C o m p l e t i o n s To d a y
Underbalance-Pressure Criteria
for Perforating Carbonates
Single-shot laboratory flow tests were per-
formed with limestone and dolomite cores
to determine perforation damage as a func-
tion of underbalance pressure. The calcu-
lated perforation skins from carbonate
perforating experiments are not well
described by earlier sandstone correla-
tions. In particular, the reliance on rock
permeability as a predictor of perforation
cleanup does not work for carbonates.
Perforation skin for carbonates is best
related to peak underbalance pressure and
rock strength. The results of this study sug-
gest that the initial perforation-cleanup
mechanism 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 forma-
tion is re-established through the perfora-
tions. It is accepted that underbalanced per-
forating can facilitate perforation cleanup
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 could be
applied to carbonates was unknown.
The full-length paper describes nine single-
shot laboratory flow tests performed to evalu-
ate underbalance-pressure perforating strate-
gies in carbonates. The perforating experi-
ments were carried out under simulated down-
hole conditions. Perforation damage and sub-
sequent cleanup were evaluated as functions of
rock and simulated wellbore conditions. The
perforating experiments were conducted with
Bedford-limestone and Silurian-dolomite cores
and 15- and 21.7-g deep-penetrating charges.
The perforation tests were conducted at initial
wellbore underbalance pressures ranging from
500 to 4,000 psi. Five of the nine perforation
tests were shot into limestone-core targets
using both 15- and 21.7-g charges. Four of the
nine perforation tests were shot into dolomite-
core targets with the 15-g charge.
Several authors have proposed correla-
tions to estimate the underbalance pressure
necessary for perforation cleanup. This ear-
OCTOBER 2004
lier work focused on sandstones and is not
necessarily applicable to carbonates.
Experimental Setup and Procedure
The perforating-test program simulated per-
forating an oil reservoir with brine across the
perforations and the well open at the 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 in the full-length paper.
The cores were first dried and then vacuum
saturated with 3% potassium chloride (KCl)
brine. With the core under an effective confin-
ing stress of 3,000 psi, K-1 kerosene was flowed
through the cores until they reached irre-
ducible brine saturation. The axial and cross-
diameter permeabilities to kerosene at irre-
ducible brine saturation were measured for
each core. Initial permeability to kerosene
serves as a benchmark by which the effective
productivity of the perforated core can be mea-
sured. The flow outlet was to ambient pressure,
and inlet pressure was allowed to vary as gov-
erned by the flow rate and core permeability.
The pressure-vessel design allows duplica-
tion of downhole conditions, including con-
fining stress, pore pressure, and wellbore pres-
sure. 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 pore pressure. A
simulated wellbore (SWB) holds the wellbore
fluid (3% KCl brine) and perforating gun. The
shaped charge is placed inside a modified per-
forating gun in the wellbore at a standoff of 0.5
in. from the 1.125-in.-thick shooting plate
(0.375 in. steel and 0.75 in. Class H cement)
to simulate well casing and cement. Pore and
SWB accumulators simulate the far-field reser-
voir and wellbore, respectively.
For perforating, the pore pressure was set
at 5,000 psi for each of the tests and the
wellbore pressure was varied to obtain the
desired underbalance or overbalance pres-
sure. The confining pressure was 8,000 psi
for all tests, for an effective stress (confining
less pore) of 3,000 psi for all the tests.
The tests are divided into three categories
based on core and perforating-charge type.
This article, written by Assistant Tech-
nology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
highlights of paper SPE 86542, “Under-
balance-Pressure Criteria for Perforating
Carbonates,” by S.T. Subiaur, Pemex,
and C.A. Graham, I.C. Walton, SPE,
and D.C. Atwood, SPE, Schlumberger,
prepared for the 2004 SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
18–20 February.
The first two perforation tests were conduct-
ed to evaluate the perforation productivity of
Bedford-limestone target cores perforated at
2,000- and 3,000-psi initial wellbore under-
balance pressures. A 15-g charge was used for
Tests 1 and 2. Tests 3 through 6 were con-
ducted to evaluate the perforation productivi-
ty of Silurian-dolomite target cores perforated
at initial wellbore underbalance pressures of
500, 3,000, and two tests at 1,000 psi. The tar-
get cores for Tests 7 through 9 were Bedford
limestone. These tests were conducted at
1,000-, 3,000-, and 4,000-psi initial wellbore
underbalance pressures with a 21.7-g charge.
After perforating, the pore and wellbore
pressures were allowed to equalize before
preparing the core for controlled pumped
flow. Pressure in the SWB was bled down to
atmospheric pressure. The confining pres-
sure was reduced simultaneously to maintain
constant effective overburden stress on the
core. K-1 kerosene then was 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 con-
stant-flow-rate setup is used to flow the per-
forated core until a stable productivity is
established. After all flow was completed, the
core was split open for inspection and mea-
surement of the perforation tunnel.
Results
The results were in agreement with earlier
findings of progressive cleanup of the perfo-
ration tunnel with increasing levels of initial
underbalance. Fig. 1 shows perforation skin
53
 12 10,000
Limestone, 15-g charge Test 1
162.6 md
Dolomite, 15-g charge 9,000 Test 2
Limestone, 21.7-g charge Test 3
10
8,000 Test 4
Initial pore pressure = 5,000 psi Test 5
7,000 Test 6
8 78.8 md Test 7
Test 8

Well Pressure, psi

Perforation Skin

3.2 md 6,000
Test 9
102.1 md
6 5,000
83.5 md 3
5
7.5 md 4,000
4 4
1 7
3,000
8
7.9 md 6
2,000 9 2
2
3.7 md 1,000
4.2 md
0 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Initial Underbalance Pressure, psi Time, sec

Fig. 1—Perforation skin vs. initial underbalance pressure. Fig. 2—Wellbore pressures during perforating.

plotted against the initial underbalance pres-
sure. The progressive perforation cleanup
with increasing underbalance pressure that
has been well noted by previous investiga-
tors is evident. However, perforation skins
for the higher-permeability dolomite cores
were consistently higher than perforation
skins for the lower-permeability limestone
cores. This finding is contrary to the conclu-
sion of earlier studies that stipulate that for a
given underbalance pressure, higher-perme-
ability rocks should show more perforation
cleanup than lower-permeability rocks.
Discussion and Interpretation
Earlier findings of progressive perforation
cleanup with increasing levels of initial pres-
sure underbalance were corroborated by this
study. The relationship between the level of
perforation cleanup and pressure underbal-
ance is intuitive and has been noted in previ-
ous studies of underbalance perforating in
sandstone. In this respect, the correlations
developed for sandstones help define an
important parameter for defining perforation
cleanup in carbonates. However, the fact that
the perforation skins for the higher-perme-
ability dolomite cores are consistently higher
than the perforation skins for the lower-per-
meability limestone is contrary to the earlier
findings with sandstone. For this reason, ear-
lier correlations developed for sandstones,
which rely primarily upon matrix permeabil-
ity, are not applicable to carbonates.
The full-length paper compares the
experimental results with previously pub-
lished criteria for underbalance necessary to
eliminate acid stimulation, perforation-skin
criteria for Berea sandstone, and perforation
skin as a function of the level of mechanical
failure of the damage zone.
Fig. 2 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 approximate-
ly 0.2 seconds) pressure responses that are
thought to be primarily responsible for perfo-
ration cleanup. The initial underbalance
pressure does not correspond to the dynamic
underbalance following charge detonation.
From recent perforation flow research, 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 before
perforating that influence perforation-
cleanup level. Quantifying dynamic under-
balance remains problematic. For this study,
peak dynamic underbalance is defined as the
difference between the pore pressure mea-
sured at the back of the core and minimum
SWB pressure. Two important assumptions
were made: (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 immedi-
ately around the perforation tunnel.
The perforation skin was plotted against the
peak dynamic underbalance pressure divided
by the nominal unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) of the rock and an empirical
correction for the initial rate of pressure drop
following charge detonation. There seems to
be a mathematical basis for this empirical rate
correction, which the authors hope to develop
more fully in the future. Reliance upon these
parameters yields a better estimate of the per-
foration skin for Bedford limestone and
Silurian dolomite. Because all tests had an ini-
tial 3,000-psi effective stress, perforating tests
at other stresses are necessary to demonstrate
whether effective stress, as opposed to the
dynamic underbalance pressure, is a better
measure of stress for predicting perforation
skin. The prediction of perforation skin may
be further refined with measurements of pore
pressure nearer the perforation tunnel. Testing
at other effective stresses may verify the
hypothesis that the optimum underbalance for
perforation cleanup is a function of effective
stress, rock strength, and the strength and
extent of the perforation damage zone.
The discrepancy in perforation skin be-
tween earlier sandstone correlations and
these carbonate tests probably is related to
rock strength, lithology, and the definition of
the effective underbalance pressure. Per-
foration cleanup in sandstone also may be a
function of rock strength. Unfortunately, ear-
lier perforation tests lack dynamic-pressure
and rock-strength data to test this hypothesis.
Conclusions
These tests verify earlier findings of a progres-
sive cleanup of the perforation tunnel with
increasing levels of initial underbalance pres-
sure. However, the measured perforation
skins for the carbonate target cores are not
well characterized by earlier sandstone corre-
lations. In particular, the primary reliance on
rock permeability as a predictor of perforation
cleanup 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 car-
bonates are best related to peak underbalance
pressure and rock strength. Relating rock
strength instead of rock permeability to perfo-
ration cleanup is a relatively new idea that
also may be applicable to sandstones. JPT
For a limited time, the full-length paper
is available free to SPE members at
www.spe.org/jpt. The paper has not
been peer reviewed.

54 OCTOBER 2004