Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The combined use of propellants and perforating for
production enhancement is not new to the petroleum
industry, especially for natural completions in competent
formations. When used together, the propellant is shaped in
the form of a cylindrical sleeve that is positioned over a
scalloped perforating carrier to combine the perforating and
stimulation processes into one step. The perforating event is
performed in either an under-balanced or balanced
condition, followed immediately with the extreme overbalance or rapid-gas pulse generated from the propellant
burn. This technique provides an effective method to ensure
that all perforations are sufficiently broken down from the
fracturing to accept either produced or injected fluids.
This paper will review a new application for the
combined propellant / perforating technique that has been
successfully used in unconsolidated formations in the Gulf
of Mexico.
The propellant / perforating technique was used to
enhance the placement of proppant during frac-and-pack and
gravel pack treatments while perforating in a balanced
condition. The propellant / perforating technique was used
on several formation types; i.e., long intervals, highly
deviated, and highly laminated with extreme permeability
contrasts, that would traditionally be deemed as high risk for
proper sand placement.
In performing this technique, the propellant sleeves are
positioned across the lower quality portions of the intervals
with low permeability and resistivity to ensure that the
perforations in these intervals would be broken down to
K.C. FOLSE, R.L. DUPONT, C.G. COATS, D. FINLEY, AND D.B. NASSE
SPE 72135
SPE 72135
K.C. FOLSE, R.L. DUPONT, C.G. COATS, D. FINLEY, AND D.B. NASSE
guns out of the sand before surging; however, with the high
hole angle and the unconsolidated sand, the operator was
concerned that the perforating assembly would sand up,
requiring a time-consuming fishing operation or wellbore
cleanout operation.
Without having the capability to underbalance surge the
perforations, it was decided to TCP this sand with the
propellant / perforating assembly in addition to applying
3,000 psi of surface pressure (extreme overbalance) to
actuate the TCP guns. The general well information for this
completion is presented in Table 4, and the gamma ray /
resistivity log section is shown in Fig. 11. A simplified
TCP assembly consisting of guns, firing head, fill disc
assembly and pressure gauge carrier was conveyed into the
well since underbalance perforating and hydrocarbon
reverse-out were not required. The well was shot with
oriented 4-5/8-in. 11 spf 140/160-phased low-side
scalloped guns to further mitigate the risk of hole collapse
and sanding. The sand was shot with a full column of 8.6
ppg seawater with 3,000 psi of surface pressure applied. A
high-speed pressure recorder and a standard quartz pressure
gauge were run during the perforating event as shown in
Fig. 12. The two gauges show very similar pressure profiles
in the slow sampling mode; however, review of the fast
sample data in Fig. 13 shows the differences between the
explosive and propellant events. The fast sample data were
incorporated into the computer modeling software to match
the post-job results. This is shown in Fig. 14. The initial
pressure from the explosives (shaped charges) is on the
order of 15,000 psi within the first milli-second; then, as the
propellant begins to burn, the perforations break down at a
pressure of 11,600 psi at 2 milli-seconds. The pressure rise
and falloff are matched with the computer model to
calculate fracture lengths on the order of 7 ft.
The gravel pack design was to pump above the fracture
gradient for first stage, and the second stage was to be in the
matrix environment for sand placement. A matrix acid
treatment was pumped ahead of the gravel pack with 100
gal/ft of 15% HCl at an initial rate of 0.5 bpm. A total of
14,952 gallons of fluid was pumped during the gravel pack
at a maximum rate of 10 bpm with a 1.0 ppg concentration
placing 247 lb/ft of proppant behind pipe. The pumping
schedule for this gravel pack is shown in Fig. 15.
The well was placed on production with initial rates of
1,131 BOPD and 8 BWPD at a flowing tubing pressure of
430 psi. A build-up survey was conducted with a skin factor
of +1.1, and a subsequent build-up performed 5 months later
showed a skin factor of +2.1.
Discussion
The case histories presented illustrate a method for
selectively breaking down perforations in preparations for
FP and HRWP treatments. Although the benefits of the
propellant-assisted perforating may not readily be obvious,
the histories presented indicate that the need for
underbalanced perforating was not required for the
particular sands under study. Elimination of the need to
perform underbalanced perforating can result in reduced
completion cycle time because fewer tools are needed in the
TCP string, and less time is spent on bottom circulating out
SPE 72135
SPE 72135
PI
11.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of Shell
Offshore, Inc. and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. for
their permission to present this paper.
References
El-Bermawy, H. and El-Assal, H., A Unique Approach
to Enhancing Production from Depleted, Highly
Laminated Sand Reservoirs Using a Combined
Propellant/Perforating Technique, Paper SPE 68101,
presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
Bahrain, 17-20 March 2001.
2. Waheed, A., El-Assal, H., Negm, E., Sanad, M.,
Sanad,O., Tuchscherer, G., and Sayed, M., Practical
Methods to Optimizing Production in a Heavy-Oil
Carbonate Reservoir: Case Study From Issaran Field,
Eastern Desert, Egypt, Paper SPE 69730, presented at
2001 SPE International Thermal Operations and HeavyOil Symposium held in Porlamar, Magarita Island,
Venezuela, 12-14 March 2001.
3. Haney, R.L., and Cuthill, D.A., The Application of an
Optimized Propellant Stimulation Technique in Heavy
Oil Wells, Paper SPE 37531, presented at the 1997 SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium held in Bakersfield, California, 10-12
February 1997.
4. Schmidt, R.A. and Cooper, P.W., In Situ Evaluation of
Several Tailored-Pulse Well-Shooting Concepts, Paper
SPE/DOE 8934, presented at 1980 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Unconventional Gas Recovery held in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 18-21 May 1980.
5. Smith, K.T. and Schmid, J.C., Application of an
Alternative Stimulation Method for the Ferguson
Sandstone in the Powder River Basin, Paper SPE
12902, presented at 1984 Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting, held in Casper, WY, 21-23 May 1984.
6. Cuderman, J.F. and Northrop, D.A., A Propellant-Based
Technology for Multiple-Fracturing Wellbores To
Enhance Gas Recovery: Application and Results in
Devonian Shale, Paper SPE 12838, presented at 1984
SPE/DOE/GRI
Unconventional
Gas
Recovery
Symposium held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 13-15 May
19984.
7. Cuderman, J.F., Tailored-Pulse Fracturing in Cased and
Perforated Boreholes, Paper SPE 15253, presented at
Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, held in Louisville,
Kentucky, 18-21 May 1986.
8. Fram, J.H., Dynamic Gas Pulse Loading Stimulations of
Thermal Producers at South Belridge Field, Kern
County, California, Paper SPE 21545, presented at
International Thermal Operations Symposium held in
Bakersfield, California, 7-8 May 1991.
9. Yang, W., Zhou, C., Qin, F. and Li, D., High-Energy
Gas Fracturing (HEGF) Technology: Research and
Application, Paper SPE 24990, presented at European
Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, 16-18
November 1992.
10. Hollabaugh, G.S. and Dees, J.M., Propellant Gas
Fracture Stimulation of a Horizontal Austin Chalk
Wellbore, Paper SPE 26584, presented at 68th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
12.
1.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
K.C. FOLSE, R.L. DUPONT, C.G. COATS, D. FINLEY, AND D.B. NASSE
22. Conference and Exhibition, held in Denver, Colorado, 912 October 1977.
23. Peden, J.M., Russell, J., and Oyeneyin, M.B., The
Design and Optimisation of Gravel Packing Operations
in Deviated Wells, Paper SPE 12997, presented at 1984
European Petroleum Conference held in London,
England, 25-28 October 1984.
24. Roodhart, L.P., Fokker, P.A., Davies, D.R.,
Shlyapobersky, J., and Wong, G.K., Frac and Pack
Stimulation: Application, Design, and Field Experience
From the Gulf of Mexico to Borneo, Paper SPE 26564,
presented at 68th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.
25. Tiner, R.L., Ely, J.W., and Schraufnagel, R., Frac Packs
State of the Art, Paper SPE 36456, presented at 71st
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, held in Denver,
Colorado, 6-10 October 1996.
26. McLarty, J.M. and DeBonis, V., Gulf Coast Section
SPE Production Operations Study Group Technical
Highlights from a Series of Frac Pack Treatment
Symposiums, Paper SPE 030471, presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October 1995.
27. Gilliat, J., Snider, P.M., and Haney, R.L., A Review of
Field Performance of New Propellant/Perforating
Technologies, Paper SPE 56469, presented at 1999 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
28. Schatz, J.F., Haney, B.L., and Ager, S.A., High-Speed
Downhole Memory Recorder and Software Used to
SPE 72135
Table 1:
Case 1 General Well Information
Zone
I Sand
Well Type
Gas
Completion Date
Aug 2000
Completion Fluid
8.6 ppg Seawater
Casing Size & Weight
7.625 29.7#
Gun Specifications
4.625 12 spf, 30 phased Big Hole Charges (EH = 0.8)
Top Shot (MD ft)
9,305
Bottom Shot (MD ft)
9,463
Well Angle @ Perfs
17
Gross Pay (MD ft)
158
Net Pay (TVD ft)
119
BHP (psi)
3,195
BHT (F)
146
Permeability (md)
585
Porosity (%)
30
Youngs Modulus (E6 psi)
0.4
SPE 72135
Gun Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
158
Casing, size-wt-grade
7 26# N-80
Permeability, md
50-250
Porosity, %
30.0
8.6 seawater
86
Perforations, ft MD
7,290 7,355
Perforations, ft TVD
6,525 6,530
K.C. FOLSE, R.L. DUPONT, C.G. COATS, D. FINLEY, AND D.B. NASSE
SPE 72135
Radioactive Sub
Propellant
Retrievable Packer
9300
Perfs
Venting Device
Tubing Release
9400
Retainer Collar
Centalizer Tandem
SPE 72135
A
4000
A
C
B
10
C
24
20
3000
16
6
12
2000
4
8
1000
2
0
05:40
06:00
06:20
06:40
07:00
07:20
Time
Fig. 4 Acid Treatment for Case History 1
07:40
08:00
10
K.C. FOLSE, R.L. DUPONT, C.G. COATS, D. FINLEY, AND D.B. NASSE
A
8000
SPE 72135
A
C
7000
B
40
C
24
35
20
6000
30
5000
25
4000
20
3000
15
16
12
8
2000
10
1000
12:00
12:20
12:40
13:00
13:20
Time
Fig. 5 Frac-and-pack Treatment for Case History 1
13:40
SPE 72135
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
1
8/12/00
10/1/00
11/20/00
THP (psi)
1/9/01
2/28/01
Choke (/64)
4/19/01
Gas Rate
6/8/01
SBHP
1E+10
1E+9
1E+8
1E+7
1E+6
1E+6
1E-6
1E-5
1E-4
1E-3
0.01
0.1
10
100
7/28/01
11
12
K.C. FOLSE, R.L. DUPONT, C.G. COATS, D. FINLEY, AND D.B. NASSE
SPE 72135
6.2E+8
6E+8
5.8E+8
5.6E+8
5.4E+8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
729
730
3000
2900
2800
.5E+4
2700
15000
2600
725
726
727
728
731
6000
Stim
Stim Gun
Gun perforating
Perforating
Spirit Energy
5400
Ignition -
4800
file Spirita.grf
4200
Pressure - Psi
SPE 72135
3600
3000
2400
1800
OWR Recorder -
1200
- HMR Recorder
600
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
Time - minutes
750
800
850
13
K.C. FOLSE, R.L. DUPONT, C.G. COATS, D. FINLEY, AND D.B. NASSE
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
P re s s u re - P s i
14
10000
file Spiritb.grf
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
Time - seconds
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.24
SPE 72135
12
5000
4500
3500
3000
6
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time (min)
Tubing Pr.
Slurry Rate
80
90
Rate/Prop. Conc.
10
4000
Pressure (psi)
SPE 72135
15