SPE 143997

Perforation Cleanup via Dynamic Underbalance: New Understandings

B. Grove, SPE, J. Harvey, SPE, L. Zhan, SPE, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7–10 June 2011.

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 necessar ily 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. Th e abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Dynamic Underbalance perforating is a completion technique which uses a perforating system engineered to create a rapid
underbalance immediately upon formation perforation. This technique – properly applied – improves well deliverability by
effectively cleaning the newly-created perforation tunnels, regardless of initial static pressure conditions (overbalanced,
underbalanced, or balanced).

Over the past 3 years, we have conducted dozens of perforate-and-flow laboratory experiments, carefully controlling and
measuring wellbore transients, and measuring post-shot productivities. Our results indicate that the cleanup mechanisms are
more involved than conventionally understood. We observed that a dominant mechanism of dynamic perforation cleanup is
the increase in effective perforation length. We also confirmed previous findings that DUB perforating increases tunnel
diameter, while reducing the thickness of the “crushed zone” of impaired permeability, which surrounds each tunnel.
Although these processes have been mentioned in general terms previously, conventional models typically simplify things by
reducing perforation cleanup to the enhancement of crushed zone permeability. Though this simplification has offered a
convenient means of interpreting lab data, it can yield misleading results when applied downhole.

While increasing crushed zone permeability does indeed improve the productivity of real wells, the additional processes of
enlarging tunnel diameter and reducing crushed zone thickness improve productivity further. Increasing the effective tunnel
length provides yet another means of productivity gain, and under most circumstances is the dominant beneficial effect. We
present productivity predictions of various downhole scenarios to quantify these newly-recognized effects.

These findings suggest the performance differential (between DUB and non-DUB techniques) at downhole conditions can be
far greater than previously recognized.

Introduction

Dynamic Underbalance (DUB) perforating is a completion technique which uses a perforating system engineered to create a
rapid underbalance immediately upon formation perforation. In a properly designed DUB operation, wellbore fluid rushes
into the gun through the newly-created exit holes, inducing a rapid drop in wellbore pressure (to a value below the reservoir
pressure). This DUB induces a rapid surge flow from the formation to the wellbore, flushing perforation damage from the
tunnels. Applying pressure drop rapidly is critical, in order to maximize the attendant surge flow rate. This technique has
been demonstrated in the laboratory, and used extensively to deliver low-skin completions in the field [1-17].
Even though the technique is fairly well established, the authors remain engaged in an ongoing effort to increase our
understanding of DUB cleanup phenomena. In the following sections we will discuss a recent and ongoing laboratory
program. First, we summarize the conventional view of perforation damage and cleanup.
2 SPE 143997

Perforation Damage & Cleanup – Conventional View

The conventional model of a perforation tunnel is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Conventional model of perforation tunnel.

In this model, 1D radial inflow to the tunnel (right circular cylinder of length L and radius r p) is assumed. The tunnel is
surrounded by a crushed zone of radius r c (thickness tc = rc – rp) and impaired permeability kc. This crushed zone is created
by the jet during the dynamic process of tunnel formation, where the shaped charge jet penetrates the rock at several km/sec,
generating pressures in the surrounding rock of several to tens or hundreds of kilobars.
“Perforation damage” is tied up entirely in the crushed zone. Perforation cleanup is assumed to occur by the increase of
kc (by some subsequent process); i.e. the tunnel diameter and crushed zone thickness are assumed to remain constant during
cleanup, but the crushed zone permeability increases. This is exactly the conventional wellbore damage model, applied to a
single perforation tunnel.

Laboratory Program

A laboratory test program is underway to quantify the extent of perforation cleanup as a function of DUB and formation
characteristics. The ultimate fruits of this program will be a correlation for use in the authors’ productivity software [18],
which will predict perforation skin as a function of these parameters. An interim version of this correlation is being
documented in a separate paper. We will briefly discuss some of the elements of the test program here, as a prelude to the
finding which is the subject of the present paper.
In the course of generating these correlations, the authors have performed several perforate and flow laboratory
experiments, along the general lines of API RP-19B Section 4. Our experiments covered a range of DUB characteristics,
rocks, stress levels, and charges. For simplicity, our experiments thus far have been at initial static balance conditions.

Wellbore dynamics

One of the key experimental parameters is wellbore dynamics - specifically the magnitude and recovery duration of the DUB.
For DUB magnitude specifically, we endeavored to map the extremes attainable in the lab, by varying magnitude from zero
to ~4,000psi. The zero DUB experiments (call these DB = dynamic balance) have proven especially enlightening. Although
not representative of downhole scenarios, we contrived these experiments to generate neither dynamic underbalance nor
dynamic overbalance (DOB) – wellbore pressure remains “flatline” on balance during the perforating event. This provides a
convenient “zero DUB” reference point, without any additional complications which would accompany a DOB injection of
wellbore fluid, for example.
SPE 143997 3

Flow performance

Each test culminated in measurement of flow performance, characterized by core flow efficiency (CFE). CFE is the ratio of
actual measured productivity index (PI=Q/P) of the perforation, to the PI expected for the theoretical (perfectly clean)
tunnel:

 PI 
CFE   act 
 PI th 

For this work, the authors measured PIact by taking the slope of the Q-P line (flowing at multiple rates), to eliminate the
influence of any possible slight transducer offset. This technique also ensures we have achieved stable linear Darcy flow.
We calculated PIth numerically, using the method described in [19 and 20]. This reflects a departure from the
conventional model of perforation damage described above, the reasons for which shall next become obvious.

Results

Preliminary observations

Following the conventional view of perforation cleanup, one would conclude that DUB simply enhances crushed zone
permeability, and thus should expect our test program to yield solely a correlation for kc/k as a function of DUB and
formation properties. In fact, in the absence of a proper model, this is exactly what users of the authors’ productivity model
do currently, albeit manually.
However, some very superficial observations cast significant doubt over this conventional model. Figure 2 shows two
perforated Berea sandstone cores (permeability~110mD). Both shots were identical in every way, except the level of
dynamic underbalance. The resulting flow performances were significantly different (CFE~0.07, vs ~0.6).

Fig 2. Photographs of perforated cores. (left) Zero DUB (or dynamic balanced – DB) core; (right) DUB core.

Clearly the DB core exhibits significantly smaller tunnel diameter than the DUB core. Furthermore, the DB core retains
some of the crushed zone (whitish region surrounding tunnel), whereas the DUB core has not. Finally, the DB core remains
physically plugged, substantially with charge/liner debris and perhaps comminuted rock as well. These observations alone,
based on these two otherwise identical tests, prove that the conventional model of perforation cleanup is not physically
representative. We can state that:

 DUB can increase tunnel diameter

 DUB can reduce the thickness of the crushed zone remaining (visual observation, not confirmed with
micropermeameter; however, this is consistent with previous findings – i.e. [21])
 DUB can increase the visually open tunnel length

At this stage of the discussion, we do not yet claim to quantify the influences of these various mechanisms on inflow
performance. However these observations clearly demonstrate that the conventional model of perforation cleanup is
inadequate. If the correlation resulting from this work is to be meaningful, it must go well beyond simply predicting kc/k
evolution.
4 SPE 143997

Hypothesis

Although the permeability of the tunnel fill shown in Fig 2 is unknown, the authors speculated that it could be on the order of
the rock permeability or lower. In this instance, the visually plugged tunnel would not be an effective tunnel from a flow
perspective. The visually open tunnel would essentially be the “effective” flowing tunnel length. Note that this hypothesis
may be in contrast with some published work (i.e. [22]).
Following this assumption, one could attribute at least some of the flow penalty of a low CFE tunnel to reduced effective
length. In the limit (if the flow penalty were due entirely to reduced effective length, and there were no crushed zone), the
numerical value of CFE should be approximately equal to the ratio of open tunnel length to total perforation length. i.e. if
only the first 10% of the tunnel were effectively open to flow, this tunnel should deliver ~10% of its total flow capability
(CFE~0.1). If we denote the tunnel effective flowing length l, and total length L, then a plot of experimentally measured
CFE vs. l/L should fall near a line of slope 1. (Note that this argument is only possible using the new definition of CFE
described in [19]).
If even only partially true, this would still mean that the flow penalty of a low CFE tunnel is not due exclusively to
crushed zone as conventional treatments suggest.

Flow performance vs. effective flowing length

Figure 3 shows a plot of l/L vs. CFE, for about 30 shots to date in this program. For this plot, l simply represents the visually
open tunnel length. This is admittedly a subjective measurement; and we cannot yet claim whether this correlates with the
effective flowing length. This dataset spans an array of DUB magnitudes, recovery durations, charges, and rocks. In
addition to Berea, we also have data for Carbon Tan (k~20mD) and Torrey Buff (k~0.3) sandstones.
While there is some scatter, much the data do fall surprisingly close to the line CFE=l/L. Note that the main exceptions to
this trend are the lower perm rocks, where we observe reasonable CFE despite minimal visually open tunnel.

Fig 3. Plot of visually open tunnel length divided by total tunnel length (l/L), vs. CFE.

Figure 4 shows the same plot, but with some additional annotations. Following the above train of thought, we identify
three regions: above, on, or below the line l/L=CFE:
 Above the line: CFE < l/L < 1.0; implies both l /L and kc/k impairment
 On the line: l/L=CFE; implies only l /L impairment (no significant kc/k impairment)
 Below the line: l/L<CFE; implies either near-tunnel stimulation surrounding the open tunnel, or the effective
flowing length is greater than the visually open length. The latter seems more plausible, but we cannot rule out
either possibility at this point.
SPE 143997 5

Fig 4. Plot of visually open tunnel length divided by total tunnel length (l/L), vs. CFE, with additional annotations.

Even considering the scatter, and acknowledging that all data do not fall perfectly on the line, there is a clear monotonic
trend of increasing CFE with increasing l/L. Again, the main exceptions are the lower perm rocks, which in most instances
yielded reasonable CFE despite minimal visually open tunnel. This may be related to the lower attendant fluid velocities,
being insufficient to flush debris from the tunnel.
This general observation further contradicts the conventional treatment (which held that any tunnel fill were ~infinitely
permeable), and strongly suggests that there is more to perforation cleanup than simply enhancement of crushed zone
permeability.
What is needed is a definitive measure of the effective flowing tunnel length. Ultimately, we seek to map the inflow
along the entire tunnel length, in order to conclusively validate this hypothesis. Initial experiments toward this end are
underway, the first of which will be discussed next.

Tunnel inflow profile

To begin to test the l/L hypothesis, an experiment was performed where a perforated core was successively flowed after
removing portions of its length. The core was perforated with a slight dynamic underbalance designed to give partial clean-
up. We emphasize that this tunnel was deliberately created to retain much of its damage, so that we might be able to
characterize / distinguish a transition from “clean” to “damaged” regions.
After flowing as usual to establish baseline PI, the core was removed from the vessel. A 2” thick disk was carefully cut
from the face of the core (i.e. we removed the first 2” of tunnel length). The core was then re-inserted into the vessel and re-
flowed, and a second PI established. This process was then repeated, removing an additional 2” (4” total).
For each configuration, a PI was measured and two CFD simulations were performed. These data are summarized in
Table 1. The max PI is the CFD-predicted PI based on the maximum open tunnel geometry, with all crushed zone removed.
The “no tunnel” PI is the CFD-predicted PI assuming no tunnel and no damage to the core. In this case, flow exits from the
core through a hole in the shoot-thru plate. This reference PI is equivalent to assuming that any tunnel fill (and crushed zone)
permeabilities are equal to the virgin rock permeability.

Table 1. Experimental flow results, and reference PIs obtained via CFD simulations.
No
Exp. PI Max PI Tunnel PI CFE
Initial 6.49 42.6 1.4 0.152
1st cut 2.44 33.6 1.4 0.073
2nd cut 1.88 24.6 1.4 0.076

The initial core test produced a CFE of 0.152, and the DoP was found to be 10.2”. So the corresponding estimated open
tunnel length prediction was 1.55”. The first 2” cut should therefore have completely removed this open tunnel. Indeed, this
appears to have occurred, evidenced by the significant drop in PI. Note that, per the conventional treatment, removing the
6 SPE 143997

first 20% of the tunnel should have reduced PI by ~20%. However, removing the first 20% of this tunnel reduced
experimentally measured PI by 62%. Clearly, the vast majority of inflow appears to have entered through the first 2” of the
original 10.2” long tunnel.
The 50% reduction in CFE after slicing the first 2” further confirms that most of the productive tunnel was contained
within this initial region. This observation by itself confirms that inflow is not necessarily uniform along tunnel length.
The second 2” cut further reduces the PI, but not CFE. This suggests that, as a first approximation to mapping the inflow
along the length of this particular tunnel, most of the change occurs within the first 2”, with little subsequent change beyond
that.
The lower limit “reference” PI for a perforated core is strongly influenced by the permeabilities of the core and the of the
tunnel fill near the casing hole. This suggests that in the limit of no DUB clean-up, the productivity is essentially a function
of the core permeability and the tunnel fill near the casing hole.
The “no tunnel” CFD simulations reveal that the flow is characterized by a hemispherical flow pattern near the casing
hole and is insensitive to the core length. The three cases above are rapidly approaching this limit of “no-tunnel” CFE
(convergence of “exp PI” and “ref PI” curves, Figure 5). The fact that experimental PI remains slightly above the reference
PI, even after removing the first 4” of tunnel, suggests that the remaining tunnel does provide some benefit; however not as
much as if it were perfectly clean / empty.

Fig 5. Perforated core PI, experimentally measured compared to two reference PIs, for 3 different configurations (as perforated,
after first 2” removed, after second 2” removed).

The tunnel fill permeability profile can be estimated using this three-part test. Beginning with the second cut, the tunnel
fill permeability from 4” to the tip of the tunnel was adjusted to drive the CFD simulation to match the experimental PI.
Then this permeability was used in a simulation of the 1st cut. This time, the permeability of the tunnel fill from 2” to 4” was
adjusted. Finally, the uncut core was simulated using the two previously determined permeabilities. This final simulation
was used to determine the permeability of the tunnel fill for the first two inches. The radial velocity profile is shown in
Figure 6. As this figure shows, the first three inches of the tunnel is the dominant producing zone (99%) with very little
production occurring beyond 3”. Initially, it was assumed that the productive length was 1.5” based on the uncut CFE. In
reality, this simulation suggests that 21% of the total inflow occurs between 1.5 and 3”. It should be noted that the resolution
of these tests (2”) is on the order of the productive length. Higher resolution might alter the conclusion in favor of a shorter
productive length more in line with the initial estimate based on the CFE.

Fig 6. Inferred inflow profile for tunnel created in the experiment summarized in Table 1 and Figure 5. Note the spike at 2” is due to
an abrupt transition in tunnel permeability assumed in the simulation; any permeability variation in reality is unlikely to be this
abrupt.
SPE 143997 7

Additional tests are being performed and will be reported including a non-DUB test, and a DUB test with a higher starting
CFE (~0.6). The non-DUB test is expected to show an initial PI approximately equal to the “no tunnel” PI, with subsequent
cuts not dramatically reducing PI or CFE. The CFE~0.6 test is expected to provide a core with an open tunnel length of 6” or
more which can be cut multiple times before entirely removing the open tunnel, i.e. higher resolution.
Note that these initial experiments effectively demonstrate that inflow is not uniform along tunnel length, a significant
observation. However, by themselves, they do not conclusively tell us whether this is due to an axial gradient of the
permeability of tunnel fill, crushed zone, or both. The implications to the downhole scenario are equally significant either
way.

Interpretation

The above discussion presents alternative ways to interpret CFE in a lab test; note that this is only relevant and applicable to
damaged tunnels, i.e. CFE<1. Measured a certain way, CFE is what it is; the question becomes why? Is a damaged tunnel (a)
deep with ~infinite perm fill, surrounded by impaired crushed zone; or is it (b) effectively shallow, with negligible crushed
zone surrounding? Is it some combination of the two? Taking core-level Q and P at face value, we cannot say for sure.
But the above discussion provides strong evidence that DUB provides multiple mechanisms of cleanup simultaneously:
 Increases effective flowing tunnel length
 Increases tunnel diameter
 Reduces thickness of remaining crushed zone

Figure 7 illustrate the two endpoints (a) and (b) described above. Both tunnels would give the same net flow performance in
the lab, but would translate to significantly different inflow performance downhole. The corresponding core photograph is
shown for reference.
Figure 8 shows a schematic of the assumed flow configuration for a perfectly clean tunnel, along with its corresponding
core photo. This situation is much less ambiguous to analyze.

Fig 7. (top) photograph of a damaged tunnel, created in lab test with no DUB. (middle) conventional flow schematic; (bottom)
proposed alternative flow schematic. Reality may be some combination of the two.
8 SPE 143997

Fig 8. (top) photograph of a clean tunnel, created in lab test with strong DUB. (bottom) conventional flow schematic.

Implications to downhole geometry

Figure 9 shows these single-perf scenarios, extrapolated to downhole flow geometry. The difference between the alternative
interpretations of the damaged tunnel should be obvious; to the extent that a “damaged” perforation has reduced effective
length, its flow performance downhole will be much worse than if its damage were solely due to crushed zone. l/L
impairment is worse than kc/k impairment, which we will next demonstrate with downhole productivity predictions.

Fig 9. (top) Case A – damaged tunnel – possible real flow schematic; (middle) Case B – same damaged tunnel – conventional flow
schematic; (bottom) Case C – tunnel fully cleaned by DUB – conventional flow schematic. Left images show single perforation;
images on right show these scenarios extrapolated to downhole geometry.
SPE 143997 9

We ran our inflow simulator program [18] to compare the flow performance of these 3 scenarios. The base configuration was
a 6SPF, 60deg phased 3-1/8” gun inside a 4-1/2” casing, cemented in an 8” borehole; All simulations used identical
formation properties (strength, stress, permeability), and the same assumed drilling damage (depth=10”, kd/k=0.1).

 Case A – effective tunnel length=1.1”; dp=0.52”; tc=0 (flow impairment due entirely to l/L restriction)
 Case B – effective tunnel length=16”; dp=0.24”; tc=0.26”, kc/k=0.039 (flow impairment solely due to kc/k)
 Case C – effective tunnel length=16”; dp=0.77; tc=0 (no flow impairment; perfectly clean tunnel)

Crushed zone properties for case B were obtained following the method described in [20].
Cases A & B represent two different interpretations of the same damaged tunnel produced in a single DB lab test, which
yielded CFE=0.07. Case C represents the clean tunnel produced by DUB (no perforation damage). Note that the perforation
diameters used for cases A & B are different. This is due to our using the diameter of only the open section for (A), and the
average diameter of the entire tunnel length for (B). Note further that tunnel C has the largest diameter, consistent with actual
tunnel measurements.
Figure 10 shows the calculated productivity ratios (PRs) for all three scenarios. PR is the ratio of the PI of the cased and
perforated completion, normalized to the theoretical PI of an undamaged openhole completion.

Fig 10. Calculated productivity ratios for the 3 scenarios depicted in Fig 9.

Compared to case B (conventional treatment of damaged tunnel) we see case C (DUB cleaned tunnel) gives the expected
productivity increase. In this instance, the improvement comes from the removal of the crushed zone. In addition to the
conventional approach of increasing kc/k1, this comparison also considers the larger diameter of the DUB tunnel (a second
order effect, which does improve productivity slightly).
Case A (alternate treatment of damaged tunnel) paints a much bleaker picture of the productivity of a damaged tunnel at
downhole conditions. The inflow performance is much worse if we assume only the first bit of the tunnel contributes to flow;
especially so if this region remains entirely within the drilling damaged zone (as is the case in this example).
Since the non-DUB tunnel performance may be much worse under downhole conditions than previously thought, the
relative improvement afforded by DUB is more significant than generally believed.
Case A clearly represents a worst-case scenario; further work is ongoing to assess whether reality is closer to case A or
case B. A real damaged tunnel is likely somewhere between the two.
10 SPE 143997

Summary, Conclusions, and Future Work

Recent laboratory tests have provided significant insight into the mechanisms of perforation cleanup. Conventional models
hold that perforation damage is due solely to crushed zone impairment (therefore cleanup occurs via increase of k c/k). Our
work has demonstrated that cleanup mechanisms are much more involved. DUB can simultaneously:

 increase effective flowing tunnel length

 increase tunnel diameter
 reduce thickness of remaining crushed zone

This has significant implications to downhole performance, as we have demonstrated with numerical simulations. To the
extent that effective flowing length is increased by DUB, the downhole performance differential between DUB and non-DUB
techniques is much more significant than generally believed.

Work is ongoing to further improve our understanding of these processes, specifically to reliably measure the effective
flowing length l. Our ultimate goal is to map inflow along the entire tunnel length. Complimentary to this, we are
developing a skin model to accurately account for the evolution of all these parameters (tunnel diameter, kc/k, tc, l/L) as
functions of DUB, formation, and charge characteristics. It is critical to get each of these parameters right, in order to
accurately predict flow performance at downhole conditions.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to extend appreciation to the management of Schlumberger for support to conduct this work and prepare the
manuscript. Particular appreciation is extended to Andy Martin for his review and comments.

Nomenclature
Q=flow rate
ΔP=pressure drop
PI=productivity index (Q/ ΔP)
PR=productivity ratio=PIactual/PIideal, undamaged OH
CFE = Core Flow Efficiency
rp,dp = tunnel radius, diameter
rc, dc, tc = crused zone radius, diameter, thickness
k = formation permeability
kc= = crushed zone permeability
L = perforation length
l = perforation tunnel effective flowing length

References
1. Ian C. Walton, Ashley B. Johnson, Larry A. Behrmann, David C. Atwood: “Laboratory Experiments Provide New Insights into
Underbalanced Perforating,” paper SPE 71642 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sept 30
– Oct 3, New Orleans, LA
2. L.A. Behrmann, K. Hughes, A.B. Johnson, I.C. Walton,: “New Underbalanced Perforating Technique Increases Completion
Efficiency and Eliminates Costly Acid Stimulation”, paper SPE 77364 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 29 September-2 October, San Antonio, Texas
3. F.F. Chang, N.M. Kageson-Loe, I.C. Walton, A.M. Mathisen, G.S. Svanes: “Perforating in Overbalance - Is It Really Sinful?,”
paper SPE 82203 presented at the 2003 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 13-14 May, The Hague, Netherlands
4. Morten Stenhaug, Leif Erichsen, Statoil; Fokko H.C. Doornbosch, Robert A. Parrott: “A Step Change in Perforating Technology
Improves Productivity of Horizontal Wells in the North Sea,” paper SPE 84910 presented at the 2003 SPE International
Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, 20-21 October, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
5. H. Lloyd Stutz, Larry A. Behrmann: “Dynamic Under Balanced Perforating Eliminates Near Wellbore Acid Stimulation in Low-
Pressure Weber Formation,” paper SPE 86543 presented at the 2004 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, 18-20 February, Lafayette, Louisiana
6. A.J. Martin, D. Clark, G. Stirton: “Dynamic Underbalanced Perforating on a Mature North Sea Field,” paper SPE 93638
presented at the 2005 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 25-27 May, Sheveningen, The Netherlands
7. F.F. Chang, A.M. Mathisen, N. Kågeson-Loe, I.C. Walton, G. Svane, M-I Norge; and R.E. Midtbø¸, I. Bakken, J. Rykkje, and O.
Nedrebø: “Recommended Practice for Overbalanced Perforating in Long Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 94596 presented at the
2005 European Formation Damage Conference, 25-27 May, Scheveningen, The Netherlands
SPE 143997 11

8. J.G. Flores, “Perforating for Zero Skin: A Study of Productivity Improvement in Ecuador,” paper SPE 95859 presented at the
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 October, Dallas, Texas
9. D. Minto, P. Falxa, D. Manalu, and M. Simatupang, L.A. Behrmann, A. Kusumadjaja, “Dynamic Underbalanced Perforating
System Increases Productivity and Reduces Costs in East Kalimantan Gas Field: A Case Study,” paper SPE 97363 presented at
the 2005SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, 12-14 September, Dubai, United Arab
Emirates
10. P. Bolchover, I.C. Walton, “Perforation Damage Removal by Underbalance Surge Flow,” paper SPE 98220 presented at the 2006
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 15-17 February, Lafayette, Louisiana U.S.A
11. Al-Marri Faisal and Hassan Ibrahim Khalil, Alan Salsman, Majed Shaaban Abu Lawi: “New Perforating Technique Improves
Well Productivity and Operational Efficiency,” paper SPE 101278 presented at the 2006 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, 5-8 November, Abu Dhabi, UAE
12. H. Rodríguez, O. Molina, A. Salazar, A.K. Rondón, and M. Méndez, A. Fayard, C. Gama, SPE, C. Smitheman, A. Mármol, E.
Cervantes: “Customized Reperforating With New Technologies for Optimal Field Drainage and Productivity Enhancement: East
Venezuela Applications,” paper SPE 103070 presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 24-27
September, San Antonio, Texas
13. Italo Pizzolante, Steve Grinham, Tian Xiang, and Jihong Lian, CACT Operators Group, and Chee Kin Khong, L.A. Behrmann,
and Steve Mason: “Over Balanced Perforating Yields Negative Skins in Layered Reservoir,” paper SPE 104099 presented at the
2006 International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, 5-7 December, Beijing, China
14. Kirk M. Bartko, Frank F. Chang, Larry A. Behrmann, and Ian C. Walton: “Effective Matrix Acidizing in Carbonate Reservoir -
Does Perforating Matter?,” paper SPE 105022 presented at the 2007 SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 11-14
March, Kingdom of Bahrain
15. Achille Tiribelli, Giovanni Luca Minneci, and Ahmed Daoud, and Fathi Ghodbane and Ahmed Dahroug: “Productivity Increase
Using the Combination of Formation Isolation Valve and Dynamic Underbalanced Perforation,” paper SPE 106400 presented at
the 2007 European Formation Damage Conference, 30 May-1 June, Scheveningen, The Netherlands
16. Dennis Baxter, Harold McCausland, Brian Wells, Vinay K. Mishra, Larry Behrman: “Overcoming environmental challenges
using innovative approach of dynamic underbalance perforating,” paper SPE 108167 presented at 2007 Offshore Europe, 4-7
September, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K.
17. M. Medina, G. Morantes, J. Morales, W. Guevara, J. Romero, Y. Gonzalez: “Dynamic Underbalanced Perforating Application
Increases Productivity in the Mature High-Permeability Gas Reservoirs of Santa Ana Field, Venezuela,” paper SPE 112488
presented at the 2008 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 13-15 February 2008,
Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
18. SPAN user guide, Version 8.0, Schlumberger Reservoir Completions Center, Rosharon, TX (June 2008)
19. Harvey, J., Grove, B., Walton, I., Atwood, D., “Flow Measurements in the Perforation Laboratory: Re-Thinking Core Flow
Efficiency (CFE),” paper IPS-10-015, presented at the 2010 International Perforating Symposium, The Woodlands, TX, 6-7 May
20. Grove, B., Harvey, J., Zhan, L., Atwood , D.: “Translating Perforation Laboratory Results to the Downhole Environment,” paper
SPE 143998, presented at the 2011 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, June 7-10.
21. Heiland, J., Grove, B., Harvey, J., Walton, I., Martin, A..: “New Fundamental Insights into Perforation-Induced Formation
Damage,” paper SPE 122845, presented at the 2009 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 27-29 May, Scheveningen,
The Netherlands.
22. Karacan, C.O, Grader, A.S. and Halleck, P.M. “Mapping of permeability damage around perforation tunnels”, J. of Energy
Resources Tech. v123, pp205, 2001.