SPE 90580 Productivity of Selectively Perforated Horizontal Wells

Turhan Yildiz, SPE, Colorado School of Mines

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2629 September 2004. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract This paper investigates the effect of selective perforating on horizontal well performance. Theoretical investigation is based on a general 3D analytical IPR model that was published previously. For a given perforation design, the changes in flow rate, pseudo-steady state productivity, and cumulative production can be computed using the solution. The investigation shows that the ratio of total perforated length to the drilled well length is the most dominant parameter controlling the long term performance of the selectively perforated horizontal wells. The other important parameters are the degree of formation and perforating damage We additionally examined the effect of the so-called oriented perforating on the horizontal well performance in isotropic and anisotropic formations. Our research shows that accurately oriented perforating could significantly improve the well productivity in anisotropic formations. Introduction Selective Perforating. Horizontal wells may be perforated in selected intervals due to several reasons. The most common reasons for selective completion are reducing the cost, delaying premature water/gas breakthrough, preventing wellbore collapse in unstable formations, and producing multiple zones with large productivity contrast effectively. Selective perforating with blank sections provides flexibility for future intervention and workover options and for shutting off the sections subject to excessive water/gas intrusion. On the other hand, selective completion could hurt the well productivity. Oriented Perforating. The orientation of perforations is also a concern in optimizing well productivity. Perforations aligned with minimum stress direction produce more sand. To reduce

the risk of sand production, it may be better to orient the perforations vertically. Additionally, subsurface rocks exhibit horizontal permeabilities that are higher than vertical permeabilities. Therefore, perforation tunnels perpendicular to higher permeability would possess better flow efficiency. On the other hand, debris resulting from perforation process has to be surged out of the tunnels to improve the productivity of the perforated completions. It is more difficult to clean the perforations on the low-side of the horizontal wells. Liner and solid debris in the low-side perforation tunnels may not be removed under the typical underbalance pressures applied. Vertically oriented perforation tunnels at the top-side of the horizontal wellbore are preferred for better perforation stability and cleanup efficiency. However, if the perforations are to be packed, it is difficult to transport the gravel into vertically oriented tunnels at the top-side. Field observations and sand production models have shown that the stability of the perforation cavity may be weakened if all the perforations are oriented vertically with a phasing angle of zero. Therefore, to minimize the sand production and to create more stable perforations, it may be better to orient the perforations 10-20 degrees from the vertical. This type of perforating design has been referred as to oriented perforating. Background Perforating has been one of the most common completion methods for different type of wells requiring sand control. Perforating may also be needed to prevent wellbore collapse and to delay the production of unwanted fluids such as water and gas. Selective perforating have been implemented in the horizontal wells drilled in many fields such as Andrew,1 Oseberg,2 Statfjord,3 Elk Hills,4 and others.5-10 Horizontal wells in the Andrew Field were perforated underbalanced to minimize perforating debris and to avoid productivity impairment.1 Variable perforating density and blank sections were used to obtain uniform influx along the wellbore. The weak zones were perforated with 4-spf density and deep penetrating charges. Perforations were oriented 25o on either side of vertical to prevent the perforation collapse. Standard 60o phased guns with 4-spf were used to perforate the stable sands. Sognesand et al.2 described the use of partial perforation schemes to obtain uniform inflow along the horizontal and multilateral wells in the Oseberg Field. 45o or 90o phased TCP guns were used. The perforation density was mostly 6 spf.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90580

Production logs run in the Oseberg horizontal wells showed that the inflow profile could be controlled by selective perforations. However, Sognesand et al.2 reported significant reduction in well productivity due to selective perforating. Extended reach and horizontal wells in the Statfjord Field were designed to penetrate several zones.3 Most of the wells were perforated with 12 spf. Production logs indicated plugged perforations across the sections perforated at overbalanced conditions. Gangle et al.4 reported the use of horizontal wells intersecting several steeply dipping beds in the Elk Hills Field. The wells were selectively perforated at multiple zones. The theory, field applications, equipment, and operational procedures for the oriented perforating are all described in Refs. 1, and 5-10. Oriented perforating has been successfully implemented in an unidentified field in North Sea5, the Visumd field6, Eocene C reservoir in Lake Maracaibo7, the Varg field8, 9, and the Norne field.10 The performance of perforated wells has been investigated extensively. However, the majority of the studies have concentrated on the vertical wells and only few studies have dealt with the productivity of perforated horizontal wells. A summary of productivity models for perforated vertical wells may be found in Refs. 11 and 12. Inflow performance models for horizontal openholes are relatively simple and well known. In some cases, horizontal wells may be completed/perforated at selected intervals. Several modeling studies on the performance of selectivelycompleted and selectively-perforated horizontal wells have appeared in the literature.13-19 The selectively-completed well models account for partial completion effect, however, they ignore the details of flow convergence due to perforations. Several studies have addressed how the perforations influence the flow into horizontal wells.15-19 Marett and Landman16 a steady state model to predict the pressure drop in a perforated horizontal well and proposed use of variable perforation shot density to enforce a uniform influx along the well axis. Thomas et al.17 incorporated the near-wellbore skin term and non-Darcy flow coefficient into their reservoir simulator and the existing semianalytical IPR models for horizontal wells. Although the numerical model allows selective completion of multiple segments, the modified analytical IPR models consider only one single completed segment. Recently, Goktas and Ertekin18 developed a numerical simulator for perforated horizontal wells. The convergent flow into perforations, in the damaged zone, and in the crushed zone around perforations is all accounted for. Tang et al.19 investigated the impact of perforation parameters on horizontal well performance. They observed that the perforation densities higher than 0.5 spf yield a marginal increase in well productivity. The objectives of the present study are: (1) to investigate the effect of the selective perforating on the long-term well performance, and (2) to scrutinize the impact of oriented perforating on the well productivity.

Flow Model for Selectively Perforated Horizontal Wells Previously, we presented an analytical model to simulate the transient flow into selectively perforated wells. The details of the model development are provided in Ref. 15. Only a brief description of the model will be given here. The 3D flow into a perforated horizontal well is decomposed into two smaller sub problems; a transient 3D model for flow into selectively completed horizontal well and a perforation total pseudoskin model for accounting the flow convergence around the tunnels in near wellbore region. This model will be referred to as the decoupled model. The modeling concept is illustrated in Fig. 1. Selectively Completed Horizontal Well (SCHW) Model. A multi-segment horizontal well in a rectangular parallelepiped reservoir with impermeable external boundaries is considered. Multi-segmentation allows us to account for the local changes around the wellbore. The SCHW assumes that the completed intervals are fully open to flow all around the perimeter of the segment. A variable local skin around each segment is also incorporated into the SCHW model. The additional pressure change due to perforations is superimposed on SCHW in terms of local skin. A schematic of reservoir model for multisegment horizontal well is given in Figure 2. Model for Perforation Total Pseudoskin (PTP). PTP model takes care of the flow into perforation tunnels, flow in the damaged zone around the wellbore, and flow across the crushed/compacted zone around the tunnels. A schematic of the PTP model is displayed in Fig. 3. The perforation pseudoskin is calculated for only a unit formation thickness (for example 1-ft of thickness). Therefore, the PTP model is computationally very efficient. The additional pressure due to perforating, formation damage, and rock crushing around each perforated segment is incorporated into the solution using the expression below.
p sj = 141.2 q j Bo k z k y Lsj s ptVj

(1)

If the permeability anisotropy is accounted for in the calculation of perforation pseudoskin then, in Eq. 1,
( k z k y )1 / 2 = k should be set.

The decoupled model was compared against the existing models in the literature and verified. The details of the comparison and verification are described in Ref. 15. Discussion In this section, we simulate different perforation schemes and discuss the impact of selective perforating and other perforation parameters on rate decline, cumulative production, and the productivity during boundary dominated flow period. The data set given in Table 1 is used in the simulations. Selective Perforating. To investigate the impact of selective perforating on the well productivity, we have considered pessimistic, reasonable, and optimistic combinations of the

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90580

perforation parameters and compared the responses of the perforated wells to the open completed well in terms of rate decline, cumulative production, and productivity index during boundary dominated flow. The perforation parameters for all the perforated well cases are given in Table 2. Formation damage and perforation damage were ignored in the comparison. Using the listed perforation variables, we calculated the total perforation pseudoskin values for each case. The total perforation pseudoskin values for the perforated well cases are listed in Table 2. The pessimistic, reasonable, and optimistic perforating scenarios yield total perforation pseudoskin values of 13.7, 0.6, and -1.7 respectively. For all the cases, we considered 2, 3, 4, and 5 segments and penetration ratios of 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100%. In each case, the perforated/completed segments of equal length were symmetrically distributed along the drilled well axis. Additionally, we considered that the well produces at a specified constant wellbore pressure in any given time interval, however, the wellbore pressure drop varies with time in a staircase fashion. The wellbore pressure drop is 750 psi in the first year and 250 psi annually in years 2-10. The simulated results, given in Figs. 4-9 and Tables 3-6, are compared in terms of rate decline, cumulative production, and productivity ratio. The results shown in Figs 4-9 are all for the cases with 5 completed segments. The results for other segment numbers display similar characteristics. As a matter of fact, for the data set considered in Tables 1 and 2, the number of completed segments has a negligible impact on transient rate decline, cumulative production, and the productivity index during boundary dominated flow. Fig. 4 shows the results in terms of the ratios of the transient rate of selectively completed well with 5 segments (no perforation, zero skin factor) to that of an openhole. As can be observed on Fig. 5, compared to an openhole, the wells with low penetration ratios (20-40 %) produce at significantly lower rates at early time. However, with time, the completions with low penetration ratio catch up with the openhole completion. The completions with high penetration ratio (6080 %) produce at higher flow rates at early time and produces about at the same rate at intermediate times. Fig. 5 displays the results in terms of the cumulative production. It is observed that the completions with high penetration ratio produce almost the same amount of oil as the opehhole does at the end of the first year. The productivity ratios for the selectively completed cases are presented in Table 3. The productivity ratio is defined as the ratio of the productivity index of the perforated/completed well to that of the openhole. Table 3 demonstrates that, for all the penetration ratios considered, the effect of number of the completed segments is insignificant. However, the penetration ratio has a substantial impact on the completed well response. For the case with 5 completed segments, the productivity ratios for the penetration ratios of 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% are 0.6, 0.8, 0.91, and 0.98, respectively. The results for the pessimistic perforation design case are summarized on Table 4 and Figs. 6 and 7. It should be reminded that the pessimistic perforation design case possesses a total perforation pseudoskin of sptV = 13.7. Figs 6 and 7 illustrate that this magnitude of perforation skin significantly decreases the transient rate and cumulative

production from even the well completely perforated (penetration ratio is 100%). Also, Table 4 shows that the pessimistic perforation design drastically hurts the productivity ratios of the perforated wells. It can be observed that number of perforated segments has a negligible effect on the productivity ratio. As before, the increasing penetration ratio improves the well productivity hugely. The productivity ratios for the pessimistic perforation design are 1.7-to-2.8 times lower than the previous case with no skin factor. The total perforation pseudoskin factor for the wells with reasonable perforation design was estimated to be quite small, sptV = 0.6. Therefore, the performances of the wells having the reasonable perforation design were quite similar to those of the selectively completed wells discussed previously. Hence, we only present the productivity ratios of these wells in Table 5. A comparison of the results tabulated in Tables 3 and 5 demonstrates selectively completed well with a skin factor of zero perform only a few percent better than the wells with reasonable perforation design. When deeply penetrating perforation tunnels are created and the formation and perforating based damage is minimized, perforating process may result in negative total perforation pseudoskin factor. An optimistic combination of perforation parameters of spf=16, Lp=24 inches, dp=0.3 inches, and p=90 produces a negative skin of sptV = -1.7. The simulated responses of the wells perforated with such an optimistic design are displayed on Figs. 8 and 9 and Table 6. The results show that a total perforation skin factor of sptV = -1.7 enables the perforated wells perform better than the selectively completed counterparts. Under such perforating conditions, even the well with 40 % penetration ratio possesses very good productivity. If a small stimulation in the order of sptV = -1.7 is executed only 60% of the well needs to be perforated to attain to the performance of ideal openhole. Oriented Perforating. It should be expected that the well performance in the wells treated with oriented perforating would be influenced by orientation of the perforations and the formation anisotropy. To investigate the impact of oriented perforating in anisotropic formations, we considered spf=1 and 2, Lp=12 inches, and dp=0.2 inches. Then we calculated the perforation pseudoskin as a function of formation anisotropy for several different perforation orientations. The orientation cases include 1) all vertical perforations with 0 phasing, 2) all vertical perforations with 180 phasing, 3) all horizontal perforations with 0 phasing, 4) all horizontal perforations with 180 phasing, 5) half horizontal and half vertical perforations with 90 phasing, 6) vertical and nearly vertical perforations with 0/10 phasing, 7) vertical and nearly vertical perforations with 0/20 phasing, and 8) nearly vertical perforations with 10/350 phasing. The calculated perforation pseudoskins for all the cases are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Figs. 10 and 11 are for spf=2 and spf=1, respectively. In all the cases, the second case with all vertical perforations with a phasing angle of 180 results in the lowest pseudoskin value. The case 3 with all horizontal perforations with 0 phasing exhibits the highest pseudoskin value. The cases 1 and 6-8 yield almost the same value of perforation pseudoskin. Therefore, it can be stated that the small deviations such as 10-20 from the vertical direction do

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90580

not hurt the well productivity in any appreciable manner; hence, orienting the perforation with 0/10, 0/20, and 10/350 for sand management purposes is a safe process. The results in Figs 10 and 11 also demonstrate that, as a function of increasing formation anisotropy (kz / kx decreasing), perforation pseudoskin decreases for the orientations represented by the cases 1, 2, and 5-8. Conversely, for the third and fourth cases, perforation pseudoskin increase with an increase in formation anisotropy. Hence, it can be stated that the oriented perforating actually is a good practice in highly anisotropic formations.

References
1. Kusaka, K. et al.: Underbalance Perforation in Long Horizontal Wells in the Andrew Field, SPEDC (June 1998) 73. Sognesand, S., Skotner, P., and Hauge, J.: Use of Partial Perforations in Oseberg Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 28569 presented at the 1994 SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, U.K., October 25-27. Kostol, P. and Ostvang K.: Completion and Workover of Horizontal and Extended-Reach Wells in the Statfjord Field, SPEDC (December 1995) 211. Gangle, F.J.: Improved Oil Recovery Using Horizontal Wells at Elk Hills, California, SPEDC (March 1995) 27. Benavides, P.S. et al.:Advances in Horizontal-Oriented Perforating Optimize Perforation Efficiency and Production While Maintaining Borehole Stability, paper SPE 80929 presented at the 2003 SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 2225. Stenhaug, M. et al.:A Step Change in Perforating Technology Improves Productivity of Horizontal Wells in the North Sea, paper SPE 84910 presented at the 2003 SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 20-21. Sulbaran, A.L., Carbonell, R.S., and Lopez-de-Cardenas, J.E.:Oriented Perforating for Sand Preventation, paper SPE 57954 presented at the 1999 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 31-June 1. Eriksen, J.H. et al.:Oriented Live Well Perforating Technique Provides Innovative Sand-Control Method in the North Sea, SPEDC (September, 2001) 164. Tronvoll, J. et al.:The Effect of Oriented Perforations as a Sand Control Method: A Field Case Study from the Varg Field, North Sea, paper SPE 86470 presented at the 2004 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 18-20. Hillestad, E. et al.:Novel Perforating System Used in North Sea Results in Improved Perforation for Sand Management Strategy, paper SPE 86540 presented at the 2004 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, February 18-20. Bell, W.T., Sukup, R.A., and Tariq, S.M.: Perforating, SPE Monograph Volume 16, Richardson, TX, 1995. Karakas, M. and Tariq, S.M.: Semianalytical Productivity Models for Perforated Completions, SPEPE (Feb. 1991) 73. Goode, P.A. and Wilkinson, D.J.: Inflow Performance of Partially Open Horizontal Wells, JPT (August 1991) 983. Retnanto, A. et al.: Optimization of the Performance of Partially Completed Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 37492 presented at the 1997 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 9-11. Yildiz, T.: Inflow Performance Relationship for Perforated Horizontal Wells, to be published in SPEJ. Marett, B.P. and Landman, M.J.: Optimal Perforation Design for Horizontal Wells in Reservoirs With Boundaries, paper SPE 25366 presented at the 1993 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Singapore, February. 8-10. Thomas, L.K. et al.: Horizontal Well IPR Calculations, SPEREE (October 1998) 392. Goktas, B. and Ertekin, T.: Performances of Openhole Completed and Cased Horizontal/Undulating Wells in Thin-Bedded, Tight Sand Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE

2.

3.

4. 5.

Nomenclature Bo = formation volume factor, rbbl/stb ct = total compressibility, psi-1 dp= perforation diameter h = height, ft Jfp = productivity index of fully perforated well Joh = productivity index of open completed well Jsc = productivity index of selectively completed well Jsp = productivity index of selectively perforated well k = permeability, md Lh= horizontal well length Lp= perforation length Ls= segment length np= Number of perforations nseg= Number of selectively completed segments pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi q = flow rate, stb/day rcp = radius of crushed zone around perforation, ft rp = perforation radius, ft rw = wellbore radius, ft rwd = radius of damaged zone around wellbore, ft sptV = perforation total pseudoskin for vertical wells t = time, hours xe = Length of the reservoir in x-direction xw = Location of the segment tip in x-direction xs = Location of the segment center in x-direction ye = Width of the reservoir in y-direction yw = Location of the well in y-direction z = vertical direction, ft zw= location of the well in vertical plane, ft = porosity p = Angle between the perforation and principal permeability direction. = viscosity, cp Subscripts d = wellbore damage D = dimensionless variable i = initial r = radial direction s = segment w = wellbore x = x direction y = y direction z = vertical direction

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90580

65619 presented at the 2000 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West Virginia, October 17-19. 19. Tang, Y. et al: Performance of Horizontal Wells Completed with Slotted Liners and Perforations, paper SPE/CIM 65516 presented 2001 SPE/CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, November 6-8.

TABLE 1 RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES pi, psi 6000 Wellbore pressure drop, psi 750 in the first year 250 annually in years 210 Bo, RBBL/STB 1.75 1.5 , cp 0.15 , fraction ct, psi-1 2510-6 kx, md 100 ky, md 100 kz, md 100 h, ft 100 xe, ft 5000 ye, ft 5000 Lh, ft 1000 rw, ft 0.25

TABLE 4 THE EFFECT OF SELECTIVE PERFORATING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WELL WITH PESSIMISTIC PERFORATION DESIGN sptV=13.7, Joh= 11.6 stb/d/psi, Jfp= 7.4 stb/d/psi Productivity ratio, Jsp / Joh Case 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 1 0.64 2 0.21 0.36 0.48 0.57 3 0.21 0.37 0.48 0.57 4 0.22 0.37 0.49 0.57 5 0.22 0.37 0.49 0.57

TABLE 5 THE EFFECT OF SELECTIVE PERFORATING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WELL WITH REASONABLE PERFORATION DESIGN sptV=0.6, Joh= 11.6 stb/d/psi, Jfp= 11.3 stb/d/psi Productivity ratio, Jsp / Joh Case 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 1 0.97 2 0.51 0.73 0.86 0.94 3 0.53 0.75 0.88 0.95 4 0.55 0.76 0.88 0.96 5 0.56 0.77 0.89 0.96

TABLE 2 PERFORATION PARAMETERS FOR PESSIMISTIC, REASONABLE, AND OPTIMISTIC CASES Pessimistic Reasonable Optimistic spf 1 2 16 Lp, in. 3 12 24 dp, in. 0.1 0.2 0.3 Phasing 0 180 90 sptV 13.7 0.6 -1.7

TABLE 3 THE EFFECT OF SELECTIVE COMPLETION ON PRODUCTIVITY RATIO sptV=0, Joh= 11.6 stb/d/psi Productivity ratio, Jsc / Joh Case 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 1 1.0 2 0.54 0.76 0.90 0.97 3 0.58 0.79 0.91 0.97 4 0.59 0.80 0.91 0.98 5 0.60 0.80 0.91 0.98

TABLE 6 THE EFFECT OF SELECTIVE PERFORATING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WELL WITH OPTIMISTIC PERFORATION DESIGN sptV=-1.7, Joh= 11.6 stb/d/psi, Jfp= 12.4 stb/d/psi Productivity ratio, Jsp / Joh Case 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % 1 1.07 2 0.67 0.88 0.99 1.06 3 0.72 0.91 1.02 1.06 4 0.75 0.93 1.03 1.07 5 0.77 0.94 1.03 1.07

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90580

1.0

0.8

=
s ptH1 s ptHj s ptHN

q sc / q oh

0.6

20 % completed 40 % completed 60 % completed 80 % completed

0.4

+
Unit thickness
Figure 1 The decoupled model for perforated horizontal wells.

100 t, days Figure 4 The effect of selective completion on the rate response (selective completion, no perforations, sptV=0, 5 segments).

10

1.0

0.8

N psc / N poh

0.6
20 % completed

x si xwi yw Lsi zw

0.4

40 % completed 60 % completed 80 % completed

y
x

ye

0.2 100 t, days Figure 5 The effect of selective completion on the cumulative production (selective completion, no perforations, sptV=0, 5 segments). 1 10

xe

Figure 2 - Selectively-completed horizontal well model.

20% perforated

1.0

40% perforated 60% perforated

0.8

80% perforated 100% perforated

y
j 2r cp

q sp / q oh

0.6

0.4

sdcpj

Lpj

pj
x

0.2

0.0 1 10 100

rw
Figure 3 Perforation total pseudoskin model.

t, days

Figure 6 The effect of selective perforating on the rate response of pessimistically perforated well (sptV=13.7, 5 segments).

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90580

1.0

20% perforated 40% perforated 60% perforated

4.0 3.0 2.0

0.8

80% perforated

N psp / N poh

Perforation pseudoskin

100% perforated

0.6

1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0

kx = ky spf= 2

0.4

0.2

0 (all horizontal)

-3.0 -4.0 -5.0 -6.0 1E-2

180 (all horizontal) 90 (vertical+horizontal) 0 (all vertical), 0/10, 0/20, 10/350 180 (all vertical)

0.0 1 10 100

t, days Figure 7 The effect of selective perforating on the cumulative production from pessimistically perforated well (sptV=13.7, 5 segments).

1E-1 Permeability anisotropy, k z / k x

1E+0

Figure 10 The effect of formation anisotropy on the perforation pseudoskin due to oriented perforating (spf=2).

1.0

q sp / q oh

6.0 5.0
0.8
20% perforated 40% perforated

4.0

Perforation pseudoskin

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

60% perforated 80% perforated 100% perforated

kx / ky spf=1

0.6 1 10 100

t, days Figure 8 The effect of selective perforating on the rate response of optimistically perforated well (sptV=-1.7, 5 segments).

0 (all horizontal) 180 (all horizontal) 90 (vertical+horizontal) 0 (all vertical), 0/10, 0/20, 10/350 180 (all vertical)

1.2

-5.0 -6.0 1E-2

1.0

1E-1 Permeability anisotropy, k z / k x

1E+0

N psp / N poh

Figure 11 The effect of formation anisotropy on the perforation pseudoskin due to oriented perforating (spf=2).
0.8
20% perforated 40% perforated

0.6

60% perforated 80% perforated 100% perforated

0.4 100 t, days Figure 9 The effect of selective perforating on the cumulative production from optimistically perforated well (sptV=-1.7, 5 segments). 1 10

www.petroman.ir