Sizing the Tubing

It is important to remember that the primary function of the tubing is to provide a

conduit for transportation of hydrocarbons or injection water. Undersizing the tubing
is the most common and costly mistake made by many completion designers.
Undersized tubing will limit the amount of production or injection that can be
achieved, or result in inefficient or unnecessary artificial lift. On the other hand,
oversizing the tubing can also cause liquid hold-up problems and unnecessarily
increase well and equipment costs.

The production of hydrocarbons from the reservoir, through the tubing, gathering
lines, and facilities, to the sales point makes up an integrated system. The
performance of each element in this system is a function of both its own design and
the performance of other elements. Computer simulation techniques, when properly
applied, are enormously valuable tools for analyzing production problems. However,
the application of simple analytical techniques often provides a better understanding
of the situation and may quickly identify the major problem areas. This may be all
that is required, saving both time and cost. If further analysis is needed, however, a
data base and focus have been developed which often reduce the cost and improve
the value of the simulation work.

Pressure maintenance operations are particularly interesting from a systems

viewpoint, especially offshore and in single ownership pools, since the operation is
essentially a closed loop ( Figure 1 and Figure 2 , Production system pressure
distribution, including injection).

Figure 1
Thus the injection pump rating is often directly related to the separator pressure,
especially prior to installation of artificial lift.

Figure 2

This becomes particularly important in offshore developments where facility and well
cost optimization can heavily influence the overall economics. Obviously, there are
external parameters that limit flexibility (such as the initial reservoir pressure,
formation breakdown pressure, bubble-point pressure, reservoir injectivity and
productivity, and the oil properties). However, there is a definite value in making a
cost-benefit analysis on the effects of various completion practices on operating
conditions, development costs, reservoir performance, and oil yields.

Most production systems, however, have an open-ended dependency on reservoir

performance. We must therefore consider this as the first step in any completion or
artificial lift system design.

Inflow Performance Relationships

Since all producers must flow hydrocarbons through the reservoir at least to the
bottom of the well if not to surface, we define the bottomhole pressure under
producing conditions as the flowing bottomhole pressure (pwf). For a pumping well
this is the pump intake pressure.

The difference between the flowing bottomhole pressure and the average reservoir
pressure is termed the drawdown and determines the production rate. The
relationship between rate and drawdown will vary depending on the flowing
conditions and the type of fluid.
Productivity Index (PI)

In calculating oil well productivity, it is commonly assumed that production is directly

proportional to drawdown. The constant of proportionality is termed the productivity
index, and is commonly denoted as PI or J.

From Darcy's semisteady state flow equation, the PI for a well producing 100% oil is

or, in oilfield units:

where ko = effective permeability to oil (kro k)

h = reservoir thickness

o= oil viscosity

Bo = oil formation volume factor

re = effective drainage radius

rw = effective wellbore radius

s = skin factor

These terms typically have the following orders of magnitude:

ko = f (Sw, Sg) (0.7 to 0.3) (k)

o = (°API, GOR) 0.5 to 5.0 cp

Bo = f (°API, GOR) 1.0 to 2.0

[ln re/rw - 0.75 + S] 10

Since PI relates to the total fluid produced, the magnitude of the PI can change as the water cut
changes. This can be important for sizing artificial lift and treating facilities to handle expected
fluid production after water breakthrough on a flood operation.

We should note from the above equations that the skin (S) is a parameter we can
alter by our completion practices. (We can also increase r w by drilling larger diameter
holes or increase the effective rw by fracturing the well.) Example 1 illustrates the
effect of damage and stimulation.

Effect of Skin on PI
Example of a PI calculation showing effects of

(a) wellbore damage (skin = +5)

(b) fracture stimulation (skin = -5)

(c) a good normal completion (skin = 0)

re = well drilled on 160 acre (64 ha) spacing, 1320 ft (402 m) radius

o = oil viscosity, 1.5 cp (mPa.S)

k = permeability of rock, 500 md

kro = relative permeability at Sw = Swc, 0.8

h = thickness of pay, 50 ft (15 in)

rw = wellbore radius, 0.4 ft (0.12 m)

S = variable

= average reservoir pressure, 2900 psi (20,000 kPa)

Bo = oil formation volume factor, 1.3 v/v

Using Equation 2

(a) S = +5 J = 5.88 b/d/psi

(b) S = -5 J = 30.89 b/d/psi

(c) S = 0 J = 9.88 b/d/psi

or in the SI system

(a) S = +5, J = 0.1334 m3/d/kPa = 13.34 m3/d/B

 (b) S = -5, J = 0.697 m3/d/kPa = 69.67 m3/d/B

(c) S = 0, J = 0.2238 m3/d/kPa = 22.38 m3/d/B

Effect of damage = (c-a) /c = 40% loss in PI

Reward for stimulation = (c-a) /c = 68% increase in PI

Although in theory the negative skin demonstrates the effects of a fracture

stimulation, in practice it is not possible to achieve an adequate permeability
contrast between the fracture and formation in high permeability zones (>75 md) for
this to be achieved.

Oilwell Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)

The straight line PI relationship should not be expected to hold when two-phase gas
and liquid flow exists in the reservoir. Gilbert (1954) recognized the PI variation with
drawdown and proposed the use of a bottomhole pressure versus producing rate plot
for well analysis. He termed this curve the inflow performance relationship, or IPR, of
a well ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1
Several techniques have been proposed for determining the IPR for a well below the
bubble-point of the oil, where multiphase flow exists. Vogel (1966), using a computer
model of a solution gas drive reservoir, developed a generalized IPR reference curve.
Using this general curve, a specific IPR curve can be constructed for a well knowing
only the static pressure and a flowing bottomhole pressure at one producing rate. For
those who prefer to do all their work on a calculator, at or below the bubble point,
Vogel found that the IPR curve can be approximated by the expression

where qmax = maximum producing rate at P = 0

wf

With a curved IPR it is obviously more difficult to predict the effects of damage and/or
the improvements to be expected from stimulation. However, Standing (1970)
published a modification to the Vogel curve accounting for changes in flow efficiency.

Fetkovich (1973) showed--both theoretically and from numerous oil well tests--that oil
well backpressure curves follow an IPR equation of a form commonly used for gas
wells:

The exponent n and intercept J' are usually determined from a multipoint or isochronal

backpressure test, where is plotted against q on log-log paper.

Gas Well Inflow Performance Relationship

The most common method of estimating gas well IPRs is the "backpressure" method
of Rawlins and Schellhardt (1936) where

The well is flowed for a fixed period at different rates. Using the bottomhole flowing pressure at
equal flow times, a plot of

log

versus log qg is prepared. The slope gives a value for 1/n ( Figure 2 , Plot for a
conventional well test example) and using this, C can be calculated. The exponent n
varies from 1.0 for laminar flow to 0.5 for fully turbulent conditions.
 Figure 2

It is important to remember that this IPR relationship is empirical and that C is a

function of flow time; its value under semisteady state conditions must either be
calculated or determined from an extended flow period. At low rates, where n 1.0, we
may calculate C

or, in the SI system:

The absolute open flow potential (AOF) is defined as the rate corresponding to Pwf = 0. It will be a
function of flow time. Production engineers need to be aware of this and clarify the meaning of
quoted AOF values. Also remember that a value for AOF calculated using flowing tubing
pressures rather than flowing bottomhole pressures is distorted by tubing performance.

Another method of determining the IPR for a gas well is to plot

versus q from the generalized semisteady state flow equation

The slope will give a value for F, the non-Darcy or turbulence-dependent coefficient, and the
intercept will give a value for B, the Darcy coefficient. Dake (1978) provides formulas for
estimating B and F from core data or build-up analyses. More correctly, B and F should be
calculated from pseudopressures (m(p)) to be independent of variations in gas viscosity and
deviation factor, at which point they can be used to predict future performance accurately.
Theoretically, this method is still not absolutely correct, but in the majority of cases it is a perfectly
adequate description of the inflow performance. Stimulation of gas wells will affect not only their
skin factor (S) and therefore their Darcy coefficient (C or B) but also the non-Darcy coefficient (n
or F).

From a completion engineering viewpoint, the following concepts are fundamental to

proper well design:

the inflow performance of a well is largely determined by reservoir parameters

the skin factor, and the turbulence coefficient in high rate wells, especially
gas wells, are the only parameters we can normally affect by completion
efficiency and stimulation

test results alone may not adequately describe the long-term inflow
performance of a producer unless corrected for

- semisteady state conditions

- curving of the IPR in oil wells below the bubble-point and in gas wells

- expected skin (this is a function of perforation length, perforation

efficiency, stimulation, damage, etc.)

Tubing Performance

Most wells produce under conditions of two- or three-phase flow in the tubing and
flow line. Multiphase flow analysis is complex, and the pressure loss from the bottom
of the tubing to the top is a function of the fluid head, the friction, slippage between
phases, and the flow regime.

These flow parameters, in turn, are affected by the producing conditions:

pipe diameter (d)

flow rate (q)

gas liquid ratio (GLR)

 water cut (WC)

fluid density ()

fluid viscosity ()

pressure (p)

temperature (T)

While some effects are readily apparent (e.g., pressure losses increase with increasing water cut)
, others are less obvious (e.g., increasing the GLR initially reduces the pressure loss, but
eventually the trend reverses because of friction at high velocities).

Because of this complexity, empirical and semiempirical analysis techniques have

been used to develop relationships among the producing conditions listed. There are
a number of correlations available as computer programs or as published gradient
curves. For preliminary work, any of these correlations are satisfactory. However,
since they give somewhat different results ( Figure 1 , Comparison of gradient
curves), for more detailed work the engineer should establish a match with field test
data and choose the most appropriate correlation.

Figure 1
Usage of the gradient curves is illustrated in Figure 2 (Vertical flowing pressure
gradient curve).

Figure 2

The important thing to remember is to enter the curve at a point defined by the rate,
GLP and flowing tubing pressure, or BHP (THP equivalent to 1000 ft in Figure 3 ,
Effect of tubing size on productivity of gas-liftedoilwell), and then move along the
appropriate GLR line by an increment equivalent to the depth (i.e., from 1000 to
8000 ft for a 7000-ft deep well).
 Figure 3

Do not just read the BHP conditions at a given depth — this merely corresponds to a
value of 0 THP. The other important considerations are that you use the correct water
cut and adjust the GOR to a GLR:

GLR = (1 - WC) GOR

For deviated wells, it may be necessary to use a computer or to interpolate between true vertical
depth and measured depth by deducting the additional head effects using an average effective
density.

Presentation of the tubing performance (vertical lift performance) data depends on

the problem being addressed. For well design, the most useful presentation of tubing
performance is to plot flowing bottomhole pressure (pwf) versus rate (q) for various
tubing sizes and gas liquid ratios.

For any tubing size there is a minimum flow rate that is required for continuous
removal of the liquids from the well. This is the rollover point in the tubing
performance curves, which is not easily identified without a computer simulation,
although the rule of thumb is a velocity of about 5 ft/s (1.6 m/s). Below this rate the
well will be unstable. This phenomenon is referred to as liquid holdup, and is due to
slippage of the gas phase through the liquid. The larger the tubing diameter, the
higher will be the liquid holdup rate.
Matching Completion and Reservoir Performance

Having developed inflow (IPR) and tubing performance curves for a given system, the
final step in determining maximum system productivity is to combine them and
identify the intersection points. This is probably one of the most important production
engineering design functions; not only does the tubing size define the system flow
rate, but it dictates the sizing of all other downhole equipment. While this
requirement is obvious for flowing wells, gas-lift operations, and injection wells, it is
often forgotten when other artificial lift systems are used.

Obviously, tubing size is constrained by the size of the production casing. Therefore,
this type of analysis must be part of the planning for the well's development drilling
phase. It is also important to consider that the production system curve will most
likely change over time, and that we will need to optimize the tubing size over the life
of the well.

To construct a system curve, one typically assumes a well-head or separator

pressure and four or five rates that adequately span the expected productivity as
estimated from the IPR curve. The production target rate and the expected water cut
and GLR behavior will also be constraining factors that must be evaluated.

Figure 1 (Effect of tubing size on productivity of gas-lifted oilwell) illustrates a field

where the operator was investigating apparent poor performance of the gas-lift
system.
 Figure 1

With a minor amount of effort, it became apparent that the major problem was
undersized tubing. Moreover, poor completion practices had resulted in severe skin
damage. After stimulation and installation of 3 1/2 in (73 mm) tubing this well could
triple its rate.

Figure 2 (Effect of tubing size on gaswell productivity) presents an overlay of the

individual inflow performance curves and a selection of tubing performance curves
for 15 wells in a high-deliverability, relatively low-pressure reservoir.
 Figure 2

The operator wanted to be able to maximize short-term production rate from the
reservoir, while deferring the installation of a compressor for as long as possible.
Since 9 5/8 in. and 10 3/4 in. production casing had been installed, very large tubing
sizes could be considered. Note how the performance of the best wells (4, 14, 10) is
quite sensitive to tubing size (e.g., 7 5/8-in. tubing produces 33% more than 5-in.
tubing in well 10), while on the worst well (13) the 5-in. tubing would actually
produce slightly more than the 7 5/8-in. tubing because of reduced liquid holdup.

Figure 3 illustrates the effect of tubing size on a gas injector.

 Figure 3

Here, the IPR curve is reversed, with increasing injection rates corresponding to
increasing bottomhole pressures. The tubing performance curves display the
bottomhole pressure and rate that correspond to various tubing diameters and a
constant 5000 psi injection pressure at the surface. A curve is also plotted for 5 1/2-
in. tubing and a 6000 psi injection pressure. The increase in injection pressure
appears to have a much greater effect than increasing tubing size.

In each of these displays, it is important to remember that the system definition

determines the intersection of the reservoir and tubing performance curves and thus
the rate and flowing bottomhole pressure. In order to change those values we must
change the system.

Artificial Lift Requirements

Most artificial lift textbooks and manuals emphasize the importance of knowing and
designing for what the well can produce. This is just as important for rod pumping a
stripper well as for the design of a high-volume gas-lift system. In fact, in many rod
pumping installations more work is done in moving the sucker rods than in moving
the oil. This is not a problem, providing the well is achieving its target efficiency.
However, in many cases, the amount of fluid produced is curtailed by inadequately
sized pump, tubing, rods, or surface unit.

It is also important to remember that an artificial lift system is only a method of

adding energy to the system; thereafter the produced fluids still have to "flow" out of
the well to the separator, and are therefore subject to the same pressure losses as a
flowing well. Evaluation of these losses is particularly important for high-rate lift
systems. In fact, Kermit Brown (1982) has suggested that to compare different lift
methods, quasi-tubing performance curves should be generated for each lift system (
Figure 1 , Tubing intake curves for artificial lift systems).

Figure 1

(Note that ESP and beam pump installations can be designed for the same Dp and
therefore the same production rate). Figure 1 also illustrates another important
consideration in designing a well — that is, that artificial lift can often be usefully
applied to wells capable of flow to enhance their offtake rate and accelerate income.
The type of artificial lift system selected will affect the tubing and casing size
required in a completion, and vice versa.

When an artificial lift technique is employed, the added operating costs may preclude
attaining the maximum production rate. Some maximum economic rate must be
achieved.

Targets and Allowables

Another set of limitations that the completion designer must be aware of are those
imposed on the production rate by regulatory authorities, reservoir control
requirements, facility limitations (e.g., water or gas disposal capacity) , and market
constraints (e.g., gas contracts).

There is obviously no point in spending a lot of money to provide a capacity that

cannot be processed or sold. This argument must, however, be used with care, since
it has been used in the past as an excuse for adopting practices that resulted in wells
being permanently damaged and unable to recover their reserves economically. It is
also important to consider the changes in production conditions likely to occur before
the next major workover (i.e., over five to ten years). For example, will there be
pressure depletion or water breakthrough? How will this affect the well's capability to
meet its target?

Formation Damage Considerations

Formation damage is the term used when we physically cause an additional pressure
drop (i.e., a true skin) in the wellbore area ( Figure 1 , Effect of damage on pressure
transients around a producing well).

Figure 1

The following are some causes of formation damage:

invasion of drilling mud solids into the formation (especially into fractures);
 drilling mud filtrate invasion into the formation;

cement losses into fractures;

cement filtrate invasion into the formation;

plugged perforations (often due to overbalanced perforating);

inadequate perforations (size, number or penetration);

partial penetration of the producing zone (i.e., not opening the total pay);

crushing and compaction of formation matrix surrounding a perforation;

invasion of solids in completion or workover fluids into the formation or

perforations;

invasion of completion or workover fluids into the formation;

plugging of the formation from the swelling of water-sensitive native clays;

asphaltene or paraffin precipitation in the formation or perforations;

scale precipitation in the formation or perforations;

creation of an emulsion in the formation;

injection of acids or solvents that contain solids or precipitate solids;

sand fill in the wellbore;

injection of an oil-wetting surfactant into the formation;

excessive drawdown that causes movement of formation fines, compaction

of a weak formation, or instigates water production.

From the work of Abrams (1975), Darley (1965) , Tuttle and Bark-man (1974), and Nowak and
Kruegar (1951), et al., it can be concluded that solids entrained in the drilling or completion fluids

are the main cause of impairment. If = mean pore size (microns) of the formation, then the
effects of invading materials and the treatment for their removal can be characterized as follows:

Diameter of Invading
Effect Treatment
Solid
Bridging (e.g., drilling mud filter cake) Backflow
>33%

<33% and Shallow invasion (e.g., skin caused by solids in Acidize or

completion fluid) Reperforate
>10%
 Probably not harmful
<10%
Two rules of thumb for estimating pore size of sandstones:

25% of mean grain size

Carbonate rocks do not generally develop consistent pore-size relationships, but fortunately
pores are generally quite small (10-20 microns).

Roughly speaking, we may say that unfiltered water (with 2 micron particles) will
damage moderately permeable sandstone formations, (k = 30 to 400 md). Mud
filtrate (with 3 micron particles) will damage good permeability formations, (k = 80 to
900 md). Mud solids (with 9 micron particles) will damage very good formations (k >
725 md). Remember, it is easier to damage good reservoirs; therefore, filtering of
well servicing fluids is essential during completions and workovers.

Injection water must be well filtered. Drilling fluids must be designed for bridging on
the formation face to prevent solids invasion.

Drilling Damage

With modern drilling muds and perforating techniques, drilling damage is not as
serious a concern as it once was in most perforated well completions, because the
perforation tunnel will extend beyond the damaged zone. However, deep mud
damage can be a serious problem and is particularly common:

in high permeability reservoirs, especially in vugular or fractured carbonates, where the
fluid invades the flow channels. Since plugging is very difficult to remove, it is often
necessary to do a clean-up acidization or mini-fracturing treatment. In sandstone,
seepage losses can be prevented by properly sizing the mud solids to form a filter cake;

in low porosity and low permeability reservoirs, where an equal volume of
filtrate has to occupy a greater radius. This damage can be minimized with a
low permeability mud cake and nondamaging filtrate. Although it is usually
necessary to fracture these reservoirs in any event, the probability of damage
should be recognized in the prefracture condition and taken into account in
estimating potential fracture results;

in regions of slow drilling where mud filtrate losses are of necessity much
greater;

in lost circulation zones. In sandstone, severe lost circulation is usually the
result of inadvertently fracturing the formation. Since fracture pressures are a
function of pore pressure, this is a particularly severe problem in partially
pressure depleted reservoirs.

Obviously, in openhole, uncemented liner, or gravel-packed completions, drilling damage is a

major concern. Four approaches are common for minimizing drilling damage, and are often used
in combination with one another:
 1. Drilling with clean, filtered, clear fluids.

2. Drilling with nondamaging fluids weighted with acid-soluble, lost circulation

materials and weighting materials (e.g., graded limestone).

3. Drilling underbalanced under pressure.

4. Post-drilling stimulation.

In addition to mud and mud filtrate invasion, the other major cause of drilling damage is the effect
of incompatible filtrates on water-sensitive clays, particularly when drilling with fresh water-base
muds. This is a major concern when the formation contains significant amounts of kaolinite, illite,
chlorite, smectite, or montmorillonite clays. Permeability reduction occurs as a result of dispersion
or swelling of the clays. Extensive research has been done on the subject of clay chemistry, but
suffice it to say that once such damage occurs, it is very difficult to remove. Therefore, it is
essential to take preventative action when selecting fluids that will contact a pay zone containing
water-sensitive clays. Low concentrations of potassium or calcium chloride (2%) in completion
fluids are very effective and better than higher concentrations of sodium chloride.

Perforation Damage

Although the perforation process itself always causes some degree of damage due to
the crushing of the surrounding rock by the high pressure jet, the major causes of
perforation damage are:

overbalanced perforating;
solids plugging;
inadequate cleanup;
inadequate shot density (<4 shots per ft);
partial completion.
Figure 2
 Figure 2

and Figure 3 (Perforation mechanics showing cleanup of plugged perforations after overbalanced
perforation or after a well kill with mud)
 Figure 3

and Figure 4
 Figure 4

and Figure 5 (Perforation cleanup mechanics showing cleanup after underbalanced perforating)
 Figure 5

review the mechanics of perforation cleanup and demonstrate both the inherent superiority of
underbalanced perforating and the problems involved with trying to clean up plugged
perforations. Once one or two perforations begin to flow, the drawdown on the others is reduced
to ps.

Figure 6 ,
 Figure 6

Figure 7 (Effect of perforation density and penetration on productivity) illustrate the

importance of having the perforations penetrate the drilling damage and having
adequate shot density (4-12 shots per ft).
 Figure 7

In general, within practical limits, an increase in shot density alone cannot overcome
the combined effects of drilling damage and perforating damage. Deeply penetrating
perforations are necessary if the productivity is to approach that of an undamaged,
openhole completion.

Partial penetration of the pay zone (i.e., not perforating all the net pay) results in an
additional pressure drop near the wellbore, often referred to as a geometric skin. This
effect is often overlooked by production engineers, who attempt to acidize away the
"apparent damage." Analytical techniques are available for estimating this effect and
are discussed in reservoir engineering texts such as that of Dake (1978).

Fluids Damage

In addition to the damage caused by entrained solids and the effects of fluids on clay
chemistry, injected fluids can cause damage by incompatibility with the formation
fluids. These incompatibilities manifest themselves in:

precipitates (scale, salt crystallization, etc.);

sludges or emulsions (especially from acid);
insoluble residues (from gelling agents);
relative permeability effects (water blockage, wettability reversal, etc.).
Because of these considerations it is important to test properly all fluids that are to be displaced
into the formation. API RP 42 presents a procedure for testing the surface active agents used in
well stimulation. It is important to remember that these tests should be run on the entire treatment
that is to be used because some additives will have an affect on others. If acid is to be used, both
the live and spent acid should be tested.

Sand Fill

Sometimes poor productivity may result from fill covering the perforations or pay
interval. It is therefore advisable to make at least an annual check for sand fill, when
some other well operation is being undertaken (e.g. , wireline runs, pump changes,
workovers) . This is critical after a fracturing job or gravel pack, or in marginal sand
producers. Normally a wireline drift run to check the holdup depth is the cheapest
and easiest technique. In anticipation of this need, the completion designer should
provide easy wire-line access to the bottom of the tubing, consider the hydraulics
and mechanics of possible clean out operations (coiled tubing circulation), and leave
an adequate sump below the bottom perforation.

Selection of Drilling Fluids

There are five key considerations for designing a drilling fluid that will not inhibit well
productivity at the time of initial completion:

1. Minimizing the overbalance.

2. Monitoring the system hydraulics to avoid washouts.
3. Ensuring an effective filter cake.
4. Treating the filtrate to avoid clay problems.
5. Effectively removing fine particles from the mud.
Since damage is often a function of the overbalance between the wellbore and the reservoir, the
density of the drilling fluid should usually be adjusted to maintain only 200 to 500 psi (1 to 3.5
MPa) overbalance. Underbalance drilling (e.g., with air, gas, clear fluids) may be used in low
permeability reservoirs to avoid damage, but usually has to be specially licensed. This approach
is claimed to be more effective than postdrilling stimulation in some reservoirs. Normally,
however, well kicks pose a much greater risk to safety, overall costs, and project economics than
minor drilling damage; therefore, drilling with a small overbalance is normal procedure.
Overbalance is also useful for controlling shale problems in areas of high tectonic stresses. Table
1, below, lists some of the typical drilling fluids and the pore pressures they generally offset.

Pore Pressure
Drilling Fluid Densities
Gradient
AIR
At up to 1000 psi
0-0.025 psi/ft
Annular velocity 3000 ft/min
No oil or water influx can be tolerated
FOAM
Annular velocities 800 to 1300 ft/min
0.025-0.35 psi/ft
Rule of thumb 200 ft3/min/1000 ft of hole
Good fluid loss control
0.35-0.5 psi/ft OIL/AERATED WATER/WATER/BRINE
 Annular velocity 100 to 125 ft/min
Fluid loss can be a problem in permeable zones
UNWEIGHTED MUDS
Annular velocities are function of viscosity (100 ft/min)
0.45-0.5 psi/ft
Filter cake necessary to control fluid loss
Control drilled solids buildup to maintain correct density and drilling rate
BARITE-WEIGHTED MUD
Annular velocities are function of viscosity (100 ft/min)
0.5-1 psi/ft Fine drilled solids difficult to remove from mud without also removing
barite
Overweighted mud causes slow penetration rate and lost circulation
because of fracturing
HIGH-DENSITY MUDS
0.9-1.6 psi/ft
Use galena or iron compounds in place of barite
Table 1. Pressure gradients of typical drilling fluids

The openhole drilling time through the pay section should be as short as possible to
minimize invasion and shale deterioration. On the other hand, it is essential that a
high penetration rate does not result in poor hole conditions due to hole erosion by
the mud stream in the restricted annulus around the drill collars. Similarly, particular
attention needs to be paid to controlling pipe pulling rates during trips, because of
the potential for damage to the pay section from swab and surge pressures.

Abrams (1977) recommends that at least 5% of the mud solids volume should be
more than one-third the formation median pore size to ensure that mud solids do not
penetrate more than 1 in. (25 mm) into the formation. Silica, calcium carbonate, wax,
and asphalt solids are available in suitable graded ranges to maintain this level.

It is better practice to build a filter cake than to drill with losses, because of the
damaging effect of the drilling fluid and the well control risks. However, if it is
planned to drill without returns, the fluids lost to the formation should be filtered and
kept as clean as possible.

The most cost-effective inhibition of shale sloughing is generally achieved with

additions to the drilling fluid of 5 to 10% NaCl, 1 to 3% CaCl2, or 1 to 3% KCl. Lower
concentrations can be used where the mud has low filter loss properties, although
this may be considered an unwarranted risk.

To minimize solids damage, we must look not only at maintaining a good filter cake
but also at keeping down the solids that can pass through the filter cake with the
filtrate. This is achieved by having the rig equipped with adequate mud cleaning
equipment.

The use of non-damaging fluids should likewise figure into plans for the initial
completion and perforating operations. In some cases, it may be advantageous to
plan stimulation work as part of the initial completion.

Perforating
In most wells, the initial completion method involves running and cementing casing,
perforating the casing, and installing the tubing. During perforation and tubing
installation, the formation pressure must be controlled by the completion fluid (i.e.,
overbalance conditions).

The problem with perforating while overbalanced is the potential for formation
damage and plugged perforations. There is also the risk of excessive lost circulation,
which could result in a "kick," with no pipe in the hole. The use of mud as a
perforating fluid reduces these latter risks but increases the chances of poor cleanup
and productivity damage.

Specially formulated perforating fluids (generally brines) should be selected based on

the results of compatibility tests with the water, reservoir fluids, and the formation.
After the brine has been prepared, it should be filtered through two-micron filters to
remove entrained solids, undissolved chemicals, and contaminants. This should be
carried out even though it is planned to add materials subsequently to control fluid
loss. The completion fluid may need to be treated with a bactericide and corrosion
inhibitor.

Even with specially formulated, filtered perforating fluids, there is still a perforation
skin effect inherent in the perforation process itself. Typically, the crushed zone
surrounding a perforation may be only 10-60% of the formation permeability. Three
techniques that have been used to remove the damage resulting from this skin effect
are (1) perforating in acid or using an acid wash in carbonate formations, (2)
backflushing the perforations in sandstones, and (3) perforation washing.

Backsurging involves running DST-type equipment and exposing the sandface to a

sudden high drawdown for a limited period of time. A backsurge volume of at least
one gallon per perforation is required.

Perforation washing is primarily used prior to gravel packing and is a very effective
method of removing damage. The idea is to pump clean fluid into one set of
perforations and out of another, creating a void behind the pipe which will
subsequently be filled with gravel.

Perforating underbalanced is the logical extension of the back-surge concept.

Underbalanced perforating is generally superior to conventional overbalanced
perforating for the following reasons:

· all perforations will see a high differential pressure and have an opportunity
to backflow

· sensitive formations need not be exposed to completion fluid

· cleanup is faster and more effective

· the productive potential of marginal zones can be established

· test results are clear-cut

· the safety hazards involved with setting production equipment in a

potentially live well are reduced
Underbalanced perforating can be achieved by

· through-tubing perforating

· tubing-conveyed perforating with

- mechanical firing using a drop bar system

- pressure firing by either tubing pressure or annulus pressure

- electric firing methods

Completion Fluids Selection and Treatment

Overall, brine is usually the best choice as a completion fluid, if a clear fluid is to be
used. It should be filtered through a two-micron filter to avoid deposition of fines in
the pore throats and flow channels of the formation. In high permeability zones, it is
often necessary to add graded material to the brine to form a filter cake. This
material should be easily removable by backflow, and soluble in acid (CaCO 3 chips) or
oil (benzoic acid flakes). Formation brine is often a highly attractive completion fluid
provided solids, precipitates, and fine oil droplets are filtered out. Crude oil is also a
good completion fluid; however it is dangerous, messy, and environmentally unsafe.
In general, minimizing overbalance is a good practice.

Stimulation

The classic solution to maximizing a well's productivity is to stimulate it. However, as

discussed earlier, the basis for selecting stimulation candidates should be a review of
the well's actual and theoretical IPR. Low permeability wells often need fracturing on
initial completion. In low permeability zones, additional poststimulation production
can be significant to the economics; however, the production engineer needs to
make management aware of the true long term potential or else overly optimistic
projections can easily be made.

A few useful rules of thumb in selecting candidates include the following:

· within the production targets, the best wells make the best stimulation
candidates, but only if they show evidence of skin damage that can actually
be removed

· fractured carbonates nearly always require an acid job to remove drilling

damage

· there is no use in stimulating a well if the real problem is a lack of reservoir

pressure (i.e., depletion)

· inadequate or plugged perforations are often the main cause of damage, and
may need a hydraulic shock to ensure breakdown (alternatively, the zone
should be reperforated)
 · accurate placement of fluids and fluid diverters is often the key to success

· the best candidates should have a low chance of stimulating beyond the
producing zone or into a water zone

In the final analysis the decision must be an economic one. Historically, about 90% of
treatments result in a productivity increase, with acid jobs giving a 10% to 50%
increase. Much greater increases can be realized on specific zones, but this is a
function of local circumstances, particularly the presence of a significant, removable
skin.

The specific stimulation treatment depends on the nature of the problem and the
formation type. There are four main types of treatment:

· matrix acidizing, for damage removal

· acid fracturing, for low permeability carbonates

· propped fracturing, for low permeability sandstones

· propped fracturing, ("frac and pack") treatments in moderate to high

permeability reservoirs

These main types of treatments encompass a wide variety of alternative treatment

designs; therefore it is important for the engineer to select the treatment carefully.
Sophisticated formulations and techniques are usually needed only for difficult
problems, and the simplest, cheapest treatment that does not introduce problems is
usually the best.

Special additives other than a corrosion inhibitor need real justification (e.g., an iron-
sequestering agent is needed only if the formation contains iron or if the tubing is
badly corroded). Any additives should be tested for compatibility with the reservoir
fluids.

It is also important to properly design the pumping hydraulics so that matrix acidizing
treatments avoid fracturing the formation and fracturing treatments exceed the
pressure required to part rock.