley, and an
tigate Underbalance Ftow Velocity and Volume Needed to Obtain Perfo-
MS degree from Lehigh U., both h mechardccsl engineering.
ration Cleanup,” paper SPE 26896 presented at the 1993 SPE Eastern
Behrmann specializes In the design of perforators and their kr-
Regional Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Nov. 2-4, teractlon with reservoks,
6. Rochon, J,: “VISCOUSFluids Characterize the Crushed Zone,” SPEDC
(Sept. 1995) 198.
7, Blosser, W.R.: “’An Assessment of Performing Performance for High
Compressive Strength Non-Homogeneous Sandstones,” paper SPE
30082 presented at the 1995 SPE Eurpoean Formation Damage Control
Conference, llre Hague, May 15-16.
8. Hallcck, P.M.: “Advances in Understanding Perforator Penetration and
Ffow Performance,” paper SPE 27981 presented at the 1994 SPE U. of

SPE Drilling& Completion, September 1996 t 77