SPE 108480
Geomechanical Applications for Near-Balance and Dynamic Underbalance Perforating
Technique in Overpressured Gas Zones in Burgos Basin
Humberto Campos, Pemex, and Sergio Martinez, Hugo Pizarro, Calvin Kessler, and Juan Torne, Halliburton
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE International Oil Conference and
Exhibition to be held in Veracruz, Mexico, 27-30 June 2007.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Electric, acoustic, and nuclear logs, as well as rock properties
information from cores and downhole tests, such as leakoff,
minifrac, hydraulic fracturing, and pressure buildup, are
normally available in the gas fields in Northern Mexico. The
existing information was used to fully determine rock
properties and to select the optimum perforating technique to
minimize formation damage and to help produce gas from this
type of reservoir.
The critical drawdown and formation compressibility were
evaluated based on the integration of rock mechanical
properties from dipole sonic and from density logs with core
analysis information determining proper dynamic-to-static
calibration parameters.
The process to design the perforating technique to
maintain a balance between hole diameter for future hydraulic
fracturing and maximum penetration to reduce the skin
damage in this type of reservoir is presented in the paper. The
results from different wells, as well as the advantages and
disadvantages of the technique, are compared.
Introduction
The main objective of the perforating process is to establish
communication to the reservoir to be able to have production
efficiently and effectively. This process is particularly
important in the low permeability, overpressured tight gas
formations even so it is apparently simple because most of the
formations require hydraulic fracture for commercial
production. In fact, it has been a challenge when selecting the
perforating technique to maintain a balance between charge
penetration, hole size, and reservoir pressure for some well
completions. If the perforating technique is not optimized for
the particular reservoir, the results of the initial flow test,
fracture extension, and well production are, in most of the
cases, more expensive and less efficient.
In the case of overpressured tight gas reservoirs, the
application of geomechanical models and field experience has
shown that the best technique is nearbalance perforating. The
same applies for high porosity and permeability reservoirs
where there is tendency to have sand production if extreme
underbalance techniques are used. In the case of fractured or
anisotropic reservoirs, the best technique is nearbalance
oriented perforating.
Well Perforating and Recent Developments
Well perforating began over 70 years ago with the
development of various systems to establish communication
between the cased wellbore with the formation. The objective
of any system is to achieve the maximum flow efficiency for
the particular reservoir while keeping the skin damage to a
minimum.
One of the first systems was bullet perforating, which was
conceived and patented in 1926. This system had some
drawbacks because the bullet remained in the perforation
tunnel and penetration was poor but, on the contrary, the
flowing efficiency was relatively good because the perforation
tunnel with the shape of a near uniform cylinder.
In January 1945, Ramsey C. Armstrong founded Well
Explosives Company (Welex) and, in 1946, the shaped charge
was introduced into the oil industry. The principle of shaped
charge perforating was developed in WWII for armor piercing
shells used in bazookas to destroy tanks. This new technology
allowed the oil producers to have some control over the
perforation design (penetration and hole size) to optimize
productivity. When compared to the bullet system, the shaped
charge perforation tunnel is a conic cylinder and the liner
debris is either dispersed through the entire tunnel or flowed
back into the well.1–2 In general, it was observed that the wells
perforated using the jet perforator system had higher flow
rates than the wells perforated using the bullet perforator
system because the penetration of the first system was larger
than the other system.3
A shaped charge is basically composed of the charge case,
liner, main explosive, and the secondary explosive. The jet
perforating system includes the shaped charges, detonating
cord or primacord, and the electric or pressure detonator
(Figure 1). In general, the angle of the liner’s cone controls the
penetration and the entry hole size, as well as the explosive
power.4–5
This technology has been subject to continuous
improvement throughout the years. The recent introduction of
simulators using fast computers to design systems optimizing
2 SPE 108480
charge interference and the use of other metals for the jet has
contributed to the increase in penetration and perforating
efficiency. The development and introduction of fast pressure
gauges at beginning of this century allowed the analysis if the
events occurring almost instantaneously during the jet
perforating process (Figure 2).
The introduction of flow laboratories (Figure 3) where
rock samples are subject to actual downhole conditions,
including reservoir pressure, overburden pressure, and
effective stress, allowed the evaluation of the performance of
standard charges in any specific reservoir.6 In addition, it is
possible to customize the design of charges for any specific
application, optimizing the results (Figure 4).
There is a great deal of information related to design and
selection of perforating systems for various reservoir
conditions, depending on the production objectives and
techniques. This paper presents an overview of the these
techniques and reviews the experience of integrating the
reservoir parameters and geomechanical information with the
charge performance and mechanical condition of the wells to
plan the perforating job. This type of integration will help to
improve the perforating job performance and any additional
applications performance, such as hydraulic fracturing in the
overpressured tight gas reservoirs in Northern Mexico.
Underbalance Perforating. The underbalance perforating
technique was introduced very early in the development of
various perforating techniques7. It was more highly developed,
however, after the successful introduction of tubing conveyed
perforating (TCP) in the 1970s as a method of inducing an
initial surge period to clean the perforation and minimize the
skin damage.
As early as 1956, Allen and Worzel7 showed that
overbalance perforating “resulted in a less effective
perforation because the perforation tunnel was filled with
crushed sand, charge debris” and pieces of metal from the
liner in addition to formation matrix plugging near the
perforating tunnel, even after the backflow from the formation
(Figure 5). Based on these observations, they recommended
perforating with some differential into the wellbore. In 1969,
Terry Walker, Jack Brown, and George Briggs conducted tests
with an average of 500 psi underbalance, using hollow steel
carrier (HSC) guns. They observed that the atmospheric
pressure inside the carrier was an important factor for
additional cleanup of the perforations, especially in gas
reservoirs where the formation damage during the perforation
was larger because of the change in fluid compressibility.7
After the successful introduction of the TCP technique
(which allowed larger differential pressure into the wellbore),
King et al.8 completed a study of at least 90 wells to determine
the minimum underbalance required for a proper cleanup of
the perforations, considering that excessive differential
pressure “can cause the casing to collapse or the formation to
disaggregate.” They observed that in formations with
permeabilities in the range of 1md to 900md, there was an
exponential relationship between formation permeability and
minimum underbalance required to have clean perforations
(linear relationship in the log-log plot). The procedure used
includes the comparison of production when damage was
removed using acid after the perforating job for gas and oil
wells, as shown in Figure 6. Most of the tests were performed
using an average underbalance of 1,000 psi with a maximum
of 2,000 psi for oil wells and 3,000 psi for gas wells. Over
50% of the time, however, acid did improve production in gas
wells above 2,000 psi and below 2-4md. The results of this
experiment have been used for several years to design
underbalance perforating jobs either in TCP or wireline
perforating. In several cases, extreme underbalance pressures
have been used in low permeability formations with limited
success because, as King stated, “at low permeabilities, there
may not be sufficient flow through the formation matrix to
clean the perforations.” (King et al., 1986)
In some depleted reservoirs, perforating with the well
flowing as another underbalance technique that has been
introduced successfully to improve the cleanup of the
perforations and the reservoir communication.
Extreme Overbalance Perforating. After the introduction of
the TCP technique and the development of low permeability
reservoirs that required additional stimulation to have
commercial production rates, various techniques, such as
extreme overbalance perforating, were considered to
complement the underbalance perforating technique. The
technique was initially presented in 1993 by Oryx Energy and
ARCO as an means of minimizing problems encountered
during the hydraulic fracturing of some specific reservoirs.9
In general, the basic technique used in TCP operations
involves pressurizing a large portion of the tubing with gas
over a column of fluid. During the perforation, the fluid is
injected into the formation, creating small fractures around the
wellbore in consolidated formations (Figure 7). A variation of
this technique was developed in 1997 with the introduction of
propellants that generate high pressure gas during the
explosion of the gun.
In principle, this technique has applications mostly in low
permeability formations to pass the damage zone when there is
not enough underbalance, in pre-hydraulic fracture treatment,
to break down the formation and to enhance the natural
fractures communication to the wellbore.9–12 In medium- to
high-permeability formations, there is usually a surge in
pressure at the beginning, but the production declines to
normal rates after the induced fractures are closed because
there is no material placed to keep them open.
Nearbalance Perforating. The nearbalance perforating
technique is based in the application of a small underbalance
(less than 500 psi) while using HSCs to induce an additional
drawdown pressure when the jets are passing through the
carrier steel wall, casing, cement, and formation.
In 1969, Terry Walker, Jack Brown, and George Briggs
presented an evaluation of this technique using 500 psi as an
average underbalance pressure and HSCs with satisfactory
results, except that in some cases, there was sand flow. This
probably occurred because the critical drawdown pressure was
exceeded.7
The static and dynamic behavior during the clean-up phase
as a product of transient and steady-state flow has been
observed and documented in various papers.13
Some unconventional reservoirs are sensitive to a high
underbalance condition during the perforating and production
SPE 108480
phases because the rock strength and stress can induce either a
shear failure (sand production) or rock grain texture damage in
the vicinity of the perforation tunnel. The optimum
underbalance condition related to geomechanical properties of
the reservoir has recently been documented in various
papers. 13–20 It has also been observed that in low permeability
gas reservoirs, “very high underbalance values (4,000 psi) are
not required to clean gas cores at irreducible water
saturation.”16 In gas cores saturated with brine (which is the
case for tight gas reservoirs), increasing the underbalance to
2,000 psi did not improve flowing efficiency.17
When rock properties information is available, optimizing
the balance between uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)20–21
and critical drawdown pressure values with the reservoir
pressure and length of the HSC gun at atmospheric pressure to
design the perforating job has proved to add value to the
reservoir performance and the subsequent hydraulic fracturing
operations.
Extreme Underbalance Perforating. The extreme
underbalance perforating technique began to be used recently
in Indonesia for natural flow gas reservoirs. It is based on
working at the maximum safe underbalance before the critical
drawdown pressure is reached to perforate the well and
achieve maximum flow and minimum skin.22–24
This technique has also been successfully used in the
medium- to high-permeability gas reservoirs in the Burgos
basin for several years, but it did not produce the same results
in the deep overpressured tight gas sands.
Dynamic Underbalance Perforating. Dynamic underbalance
perforating is the latest perforating technique, based on
controlling the transient pressure behavior when the jet is
going into the reservoir with the wellbore.6, 25 Highly
sophisticated software has been developed that is capable of
predicting the behavior of the pressure and fluid within
fractions of seconds after the charges are initiated until they
reach steady state. This development allowed the design of the
required volume and specific timing to generate the required
dynamic underbalance for the specific formation while
keeping the near balance condition, which is the ideal
condition for the reservoir rock, as showed in recent
papers.20–21 Normally, the flowing performance using this
technique is much better because of the effective removal of
fines from the crushed zone, the optimum tunnel shape (Figure
8), and an instantaneous surge that permits better flow
performance without damaging the rock around the wellbore.
Simulations for standard static underbalance and nearbalance
dynamic underbalance are shown in Figures 9 and 10
respectively.
Oriented Perforating. The oriented perforating technique has
been used and documented for hydraulic fracturing
applications (Figure 11) when the reservoir is known to be
subject to horizontal stress difference of at least 8% because of
tectonics or nearby faults in the Burgos basin. The need to use
this technique is more acute in deep tight gas reservoirs where
fracture pressure gradients sometimes exceed 0.9 psi/ft and the
anisotropy effect is reflected in large values for tortuosity and
3
friction.26–28 A historical case in the Burgos basin was
previously documented and is shown in Figure 12.
Another application for this technique includes sand
control in highly stressed reservoirs or in horizontal or highly
deviated wells.29–30
Near Balance Perforating in Burgos Basin
Overpressured Tight Gas Reservoirs
The gas reservoirs in Burgos basin are usually overpressured
sand reservoirs between 1,000mts and 5,000mts in depth with
a porosity range from 12.5 to 24% average and permeability
from 0.01md to 2 md.
It is standard practice to hydraulically fracture the wells
after they are completed, using a monobore type of completion
design. The typical completion is 3.5 in. or 4.5 in. tubing in
6.125 in. borehole, which gives up to 1.5 in. cement sheet in
some cases (Figure 13).
The wells are drilled using oil based mud that is, in some
cases, as heavy as 2.2 gr/cc. Any gas kick is usually
documented with the equivalent mud weight. This information
is used to determine the reservoir static pressure. (Flowing
pressure is usually very low because these are tight gas
formations with low permeability and high irreducible water
saturation.) The standard practice includes verifying whether
or not there is pressure and gas flow on surface after the
perforating job is completed to proceed with the injection test
and the hydraulic fracture job.
The penetration and efficiency of the charges is a function
of several parameters related to the charge itself and the
reservoir conditions. The parameters related to charge are
usually controlled in the selection of the charge for the
specific application. The parameters related to the reservoir
condition include the formation compressive strength (UCS or
UniAxial Compressive Strength is usually selected, but the
actual formation compressive strength depends on the
confining pressure), reservoir pressure, and matrix rock
texture, as shown in Figure 14. In the case of tight gas sands,
the design for the perforating jobs is oriented to provide
effective reservoir communication while maintaining the
required conditions for hydraulic fracturing (entry hole and
phase orientation). The standard perforating methodology
consisted in completing the well with treated water and
perforating in uncontrolled underbalance condition. This
method was successful in most of the shallow wells, but in
deep wells the underbalance reached sometimes up to 9,000
psi (above the critical shear pressure as found recently based
on rock mechanics core analysis). The flowing gas pressure,
however, reached zero very rapidly after opening the well.
Some wells flow intermittently at very low flowing pressures
after a mini-frac procedure was performed, which indicates
large formation damage either during the drilling or
perforating phase. The need to perform hydraulic fracturing
was normally good enough to remove the perforating skin
damage and provide good reservoir communication until
deeper wells were drilled and other problems were
encountered in the hydraulic fracturing, such as very high
tortuosity and friction, fracture screen-out, casing collapse,
rapid decrease in production, and formation backflow.
Mechanical properties analysis for some of the reservoirs
shows that the critical pressure was almost 60% of the actual
4 SPE 108480
reservoir pressure while high friction angles were observed.
The changes in the formation compressive strength exceed
three times UCS when the confining pressures change
1,800psi and six times the UCS for 5,600psi confining
pressure (Figure 15).
This particular rock condition presents a challenge because
the required underbalance needed to clean up the perforating
tunnel and remove the damage zone will exceed the critical
drawdown pressure. This situation will create an instantaneous
very high load impact on the rock that results in grain crushing
around the wellbore, in addition to the damage induced by the
perforating jet (Figure 16). For this particular rock type, the
ideal condition is to perforate the rock at balanced reservoir
condition because the formation compressive strength is
equivalent to the UCS. Based on the geomechanical model,
this condition is more easily achieved when the pressure inside
the wellbore is near that of the reservoir.
Taking into consideration that in tight gas reservoirs the
procedure to clean perforations using the underbalance
technique gives in the best of the cases partial results as
documented by King et al. in 1986 and other authors in recent
years, it was decided to have optimum penetration and tunnel
condition perforating using the Near Balance Perforating
Technique. In addition, the first interval was perforated using
the longest possible carrier to have an additional underbalance
uncontrolled dynamic pressure at a controlled static
underbalance condition in the order to 200 to 500 psi as
documented previously by Terry Walker, Jack Brown, and
George Briggs in 19697 and Larry Salz in 1974.14
The downhole performance of the perforating guns largely
depends on charge to casing clearance, formation strength,
formation effective stress, (correlating overburden and
reservoir pressure), hydrostatic pressure, and casing
strength.32–35 In addition, the target lithology, grain size, and
matrix distribution also affects the downhole performance of
the charges. These factors, however, are still difficult to
consider in simulations and are still under investigation.
Mechanical Restrictions. Normally the 2in. Hollow Steel
Carrier is used for wells completed in 3.5in. tubing or re-
perforating jobs, the 2.5 in. carrier is used in 4.5 in. tubing and
new wells completed with 3.5in (2.993 in. nominal ID) when
perforations are done with fluid up to the surface valves
because the maximum expansion of the gun after firing in
these conditions is 2.625 in.
Charge Performance. In this particular case, the preferred
perforating system is HSC in 2 in. or 2.5 in. size. The average
API 19B charge performance for these systems shows a
penetration of 18.3 in. and 26.5 in., and an average entry hole
of 0.22 in. and 0.32 in. respectively (Figure 17). The minimum
required entry hole for the selected charges is 0.21 in. to
prevent bridging of the fracture proppant as previously
documented (Figure 11). The clearance is controlled in both
cases. In the smaller case, however, the carrier provides some
clearance to have good charge performance. The charges,
primacord, and detonator used were of the HMX type, rated at
4000F for 1 hour.
Rock Properties. The rock mechanical properties analysis
was performed for some of the wells in the area. The results
show that the static-to-dynamic calibration factor for Young’s
modulus is close to 0.25 and 0.85 for Poisson’s ratio
(Generally the Young’s modulus ratio can be as high as 0.9 in
shallower reservoirs with larger permeability, but we observed
an average ratio of 0.4 to 0.6 in shallower tight gas reservoirs).
The UCS and confined Mohr Coulomb rock mechanics tests
show that the friction angle averages 39 degrees with 1,500 psi
cohesion pressure, but the rock compressive strength increases
from 6,500 psi UCS to 30,000 psi for 5,600 psi confinement
pressure (Figure 18). The increase in rock strength associated
with the change of confinement pressure (which is similar to
having underbalance or overbalance larger than 2,000 psi
during the wellbore-reservoir pressure stabilization transient)
is reflected in a reduction of charge penetration, as reported by
various studies.32–33 There are several relations for
determination of the compressive strength based on porosity
measurements, but most of them show large variations over
the same porosity range. A particular one developed for
Burgos is presented, but still a large scattering is observed
(Figure 19).
Geomechanical Condition. In a simple manner, perforating
performance is a function of the effective stress defined as the
difference between overburden and formation pressure.
Reductions as large as 25% in penetration are observed when
the effective stress varies from 0 to 15,000 psi.
In the case of the deeper tight gas reservoirs, the effective
stress ranges between 3,000 psi and 6,000 psi. When
compared to the rock properties, we can observe that the
critical pressure from Mohr’s circle is an average 60%, which
gives a high probability of shear failure if large underbalance
perforating is used.
In the case of the well D-101, the overburden pressure was
as high as 13,776 psi at 4,000mts. The reservoir pressure
calculated from gas entry during the drilling process was
approximately 9,000 psi and the critical reservoir pressure was
estimated as 4,399 psi.
The maximum drawdown based on actual rock condition
can be estimated from Griffith criteria and the Mohr-Coulomb
criteria.
The Griffith criteria provides an estimation of the critical
shear failure condition from a relationship between the radial
stress and the pore pressure when the medium stress is close to
the reservoir pressure which is the case for overpressured tight
gas reservoirs. In general, if Sm = ( S1 + S2 + S3 ) / 3 ,
Toct = ( 8 * St * Pp ) ½
Where, St is a function of the UCS of the rock. In the case of
the well D-101, the CDP value was estimated as 6,241 psi,
which gives a static drawdown maximum close to 2,791 psi.
The Mohr-Coulomb criteria gives a CDP value of 5,402
psi for a maximum drawdown of approximately 4,198 psi.
SPE 108480
If the well is completed with treated water, the static
underbalance will be approximately 3,300 psi, which is too
close to the critical pressure of the reservoir and shear failure
could be induced if the well is perforated in this condition.
Based on this, it was recommended to apply an additional
3,000 psi on surface before the detonation of the gun. It was
verified that the pressure after perforating increased by
approximately 350 psi. The flowing pressure of the well was
controlled to be higher than the critical value before the
hydraulic fracture job was performed successfully (Figure 20).
Perforation Job Planning and Performance Prediction –
PerfProTM. There are various software models used to predict
the performance of the charges. In this particular case,
PerfProTM software was used because it is one of the latest
models that includes API 19B tests and it is based on actual
tests over different rocks. Parameters were selected based on
the reservoir information previously reviewed in this paper.
The results are presented in Figure 21.
Effect of the Empty Space in the HSC in Nearbalance
Perforating. The amount of additional underbalance for a
2.5in OD and 6mts length hollow steel carrier under reservoir
conditions with 300 psi static underbalance exceed 1,000 psi
additional dynamic underbalance as shown in Figure 10.
The comparison of the pressure transient response between
a static underbalance condition and the dynamic nearbalance
condition shows that the static pressure recovering is marginal,
indicating skin or formation damage, while the second one
shows a good recovery to the original reservoir pressure.
This evaluation was performed using the specialized
software SurgeProTM. For dynamic underbalance applications,
this process is performed during the planning and design
phase, depending on actual reservoir conditions. Special
chambers and devices are used to control drawdown during
the transient time.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• The integration of all the reservoir information and the
team work proved to be successful to optimize results and
production.
• The application of this methodology has been an
important factor in the effective evaluation of reserves,
testing and production of the deep tight gas reservoirs in
Burgos Basin.
• The recommendation for perforating overpressured tight
gas reservoirs specially in deep reservoirs for the
hydraulic fracturing during the completion process
include the following steps:
o Plan and design the well using a simulator, such as
PerfProTM, if possible.
o Plan to use at least 6mts of 2.5 in. HSC whenever
possible for the first interval.
o Perforate 60 degree phase or perform oriented
perforating if the stress field for the particular well
is known.
o Prevent static underbalance drawdown larger than
500 psi.
o Either increase the control fluid weight or
pressurize the well before the perforation of the
5
first interval. The intervals that follow should be
perforated before flowing the well and releasing
the pressure that keeps the balance wellbore-
reservoir.
o Wait for a few minutes after the detonation of the
perforating gun to allow for the stabilization of the
fluids downhole.
o While flowing the well after the completion of the
perforating job, prevent any drawdown below the
critical reservoir pressure.
o Whenever possible, use the dipole sonic or
standard sonic and density information to calculate
the modules and calibrate them using field
correlations. The RockXpertTM software usually
provides good correlation to determine critical
sanding pressure and fracture pressure. This will
also indicate the extension of the hydraulic fracture
and will help in the design of the job to optimize
results.
• The problems related to sand screen-out, tortuosity, and
friction while performing the hydraulic fracture were
drastically reduced after the general use of the
nearbalance perforating technique.
• The nearbalance perforating technique, integrating
geomechanical properties of the formation with actual
well conditions, is a helpful method to maintain good
perforating efficiency without additional cost in large
volume operations such as the Burgos basin.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank PEMEX and Halliburton
for permission to publish this paper. We would like to
recognize the participation of PEMEX and the service
companies in the application of this type of technology to add
value to the client.
References
1. Halliburton, 2005. Perforating Solutions
2. King, G.: 1987, “Selecting a Perforating System,” SPE
16042
3. Allen, T.O. and Atterbury, J.H.: 1954, “Effectiveness of
Gun Perforating,” SPE 00319
4. Poulter, T. and Caldwell, B.: 1957, “The Development of
Shaped Charges for Oil Well Completion,” SPE00680
5. Delacour, J., Lebourg, M.P., and Bell, W.T.: 1958, “A New
Approach Toward Elimination of Slug in Shaped Charge
Perforation,” SPE00941
6. Morris, C.W. and Ayub, J.A.: 1989, “Engineered
Perforation Design and Evaluation,” SPE 18840
7. Folse, K. et al.: 2002, “Perforating System Selection for
Optimum Well Performance,” SPE 73762.
8. Walter, T., Brown, J., and Briggs, G.: 1969, “Maximum
Differential Pressure Perforating,” SPE 2648
9. King, G.E., Anderson, A.R., and Bingham, M.R.: 1986, “A
Field Study of Underbalance Pressures Necessary to Obtain
Clean Perforations using Tubing Conveyed Perforating,”
SPE 14321
10. Handren, P.J, Jupp, T.B., and Dees, J.M.: 1993,
“Overbalance Perforating and Stimulation Method for
Wells,” SPE 26515
11. Behrmann, L.A. and McDonald, B.: 1996, “Underbalance
or Extreme Overbalance,” SPE 31083
6 SPE 108480
12. Grieser, B., Smith, C. and Bertrand, B.: 1997,
“Overbalance Perforating Field Study in the Tubb Sand,
Bravo Dome Field,” SPE 37478
13. Gilliat, J., Sneider, P., and Haney, R.: 1999, “A Review of
Field Performance of New Propellant/Perforating
Technology,” SPE 56469
14. Halleck, P.M. and Deo, M.: 1989, “Effects of Underbalance
on Perforation Flow,” SPE 16895
15. Salz, L.: 1974, “Experience with Perforating Efficiency of
Underbalance Completions in Geopressured Reservoirs,”
SPE 4793
16. Regalbuto, J.A. and Riggs, R.: 1988, “Underbalance
Perforation Characteristics as Affected by Differential
Pressure,” SPE 15816
17. Underdown, D.R. et al.: 2000, “Optimizing Perforating
Strategy in Well Completions to Maximize Productivity,”
SPE 58772
18. Bird, K. and Blok, R.H.J.: 1996, “Perforating in Tight
Sandstones: Effect of Pore Fluid and Underbalance,” SPE
36860
19. Behrmann, L.A., Pucknell, J.K., and Bishop, S.R.: 1992,
“Effects of Underbalance and Effective Stress on
Perforation Damage in Weak Sandstone: Initial Result,”
SPE 24770
20. Tariq, S.M.: 1990, “New, Generalized Criteria for
Determining the Level of Underbalance for Obtaining
Clean Perforations,” SPE 20636
21. Walton, I.C.: 2000, “Optimum Underbalance for the
Removal of Perforation Damage,” SPE 63108
22. Yi, X., Valko, P.P., and Russell, J.E.: 2004, “Predicting
Critical Drawdown for the Onset of Sand Production,” SPE
86555
23. Dyer, G., Gani, S.R., and Gauntt, G.: 1998, “Innovative
Perforating Techniques Show Good Results in Problematic
Deep Gas Sands,” SPE 47807
24. Potapieff, I. et al.: 2001, “Case Study: Maximizing
Productivity with Extreme Underbalance Perforating,” SPE
72134
25. Halim, A. and Danardatu, H.: 2003, “Successful Extreme
Underbalance Perforating in Exploration Well, Donggi Gas
Field, Sulawesi,” SPE 80512
26. Behrmann, L.A. et al.: 2002, “New Underbalance
Perforating Technique Increases Completion Efficiency
and Eliminates Costly Acid Stimulation,” SPE 77364
27. Abbas, H. et al.: 1994, “Oriented Perforation: A Rock
Mechanics View,” SPE 28555
28. Soliman, M. et al.:, 1998, “Case History: 180 Degree
Phasing Used in Fracturing in Low Resistivity Zones in
Gulf of Mexico Wells,” OTC 8584
29. Hernandez, P. et al.: 2004, “Case Histories – Combining
Crossed Dipole Sonic Anisotropy and Oriented Perforating
to Optimize Hydraulic Fracturing in Burgos Basin –
Reynosa, Mexico,” SPE 92014
30. Klimentos, T. et al.: 2003, “Shear Wave Anisotropy
Applications for Perforation Strategy and Production
Optimization in Oil Bearing Porous Sands,” SPWLA 44th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 22-25, 2003
31. Hillestad, E. et al.: 2004, “Novel Perforating System Used
in North Sea Results in Improved Perforation for Sand
Management Strategy,” SPE86540
32. Morris, C.W. and Ayoub, J.A.: 1989, “Engineered
Perforation Design and Evaluation,” SPE 18840
33. Ott, R.E. et al.: 1994, “Simple Method Predicts Downhole
Shaped Charge Performance,” SPE 27424
34. Behrmann, L.A. and Halleck, P.M.: 1988, “Effects of
Concrete and Berea Strength on Perforator Performance
and resulting Impact on the New RP43,” SPE 18242
35. Behrmann, L.A. and Halleck, P.M.: 1988, “Effects of
Wellbore Pressure on Perforator Penetration Depth,” SPE
18243
36. Wesson, D.S., Gill, B.C., and Navarrete, M.: 1991,
“Improved System Test for Perforators,” SPE 22813
37. Bell, W.T. et al.: 1999, “Predicting Downhole Shaped
Charge Gun Performance – Viability of Method,” SPE
60129
38. Halleck, P.M. et al.: 1991, “Prediction of In-Situ Shaped
Charge Penetration Using Acoustic and Density Logs,”
SPE 22808
Authors
Humberto Campos is the Chief of Well Services
Department in Activo Burgos PEMEX. Humberto holds an
Electronic Engineering degree from Instituto Tecnologico de
la Laguna, and a Master Degree in Science from Instituto
Politecnico Nacional, Humberto has been working for
PEMEX for more than 27 years since 1980 when he stared in
Poza Rica District as a flied operations engineer and later in
different locations Veracruz, Comalcalco, Mexico City and
Reynosa.
Sergio Martinez is a Technical Advisor in Reynosa,
Sergio has been more than 20 years in different positions in
Welex and Halliburton Logging Services working in Mexico,
USA and Italy. Sergio has occupied different operational and
management positions
Calvin Kessler, is the Reservoir Deliverability and
Producibility Manager for Wireline & Perforating Service
Line at Halliburton Energy Services. He has a BS PE and MS-
Mining from New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology. He is a member of SPWLA, SPE, API, AADE,
and CCSG, and has more than 32 years of experience with
Halliburton.
Hugo Pizarro is the Perforating, TCP and Slick Line
Technical Specialist for Halliburton Energy Services Wireline
and Perforating Product Service Line in Latin America. Hugo
holds an Electronic Engineering degree from Universidad
Politecnica de Venezuela. Hugo has been working for
Halliburton for more than 17 years since 1990 when he started
in HRS and in 1995 he moved to HLS in Venezuela. Hugo has
worked in different positions from field operations until
management and technical support.
Juan Torne is the technical manager for Halliburton
Energy Service Wireline and Perforating Product Service Line
in Latin America, Juan holds an engineering degree from
Universidad del Cauca in Colombia. He is a member of
SPWLA and SPE, and has been with Gearhart and Halliburton
for over 22 years. He has worked in Venezuela, Indonesia,
Egypt, and Mexico in various positions, from field operations,
technical and interpretation support, operations management,
and technical marketing,
SPE 108480 7

Shaped charges – Jet Perforating

Charge
Case
Detonating Liner
Cord

Detonator Explosive
Main Load
Explosive
Booster
Powder

Figure 1 – Jet Perforating Shaped Charges Figure 2 – Jet Perforating Sequence

Figure 3 – Dynamic Perforating Evaluation Lab

8 SPE 108480

Effect of the technique used

on the Perforation Tunnel

Experiment for same charge and same conditions

including pore pressure and effective stress to
compare the effect of +/- 3500psi U/O pressure

Figure 4 – Flow Efficiency as function of Perforating System

Perforation Damage Zone

Figure 5 – Crushed Zone

SPE 108480 9

Figure 6 – King’s Underbalance Experiment

12000 80
Perforation event

Propellant burn gas expansion 70

10000
60
Perforation breakdown and fracturing
Pressure PSI

8000
Pressure - MPa

50

6000 40

30
4000
20
2000
10
Hydrostatic head

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Time - seconds

Figure 7 – Extreme Overbalance Technique

10 SPE 108480

Dynamic Underbalance and Fast Gauge Response

Figure 8 – Dynamic Underbalance Technique

Static Underbalance of 3000psi – Tight Gas Formation

Observe that pressure did not recover for long time

as observed in the field – Minimum Back Flow

Figure 9 – Static Underbalance Downhole Pressure Transient

SPE 108480 11

Near Balance Dynamic Perforating Technique

Observe the controlled draw down above the critical

pressure and the formation flow back transient
response in a low permeability tight gas reservoir

Figure 10 – Near Balance Dynamic Pressure Transient

6000 200

Abbas et al.

Width Function During Fracture Extension

150
Breakdown Pressure (psi)

5000

100

4000

50

3000
0

2000 -50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Perforation Orientation Angle, degrees from Fracture Orientation
Breakdown Width Function

Gun 1: 2-1/2" Millennium

Gun/Charge Type
Gun Position
2-1/2" Millennium
Eccentered
Avg Formation Penetration
Avg Exit Hole Dia
9.06 in
0.27 in
Simulation using Perf-Pro
Shot Phasing 180 deg Simulation
for 12% using Perf-Pro
porosity, 3600Ffor
Shot No. 1 2 12% porosity,
reservoir 3600F reservoir
temperature and
Orientation, deg 0.0 180.0
Gun Clearance, in 0.0 1.33 temperature and 15,747 psi
Formation Penetration, in 8.87 9.25 15,747 psi formation
Exit Hole Dia 1st Csg, in 0.31 0.26 formation compressi e
compressive strength

Figure 11 – Oriented Perforating applied to Hydraulic Fracturing Design

12 SPE 108480

Figure 12 –Hydraulic Fracturing Historical Case

Activo de Exploración Reynosa

EXPLORACIÓN Y PRODUCCIÓN Operación Geológica
REGIÓN NORTE

POZO: D-101
COLUMNA GEOLÓGICA E.M.R. = 64.88
94.46 m
AFLORA
19 m INICIÓ PERF.:05-FEBRERO-03
T.R. 20” K-55, 94 lb/pie. TERM. PERF: 16-MAYO-03
MIOCENO
CATAHOULA
148 m INICIO TERM: 01-JUNIO-03

403 m
INTERVALOS ATRACTIVOS
PARA PRUEBAS DE PRODUCCIÓN

PP-No intv m T/D (seg) Rt(0HMS) Ø (%) Sw (%)

OLIGOCENO PP-1 3815-3825 2.725 6 10-13 65
FRÍO NO MARINO

PP-2 3525-3540 2.560 6-10 10-13 60-70

1219 m PP-3 3345-3360 2.46 6-8 1012 60-70

PP-4 2254-2270 1.671 4-8 12-15 60-80

OLIGOCENO
VICKSBURG

TR. 13-3/8” ,Q-125, 53.5 lb/pie. 1151 m

1940 m

EOCENO SUP.
JACKSON SUP.
A 2225 m, GL = 200 U
2246 m Dens. de 1.45 A 1.43 gr/cm³

2254m
P.P. 4:
2270 m

T.R. 9-5/8” ,P-110 y Q-125, 53.5 lb/pie. 2693 m

A 3006 m, GL = 228 U
3345m
Dens. de 1.88 A 1.81 gr/cm³ P.P. 3:
EOCENO SUP.
JACKSON MED. 3360 m

3525 m
A 3529 m, GL = 569 U P.P. 2: DISP: (11-08-04); PI= 900 psi (63 Kg/cm²),
Dens. de 2.01 A 1.93 gr/cm³ Pf= 1500 psi (105 Kg/cm²)
3540 m

3815 m
P.P. 1: DISP. (31-07-04); Pi= 4000 psi (281 Kg/cm²),
3825 m Pf= 4500 psi (316 Kg/cm²)

T.L. 4 1/2”, P-110, 15.1 lb/pie 4258 m

PROGRAMA: TOMAR RPC Y MUESTRA
PROF. PROGRAMADA: 4261 m PROF. TOTAL: 4261 m

Shg AGOSTO 24, 2004

Figure 13 – Well D-101 Mechanical Description

SPE 108480 13

Penetration as ƒ(target)
Compressive Effective
Strength Stress Penetration*
Target (psi) (psi) (in) Comments
Concrete 6,600 0 15.49 Benchmark surface shot

Berea 7,000 100 10.25 Reduction due to sandstone

Reduction due to increase

Berea 7,000 1,500 9.21 effective stress
Reduction due to increased
Nugget 13,000 100 6.68 strength

* 2-1/8" Capsule Charge

Figure 14 – Charge Performance as a function of Reservoir Conditions

Figure 15 – Rock Mechanical Properties Analysis

14 SPE 108480

0.30

Poral Elastic Region

0.28

0.26
Poral Failure Region
Porosidad

Shear and Crush Failures

0.24

0.22

0.20
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
PNC, psi

Figure 16 – Rock Failure in Burgos Basin as a function of the Effective Confinement Pressure

Figure 17 – API 19B Test for the Shaped Charge – HSC System
SPE 108480 15

D-1

Figure 18 – Mohr’s Coulomb Rock Mechanics Core Analysis

100
Compresibilidad, 1/psi x 106

a
cf =
1 + be −cφ
10

1
0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.30
Porosidad

100
Compresibilidad, 1/psi x 106

Newman (C & H)
Newman (Horne)
Burgos

10

1
0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.30
Porosidad

Figure 19 – Compressibility vs Porosity

16 SPE 108480

WHP>0

Overburden

Hydrostatic Pressure

Reservoir Pressure

Figure 20 –Well Perforating Model

CS – 6480psi CS – 15068psi
Ph = Pr (UCS) Ph < Pr (1800psi)

Figure 21 – Performance comparison based on Compressive Strength