SPE 82249
Assessment of Total Skin Factor in Perforated Wells
Turhan Yildiz, SPE, Colorado School of Mines
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage
Conference to be held in The Hague, The Netherlands 13-14 May 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In this study, we present methods to predict the total skin
factor for perforated and damaged wells correctly. The non-
linear interaction between individual skin components is
accurately represented in the methods. We show that the total
skin factor models based on the simple addition of individual
skin factors due to formation damage, perforation, inclination,
partial penetration etc do not work.
Introduction
The long-term productivity of oil and gas wells is influenced
by many factors. Among these factors are petrophysical
properties, fluid properties, degree of formation damage
and/or stimulation, well geometry, well completions, number
of fluid phases, and flow-velocity type (Darcy, non-Darcy). To
isolate and identify the effect of any single parameter on the
well performance, a sensitivity study on the parameter of
interest is conducted and the results are compared to a
reference base case of an ideal vertical openhole. In the base
case, the ideal vertical openhole produces single-phase fluid,
the fluid flow obeys Darcys law, and formation is neither
stimulated nor damaged. The influence of the individual
parameters not considered in the base case is quantified in
terms of skin factor.
Oil and gas wells may have permeability reduction around
the wellbore due to invasion of the formation by drilling mud,
cement solids, and completion fluids. This is generally
referred to as formation damage. Formation damage around
the wellbore causes additional pressure drop. On the other
hand, stimulation operations such as acidizing may decrease
the pressure drop in the near wellbore region by improving the
formation permeability around the wellbore. The impact of
permeability impairment/improvement around the wellbore
owing to the drilling, production, and acidizing operations is
quantified in terms of mechanical skin factor due to
damage/stimulation.
The fluid flow in the near wellbore region is also
influenced by the well completion type. Barefoot openhole
completion is usually the most cost-effective method.
Openhole completion yields a local flow pattern that is nearly
radial around the wellbore and normal to the well trajectory.
However, in some cases, the openhole completion may not be
desirable. Different types of well completion may be needed
to control/isolate the fluid entry into the wellbore, to avoid
gas/water coning, and to minimize sand production. Besides
the openhole completion, the wells may be partially or
selectively completed with perforations, slotted liners, gravel
packs, screens, and zonal isolation devices. Also, the wells
with low productivity may need to be hydraulically fractured
to accelerate the hydrocarbon recovery. In the completed
wells, the flow pattern around the wellbore is distorted. The
completions result in additional fluid convergence and
divergence in the near wellbore region. For example, partial
penetration creates a two-dimensional flow field in the
formation. On the other hand, a perforated well experiences
three-dimensional flow converging around perforation tunnels.
Compared to an ideal openhole, the wells with completions
are subject to additional pressure loss/gain in the near wellbore
region. The additional pressure change due to well completion
is quantified in terms of completion pseudoskin factor.
The well performance is naturally influenced by the
geometry of the well itself. Based on their geometrical shape,
the wells can be classified as vertical, inclined, horizontal,
undulating, and multibranched. In the literature, the reference
well geometry has been that of a fully penetrating vertical
openhole. Historically, the differences in the productivity of
vertical openhole and other well geometries have been
formulated in terms of pseudoskin factor as well. However,
when it comes to the assessment of completion effects on well
productivity, rather than comparing the given completed non-
vertical well to an ideal vertical openhole, it may be more
appropriate to work with the considered well geometry only
and compare the completed and openhole cases of the same
well geometry. For this reason, the term geometrical
pseudoskin factor is proposed to quantify the differences
between the productivities of vertical wells and other well
geometries.
Multiphase flow in the formation may evolve because of
gas/water coning around the wellbore, gas evaporation from
liquid hydrocarbon phase, and liquid dropout from gas
condensate. Compared to single phase fluid flow, multiphase
flow in the formation creates additional pressure drop owing
to relative permeability effect. If the multiphase flow is
intensified in the near wellbore region only and there exists a
2 T. YILDIZ
nearly single phase flow in the formation away from the
wellbore then the impact of multiphase flow may be
formulated in terms of multiphase pseudoskin factor.
At relatively low flow velocities, the fluid flow in porous
media obeys Darcys law. However, when the fluid flows at
high velocities, the relationship between the insitu fluid
velocity and local pressure gradient becomes non-linear. In
such a case, the fluid flow is governed by Forchheimer
equation. So-called non-Darcy flow due to high fluid velocity
increases the pressure drop in the reservoir. The non-Darcy
flow is mostly concentrated in the near wellbore region, which
is 5-10 ft away from the wellbore. The influence of non-Darcy
flow around the wellbore is accounted for in terms of rate-
dependent skin factor.
In many cases, the oil and gas wells are under the
influence of several skin factors. The combined effects of all
the individual skin factors lead to a total skin factor for the
well. The literature includes many reliable/accurate methods
to predict the individual skin factors and their impact on well
performance. However, the interaction between the individual
skin factors and the simultaneous effects of several skin
factors on well productivity are not accurately formulated.
In this study, we present how to put the individual skin
factors together and predict the total skin factor correctly. For
the sake of simplicity, multiphase pseudoskin and rate-
dependent skin factors are not considered.
Productivity Model for Vertical Openholes
The openhole completion is the simplest and possibly the most
cost-effective completion technique. It is also rather easy to
develop a productivity model for vertical openholes. The
productivity model is a device describing the functional
dependence between well flow rate and corresponding
pressure drop. By simply integrating Darcys equation, one
could readily obtain a well productivity model for openholes
producing under steady state flow conditions.
141.2 q sc Bo
poh = ln ( re / rw ) ............................ (1)
kh
Sometimes, well performance is measured in terms of
productivity index. Productivity index is defined as the ratio of
flow rate to the pressure drop.
kh
J oh = q sc / poh = ................ (2)
141.2 Bo ln ( re / rw )
Productivity of Completed Wells and Total Skin
The productivity model expressed in Eqs. 1 and 2 does not
account for any one of the skin factors. The combined effects
of the mechanical skin, completion pseudoskin, and
geometrical pseudoskin constitute a total skin factor for the
well. The total skin factor accounts for the difference between
the performance of an actual well and that of an ideal vertical
openhole. Many studies in the literature treat the total skin
factor as a simple linear summation of the individual skin
factors listed above.
SPE 82249
s t = s d + s pp + s p + s cz + s + s f ............................... (3)
where st = total skin factor, sd =skin factor due to formation
damage or stimulation, s pp = completion pseudoskin due to
partial penetration, s p = completion pseudoskin due to
perforations, s cz = skin due to rock compaction around
perforation tunnels, s = geometrical pseudoskin due to well
inclination/slant, and s f = completion pseudoskin owing to
hydraulic fracturing.
In some of the publications, the total skin equations differ
from the expression given in Eq. 3. A list of the total skin
equations is given in Table 1.
The total pressure drop in completed wells can be
expressed as
141.2 q sc Bo
pt = [ ln ( re / rw ) + s t ] .................... (4)
kh
Then the productivity index for the completed wells
becomes
kh
Jc = ............................. (5)
141.2 Bo [ ln ( re / rw ) + s t ]
To comprehend the effect of all the skin factors on well
productivity, the productivity index of the well with skin
factors is compared to that of an ideal openhole. The
comparison is quantified in terms of productivity ratio (PR).
Jc ln( re / rw )
PR = = ...................................... (6)
J oh ln ( re / rw ) + s t
Although expressing the total skin factor as a linear sum of
active individual skin factors leads to a simple equation, the
resulting equation is inaccurate. The total skin factor is not
simply the sum of individual skin components. The interaction
between the total skin factor and its individual components is
mostly non-linear and may be quite cumbersome.
Unfortunately, the inaccurate conventional methods relating
the total skin factor to its constituents have been incorporated
into the widely-used commercial software owing to their
simplicity. Therefore, engineers may be using improper tools
to evaluate the well productivity/performance.
Total skin factor may be estimated from pressure-transient
data. However, for the low productivity wells with high total
skin factor, it is necessary to decompose the total skin factor to
its components and identify the root cause of the low
productivity. The decomposition of the total skin factor to its
elements requires an accurate model that relates the total skin
factor to its individual constituents. Once the source of high
skin factor is singled out then the proper remedial treatment,
that would improve well performance, could be chosen.
SPE 82249 ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL SKIN FACTOR IN PERFORATED WELLS
As we introduce the correct methods to formulate the total
skin factor, it is appropriate to examine the individual skin
factors mentioned previously.
Mechanical Skin Factor
Formation damage around the wellbore causes additional
pressure drop and reduces well productivity. To evaluate the
impact of formation damage around a vertical openhole,
Hawkins1 proposed to represent the damaged zone as a
concentric cylinder around the wellbore. The damaged zone is
characterized by a uniform permeability of k d and radius of
rd . Mechanical skin factor is defined as below.
s d = (k / k d 1) ln ( rd / rw ) ............................................ (7)
The additional pressure drop owing to the formation
damage can be quantified as
141.2 q sc Bo
pd = s d .......................................... (8)
kh
Mechanical skin factor expression above ignores the
impact of well completion and implicitly assumes that there
exists a one dimensional (1-D) radial flow around the
openhole.
Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin
In partially penetrating vertical wells, only a segment of the
wellbore is open to flow to admit fluid from the formation.
Partially open vertical wells are also referred to as the
restricted entry wells. In partially penetrating wells, there may
still exist a radial flow deeper in the formation away from the
wellbore. However, when the fluid approaches to wellbore, the
fluid has to converge around the open well segment. Partial
penetration creates a two-dimensional (2-D) flow field around
the near wellbore region as illustrated in Fig. 1. Because of the
fluid convergence and 2-D flow in the near wellbore region,
fluid flows at higher velocities around the wellbore. The net
result of partial penetration is that it yields an extra pressure
drop in the near wellbore region and reduces the well
productivity.
The impact of partial penetration on the well productivity
has been the subject of many studies.2-14 Many analytical
models simulating the 2-D flow into a partially penetrating
well have been presented. These analytical models include
relatively complex functions such as Bessel functions and
infinite series. Although the computation of the analytical
solutions can be easily done on PCs, they are not very popular
since they are contaminated with infinite series and special
functions.
It should be pointed out that the analytical solutions for
partially penetrating wells consider that the completed interval
admit fluid at every point on its completed wellbore surface.
These models do not consider the additional fluid convergence
owing to perforations and slots.
The effect of partial penetration on well performance is
formulated in terms of partial penetration pseudoskin, s pp .
3
The parameters controlling the s pp value are permeability
anisotropy, penetration ratio, and wellbore size. Besides the
exact analytical solutions, there exist several simple semi-
analytical and empirical models/correlations to predict the
partial penetration pseudoskin and its influence on the well
productivity. Among these empirical models, the correlations
proposed by Odeh6, Papatzacos7, and Vrbik8 have been
popular due to their simplicity. These semi-
analytical/empirical models were compared against the
exact analytical model described in Ref. 9. Such a
comparison is displaced in Fig. 2 for h=100 ft, rw=0.25 ft,
kz/kr=1, and the open segment being placed at the top of the
formation. The Papatzacos and Vrbik models were found to be
quite accurate. For the sake of completeness, the Vrbik model
is described in Appendix-A. The reader is referred to the
original papers for additional information about the empirical
models mentioned.
Once the s pp value is available, the additional pressure
drop due to partial penetration may be computed using the
expression below.
141.2 q sc Bo
p pp = s pp ...................................... (9)
kh
The simultaneous influences of partial penetration and
formation damage/stimulation have been debated in the
literature. In some studies,8,10,11 the combined effects of
formation damage and partial penetration are considered to be
a simple linear sum of mechanical skin factor and partial
penetration pseudoskin factor.
st = s d + s pp ................................................................ (10)
However, this formulation is inaccurate. Eq. 10 downplays
the contribution of formation damage. As it has been shown
by Jones and Watts,13 Odeh,14 and Saidowski,15 the formation
damage has a stronger impact on well productivity than Eq. 10
predicts. In partially penetrating well, the impact of formation
damage is magnified. If it is assumed that the damaged zone is
relatively thin and flow convergence due to partial completion
is completed before the fluid enters into the damaged zone, as
conceptualized in Fig. 1, then it can be analytically shown that
the combined impact of formation damage and partial
penetration leads to the following total skin factor.
h
st = s d + s pp ......................................................... (11)
hp
On the other hand, if the flow convergence towards the limited
open segment takes place partly outside and partly inside the
damaged zone then the impact of formation damage is
somewhat less than what Eq. 11 indicates. For such cases, the
total skin factor is formulated as below.
1 h
st = s d + s pp .................................................... (12)
hp
4 T. YILDIZ
where is greater than 1. Jones and Watts13 and Odeh14 offer
simple equations to compute the parameter.
Saidowski15 reported that Eq. 11 works well for even deep
formation damage as long as the damaged zone radius is less
than 20 ft and penetration ratio is greater than 20%.
Eqs. 11 and 12 should be used cautiously when s d is
negative. These equations do not apply when a short interval is
completed with a negative s d value.
Perforation Pseudoskin for Fully Perforated Wells
In cased wells, it is necessary to perforate the well to establish
communication between the wellbore and the formation. Fig.
3 depicts the flow into a perforated well. Perforations disturb
the fluid flow and generate additional flow convergence in the
near wellbore region. The fluid flow towards perforation
tunnels is three-dimensional (3-D). Compared to an ideal
openhole, an ideal perforated well may experience additional
pressure gain or loss. If the well is perforated densely with
clean and deep penetrating perforation tunnels then the total
communication surface area between the perforated well and
the formation may be greater than that between a vertical
openhole and the formation. In such a case, the perforated well
may require a lesser pressure drop and perforating actually
improves the well productivity. On the other hand, if the well
is equipped with short and sparse perforations then perforating
causes additional pressure drop in the near wellbore region
and reduces the well productivity.
In the perforation process, the reservoir rock around the
perforation tunnels is compacted. The compaction around the
perforation tunnels causes additional pressure drop and
reduces the well productivity.
The additional pressure drop/gain due to perforating is
measured in terms of perforation pseudoskin factor, s p . If the
well is fully perforated all across the total formation thickness
then the additional pressure change because of perforating can
be expressed as below.
141.2 q sc Bo
pp = s p ........................................ (13)
kh
It should be mentioned that s p could be positive or
negative quantity. The numerical value of s p depends on the
parameters such as shot density, perforation length, diameter,
and phasing angle, formation anisotropy, and wellbore
diameter. It should be pointed out that s p only accounts for
the flow convergence around the perforations in an ideal
perforated well without formation damage and crushed zone
around the tunnels.
A great number of experimental, numerical, empirical, and
semi-analytical models have been constructed to predict the
perforation pseudoskin.16-27 We will briefly describe some of
these models.
Hong and Locke Nomographs. Hong16 in 1975 and later
Locke18 in 1981 presented nomographs to estimate s p . These
SPE 82249
two nomographs also account for skin factors owing to
formation damage and rock compaction around the perforation
tunnels. The nomographs are not practical for multiple
calculations or software development.
McLeod Method. In 1983, McLeod19 proposed the
following simple equation combining the effects of perforation
pseudoskin, formation damage, and rock compaction around
the perforation tunnel.
s pdc = s d + s p + s cz .................................................... (14)
where s pdc is the perforation total skin containing the effects
of perforations, formation damage, and rock compaction.
s d is the skin factor due to formation damage as described in
Eq. 7. s p is the perforation pseudoskin obtained from either
Hong or Locke nomograph. s cz is the skin factor due to
crushed zone around the perforation tunnels and is given as
zp k k
s cz = ( ) ln( rcz / r p ) ............................... (15)
Lp k cz k d
Although Eq. 14 has been used by many other
investigators because of its simplicity, it is actually inaccurate.
Jones and Slusser Method. In a much earlier
unappreciated study, Jones and Slusser22 accurately combined
the simultaneous effect of mechanical skin factor due to
formation damage and perforation pseudoskin. Jones and
Slusser proposed
k
s pd = s d + s p ........................................................ (16)
kd
Eq. 16 is accurate for short perforations around deeply
damaged wells. Eq. 16 could be analytically derived if it is
assumed that 1) all the perforations are terminated inside the
damaged zone, 2) perforations do not disturb the radial flow
geometry in the undamaged portion of the formation, and 3)
the flow convergence towards the perforation tunnels
completely takes place inside the damaged zone. However, the
applicability of the method put forward by Jones and Slusser
to long perforations extending beyond the damaged zone is
questionable.
The Jones-Slusser method does not include the effect of
the crushed zone around the perforation tunnels. We propose
to add the skin factor due to rock compaction to Eq. 16 and
modify it as below.
k
s pdc = s d + s p + s cz .............................................. (17)
kd
It should be underlined again that Eqs. 16 and 17 could be
verified only for perforations terminating inside the damaged
zone. Additionally, Eq. 15 has to be used to calculate the
SPE 82249 ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL SKIN FACTOR IN PERFORATED WELLS
s cz term. The modified Jones-Slusser method, Eq. 17, may not
be accurate for perforation designs resulting in a negative s p
value.
Karakas and Tariq Method. Based on the results from a
finite element simulator, Karakas and Tariq23 developed
empirical equations to predict the total skin factor in a fully
perforated vertical well. The core of their study is the equation
for perforation pseudoskin. For the sake of completeness, the
Karakas-Tariq method is summarized in Appendix B. The
original work of Karakas and Tariq should be consulted for
additional information and details. With some changes in
nomenclature, their equation for estimating perforation
pseudoskin has the following form.
s p = s H + s v + s wb ...................................................... (18)
The first term represents the flow convergence in the
horizontal plane. The second term accounts for the flow
convergence in the vertical plane. The effect of the cylindrical
wellbore itself is considered in the last term. Karakas and
Tariq presented simple expressions for s H , sv , and swb .
To account for the pressure losses in the compacted zone
around the perforations, Karakas and Tariq used an expression
similar to Eq. 15.
zp
k
=
s cz ( 1) ln( rcz / r p ) .................................. (19)
Lp k cz
Addition of perforation pseudoskin and crushed zone skin
factors describes the combined effects of these two
parameters.
.............................................................. (20)
s pc = s p + s cz
For the simultaneous impact of perforation pseudoskin and
formation damage, Karakas and Tariq proposed two different
procedures. The first procedure is for the short perforations
terminated inside the damaged zone and is very similar to the
method proposed by Jones and Slusser sixteen years earlier.
k experiments. In the first set, the perforations were short and
s pd = s d + ( s p + s x ) .............................................. (21)
kd
For most cases, the s x term is negligible. The second
procedure is for deep penetrating perforations extending
beyond the damaged zone. To compute the total skin factor
resulting from formation damage and completion pseudoskin
due to long perforations, Karakas and Tariq defined effective
perforation length and effective wellbore radius terms and
suggested to replace the actual perforation length and wellbore
radius terms with the effective ones in the calculation
procedure yielding s p , scz , and s pc . The equations for
effective properties are given in Appendix B.
5
The second algorithm given by Karakas and Tariq
combines the influences of perforations, formation damage,
and compacted zone around the perforation tunnels for deep
penetrating perforation. On the other hand, Karakas and Tariq
did not explicitly describe a procedure uniting damage skin,
perforation pseudoskin, and compacted zone skin for the short
perforations terminated inside the damaged zone. Eq. 20
considers only the perforation pseudoskin and the compacted
zone skin factor. Eq. 21 joins the damage skin and perforation
pseudoskin factors. However, to quantify the combined
impacts of formation damage, perforations, and compacted
zone for short perforations, some engineers replace s p term in
Eq. 21 with s pc term of Eq. 20. Along these lines, Bell et al.21
suggested the equation below for the short perforations.
k
s pdc = s d + ) ................................. (22)
( s p + s x + s cz
kd
SPAN Program. SPAN is a software package to design
perforating variables.24 The model equations are developed
from the detailed finite element simulations. It uses a modified
version of the Karakas and Tariq method.25
3-D Semi-Analytical Method. In all the previous methods
described above, it is assumed that all the perforations are
equivalent and perforations are uniformly distributed. In Ref.
26, a general 3-D semi-analytical model considering arbitrary
and non-uniform perforation parameters and distribution was
developed. The 3-D semi-analytical model considers flow
convergence towards perforations, formation damage, and
compacted zone around the perforations tunnels. Additionally,
the model can handle selective perforating at multiple open
segments. For additional information and details, the reader is
referred to Ref. 26.
Accuracy of Perforation Pseudoskin Models. Pan and
Tang27 constructed an experimental perforated well model
using an electrolytic setup. They measured the well
productivity under the influence of perforation pseudoskin,
formation damage, and rock compaction around the
perforation tunnels. Pan and Tang conducted two sets of
terminated inside the damaged zone. In the second set,
perforations were extending beyond the damaged zone. To
investigate the accuracy of the skin factor models for
perforated wells, we compared the models described above
with the experimental data collected by Pan and Tang.
Fig. 4 compares the results simulated using McLeod model
with the experimental data. The solid symbols represent the
measured data. The dashed lines with hollow symbols show
the results computed using the method suggested by McLeod
(Eq. 14). s p value used McLeod model is calculated using
Karakas-Tariq model instead of the nomographs as suggested
by McLeod. As can be observed on Fig. 4, McLeod method
significantly overestimates the well productivity. A
6 T. YILDIZ
comparison of Eqs. 14 and 17 identifies the reason for the
overestimated well productivity. The McLeod model
downplays the effect of formation damage. It should be
reiterated that the McLeod method is implicitly limited to
short perforations placed inside the damaged zone. However,
this implicit assumption has not stopped the others to use the
McLeod method for the long perforations piercing through the
damaged zone. The McLeod model should not be expected to
give good productivity estimates for long perforations.
The simulated results using the Karakas-Tariq method are
also displayed on Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the solid lines with hollow
symbols depict the results from the Karakas-Tariq method.
The results from the Karakas-Tariq model are significantly
lower than the measured values for both short and long
perforations. It should be reminded that, for the short
perforations, Karakas and Tariq did not clearly describe a
procedure to estimate the total skin factor including the effects
of perforation pseudoskin, formation damage, and rock
compaction. However, the others have used the Karakas-Tariq
algorithm by replacing the s p term in Eq. 21 with the s pc
predicted from Eq. 20 resulting in Eq. 22. This approach
overestimates the total skin factor. On the other hand, an
algorithm to compute the total skin factor for the long
perforations passing through the damaged zone has been
proposed by Karakas and Tariq. Unfortunately, the results
from the algorithm substantially deviate from the experimental
data. Karakas and Tariq method was further scrutinized by
comparing it with SPAN and 3-D analytical model. It has been
observed that Karakas and Tariq method predicts the value of
perforation pseudoskin itself accurately. The algorithm also
works fine as far as the perforation pseudoskin and crushed
zone combination is concerned. The Karakas and Tariq
method also yields reasonable estimates for the combined
effects of formation damage and perforation pseudoskin.
However, when both the formation damage and rock
compaction effects are compounded with the perforation
pseudoskin, the Karakas and Tariq method calculates
unreasonably high total skin factor. This is true for both the
long and short perforations.
The modified Jones-Slusser method has also been tested
against the experimental data. The comparison is shown in
Fig. 5. As it can be observed on the figure, the calculated
results from Eq. 17 agree well with the experimental results.
But, when the perforation pseudoskin ( s p ) term is negative,
the results calculated from Eq. 17 deviate from the measured
data. Eq. 17 is not recommended for perforation designs
yielding negative s p value.
Eq. 17 can be analytically derived for short perforations
ended inside the damaged zone. However, the applicability of
Eq. 17 to the long perforations reaching beyond the damaged
zone is questionable. In the experimental data, the crushed
zone contributes the most to the total skin; the perforation
pseudoskin and formation damage skin are small compared to
the skin due to crushed zone. This is basically the reason for
the good agreement between the results from the modified
Jones-Slusser and the experimental data belonging to the long
perforations reaching beyond the damaged zone. The impact
of crushed zone is not influenced by the extent of the
SPE 82249
perforations relative to the damaged zone. If there had not
been crushed zone effect in the experimental data, the
calculated results from Eq. 17 would have deviated from the
measured data. The modified Jones-Slusser method is not
recommended for the long perforations.
The comparison of experimental data against the simulated
results from SPAN and 3-D analytical model is displayed in
Fig. 6. On Fig. 6, the symbols, dashed line, and solid line
show the measured data, SPAN results, and the analytical
model results, respectively. Both SPAN and 3-D analytical
model replicate the experimental data very well.
Besides being tested against the experimental data, the
methods to compute the perforation total skin are also
compared for a representative field case. The data set used in
the comparison includes re = 745 ft, rw= 0.25 ft, Lp= 2-12 in.,
rp= 0.1 in., n spf = 4 and 8, p= 90o, h= 100 ft, rcz= 0.2 in.,
kcz / k=0.1, rd= 4.5 in., and kd / k=0.2. The results for
n spf = 8 and n spf = 4 are shown in Figs. 7 and 8,
respectively. sp term used in the McLeod and the modified
Jones and Slusser methods is determined using the Karakas
and Tariq method, Eq.18. As can be seen on both graphs, the
results from 3D analytical model of Ref.26 and SPAN agree
well. The modified Jones and Slusser method gives good
results as long as the perforations are short and terminated
inside the damaged zone, Lp < rd . For both cases, the results
from the McLeod and the Karakas-Tariq methods substantially
deviate from those of the 3D analytical model and SPAN.
Partially Perforated Vertical Wells
In many previous publications,8, 28-36 the total skin factor for
partially perforated vertical wells is treated inconsistently,
incompletely, or inaccurately. In some publications,35,36 the
pseudoskin due to partial completion and pseudoskin due to
perforations are completely mixed up. Beggs35,36 suggested to
use the Saidowskis equation15 for partial penetration
pseudoskin as an alternative to using the nomographs
published by Hong16 or Locke18 to compute perforation
pseudoskin.
The flow convergence around a partially perforated
vertical well differs from that around a partially penetrating
well and that about a fully perforated vertical well. As
depicted in Fig. 7, there are two scales of flow convergence in
the near wellbore region of a partially perforated well. At the
far field away from the wellbore, the flow is about radial and
1-D. While fluid gets near the wellbore, first it sees the effect
of partial completion and start to converge towards the
completed interval without feeling the impact of perforations.
This flow convergence is 2-D and practically identical to the
same phenomena experienced in partially penetrating well
whose completed segment is barefoot. There may be a
pseudoradial flow across the completed segment before the
second flow convergence emerges. When fluid gets near the
perforations, it goes through a new flow pattern change. A 3-D
flow field grows when fluid converges around the perforation
tunnels. Two scales of flow convergence are likely to take
place in different locations around the wellbore and should be
treated separately.
The interaction between two scales of flow convergence,
formation damage, and rock compaction around the
SPE 82249 ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL SKIN FACTOR IN PERFORATED WELLS 7

perforation tunnels should be formulated delicately. The formation damage, and rock compaction around the
formation damage and rock compaction have more dynamic perforations are compounded. For such cases, the
interaction with the flow convergence around the perforation Karakas-Tariq algorithm overpredicts the
than that due to partial penetration. Therefore, we suggest perforation total skin factor.
incorporating the formation damage and rock compaction 3. The original Jones-Slusser method has been
effects into the perforation model. First, one should consider a modified to account for the rock compaction around
unit-thickness perforated segment and compute perforation the perforations. The modified Jones-Slusser method
total skin accounting for formation damage, 3-D flow was compared against the experimental data. It has
convergence around each perforation, and the compacted zone been observed that the modified Jones-Slusser
around each perforation tunnel. Second, only the pseudoskin method compares very well with the experimental
due to partial completion should be estimated using the data when perforations are terminated inside the
methods described in Refs. 4-10. Then total perforation damaged zone.
pseudoskin and partial penetration pseudoskin should be 4. SPAN software using a modified version of the
combined as shown below. Karakas-Tariq algorithm has been tested against the
experimental data. The results from the software and
h the experiments agree well.
st = s pdc + s pp ..................................................... (23) 5. For partially perforated wells, many studies in the
hp
literature consider the total skin factor as a linear
summation of the individual skin factor. We have
Eq. 23 has been verified in Ref. 26. The analytical model compared some of the total skin factor equations
presented in Ref. 26 has the capability to simulate the flow against the 3D model and SPAN. It has been shown
into selectively perforated wells by considering 3-D flow that the total skin factor equations based on the
around each individual perforation. Also, Refs. 21 and 22 linear addition of individual components do not
presented equations that are special and limited application of work.
Eq. 22. 6. Besides the 3D model and SPAN software, the
Fig. 10 compares the different methods for computing the simple expression given in Eq. 23 can also be used
total skin factor for a partially perforated well. The data set to predict the total skin factor for partially perforated
used is printed on the figure. The formation damage thickness, wells accurately. A limited version of Eq. 23 was
rd , is 6 inches. The results from 3D model, SPAN, and the proposed by Jones-Slusser three decades ago.
simple expression given in Eq. 23 agree very well. Refs. 8, 28,
29, 31, 33, and 34 predict substantially different results. The Nomenclature
total skin equations for the different methods are listed in Bo = formation volume factor, dimensionless, rbbl/stb
Table 1. When computing the total skin factor for the Refs. 8, h = formation thickness, L, ft
33, and 34, the perforation skin factor also included the effect hb= the distance between the bottom of the completed
of rock compaction around the perforation tunnels. interval and reservoir, L, ft
After verifying the simple expression in Eq. 23 against the hp= the length of the completed interval, L, ft
3D model and SPAN, we investigated the impact of perforated hpt= the length of the total completed interval, L, ft
interval length on the total skin factor. The data set used and Jc= productivity of completed well, stb/day/psi
the results are given in Fig. 11. If a short interval, less than Joh= productivity of open hole, stb/day/psi
10%, on the well is completed with short perforations, k = permeability, L2, md
L p 3 in. , the total skin factor is enormously high. kcz= permeability of crushed zone, L2, md
kr= permeability in radial direction, L2, md, k xk y
Conclusions kx = 2
permeability in x-direction, L , md
This study examined the methods to predict the total skin ky = permeability in y-direction, L2, md
factor for perforated and damaged wells. The methods were kz = permeability in z-direction, L2, md
compared against the experimental data. The following Lp= perforation length, L, ft
conclusions have been reached. It should be noted that the np= number of perforations
conclusions listed pertain to the range of data considered. nspf= number of shots per foot
1. The perforation total pseudoskin equation given by p= pressure, m/Lt2, psi
McLeod does not replicate the experimental results. PR = productivity ratio, dimensionless, fraction
The McLeod method downplays the effect of qsc = flow rate at surface, L3/t, stb/day
formation damage and underestimates the rcz = radius of crushed zone around perforation, L, ft
perforation total pseudoskin. re = reservoir radius, L, ft
2. The Karakas-Tariq method has been compared rp = perforation radius, L, ft
against the experimental data and the other models. rpe = equivalent perforation radius, L, ft
The algorithm works fine for ideal perforation rw = wellbore radius, L, ft
tunnels and perforations with compacted zone scz = skin due to rock compaction around perforations in
around them. However, the Karakas-Tariq method the presence of formation damage
does not work when the effects of ideal perforations,
8 T. YILDIZ
= skin due to rock compaction around perforations in
s cz
the absence of formation damage
sd = skin due to formation damage/stimulation
sf = completion pseudoskin due to hydraulic fracturing
sp = pseudoskin due to perforating
spc = total skin combining flow convergence towards
perforations and crushed zone skin
spd = total skin combining flow convergence towards
perforations and formation damage
spdc = total skin including perforation pseudoskin,
formation damage, and rock compaction around
perforation tunnels
spp = pseudoskin due to partial penetration
s = geometrical pseudoskin due to well inclination
spp = pseudoskin combining the effect of well inclination
and partial penetration
st = total skin factor
= viscosity, m/Lt, cp
poh = pressure drop for an openhole, m/Lt2, psi
pp = additional pressure change due to perforations,
m/Lt2, psi
ppp = additional pressure loss due to partial penetration,
m/Lt2, psi
pd = additional pressure change due to skin, m/Lt2, psi
pt = total pressure drop, m/Lt2, psi
rcz= thickness of the crushed zone, L, ft
rd= damaged zone thickness around wellbore, L, ft
= inclination/slant angle
Subscripts
d = wellbore damage
p = perforation
t = total
w = wellbore
References
1. Hawkins, M.F.:A Note on the Skin Effect, Trans. AIME, (1956)
207.
2. Nisle, R.G.: Effect of Partial Penetration on Pressure Build-Up,
Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 85.
3. Gringarten, A.C. and Ramey, H.J.:An Approximate Infinite
Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source
Well, SPEJ (April 1975) 140; Trans., AIME, 259.
4. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kirwan, P.A:New Skin and Wellbore Storage
Type Curves for Partially Penetrating Wells, SPEFE
(December 1987) 546.
5. Streltsova-Adams, T.D.:Pressure Drawdown in a Well with
Limited Flow Entry, JPT (November 1979) 1469.
6. Odeh, A.S.:An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due to
Restricted Entry, JPT (June 1980) 964.
7. Papatzacos, P.:Approximate Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin for
Infinite-Conductivity Wells, SPERE (May 1987) 227.
8. Vrbik, J.:A Simple Approximation to the Pseudoskin Factor
Resulting from Restricted-Entry, SPEFE (December 1991)
444.
9. Yildiz, T. and Cinar, Y.:Inflow Performance and Transient
Pressure Behavior of Selectively Completed Vertical Wells,
SPE Reservoir Eng. (October 1998) 467.
10. Odeh, A.S.:Steady-State Flow Capacity of Wells with Limited
Entry to Flow, SPEJ (March 1968) 43; Trans., AIME, 243.
SPE 82249
11. Daltaban, T.S. and Wall, C.G., Fundamental and Applied
Pressure Analysis, Imperial College Press, London, United
Kingdom (1998) Chap. 17, 514.
12. Earlougher, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE
Monograph Volume 5, Richardson, TX, 1977.
13. Jones, L.G. and Watts, J.W.:Estimating Skin Effect in a Partially
Completed Damaged Well, JPT (February 1971) 249.
14. Odeh, A.S.:Pseudosteady-state Flow Capacity of Oil Wells with
Limited Entry and an Altered Zone around the Wellbore, SPEJ
(August 1977) 271.
15. Saidowski, R.M.:Numerical Simulations of the Combined Effect
of Wellbore Damage and Partial Penetration, paper SPE 8204
presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 23-26.
16. Hong, K.C.:Productivity of Perforated Completions in
Formations With or Without Damage, JPT (Aug. 1975) 1027,
Trans. AIME, 259.
17. Klotz, J.A., Kruger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: Effect of Perforation
Damage on Well Productivity, JPT (Nov. 1974) 1303, Trans.,
AIME, 257.
18. Locke, S.:An Advanced Method for predicting the Productivity
Ratio of a Perforated Well, JPT (Dec. 1981) 2481.
19. McLeod, H.:The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well
Performance, JPT 31 (Jan. 1983).
20. Tariq, S.M.:Evaluation of Flow Characteristics of Perforations
Including Nonlinear Effects With the Finite Element Method,
SPEPE (May 1987) 104.
21. Bell, W.T., Sukup, R.A., and Tariq, S.M., Perforating, SPE
Monograph Volume 16, Richardson, TX, 1995.
22. Jones, L.G. and Slusser, M.L.:The Estimation of Productivity
Loss Caused by Perforations Including Partial Completion and
Formation Damage, paper SPE 4798 presented at the 1974 SPE
Second Midwest Oil and Gas Symposium, Indianapolis, Indiana,
March 28-29.
23. Karakas, M. and Tariq, S.M.:Semianalytical Productivity Models
for Perforated Completions, SPEPE (Feb. 1991) 73.
24. SPAN user guide, Version 6.0, Schlumberger Perforating and
Testing, 1999.
25. Hegeman, P., Personal Communication, Schlumberger Product
Center, Sugarland, Texas.
26. Yildiz, T.:Productivity of Selectively Perforated Vertical Wells,
SPEJ (June 2002) 158.
27. Pan, Y., and Tang, Y., Study on Underbalanced and Deep
Penetrating Perforating Technology, Technical Report,
Southwestern Petroleum Institute, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
(1989).
28. Thomas, L.K. et al.:Well Performance Model, JPT (February
1992) 220.
29. Penmatcha, R., Fayers, J., and Aziz, K.:Skin Factor Calculations
for Vertical, Deviated, and Horizontal Wells (Task 2),
Productivity and Injectivity of Horizontal Wells, Annual Project
Report, DOE/BC/14862-10, Stanford University, CA, July 1995.
30. Pucknell, J. K. and Clifford, P. J.:Calculation of Total Skin
Factors, paper SPE 23100 presented at the 1991 SPE Offshore
Europe Conference, Aberdeen, UK, September 3-6.
31. Golan, M. and Whitson, C., Well Performance, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, (1991) Chapter 3, 331-336.
32. Samaniego V., F. and Cinco Ley, H.:Well Test Analysis in
Carbonate Reservoirs, Carbonate Reservoir Characterization:
A Geologic-Engineering Analysis, Part II, G.V. Chilingarian,
S.J. Mazzullo, and H.H. Rieke (eds.), Elsevier Science B. V.,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1996) Chap. 6, 589.
33. Economides, M. J. and Booney, C.:Reservoir Stimulation in
Petroleum Production, Reservoir Stimulation, M.J. Economides
and K.G. Nolte (eds.), John Wiley & Sons (2000) Chap. 1, 1-12.
SPE 82249 ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL SKIN FACTOR IN PERFORATED WELLS
34. Elshahawi, H.M. and Gad, K.H.:Estimation of Skin for High
Delivery Gas Well Tests, paper SPE 68144 presented at the
2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, March 17-20.
35. Beggs, H. D., Gas Production Operations, OGCI Publications,
Tulsa, Oklahoma (1984) Chapter 3, 85.
36. Beggs, H.D., Production Optimization, OGCI Publications, Tulsa,
Oklahoma (1991) Chapter 2, 51.
Appendix A Vrbik Model for Partial Penetration
Pseudoskin
For the sake of completeness, the partial penetration
pseudoskin model proposed by Vrbik8 is presented below. The
Vrbik model compares very well against the exact analytical
solutions.
s pp = (1 / h pD 1) (1.2704 ln rwD ) F / h 2pD .......... (A-1)
F = f (0) f ( h pD ) + f ( z1 ) 0.5[ f ( z 2 ) + f ( z 3 )] ... (A-2)
f ( y ) = y ln y + (2 y ) ln( 2 y ) + g ( y ) ..................... (A-3)
g ( y ) = rwD ln [ sin 2 ( y / 2) + 0.1053 rwD
2
] / .......... (A-4)
z1 = 1 2 D ................................................................. (A-5)
z 2 = 1 2 D + h pD ...................................................... (A-6)
z 3 = 1 2 D h pD ...................................................... (A-7)
h pD = h p / h ............................................................... (A-8)
hbD = hb / h ................................................................ (A-9)
D = (1 h pD ) / 2 hbD ......................................... (A-10)
rwD = rw k z / k r / h ............................................... (A-11)
The details on the Vrbik model can be found in Ref. 8.
Appendix B Karakas-Tariq Model for Perforation
Pseudoskin
Karakas and Tariq23 proposed the stepwise procedure below to
estimate the pseudoskin due to perforating.
1. Compute the pseudoskin due to flow convergence in the
horizontal plane.
s H = ln( rw / rwe ) ....................................................... (B-1)
rwe ( p ) = ( p ) ( rw + L p ) ....................................... (B-2)
9
Eq. B-2 is valid for all the phasing angles except
zero. ( p ) is tabulated as a function of the phasing angle.
For ( p ) = 0 , rwe ( p = 0 ) = L p / 4 .
2. Estimate the pseudoskin due to cylindrical wellbore.
s wb ( p ) = c1 ( p ) exp [c 2 ( p ) rwD ] .......................... (B-3)
c1 and c 2 are numerical coefficients that are given as a
function of the phasing angle.
3. Compute the pseudoskin due to flow convergence in the
vertical plane.
1 b
s v = 10 a z bpD r pD .................................................. (B-4)
a = a1 ( p ) log(rpD ) + a 2 ( p ) ................................... (B-5)
b = b1 ( p ) rpD + b2 ( p ) ........................................... (B-6)
a1 , a 2 , b1 , and b2 are numerical coefficients tabulated as
a function of the phasing angle.
4. Determine the perforation pseudoskin.
s p = s H + s v + s wb ................................................... (B-7)
5. Add crushed zone effects.
' zp k
s cz = ( 1) ln( rcz / rp ) ................................ (B-8)
Lp k cz
s 'p = s p + s cz
'
.............................................................. (B-9)
s 'p represents the combined effect of pseudoskin due to
flow convergence toward perforations and the permeability
impairment due to rock compaction around the perforations.
6. Add formation damage effect.
If the perforations are short and terminated inside the
damaged zone then the total skin factor including the effect of
perforating and formation damage is
k
st = s d + ( s p + s x ) ............................................ (B-10)
kd
where s x is negligible for most cases.
For the long perforations extending beyond the damaged
zone, Karakas and Tariq suggested to replace the perforation
length and wellbore radius in steps 1 through 5 with effective
10 T. YILDIZ SPE 82249

perforation length and effective wellbore radius defined

below.
TABLE 1 EQUATIONS FOR TOTAL SKIN FACTOR
L'p = L p (1 k d / k ) rd ....................................... (B-11) AND ITS COMPONENTS
Vrbik8 s t = s d + s pp + s p + s + s f

rw' = rw + (1 k d / k ) rd . ....................................... (B-12) Daltaban-Wall11 s t = s d + s pp + s

The other variables appearing in Eqs. B-1 through B-12 McLeod19 s pdc = s d + s p + s cz
are defined below.
Bell-Sukup-Tariq21 s t = s d + s pp + s
rwD = rw /( rw + L p ) ................................................. (B-13) h s pdc h
s t = s pp + [ + (9 + 11 ) s ]
hp hp
z pD = z p k r / k z / L p ...................................... (B-14) '
s pdc = s d + ( k / k d ) ( s p + s cz + sx )
Jones-Slusser22 s pd = s d + ( k / k d ) s p
rpD = ( rp / 2 z p ) (1 + k z / k r ) ............................ (B-15)
s t = ( h / h p ) s pd + s pp
28
z p = 1 / n spf ........................................................... (B-16) Thomas et al. s t = (h / h p ) s d + s pp + s p + s cz + s

Penmatcha et al.29 s t = (h / h p ) s d + s pp + s p + s cz + s
SI Metric Conversion Factors
3
Golan-Whitson31 s t = (h / h p ) ( s d + s p ) + s cz + s pp
bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m
cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa*s Samaniego-C. s t = ( h / h p ) ( s d + s p ) + s pp + s + s f
ft x 3.048* E-01 = m Ley32
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm Econ.-Booney33 s t = s d + s p + spp
lbf x 4.448 222 E+00 = N
Elshahawi-Gad34 s t = s d + s p + spp + More skins
lbm x 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
mD x 9.869 233 E-04 = m2
* Conversion factor is exact.
SPE 82249 ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL SKIN FACTOR IN PERFORATED WELLS 11

C r ushe d zo ne
1 .0 a ro und pe rf oration s
Damaged
zone
D am age d zo ne
kd 0 .8 arou nd we llb or e
+

Productivity Ratio
C ru shed zon e
arou nd perfo ra tions

0 .6

h
hp
0 .4

Me asured da ta K-T m od el M cLe od

np = 8
0 .2
np = 12

hb Flow convergence due np = 16

rd to partial penetration 0 .0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
L p , in.

Fig. 1-Partially penetrating well subject to formation damage. Fig. 4-Comparison of Karakas-Tariq and McLeod models with the
experimental data of Pan and Tang.

Crushed zone
around perforations
1.2

Damaged zone
10 1.0 around wellbore
+
Productivity Ratio

Crushed zone
around perforations
0.8
spp

0.6
2D exact solution
1
Vrbik
0.4 Pan & Tang Modified J&S Method
Papatzacos
np = 8
Odeh
0.2 np = 12
np = 16
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0
hp , ft 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Fig. 2 Comparison of empirical models for partial penetration L p , in.
with the 2D exact solution. Fig. 5-Comparison of the modified Jones-Slusser model with the
experimental data of Pan and Tang.

1.2
kd
Damaged zone
1.0 around wellbore
kx, ky, k z +
Crushed zone
Lpj around perforations
0.8
zj
Productivity Ratio

Da ma ged
zo ne k czj rczj
0.6 Measured data
jth perforatio n 2r pj np = 8

0.4 np = 12
Crus hed zo ne
np = 16

Span
0.2
z j-1 Crushed zone Yildiz
rd around perforations

0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
rd L p , in.
Fig. 6-Comparison of the results SPAN and 3-D analytical model
with the experimental results.
Fig. 3 Schematics of a perforated well.
12 T. YILDIZ SPE 82249

16.0 160
re = 745 ft span h = 100 ft
rw = 0.25 ft This study
hp = 10 ft
14.0 140
rd = 0.75 ft rw = 0.25 ft
3D
kd / k = 0.25 rd = 0.75 ft
12.0 spf = 8 Thomas et al., P-F-A
120 kd / k = 0.25
ph. angle= 90o Vrbik, E-B, E-G spf = 8
10.0 rp = 0.1 in.
rcz = 0.3 in. 100 Golan-Whitson ph. angle= 90o
rp = 0.1 in.
kcz / k = 0.1 span

st
8.0
s pdc

rcz = 0.3 in.

K&T 80 kcz / k = 0.1
6.0 3D
McLeod 60
4.0 mod J&S

40
2.0

0.0
20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 L p , in.
L p , in.
Fig. 10-Comparison of total skin calculation methods for a
Fig. 7-Comparison of spdc calculation methods, n spf = 8 . partially perforated well. Perforated segment is at the top.

30 300
re = 745 ft L p , in. h = 100 ft
rw = 0.25 ft rw = 0.25 ft
2
rd = 0.75 ft 250 rd = 0.75 ft
25 3
kd / k = 0.25 kd / k = 0.25
spf = 4 4.5 spf = 8
ph. angle= 90 o 200 6 ph. angle= 90o
20 rp = 0.1 in.
rp = 0.1 in.
rcz = 0.3 in. 7.5
rcz = 0.3 in.
kcz / k = 0.1 150
st

span 9 kcz / k = 0.1

s pdc

15
K&T 12
3D
100
10 McLeod
mod J&S
50
5

0
10 100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 h p , ft.
L p , in. Fig. 11-The effect of perforated segment length on total skin for
several perforation lengths.
Fig. 8-Comparison of spdc calculation methods, n spf = 4 .

hp

F lo w co n v e r g e n ce d u e
F lo w to p a r tia l p e n e tr a t ion
hb c o n v e rg e n c e
d u e to
p e r fo r a ti o n s

Fig. 9-Flow convergence phenomena around partially perforated

vertical wells.