SPE

SPE 23005

Optimization of Perforation Distribution for Horizontal Wells

M.J. Landman, BHP Research Melbourne Laboratories, and W.H. Goldthorpe,
BHP Petroleum
SPE Members

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference held in Perth, Western Australia, 4-7 November 1991.

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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgm'ent
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Abstract literature, perhaps because of the relatively small number of

In a high permeability reservoir, significant pressure drop
can occur in a horizontal well, causing nonuniform inflow due
to the variation in pressure drawdown along the well. A
mathematical model is described for investigating how
perforation distribution affects the performance of a
horizontal well producing under steady state inflow. The
model couples the Darcy flow into each perforation with the
one-dimensional momentum equations for pipe flow. The
perforated well is treated like a pipe manifold with T-
junctions representing the perforations along the wellbore.
A number of examples are presented demonstrating how the
model may be used to determine the optimal perforation
distribution for different production requirements.
horizontal wells currently in production for which it is
perceived as relevant.
If the flowing pressure gradient within the horizontal
wellbore is comparable to the drawdown in the well, both
need to be taken into account when designing the
completion, and in particular the perforation distribution.
This can occur in long highly productive wells, wells with
small diameter liners, and wells with high gas-oil ratios.
When horizontal wells are used to minimize water or gas
coning, an inappropriate perforation distribution may
actually exacerbate the problem at the downstream end of the
well.

Introduction Dikken8 presented the first semi-analytical model to calculate

One of the distinguishing features of horizontal wells
compared to conventional wells is the relatively large well
length which penetrates the reservoir and is available for
perforating. Performance of a horizontal well may therefore
depend not only on the mechanism by which fluid enters the
well, but also on the fluid flow within the horizontal section,
particularly in high permeability reservoirs where relatively
small pressure drawdown occurs.
A considerable amount of analytical work has been published
on various aspects of horizontal well production, including
transient flow models, stabilized inflow models and
productivity indices, and coning and cresting behavior l -7 .
Although these methods have provided insight into the
behavior of horizontal wells, they have generally been based
on the assumption of the well being a line sink with a
uniform flux boundary condition at the well. Hence any
impact of fluid flowing within the wellbore on the well's
inflow performance is neglected. This aspect of horizontal
well modeling has not received much attention in the
References and figures at end of paper.
the production performance of a horizontal well with a
wellbore pressure gradient resulting from turbulent flow. A
similar model was developed earlier in the context of water
uptake by plant roots by Landsberg and Fowkes9 • Frictional
pressure drop calculations have since been added to reservoir
simulators in a variety of wayslO-l3, including incorporating
models similar to Dikken's. The model of Islam and
Chakmal l , although allowing for the effect of inflow through
perforations on the two-phase flow regime within the
wellbore, does not provide a means to investigate the impact
of different perforation distributions on well performance. A
number of studies and models have been presented on
perforated completions in conventional oil and gas wells (for
example Ichara l4 ), but there has not been any discussion on
the application of these to horizontal wells with wellbore
pressure gradients.
This paper describes a mathematical model that couples the
pressure-flowrate relationship for each of a specified number
of perforations with a wellbore pressure drop model that treats
the perforated well as a pipe manifold containing T-junctions.
Flow is assumed to be single phase and turbulent within the
wellbore, although it would be possible to incorporate

567
2 OPI1MlZATION OF PERroRATION DISTRIBUIlON roR HORlZONfAL WELLS
laminar flow or multiphase flow (e.g. bubble-induced
turbulencel l ) in the wellbore. The primary objective of the
model is to provide a tool for investigating the effect of
different perforation distributions on horizontal well
performance. Thus. for a given production strategy, the
optimal distribution under steady state inflow can be
detennined.
A set of basic optimization strategies are defined, and applied
to both inImite conductivity (constant pressure) and finite
conductivity (with a wellbore pressure gradient) wells. In the
infinite conductivity case, it is demonstrated how non-
uniformly spaced perforations are required for various
optimization problems. This results from higher flow rates
into end perforations due to partial penetration. For f"mite
conductivity wells, a comparison is made with both the
approach of Dikken and with the case when an infinite
conductivity assumption is made. Examples of well
optimization are presented, resulting in significant variation
in perforation density, particularly due to the variation in
drawdown along the well. A simple application of the
methodology to a well penetrating zones of different
penneability is also included.
Throughout this paper the following conditions are assumed.
The reservoir is infinite, isotropic and homogeneous (except
for the multiple zone model), with a constant pressure
boundary at infinity. There is no contribution to inflow
pressure drawdown from skin due to formation damage. All
fluid flow is single phase, with turbulent flow in the wellbore.
The Perforation Model for the Reservoir
A schematic diagram of the well model is shown in Figure 1.
The perforations are considered to be cylindrical, of length a,
and radius S. The influence of the wellbore and damage to the
surrounding formation is assumed to be negligible. An
analytic formula for the flow into an infinite conductivity
cylinder (i.e., on which the boundary condition is that the
pressure is specified) is unavailable. The pressure-flowrate
relationship is known, however, in the limit of small lila. In
that case, the self induced pressure due to flow Q i into the
perforation itself is given by
LQ.1oJ!) (I)
2~k a 6\a
where the reservoir pressure datum is taken to be zero "at
infinity", and the natural logarithm is used. This may be
derived as the leading term, as Sla ~ 0, for either the average
pressure at a radius Ii around a finite length line source of
uniform strength. or from the more sophisticated model where
the perforation is a large aspect ratio ellipsoid, on which
constant pressure is specified14•
The separation between perforations is sufficiently great so
that at a given perforation i, every other perforation j has the
influence of a point sink of strength Qj. Therefore the
phasing of the perforations need not be considered. The
pressure at perforation i is therefore given by
P; = L~_ 2Q.a IOg(!)+
4~ a
L.. ~Qj
. -x-
I]
J"'. J
(2)
where perforation j is positioned at x=xj ' with Xl the f"rrst
perforation at the downstream end of the well. This is
568
SPE23005
essentially the same as a point sink model 16. 17 with wellbore
radius
(3)
Note, however, that unlike previous studies, the sink
positions ]Ci are considered here as variables, on which the
pressure and flowrate depend nonlinearly.
Writing the values of pressure and flowrate along a well of N
perforations as N-vecrors, equation (2) can be written
(4)
where the matrix A depends on the perforation size and
distribution. Therefore, given the pressure distribution along
the well, and a given perforation distribution, it becomes an
NxN matrix inversion problem to find the flowrate per
perforation:
(5)
This is a discrete analogue of the problem of modeling a fully-
open horizontal well with specified (e.g. constant) pressure
boundary conditions, which has only been solved
numerically to datelS. Note, however, that parallel to the
well, the pressure is far from constant in the perforated case,
as there are local pressure minima at each of the perforations.
Manifold Model for Pressure Drop In Well
The model proposed allows for a finite conductivity well, due
to the frictional pressure drop of fluid flow within the well.
The pressure drop in a horizontal well is discussed by
Dikken8 , who models an open-hole or slotted liner
completion. The significance of well pressure drop has
recently been quantified by comparing the dissipation of
energy in the well and in the reservoir19 • In general, the
pressure drop along the well, I1P, is significant given a
sufficiently long well of small diameter, and sufficiently
small drawdownP d at the downstream end of the well, so that
J1P becomes comparable with Pd' This is not atypical for a
perforated completion in a high penneability reservoir.
Dikken assumes turbulent pipe flow in the well. The current
work for high productivity wells shows that this assumption
is justified for essentially the entire length of the well.
Although Dikken's model allows for a variable specific
productivity index (PI), he concentrates on having a uniform
PI per unit length. The results which follow demonstrate that
end effects can be important, however, as the specific PI
increases there.
The pressure drop model considers the perforated well to be
like a pipe manifold, with NT-junctions distributed along the
wellbore of diameter D, and cross-sectional area A. The
pressure drop in the wellbore across each perforation outlet is
assumed negligible, as is the pressure drop within a
perforation. Estimates of these pressure drops (for single-
phase flow) show that they are much smaller than that due to
turbulent flow in the pipe segments between perforations20 •
The pressure drop due to friction is derived from a single
phase pipe flow model, where
ap_ pI q2 (6)
aX- 2DA2
SPE23p05 M. J. LANDMAN AND W. H. GOlDIHORPE
The pressure drop due to a chmge in kinetic energy is
neglected (it is estimated as being negligible compared to
that from friction); the chmge in head due 10 well inclination
is not included in (6). but can be easily incorporated in the
model.
On discretizing (6). the pressure Pi at each perforation i along
the well is
Ii =Pd (7a)
- + 2D
P;+1 -P; Phq? I~
A2 l""i+1 -Xi
I (7b)
P d is the downstream drawdown, which is taken as specified at
position xl' Alternatively. the total flowrate could be
specified, although this requires a slightly more complex
solution method, as described in Appendix A.
Equation (7b) expresses the pressure drop in successive pipe
segments i (i=l.N-l), in which the cumulative flowrate is
N
~=~~ 00
j=i+1
The pressures are thus calculated from the perforation
flowrates. working upstream from the first perforation. The
turbulent friction factor is taken ail°
2.-+ 5'~~)J2
=0.25[101~3.7D
h (9)
Rei
with pipe rouglmess 1C and local Reynolds number
Re. = P Dqi (10)
• 2p. A
Note that a laminar friction factor could just as easily be used
if the Reynolds number is less than about 2000; in the cases
run under conditions applicable to high permeability
completions, it is found that the Reynolds number in the well
exceeds this threshold just a small fraction of L downstream
of the well's end. Moreover. Briggs21 recently incorporated
the effects of two-phase flow in a semi-analytic discretization
of Dikken's model, and found that the pressure drop in the
well can be satisfactorily modeled with a single phase friction
fac1Dr-with surface roughness. as in (9).
Coupling of Reservoir and Well Models
The well-bore pressure drop equations (7) are of the functional
form
p=F[(2l (11)
for the pressure and flowrate vectors. This suggests a simple
computational scheme to solve the coupling of the reservoir
and the well-bore models. Equations (5) for the flowrates in
terms of the pressures at the perforations, and equations (11)
in the wellbore. constitute a well-posed mathematical
problem of 7N equations in 7N unknowns. The following
iterative scheme is therefore proposed:
QII+1 =A-1P" (l2a)
pll+l = F[Q"+1 l (12b)
Starting with an initial guesses P p>.p d' the application of
(12a) followed by (12b) produces an updated pressure and
perforation flowrate profile along the well. The method is
569
3
judged to have converged when both the sum of the
increments in Pi and Q i are less than a given small 1Olerance.
This usually occurs in small number of iterations. due to a
geometric convergence rate.
When an inf"mite conductivity wellbore is assumed. the
pressure vec10r is constant and equal 10 Pd' so that (12a) can
be directly applied, and no iterations are required.
Optimization Strategies
Optimizing the perforation distribution involves a number of
competing factors. First, the reservoir produces most
efficiently when the perforations are placed as far apart as
possible. so that increasing the well length is desirable.
Second. the pressure drop due to fluid flow in the well
increases with L. in turn decreasing the inflow towards the
upstream end of the well. Third. finite penetration increases
the specific productivity of the well at its ends.
There are several optimization strategies which take into
account such fac1Ors. each of the general form: Given a well of
length L. which is to be perforated with N charges, what is the
optimal distribution of the charges to maximize the well's
performance? The well's performance can be measured by
several different quantities, depending on the physical
circumstances (reservoir heterogeneity. boundaries. aquifers
and gas-caps). In the simple geometry considered here, five
prototype optimization problems have been identified:
PROBLEM lA: Maximize the total production from the well
N
Q= ~Q; (13)
i=l
given the pressure drawdown (for a well of fmite conductivity,
the drawdown Plat the downstream end of the well is
specified).
PROBLEM IB: Minimize the (downstream) drawdown, Pi'
given the production rate Q.
PROBLEM Ie: (fmite conductivity wells only) Minimize the
pressure drop inside the well,
I1P=PN -1i (14)
given the production rate Q (or drawdown P 1).
PROBLEM 2A: Make the specific flowrate into the well (the
inflow per unit length) as uniform as possible, given the
drawdown, Pl'
PROBLEM 2B: Make the specific flowrate into the well (the
inflow per unit length) as uniform as possible, given the
production rate Q.
All problems are subject to the constraint
o~ Xt <...< Xi < X +1 <...< X N ~ L
i (15)
The problems of type 1 fall into the general class of problems
discussed by Inayat-Hussain19, where an optimality theorem
is proved for the PI of a reservoir-well system.
Instead of doing an optimization over N variables. the above
problems can be reduced in computational size by segmenting
the perforated interval into J segments. each with I
4 OPI1MlZATION OF PERFORATION DISTRIBUTION FOR HORlZONTAL WEllS
perforations (N=J/). i.e., the perforation density is piecewise
constant over the intervals
in which the I perforations are located at
X/j+i=Xj+(Xj+l-Xj)i/I, i=l... I, i=0... J-1
(17)
Note that if 1=1, then X =X·, and the optimization is over all
J J •
perforations independently. When 1>1, the segmentmg
procedure reduces the computational work required by reducing
the number of equations from N to J, where for instance N may
typically be 400, but J =20 is able to deliver a reasonably
smooth solution.
PROBLEMS 1A and 1B are equivalent in the case of an infmite
conductivity well (as are 2A and 2B), but differ when the
pressure drop in the wellbore is significant, when the pressure
versus flowrate relationship becomes nonlinear. The
solution to PROBLEM 1A is of interest in the case when water
or gas coning is not a consideration. PROBLEMS 1B and 1C
are of interest because exaggerated coning of water or gas is
likely to occur at the downstream end of the pipe if there is a
relatively large pressure minimum there. This phenomenon
has been observed in the reservoir simulations of Korady et.
al. 13, where a streamtube model shows rapid breakthrough at
the downstream end of a horizontal well. Also, in PROBLEM
1C, a reduction in AP will lead to an increase in the
productivity index. PROBLEMS 1 are solved by a quasi-Newton
method with finite difference approximations for the
gradient, which is a standard procedure for imding the local
minimum/maximum of a function of J variables22 •
PROBlEMS 2A and 2B are more relevant when retardation in
coning is the prime consideration; a uniform flowrate into the
well is likely to delay breakthrough, attempting to make the
two-phase interface approach the well uniformly along its
length. The specific flowrate (flowrate per unit length) is the
same into each segment when
/~1) Q .
LQ, =-(Xj+l-Xj ), J=0... J-1
(18)
i=/j+l L
As Q is also an unknown, (18) constitute a system of J
equations in J unknowns (Xl .. X J-l and Q). Q can be
eliminated from the system, leaving J -1 equations in as many
unknowns. Framed as such, PROBLEM 2 is not solved as an
optimization problem, but has a unique solution which is
arrived at using the iterative Newton's method.
Uniformly Perforated Wells
Before carrying out any perforation optimizations, it is worth
examining the results of the well-reservoir model with and
without wellbore pressure drop, when the perforations are
uniformly spaced so that
IXi +l -Xi l=L/(N-l), i=l...N-l (19)
Figure 2 compares both infinite and imite conductivity
models, for a 400 m well in a 1000 millidarcy reservoir (see
Table 1 for the other well and reservoir parameters). The
downstream drawdown is set at 50 kPa, and a 14 kPa pressure
drop is set up inside the wellbore as a result of the fluid flow.
Also in Figure 2, the graph of specific inflow (flowrate per
unit meter into the well) shows there is a significant drop in
570
SPE23005
production in the upstream section of the well due to the
decreased drawdown· This leads to an oveIJlrediction of the
wellrate by 27% if an infinite conductivity assumption is
used. Note that the diagram of specific inflow also shows the
increase in inflow at the ends of the well due to the increased
drainage volume there.
In his work on analytic modeling of horizontal wells,
Dikken8 poses the question of finding the optimal well length
L, given its specific productivity J S' Here optimality means
some fraction of the maximum flow (80% of that from a semi-
infmite well) is achieved. Dikken's criterion can be evaluated
for the current perforation model, where J s has been calculated
as Q/(LP d) from the infmite conductivity well of Figure 1. It
is found that for the parameters given in Table I, the critical
well-length (when Dikken's xn=l) is approximately 900
meters (for a perforation density of 1 shot per meter, and
friction exponent a=0.2), so that the well lengths considered
here are less than the maximal and should be considered of
imite length.
Accordingly, Dikken's semi-analytic imite length well model
can be compared to the imite conductivity perforated well
model described above. In Dikken's original model the
downstream drawdown is assumed known; in the course of the
current work the Dikken model has been extended to allow the
specification of flowrate. Figure 3 shows the drawdown along
the 400 m well for both models, given a specified production
rate of 10 000 bbllD [1590 m 3 /d]. The agreement is shown to
be quite good, given that the two parameters in Dikken's
model, J s and a, were chosen a priori , the former from the
infmite conductivity well of the same length and perforation
density, and the latter by attempting to match the friction
factor (9) with Dikken's power-law friction factor. It is
apparent that a closer match of the results could be achieved
by decreasing a slightly, which strongly influences the well
pressure drop, and then adjusting J s to match the drawdown.
Optimization of Infinite Conductivity Wells
In this section, the pressure drop along the well is assumed
negligible compared to the drawdown, so that Pi = P d' the
drawdown (e.g. in tight reservoirs, or for shorter, larger
diameter wells). With the simple model (2) and its inversion
(5), the effect of perforation distribution can be evaluated for
a imite length well in an isotropic infmite reservoir, without
the effects of wellbore pressure drop. The results isolate the
mechanisms involved in each of the two main prototype
optimizations described, which will become important in the
next section when wellbore pressure drop is accounted for.
Figure 4 shows the results of optimizing the flowrate
(PROBLEM 1A) and the results of making the specific inflow
constant (PROBLEM 2A) for an infmite conductivity 200 m
well, perforated with 400 perforations (for computational
purposes, J=10 segments were used for 1A, and J=20 for 2A).
Note that a 100 mD reservoir and a 100 kPa drawdown has
been used in this section, so that the well productivity is
relatively low, and the pressure drop in the wellbore is
negligible. This may be shown from direct calculations,
where the finite conductivity well model predicts a 0.284 kPA
pressure drop, which is only 0.3% of the drawdown, or by use
of an analytic scaling formula l9 .
Examining the solution with maximum Q ill"st (PROBLEM 1A),
the optimal solution tends to distribute more perforations at
SPE23(105 M. J. LANDMAN AND W. H. GOIDI'HORPE
the ends of the well. where there is greater exposure to the
reservoir. Note. however. that the increase in productivity is
only 0.13% over that of the 1295 bbl/D [206 m 3 /d] produced
by a uniformly perforated well.
Making the specific inflow more uniform has the opposite
effect on perforation distribution. Perforations are moved
away from the ends of the well, reducing the enhanced
productivity there due to partial penetration effects. The
resulting decrease in well productivity is again small (a 0.6%
loss).
The above results suggest that in homogeneous formations
for wells in which the pressure drop is negligible. there is
little advantage in non-uniform perforation distributions in
order to optimize productivity. As a result, however. the
high inflows at a well's end can be reduced by distributing less
perforations at the end of the well. without a significant loss
in productivity.
Optimization of Finite Conductivity Wells
The solutions to PROBLEMS lA (flowrate optimization) and 2A
(uniform inflow) for a 400 meter well with 400 perforations
in a 1000 md reservoir are shown in Figure 5. and are
compared to a uniformly perforated well. Pressure drop is
calculated in each of the wells. Recall that the uniformly
perforated well was compared earlier to that with infmite
conductivity. and well-pressure drop was found to be
important in this case.
In order to maximize the inflow for PROBLEM lA, perforations
are distributed more densely at the downstream end of the
well. where the drawdown is largest. Note that although the
perforation density is more than doubled at the bore outlet,
the improvement in production is only 2% over that of the
uniformly perforated well.
In general. for all problems of type 1 (maximize Q, or
minimize drawdown). changes in productivity are not large,
and tend to put more perforations where the drawdown is
largest. As the optimized configuration would probably
enhance coning due to significantly nonuniform specific
inflow. the current calculations suggest that this type of
perforation distribution is generally unfavourable for those
reservoirs where coning is expected.
The solution to PROBLEM 2A in Figure 5 distributes the
perforations so that their density towards the end of the well
is almost twice that of the downstream end. Note that the
density drops off slightly at the upstream end due to the
partial penetration effect which causes a greater inflow per
perforation at the well extremity. The decrease in wellrate is
only 3% as a result of redistributing perforations away from
the exit of the well.
This solution for a specific-inflow-optimized finite
conductivity well is perhaps of most interest in practice, and
quantifies the field procedure of increasing perforation
density. at the end of a horizontal well. Figure 6 shows the
operation of horizontal wells in a 1000 md reservoir.
operating under three specified flowrates of 5. 10 and 15
thousand bbl/D [795. 1590, 2380 m 3 /d]. At each flowrate a
well with uniform perforation density and a well with a
perforation profile optimized for uniform specific inflow
(PROBLEM 2B) are shown. The plot of pressure indicates the
571
5
change in drawdown of the wells as production is varied, with
the ratio !iP/P 1 (indicating the importance of pressure drop in
the well) increasing with production rate. At high production
rates. the specific inflow in the uniformly perforated well is
seen to peak very significantly at the downstream end of the
well, which can be remedied with a significant decrease of
perforation density there.
The perforation density in PROBLEM 2 reaches a maximum
approximately 75% of its length upstream from the exit, as
seen in the profiles of Figure 6. In practice. it may not be
necessary to decrease the perforation density in the froal
section of the well. This is because a higher specific inflow
may be desirable at the well ends due to the increased drainage
volume there. Reservoir simulations coupled with a stream
tube model13 demonstrate this effect for infmite conductivity
wells. where water breakthrough occurs in the center of the
completion. There is therefore scope to modify the constant
specific inflow requirement near the well extremities in order
to aChieve uniform cresting of an underlying aquifer along the
entire well length.
Reservoir with Two Permeability Zones
In order to evaluate the effect of a permeability contrast in
the formation, a two-zone permeability model is used, where a
vertical plane at position x=xo separates a region M 1 of
permeability kl for x<Xo• and a region Mz of permeability "z
for x>xo' The equations for the pressure in terms of the inflow
for the two-zone model are given in Appendix B. They are of
the same form as those for the homogeneous formation, so
that the iterative schemes described above can be used.
Figure 7 shows the results of a 400 m well penetrating 200 m
of a 2000 md zone and 200 m of a 500 md zone. with the less
permeable formation at the upstream end of the well. If a
constant specific productivity well were assumed. a naive
calculation would suggest that 80% of the perforations should
be shot in the less permeable zone if the aim is to equalize the
inflow in each zone (a simplified version of PROBLEM 2B).
The zonal production for a set of different perforation
strategies is shown in Figure 7. each with 400 total
perforations. and uniform (but generally different) perforation
densities within each zone. The production rate is kept
constant at 10 000 bbl/D [1590 m 3 /d]. The pressure drop in
the well tends to deplete the upstream inflow, so that in the
case shown 86% of the perforations should be shot in the less
permeable zone to equalize the inflow.
Similarly, PROBLEM lA (which maximizes the production) has
been solved for two-zone reservoirs. In general. a high
density of perforations should be placed in the more
permeable zone in this case. Perforations are only necessary
in the less permeable zone if the permeability contrast is
mild, or once the perforation density becomes sufficiently
high in the more permeable zone to cause considerable
pressure drawdown depletion there.
The two-zone model can of course be generalized to multiple
zones of different permeability. Similarly, boundaries and
more complex anisOlropies in the reservoir could be included
in a more sophisticated reservoir-well model, creating more
realistic forms of the pressure-flowrate relationship (4).
6 OPl1MlZATION OF PERFORATION DISTRIBUITON FOR HORlZONTAL WELlS
Conclusions
• A model has been presented that allows the optimal
perforation density for a horizontal well producing from an
idealized infinite reservoir to be quantified. In a real
homogeneous reservoir, the results should be qualitatively
the same.
• For a finite conductivity well, making the specific inflow
uniform along the well requires a perforation density which
increases towards the upstream end of the well. Alternatively,
if maximum production is sought, the perforation density at
the downstream end of the well should be increased. The total
flowrate remains relatively insensitive to perforation
distribution. however.
• The results of Dikken! have been reproduced for a uniformly
perforated finite conductivity well.
• A simple application of the model to a well penetrating two
zones of contrasting permeability has been given. The model
can be enhanced to determine optimum perforation
distributions within multiple zones, and when reservoir
boundaries (no-flow or constant pressure) are included.
• More sophisticated perforation inflow models could be added
in order to allow for damaged zones, the presence of the
wellbore 23 , and permeability anisotropy. Similarly, a
multiphase wellbore pressure drop model could be included.
• As the model allows for the determination of the pressure
field throughout the reservoir, there is potential to directly
calculate the effect of perforation distribution on fluid flow in
the formation.
Nomenclature
a perforation length (m)
A cross-sectional area of wellbore (m2 )
A matrix relating P to Q
D wellbore diameter (m)
1,Ii single phase friction factor
F pressure drop functional
G flowrate functional
I number of perforations in a pipe segment
J number of uniformly perforated segments
k permeability (m2 )
/q permeability in zone i (m2 )
Js specific productivity index (m3 /Pa/m)
L length of perforated horizontal well (m)
qi flowrate in wellbore between perf. i and i+l (m3 /s)
Q total flowrate from well (m3 /s)
(Jj flowrate into ith perforation (m3 /s)
Q vector of perforation flowrates (m3 /s)
N total number of perforations
Pi pressure at ith perforation (Fa)
P..tl downstream drawdown (Fa)
P vector of perforation pressures (Pa)
Rei local Reynolds number
V arbitrary vector of length N
Xi position of ith perforation (m)
Xi position of ith perforation segment (m)
572
SPE23005
matrix element
Dikken's friction exponent
perforation radius (m)
wellbore rouglmess (m)
dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
density rr-g/m3 )
AcknOWledgments
Dr. A. A. Inayat-Hussain and Dr. B. P. Marett are thanked for
many helpful discussions during the course of this work. BHP
is acknowledged for permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Goode, P.A. and Thambynayagam, R.K.M.: "Pressure
Drawdown and Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in
Anisotropic Media," SPE Reservoir Engineering, Dec. 1987,
683-697.
2. Kuchuk, F.I., Goode, P.A., Sherrard, D.W., Brice, B.W.,
and Thambynayagam. R.K.M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis
and Inflow Performance for Horizontal Wells," SPE 18300
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. Houston, Texas, Oct. 2-5, 1988.
3. Kuchuk, F.I., Goode, P.A., Wilkinson, 0.1. and
Thambynayagam, R.K.M.: "Pressure Transient Behavior of
Horizontal Wells with and without Gas Cap or Aquifer," SPE
Reservoir Engineering, March. 1991, 86-94.
4. Ioshi, S.D.: "Augmentation of Well Productivity with
Slant and Horizontal Wells," JPT (June 1988) 729-739.
5. Goode, P.A. and Willcinson. 0.1.: "Inflow Performance of
Partially Open Horizontal Wells," SPE 19341 presented at the
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown. West Virginia,
Oct. 24-27, 1989.
6. Giger, F.M.: "Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting
before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells," SPE Reservoir
Engineering, Nov. 1989, 409-416.
7. Babu, O.K. and Odeh, A.S.: "Productivity of a Horizontal
Well," SPE Reservoir Engineering, Nov. 1989,417-421.
8. Dikken, B. I.: "Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and its
Effect on Production Performance," JPT (Nov. 1990) 1426-
1433.
9. Landsberg, 1.1. and Fowkes, N.D.: "Water Movement
Through Plant Roots," Ann. Bot. 42 (1978), 493-508.
10. Stone, T.W., Edmunds, N.R. and Kristoff, B.I.: "A
Comprehensive Wellbore/Reservoir Simulator," SPE 18419
presented at the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Houston, Texas, Feb. 6-8, 1989.
11. Islam, M.R. and Chakma, A.: "Comprehensive Physical
and Numerical Modeling of a Horizontal Well," SPE 20627
presented at 65th Annual Technical Conference of the SPE,
New Orleans, Louisiana, Sept. 23-26, 1990.
12. Collins, D.A., Ngiem, L.X., Sharma, K.A. and Kamal,
N.I. "Field Scale Simulation of Horizontal Wells with Hybrid
Grids," SPE 21218 presented at the 11th SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, Anaheim, California, Feb. 17-20,
1991.
SPE23005 M. J. LANDMAN AND W. H. GOLDTHORPE 7

13. Korady, V., Renard, G. and Lemonnier, P.: "Modelling of Appendix B:

Pressure Drop for Three-Phase Flow in Horizontal Wells," Two Zone Reservoir
presented at the 6th European lOR-Symposium, Stavanger,
A vertical plane at position x=xo separates a region M 1 of
Norway, May 21-23, 1991.
permeability 11 for x<xo, and region M 2 of permeability Ie"
14. lchara, M.J.: "The Performance of Perforated for x>xo' The well is assumed to penetrate both zones. The
Completions in Gas Reservoirs," SPE Reservoir Engineering, equation for the pressure at perforation i in zone M 1 is
Nov. 1990, 639-646. calculated by imaging each perforation across the interface.
The image of the perforation itself is also taken as a point
15. Bell, W.T., Brieger, E.F. and Harrigan, J.W.: "Laboratory
sink of appropriate strength, as the perforations are assumed
Flow Characteristics of Gun Perforations," iPT (Sept. 1972)
to be sufficiently far from the permeability interface. The
1095-1103.
total pressure at such a perforation is therefore
16. Muskat, M.: 'The Effect of Casing Perforations on Well
Productivity," Trans. AIME (1943) 151, 175-187.
17. Besson, 1.: "Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells , =...1!:....
p(l) 4nk [aJl... ~ + ~
"'" a~!)Q.
'J J
+ "'"
~
a~~)Q']
'/ J
1 jeMI jeM2
on an Anisotropic Medium," SPE 20965 presented at Europec
90, the Hague, Netherlands, Oct. 22-24, 1990.
(Bl)
18. Lee, S.H.: "Analysis of Productivity of Inclined Wells
and its Implication for Finite-Difference Reservoir
Simulation," SPE Production Engineering, May. 1989, 173-
180.
19. Inayat-Hussain, A.A.: "The Productivity Index of
Petroleum Reservoirs and the Dissipation Function," BHP
Research preprint (1991).
20. Miller, D.S.: Internal Flow Systems, BHRA (Information
Services), Cranfield (1990)
21. Briggs, P.: "Pressure Drop in Horizontal Well
Completions - Is it Important 1" 1991 JETEC Conference.
22. Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A. and A similar expression holds for the pressure at a perforation in
Vetterling, W.T.: Numerical Recipes, Cambridge Uni. Press, zone 2, and the problem is therefore of the form (4), as for the
Cambridge (1989) homogeneous reservoir.
23. Marett, B.P., Inayat-Hussain, A.A. and Goldthorpe,
W.H.: "Analytical Solutions of 3-Dimensional Flow near a
Wellbore," SPE 23008 to be presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Conference, Perth, Australia. Nov. 4-7, 1991.

AppendiX A:
Iterative Scheme When Flowrate Is Specified
When Q is specified, the iterative scheme is altered so that
(12a) is replaced by

Q"+1 = G[A-11'''] (AI)

where

(A2)

is a scaling function for its vector argument. This ensures

that the flowrate is correct at each iteration. In the second
step (12b), equation (7a) is no longer available, but the set
(7b) is augmented with equation (2), which is evaluated at a
perforation midway along the wellbore (this is more stable
than picking a perforation at the end of the bore). For an
inImite conductivity well, (AI) is applied to a constant
pressure vector, and due to the linearity of the problem, the
resulting perforation flowrates and the pressure vector can be
scaled to give the correct total flowrate.

573
SPE 2 3005
Table 1. Reservoir Fluid and Well Parameters

ReservoIr fluid parameters Well parameters

viscosity 0.5 centipoise well diameter D 12.5 cm

J.L
density p 750 kg/m3 well roughness 1C 0.1 cm
perf. radius 0 1.0 cm
perf. length a 35.0cm

X=Xi x=xi+l X=X N

Fig. 1 - Perforated wellbore model

........ 30 ~_ _---I. L-_ _..l...-_ _-L

-35
.g
'2 -40
g 25
;g .. - -- -_ - -_ _.. ---_ -_ .. '
~ uniformly perforated wells:
- - - - infinite conductivity
'-' 20
~
~ -45 - fmite conductivity
S
'"'"~ (k= 1000md) .S 15
c..>
t=l.< -50 ---- infinite conductivity (Q=8775 bbl/D)
!E 10
- fmite conductivity (Q=6930 bbl/D)
~
-55 ........----.-----,---~--.J_ ~5-;----,----r----.----f-
o 100 200 300 400 o 100 200 300 400
x(m) X (m)

Fig. 2 - Comparison of infinite and finite conductivity

uniformly perforated wells

-50

-55
'2
~
-60

~ -65
'"
a. -70 .---- Dikken model, a.=0.2, J=0.439 bbl/D/kPa/m
- current model, 400 uniform perforations
-75

-80
0 100 200 300 400
x(m)

Fig. 3 - Comparison of Dikken's and current model

574
 seE 2"3005

8 2 .6
-I
..-..
.g
11
~
&2.4 I g 10 .......... unifonn perforations
I

,
I
'-"
>- 2.2
I
I ;g 9
. - - flowrate optimized I
.<;:::; '-" - unifonn specific inflow
L , l
=
r:IJ
~ , ~
0 8
II
IJ
~ 2.0 l:i=:
-------- Ii
=0
'p 1.8
.S
(.)
7 I,,;i
ca
.... $(.) . .:::..
-:;,.""":.:~-..:.-::-.:.-~ ,.=-:::~
6
.g 1.6
(I)
(I)
p.,
r:IJ
p., 5
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
X (m) x (m)

Fig. 4 - Optimization problems 1A and 2A for

an infinite conductivity well

..-.. ..-.. 50 -.r---'-----'-------'---ooo\-

:€. 2.0 - I
.g
'gp., : g40~
'>: 1.5 .. - ;g \..
•<;:::; '-" 30 I
r:IJ
=
~ 1.0
::>
;>
r.:8
'.
~-
. .,
I
- ""
§ '-------_ . .~ 20 ~~:::.i:.:.-.::...;..-::-.::.::.::_::.:T:.:...,....I
.~ 0.5
.... $ 10
.g
& 0.0 -.,------,.------r-----,----r ~ O-.,------,.------r-----r----r
o 100 200 300 400 o 100 200 300 400
x(m) X (m)

-36 _- _--_._ .

----
"2
-38 ~~.
...
---------
~ uniform perforations 6930 bbl/D
~
-40
-42 flowrate-optimized 7090 bbl/D
~
r:IJ -44 uniform specific inflow 6720 bbl/D
r:IJ
e
p., -46
k= lOOOmd
-48
-50
0 100 200 300 400
x (m)

Fig. 5 - Optimization problems 1A and 2A for

a finite conductivity well

575
SPE 2 '3005

e 1.4 ".......
8 70
'i3" -.....;.
goo - uniform perforations
._--' uniform specific inflow
8.1.2
......,
~
'r;: 1.0
e ~ 40
SO

5 o
"'t::) 0.8
........ uniform perforations
uniform specific inflow: E30 --...-... _- .... _---------- ---"..
... ...
....~6 0.6 - - . 5 000 bbl/D
$
(,) 20
·····10000 bbl/D ... _~---- ... -
~8. 0.4 -\------..,.-----,r-----,----r-
- 15000 bbl/D
8. 10O-\-----..,.-----,r-----,----r-
UJ
5000bbl/D

o 100 200 300 400 o 100 200 300 400

x(m) x(m)
-20 J-_ _-l.._ _.....L.._ _.......L._ ____\__

-40 5000bbl/D
--==----~
-----------------

- uniform perforations
-140 .•••. uniform specific inflow k = 1000 md'
o 100 200 300 400
x(m)

Fig. 6 - Optimization of specific inflow (problem 2B)

at three wellrates

100

........d
0
(,)
80
.g
0
~ 60
=CI,)
~ ~""""'--+I--'"
40
....
';i
:L
....0
'+-t
.x=2
0 20
~

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of perforations in zone 2

Fig. 7 - Production of a well penetrating two zones,

for different perforation distributions

576