SPE/IADC 97363 1

SPE/IADC 97363

Dynamic Underbalanced Perforating System Increases Productivity and Reduces Cost

in East Kalimantan Gas Field: A Case Study
D. Minto, P. Falxa, D. Manalu, and M. Simatupang, Total E&P Indonésie, and L.A. Behrmann, SPE, A. Kusumadjaja,
SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2005, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition
versus the average skin of 4.73 from 35 conventional EUB
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology perforating jobs executed during the multi-year interval from
Conference & Exhibition held in Dubai, U.A.E., 12–14 September 2005.
2000 to 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the Introduction
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their The Mahakam production-sharing contract, with Inpex and
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
Total E&P Indonésie as operator, covers the Bekapai and
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in Handil oil fields and Tunu, Peciko, Sisi–Nubi, South
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was Mahakam gas-condensate fields. Tunu field, the major gas
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
supplier of the East Kalimantan system, is at the eastern limit
of the Mahakam delta, (Figure 1). The field is 75 km long and
15 km wide and is composed of interbedded hydrocarbon-
Abstract
bearing sandstones between a depth of 2,300 and 4,500 m. The
New gas wells at Tunu field in East Kalimantan are normally
field started producing in 1990 and more than 370 wells have
perforated using the extreme underbalanced (EUB) technique,
been drilled to date. It exported an average 1.3 billion cubic
in which a large static pressure differential between the
feet per day (Bcf/D) and 23,000 stock-tank barrels per day
wellbore and formation, or initial underbalance, is set before
(STB/D) of condensate in 2004.
the gun is fired. This requires an operation to unload wellbore
In Tunu field initial perforations are normally performed
liquid, a wireline operation to set an anchoring tool, and
immediately after new wells are completed to allow the
several slickline operations to run and retrieve the gun string.
wellbore to fill with gas or to avoid sedimentation during well-
The required degree of underbalance depends primarily on
connection work. The first reservoir to be perforated is
rock properties such as permeability, porosity, and strength.
selected based on bottom-up reservoir policy, and perforating
A new approach produces a well dynamic underbalance
technique is chosen based on reservoir and wellbore condition.
(the transient underbalance just after creating the perforation
To reduce the skin effect for initial perforation in Tunu field,
cavity). By basing the job design on the properties of the
the dynamic underbalanced perforation technique has been
reservoir, wellbore, and gun string, the technique consistently
applied since November 2004.
minimizes perforation damage and thus maximizes
productivity. This technique is based on recent single-shot
Perforation Background
perforating experiments that show that it is the maximum
dynamic underbalance—not the initial underbalance—that
Perforation Damage.1 Every cased well must be perforated to
governs perforation cleanup. The wellbore pressure was found
create communication between formation and wellbore for
to vary considerably during the first half-second after the
fluids to flow or to be injected. Unfortunately, the process of
charges were detonated. This variation in wellbore pressure
perforation itself creates damage to the formation. Impact on
can be manipulated to give a large dynamic underbalance.
the reservoir rock by the high-velocity shaped-charge jet
Perforating with the new technique and electric wireline
results in high shock pressures (1.5 million psi at the tunnel
was performed on 10 wells in the field. Software that
entrance to 150,000 psi at the perforation tip), which
considered wellbore geometry, fluid, gun-string selection, and
comminutes the adjacent rock, fractures sand grains, dislodges
reservoir properties was used to design a specific gun-string
intergrain cementation, and debonds clay particles. Additional
configuration and to predict the productivity increase
effects may include the transient injection of explosive
contributed by the underbalance. The jobs were performed
products and wellbore fluids into the perforation, creating a
smoothly with significant cost savings compared to
relative permeability problem, or injection of wellbore debris
conventional EUB operations and yielded an increased
into the perforation. The primary perforation damage observed
productivity. Details of the perforating jobs with the new
in laboratory experiments results from the grain fragmentation,
technique will be described, including a cost reduction of
creating small particles that reduce pore throat size and thus
approximately 40% and a significant production increase.
permeability. In general, the porosity in this damaged region is
Testing revealed an average skin value for four wells of -0.29,
2 SPE/IADC 97363
not significantly changed. Some “fines” (secondary) damage
has been observed and attributed to clay debonding. The
extent of damage is a function of rock strength (porosity),
lithology, pore fluid compressibility, charge size and design,
clay content, and perhaps grain size.
Skin as a Measure of Clean Perforation. The skin factor is a
dimensionless number that represents the degree of formation
damage between the wellbore and the formation. The
formation damage can be caused by:
ƒ Drilling damage (mud filtrate invasion)
ƒ Completion damage (cement filtrate and completion fluid
invasion)
ƒ Perforation (partial penetration, shot density, phasing,
type of gun, fracturing of formation matrix)
ƒ Particle plugging of pore spaces
ƒ Turbulent skin for gas wells.
The skin factor has a direct impact on the well productivity
and, therefore, the associated well reserves. Production history
for some wells shows that the well productivity can be reduced
because of skin damage. This damage can be removed by
stimulation jobs (acidization, fracturing) or possibly by a
relatively low-cost alternative—dynamic underbalance
perforation.
Evolution of Underbalanced Perforation
Underbalanced perforating has been the technique of choice
for removing perforation damage and producing productive
perforations since the 1970s when completion engineers
started to recognize its potential. Since then, there has been
research to determine the degree of the underbalance needed
to obtain more effective perforations. Research focused on two
primary assumptions: first, that wellbore pressure remains
essentially constant during perforating and perforation
cleanup; and second, that the static underbalanced pressure
prior to gun detonation is effective across the perforation
tunnels of an entire completion interval. Research
concentrated on establishing specific underbalanced pressure
criteria and predicting the degree of underbalance needed to
ensure clean perforations. The required degree of
underbalance depends primarily on rock properties such as
permeability and strength. For example, hard, tight rocks need
a large amount of underbalance.
Static Underbalanced Perforation. In conventionally
designed underbalanced perforating operations, the wellbore
pressure is set below the reservoir pressure before the guns are
fired. However, conventional designs sometimes result in
disappointing levels of productivity. A static pressure
underbalance alone does not necessarily deliver consistent
results. Well productivity after static underbalanced
perforating can be disappointing, while results from
perforating with initially balanced or overbalanced pressure
sometimes are surprisingly good.
Extreme Static Underbalanced Perforation. Behrmann
proposed equations1 to calculate the optimal underbalance for
zero-skin perforations, or conversely, to calculate the skin
effect if underbalanced pressure is less than optimal. Now the
most widely accepted underbalance pressure criteria, these
equations were the result of more than a decade of perforating
research. This technique recommends underbalanced pressures
that are two to four times greater than those used in previous
methods. From this idea, the technique of EUB perforation
was then introduced.
EUB perforation is the technique which sets a large static
pressure differential between wellbore and formation before
the gun is fired. This large initial underbalance is expected to
create a sufficient drawdown to instantaneously clean the
perforation channels as soon as they are created. However, the
technique is also faced with the safety concern of the gun
jumping when run with a wireline-conveyed perforating
method. Therefore, the EUB technique requires an electric
wireline operation to set a mechanical release anchor (MRA)
tool and several slickline operations to run and retrieve the gun
strings that are stacked one to another and to retrieve the MRA
tool. Moreover, prior to that, the wellbore liquid needs to be
unloaded to set the required static underbalance. The EUB
operation averages 3 days to complete. EUB perforation has
been applied in Tunu fields since 1999 and this novel
technique improved the productivity by approximately 15%. 2
New Dynamic Underbalanced Perforation. Until recently,
scientists believed that the magnitude and duration of surge
flow after underbalanced perforating dominated perforation
cleanup. Immediately after charge detonation, the pore
pressure drops and reservoir fluids decompress around new
perforations, causing a sudden fluid influx. This instantaneous
surge minimizes pore-throat invasion by completion fluids and
solids, loosens damaged rock, and cleans some loose material
out of the perforation tunnels (Figure 2).
Laboratory tests indicate that turbulent flow is not required
to remove perforating damage. One theory suggests that
perforation cleanup is related to viscous fluid drag during
surge flow. However, most data suggest that higher
underbalanced pressures than those commonly used in the past
are required to effectively minimize or eliminate perforating
damage. A less-than-optimal underbalance can result in
variable flow rates per perforation and different degrees of
damage removal.
Dynamic forces—pressure differential and drag—that
mitigate permeability damage by eroding and removing
fractured formation grains from perforation walls are highest
immediately after perforating. This is the starting point for
developing semi-empirical equations for underbalanced
pressure and perforating damage, or skin effects, from
historical datasets. The key factors are maximum transient
pressure differential and subsequent drag from slightly
compressible radial flow, either laminar or turbulent.
Until recently, researchers focused little attention on
exactly how much pressure underbalance actually occurs. That
changed with the advent of pressure gauges that have
extremely fast sampling rates. These new gauges provide more
detailed, higher resolution data about wellbore pressure
variations immediately after perforating. More recent
investigations indicated that shear failure of the crushed zone,
not erosion due to surge flow, removes perforation damage.
Shear failure depends on rock strength and effective formation
stress. In turn, shear forces are related to the magnitude of the
pressure differential during underbalanced perforating.
SPE/IADC 97363
Therefore, underbalance pressure controls cleanup, but the
required magnitude depends on the rock strength rather than
its permeability. For sandstone formations, rock strength and
permeability are somewhat related, although no such
relationship exists for carbonates.
The dynamic underbalanced perforation system utilizes the
well dynamic underbalance (the transient underbalance just
after creating the perforation cavity). By basing the job design
on the properties of the reservoir, wellbore, and gun string, the
technique consistently minimizes or eliminates perforation
damage and thus maximizes productivity.
Recent single-shot perforating experiments3 show that it is
the maximum dynamic underbalance, not the initial
underbalance, that governs perforation cleanup. The wellbore
pressure was found to vary considerably during the first half-
second after the charges are detonated. The variation in
wellbore pressure is reflected in relation to the underbalance.
As shown in Figure 3, Tests 1 through 4 started with an initial
underbalance of 1,000 psi and the resulting maximum
dynamic underbalance varied from 400 to 1,300 psi. The
corresponding core-flow efficiencies (CFE) were 0.7, 0.69,
0.61, and 0.21. Tests 7 through 9 started with an initial
overbalance of 500 psi. The maximum dynamic underbalance
ranged from –300 to 2,400 psi with CFEs of 0.92, 0.24, and
0.41. Both sets of tests used identical charges and outcrop
cores, but their CFEs were substantially different.
Careful control of the wellbore dynamics is critical to the
success of the perforated completion. The experiments
conclusively showed that previously neglected variations in
wellbore parameters have a profound effect on the
performance of the completion. Significant improvement in
perforation and reservoir performance can be achieved by
accounting for the completions geometry, fluids, and
perforating hardware in the perforating job design. The design
is optimized using a perforating analysis system which
predicts productivity.
The software design specifies a unique perforating system
and optimum completions process to generate and control the
optimum dynamic underbalance for each job, rather than
relying solely on the estimated reservoir pressure. Because of
this degree of customization, the technique has been
successfully performed in hard and soft rock formations, in oil
and gas reservoirs, and in sandstone and carbonate lithologies.
It can also be used with existing open perforations and can
start with static overbalance with tubing-conveyed perforating
(TCP).
Dynamic underbalanced perforation maximizes well
productivity and injectivity by effectively cleaning up all
perforations. This is the primary benefit that has been achieved
in this case study. The technique also has other benefits that
have been incurred elsewhere. It eliminates the need for
secondary perforation cleanup4 in low-permeability
formations, enhances acidizing and hydraulic fracturing
operations and treatment results, and minimizes disruption of
the cement and sandface hydraulic bond (improved isolation).
Case History
The dynamic underbalanced perforating technique with
electric wireline was first proposed for wells Tunu #1 and
3
Tunu #2. Both wells were new monobore-completions with 4-
1/2 in. casing and filled with brine. The two reservoirs to be
perforated were gas-bearing sandstone with porosity values of
14.1% and 13.5%, and mobility values of 151.6 mD/cp and
171 mD/cp. Estimated reservoir pressure values from
formation testing were 5,586 psi and 5,234 psi, respectively.
The design process started with calculating the initial wellbore
pressure. The initial condition was found to be modestly
underbalanced, which means that the wellbore pressure at the
perforation interval was slightly less than the reservoir
pressure. The underbalance pressures were 474 psi and 173 psi
for Tunu #1 and Tunu #2, respectively. This condition
required no unloading of the wellbore liquid prior to the
perforating job. A perforating gun system specifically
manufactured for dynamic underbalanced perforation
application was used: a 2-7/8-in. gun with 60° phasing and 6
shots per foot., plus charges with 25.3-in. penetration, and a
0.38-in. entry hole, as per API 19B specification.
By accounting for the wellbore geometry, wellbore fluid
density, gun string selection and reservoir properties,
proprietary software designed a specific gun string
configuration and initial wellbore condition to achieve the
dynamic underbalanced condition that facilitates perforation-
tunnel cleanup immediately after perforating. Given the
reservoir characteristics and specified gun system, software
simulated the productivity increase contributed by the
dynamic underbalance design compared to conventional static
underbalanced perforation. Cost analysis compared the cost of
this dynamic underbalanced perforation system with the
would-be cost if static EUB perforation was performed. It
revealed a cost savings of 40% for each well.
Interspersed along the gun length were PURE∗ charges
spaced at 0.5 shot per foot and phased at approximately 60°.
These charges are not designed to perforate the casing nor
penetrate the reservoir (Figure 4). These charges are used to
increase the area open to flow into the PURE* chambers when
the perforation takes place, hence facilitating the development
of dynamic underbalance pressure transient. In this case the
PURE* chambers were the gun carriers that were also carrying
the perforating charges. The holes in the guns created by the
PURE* along with the holes created by the perforating charges
control the magnitude and duration of the dynamic pressure
transient. It is this dynamic underbalance that will clean the
perforations.
The job was performed with wireline conveyance; so the
operation followed the entire standard operating procedure for
perforating with wireline. There was no pressure gauge run
together with the gun string because the high-resolution gauge
with a sampling rate of 25,000 samples/s, which would be able
to capture the transient underbalance that occurs during the
first 200 ms after the gun fires, was still being field-tested and
was not readily available at that time. After the gun fired, the
pressure at surface increased immediately and wellbore liquid
started to unload. Within 30 min, the gas started to flow to
surface. During the cleanup, the rate was measured at 10
MMcf/D and 17.8 MMcf/D for Tunu #1 and Tunu #2,
respectively. Later on when the wells were connected to the
∗
Mark of Schlumberger
4 SPE/IADC 97363

production line, they produced at 15 MMcf/D and 25 MMcf/D Perforation,” paper SPE 72134, presented at the 2001 SPE Asia
at wellhead flowing pressure (WHFP) of 435 psi. The pressure Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 8–9
gauge was then set into the well for the pressure buildup October.
(PBU) test. The PBU test data were then analyzed to 3. Walton, I.C., Johnson, A.B., and Behrmann, L.A.: “Laboratory
Experiments Provide New Insights into Underbalanced
determine the skin value. The mechanical skin values were 1.1 Perforating,” paper SPE 71642, presented at 2001 SPE Annual
and 0 for Tunu #1 and Tunu#2, respectively. The perforating Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30
job and cleanup operation of each well took 1 day to complete. September–3 October.
4. Behrmann, L.A., Hughes, K., Johnson, A.B., Walton, I.C.: “New
Perforation Result Underbalanced Perforating Technique Increases Completion
Efficiency and Eliminates Costly Acid Stimulation,” paper SPE
Cost Saving. Currently 10 Tunu wells have been perforated 77364, presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference
using the dynamic underbalanced perforation technique and and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October.
have resulted in a total cost saving of approximately 40%
compared to EUB operations (Figure 5). The operational cost SI Metric Conversion Factors
comprises the perforating services itself, wellbore liquid B/D × 1.840* E-06 = m3/s
unloading work, and time-related cost; i.e., the rental cost of ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
barge, equipment, and personnel. in × 2.54* E-02 = m
gal × 3.785 E-03 = m3
Productivity Improvement. Productivity improvement is psi × 6.895 E+00 = kPa
measured by comparing the mechanical skin value of the wells * Conversion factor is exact
perforated using the dynamic underbalance technique to that
of wells perforated with the static EUB technique. Out of 10 Nomenclature
wells perforated with the dynamic underbalance technique, h = Thickness, m
only 4 wells have reliable PBU data for skin analysis. In the Kg = Gas permeability, mD
most likely case (P50), the mechanical skin value of reservoirs N2 = Nitrogen gas
perforated using the static EUB technique is approximately 5 Pr = Reservoir pressure, psi
(Figure 6). In contrast, the average mechanical skin value of Pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
reservoirs perforated using the dynamic underbalance Qg = Gas rate, MMscfd
technique is -0.29 (Figure 7). This improvement in skin value Sw = Water Saturation, %
has yielded an increased productivity gain of approximately φ = Porosity, %
60% on the initial gas potential at a WHFP of 435 psi (Figure
8).
The properties of the reservoirs that were perforated using
the dynamic underbalance technique, can be seen in Table 1.
Currently, there is no evidence of sand production occurring
after the reservoir was perforated using the dynamic
underbalanced perforation technique.

Conclusion
The dynamic underbalanced perforation technique has
improved productivity at a lower cost. The technique has
proven its advantages over the static EUB perforation
technique that had been used widely in the same field. The
new dynamic underbalanced perforation technique creates
clean perforations and thus maximizes productivity. New
wells with consolidated sand reservoirs are the primary
application of this new perforation technique, but the
technique can also be applied for additional perforation jobs.

Acknowledgments
We thank the management of Schlumberger and Total E&P
Indonésie for allowing publication.

References
1. Behrmann, L.A.: “Underbalance Criteria for Minimum
Perforation Damage,” 1996 SPE Drilling & Completion, p.173–
177.
2. Potapieff, I., Lallemant, F., Rusly, A., Zen, D.W., Retnanto, A.,
Kermoud, M., Danardatu, H., Murdiyono: “Case Study:
Maximizing Productivity with Extreme Underbalance
SPE/IADC 97363 5

BONTANG LNG
KERINDINGAN
T.I. FIELDS

NON T.I. FIELDS MELAHIN

ATTAKA SERANG

SEMBERAH SANTAN

BADAK
SA
LIK
I PS
LAMP AKE C

TUNU

M
NILAM

KA
EXPAN

HA

AH
SANGA-SANGA

MA

NG
TE
TAMBORA
SISI
PAMAGUAN

MUTIARA
HANDIL NUBI
SENIPAH BEKAPAI
SAMBOJA

PECIKO

WAILAWI
BALIKPAPAN W
AK
MAHAKAM RA
SEPINGGAN SE
YAKIN SEMANLU
KALIMANTAN

S. MAHAKAM

Figure 1. Mahakam production-sharing contract area. Total Indonésie

(T.I.) fields are colored in red.

Figure 2. Perforation tunnel, undamaged formation, and crushed and compacted low-permeability zone.
6 SPE/IADC 97363

Figure 3. Pressure transients during laboratory experiments.

Figure 4. Exit holes in the perforating system chamber rendered

by the perforating charge and the internal charge.

CT Unloading Services
Perforating Services

Static EUB Dynamic Underbalance

Figure 5. Operation cost saving. CT refers to coiled tubing.

SPE/IADC 97363 7

Cumulative Frequency of Skin

in Static EUB Perforation Technique

100%
90%
Cumulative frequency, %

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 4 8 12 16 20
Skin less than

Figure 6. Fiftieth percentile (P50) skin values average 5 when perforation

jobs use the static EUB technique.

Skin Comparison
Static vs Dynamic Underbalance Perforation Techniques

6 40
35 Skin Average 36
5
No.of well 32
4 4.73
Number of wells

28
Skin Value

3
24

2 20

16
1
-0.29 12
0
8
Static EUB Dynamic UB
-1
4
4
-2 0

Figure 7. Considerabley higher skin values were developed in wells perforated with
static versus dynamic underbalance (UB) perforation techniques.
8 SPE/IADC 97363

Sensitivity of Skin Impact to IPR Curve for Well Tunu #2

5000
BPT
4500
Skin : 0.0
4000 Skin : 1.0
Skin : 2.0
3500 Skin : 3.0
Skin : 4.0
Pwf (Psia)

3000
Skin : 5.0
2500 VLP

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Qg (MMscfd)

Figure 8. The impact of formation damage (skin value) to the inflow performance relationship (IPR) curve for Well
Tunu #2. BPT: back pressure test; VLP: vertical lift performance.

Table 1. Summary of Reservoir Properties in Jobs Using Dynamic Underbalance Perforation

Perf Depth, mss Rock properties Pressure Build Up Data

Qg at MP
No Well Mobility, Kg , Skin at Q = 0 Remarks
Top Bot h, (m) φ , (%) S w , (%) P r , (psi) (MMscfd)
(mD/cP) (md) MMscfd
1 Tunu #1 3489.0 3492.5 3.5 13.7 22.0 151.6 5000 10 1.100 15
2 Tunu #2 3454.1 3458.1 4.0 13.5 13.1 171.0 4598 26 0.000 27
3 Tunu #3 3486.6 3491.6 5.0 13.8 14.3 74.2 4457 138 0.000 29
4 Tunu #4 3770.7 3775.7 5.0 12.7 22.5 50.1 5195 17.7 -2.250 35
5 Tunu #5 3274.7 3278.2 3.5 15.4 33.1 212.0 4469* - - 19 No reliable PBU data
6 Tunu #6 4012.3 4015.3 3.0 12.8 33.6 4.3 6601* - - - Low gas flow and water bearing zone
No flow even N2 CT start up and it's water
7 Tunu #7 3550.7 3556.2 5.5 16.3 29.0 8.4 - 28.9 2350* - - -
bearing confirmed by SGS
8 Tunu #8 4366.0 4371.5 5.5 13.3 9.9 17.5 7490* - - 10 No reliable PBU data
9 Tunu #9 3960.1 3963.6 3.5 15.9 28.4 416.8 5443* - - 35 No reliable PBU data
10 Tunu #10 4035.0 4040.0 5.0 12.0 35.0 24.7 6023* - - 23 PBU to be done
*Pressure from formation testing data
MP: medium pressure mode = 435 psi WHFP
PBU: pressure buildup
SGS: static gradient survey