SPE-193424-MS

Simple and Effective Techniques of Reducing Skin and Enhancing Well

Productivity in Cement Packer Completions

Adeboye Adeyinka, Chidozie Anyachor, Oluwabiyi Awotiku, Kemelayefa Ejeru, Adeyemi Haastrup, and Joe Sutton,
Chevron Nigeria

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 6–8 August 2018.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Cement Packer completion has found great use and applicability in Chevron Nigeria assets by creating
a cost-effective way of accessing ‘behind-pipe’ production opportunities. These isolated hydrocarbon pools
could not have been otherwise developed due to the un-favourable cost of a Major Rig Workover. This has
helped to maximize value from oil and gas assets by returning previously inactive wellbores to production.
The typical through-tubing technique of deploying cement packers in candidate wells has been to set a
plug in the tubing to isolate the deeper reservoir, punch a hole in the tubing, displace cement through the
hole in the tubing and place it across the new target sand so that the displaced cement would serve as an
artificial packer in the tubing-casing annulus. The tubing would then be perforated across the cement packer
and into the target reservoir.
Much success has been recorded with the use of this technique and though it has provided proper tubing-
casing annulus isolation, there have also been a few challenges. Some of the challenges include significant
skin (caused by the extra pressure drop during fluid flow through the cement tunnel), limited perforation
efficiency in dual-string wells (caused by gun-size limitations due to the tubing size) and lack of radial
flow since the perforations are oriented at zero-degree phasing to avoid perforating into the second string
in dual-string wells. Eliminating these challenges would significantly improve the well production rate and
project economics.
This paper presents three case studies where these challenges have been effectively addressed and the
attendant results. In the first case study, we show how over-displacing the cement ensured that the column
of cement was placed above (rather than across) the proposed completion perforations while still retaining
annular isolation. This significantly improved the expected initial production rate of the well by a factor of
more than three since there was no extra skin due to fluid flow through the cement tunnel.
In the second case study, we show how we improved the perforation efficiency in a dual-string well
despite being constrained by the gun size by perforating twice at zero-degree phasing. In the third case study,
we show how we overcame the challenge of always perforating at zero-degree phasing in dual-string wells
by performing dummy simulations (at the surface) using pipe-in-pipe configurations to better understand
the perforating gun orientation downhole relative to the tubings and casing. Based on the results of the
2 SPE-193424-MS

surface simulations, we achieved additional phasing in two perforation runs and this significantly increased
the productivity of the well.
A major lesson learnt was the importance of performing dummy simulations at the surface using pipe-
in-pipe configurations to mimic the tubings-casing configuration. This was crucial to the success of the job
where additional phased perforations were added.

Introduction
Cement packer completions offer a cost-efficient way of moving resources to reserves to production
especially in a cost-constrained environment. Isolated hydrocarbon pools that were previously considered
too small to be developed by a Major Rig Work Over (MRWO) or a new drill can now be economically
developed by this proven technique (Mahmood et al, 2013).
Figure 1 shows the typical through-tubing technique of deploying cement packers in candidate wells as
follows:
1. drift and set a plug in the tubing to isolate production from the deeper reservoir.
2. pressure test tubing and casing annulus to ensure integrity
3. punch a hole in the tubing and establish returns through the casing annulus.
4. displace cement through the hole in the tubing and place it across the new target sand so that the
displaced cement would serve as an artificial packer in the tubing-casing annulus.
5. perforate the tubing across the cement packer and into the target reservoir.

Figure 1—Through-Tubing technique of cement packer deployment in a candidate well. Modifications are
highlighted in RED and BLUE (Note that deployment procedure may vary due to wellbore complexity and downhole jewelry).
SPE-193424-MS 3

The procedures of deploying the cement packer may vary as the wellbore complexity and downhole
jewelry would drive important execution decisions such as whether to bullhead the cement or utilize a coiled
tubing unit for the cement placement. More detailed procedures are discussed in the literature written by
Olatunde et al (2010) and Okoto et al (2013).

A Case for the Use of Cement Packers

Drilling activity is usually on a high when oil prices are up and drilled wells tend to target the more extensive
oil accumulations. It therefore naturally follows that larger oil pools are ‘selected’ for development at the
expense of smaller ones. This ‘natural selection’ model means that the older wells were not equipped with
sliding sleeves or pre-perforation for sands that were considered marginal at the time (Idris et al, 2007).
Perhaps the greatest use of cement packer completions is the fact that a single wellbore can be used
to access multiple completions and marginals sands in fields with stacked resrevoirs. This can be a very
powerful tool to rejuvenate mature fields with idle wellbores. In today's low oil price environment, where
companies are looking to get more out of their existing assets, marginal hydrocarbon pools can now be
developed and add barrels to the tank.
Cement packer completions also offer a cost-effective way to confirm fluid properties and producibility
from reservoirs targeted by new drills. The relatively low cost of executing the technique means that older
wells that cut through the sand targeted by the new drill can be worked-over to gather crucial information
and de-risk a prospective new drill (Ogbuagu et al, 2017).
Ideal candidate wells for cement packer are shut-in wells and wells that have watered out (Seng et al,
2009). Wells with high GOR should be considered for use as gas-lift source wells where possible before
being considered for cement packer work-over. It is important to ensure that the candidate well is no longer
economically producing from its current zone or there is another near-by well that can drain the oil pool.
Economic justification for the abandonment of any reserves below the existing conventional packer must
be made prior to executing the cement packer job (Olatunde et al, 2010).

Defining a Base Case

We define as a Base Case the cement packer job executed on Well-CX. Well-CX is a dual string completion
in which cement-packer was deployed above the uppermost production packer with the cement placed
across the new target sand. High Shot Density guns with deep penetrating charges were then run in the
2-7/8″ tubing to perforate across the tubing, cement sheath in the tubing-casing annulus, casing and then
into the formation.

Challenges Associated with the Cement Packer Execution

Success has been recorded in Chevron Nigeria and in the literature (Mahmood et al, 2013) with the use of
this technique and while it has provided proper tubing-casing annulus isolation, there have also been a few
challenges. Some of the major challenges well documented in the literature include:
1. gun size limitation due to tubing size
2. significant skin (caused by the extra pressure drop during fluid flow through the cement tunnel),
3. zero-degree phasing in oriented perfs to avoid perforating into the other string
The significant skin is caused by the extra pressure drop required for the fluid to flow through the cement
tunnel into the tubing. In 2-7/8″ or 2-3/8″ tubings, the gun size (and the charges) that can be run in hole is
limited by the tubing ID. Dual completion wells must have oriented perforations in the tubing of interest
(usually zero-degree phasing) to avoid perforating into the other strings. This zero-degree phasing leads to
spherical flow, which has its associated skin. Eliminating these challenges would significantly improve the
4 SPE-193424-MS

well production rate and project economics. We include below three case studies that detail how each of
these challenges were addressed.

Figure 2—Well-CX Base Case schematic showing typical cement packer deployment.
Picture has been zoomed into the area of interest with modifications highlighted in RED.

Case Study 1 – Well-1

This case study deals with a dual-completion where the cement-packer was deployed above the uppermost
production packer and across the new target sand. The well was perforated twice using high shot density
guns with deep penetrating charges which helped to improve the productivity index despite the gun size
limitation caused by the 2-7/8″ tubing I.D.

Well History
As at the time of this NRWO, Well-1 was completed as a deviated dual producer with the short string in the
N Sand and the long string in the O6 Sand. Both strings had been shut-in due to rising water-cuts and the
recommendation was to zone-switch the long string from the O6 Sand to the H Sand via a cement packer
operation.

Well Data

Casing : 7-5/8″ 29.7 lb/ft, N-80 @ 8,910 ftMD

Tubing (S/S) : 2-7/8″ 6.4 lb/ft, N80, X-Over @ 7,769 ftMD
2-3/8″ 4.6 lb/ft, N80, EOT @ 8,477 ftMD
Tubing (L/S) : 2-7/8″ 6.4 lb/ft, N80, X-Over @ 7,782 ftMD
2-3/8″ 4.6 lb/ft, N80, EOT @ 8,724 ftMD

Completion Data
Isolation Target (L/S) : 8,574 – 8,578 ftMD (O6) watered out
New Target (L/S) : 6,362 – 6,372 ftMD & 6,378 – 6,385 ftMD (H Sand)

Cement Packer Execution

Below is a summary of the wellwork executed on the long string (see Figure 3):

• Tested tree and casing valves to ensure integrity

• Pressured up the tubing-casing annulus using inhibited filtered sea water (FSW) to 500psi to ensure
packer integrity
SPE-193424-MS 5

• Full wellbore drift below the new target to ensure tubing was clear

• Set plug below the new target (7700 ftMD) and conducted positive and negative test on plug to
ensure plug held
• Pressure tested tubing to 500 psig to ensure tubing integrity

• Punched holes in tubing (6501 – 6503 ftMD) and pumped through the tubing while receiving
returns through the casing to the flow-back tank until clear returns was observed at surface
• Pumped the following fluid train (bullheading) down the tubing:
5bbls chemical wash
5bbls FSW
21bbls 15.9ppg cement slurry
3bbls 9ppg gel
• Two foam balls were launched into the tubing to clean up any cement residue on the tubing walls
and this was chased down with 33bbls FSW and 5bbls sugar solution
• Trapped the pressure by closing in the tubing and casing to ensure the cement column in the annulus
would not u-tube
• Waited 24hrs for the cement to set

Figure 3—Well-1 schematic showing cement packer deployment. Modifications are highlighted in RED and BLUE.

Well-1 was drifted after waiting on the cement set to ensure that the tubing was clear below the new
target. This was necessary as the perforating guns to be run needed to have access to the new target depths.
Unfortunately, the drift was held-up at 6040 ftMD (~300ft above the new target) in the long string. We
6 SPE-193424-MS

followed with a bailer run and recovered watery gel-cement slurry and pieces of the wiper foam ball
suggesting that there had been a foam bridge. This foam bridge was suspected to have allowed the cement
u-tube from the annulus back into the tubing. A review of the well operation was done and following a
thorough evaluation of alternatives, the decision was made to access the new target (H Sand) by perforating
through the short-string.

Short String Perforation

A plug was set at 7880 ftMD in the sliding sleeve nipple profile to isolate the watered-out perforations in
the N Sand. A positive test was conducted by pumping into the tubing to achieve 500 psig and observing
for 15 mins for any pressure leaks to ensure tubing integrity. A negative test was conducted by bleeding
off the THP to 0 psig and observing for any pressure build-up for 10 mins. The plug held integrity for the
positive and negative tests.
The short string was a 2-7/8″ tubing at the planned perforation depths for the new target H Sand. While
the preference was to go with bigger charges to perforate through the tubing metal, annular cement sheath
and the casing metal, the gun size (and the charges) that could be run in hole was limited by the tubing I.D.
To overcome this, 1.56″ High Shot Density guns were loaded with deep penetrating charges (6 shots
per foot) to perforate across 6378 – 6385 and 6362 – 6372 ftMD in two runs at 0 deg phasing to avoid
perforating into the long string. The perforations were repeated across the same interval, a second time, to
improve the perforation efficiency. The well came in at 576 BOPD.

Evaluation of the Perforation Efficiency

The PI of this well was compared with Well-CX which was completed using cement packer in a similar
sand. The same gun specifications and charges were used for the two jobs.
The PI estimates were based on an internal workflow in a commercial nodal analysis software. The
workflow uses measured field data to calculate well production and injection gradients from the surface
downwards and the from the sand-face upwards. When the assumptions regarding the well conditions (e.g.
gas injection rates and depth, water cut, GOR, THP etc.) are correct, the two calculated traverses should
overlay. If these two traverses are not overlaying, then this implies that the model is not representative of
the reality of the system.
The PI of Well-1 was estimated as 2 STB/day/psi while that of Well-CX was 0.3 STB/day/psi. The higher
PI in Well-1 was believed to be due to perforating twice which led to better perforation efficiency. Sand
particle mobilization and production is also less likely in Well-1 since the draw-down is lower. See Figure 4.
SPE-193424-MS 7

Figure 4—Comparison of estimated PI in Well-1 and Well-CX highlights the benefits of perforating twice. See Jaja et al (2017)

The learnings from the Well-1 job was cascaded to another job described by Jaja et al (2017) where the
well (Well-AA) had been perforated once and had difficulty flowing. Initial analysis indicated that there was
a restriction in the inflow after the first perforation job. The well was perforated a second time with deep
penetrating charges and the well subsequently came in at an estimated PI of 1.2 STB/day/psi. See Figure 5.

Figure 5—Well-AA also had improved PI as reported by Jaja et al (2017) based on learnings from the Well-1 job.
8 SPE-193424-MS

Case Study 2 – Well-2

In this case study, cement was over-displaced above the target sand in a dual-completion where the cement-
packer was deployed above the uppermost production packer. The well was perforated through annular fluid
(FSW) rather than cement sheath as this was displaced beyond the perforation interval; thereby eliminating
significant skin caused by the extra pressure drop during fluid flow through the cement tunnel.

Well History
Prior to the execution of this cement packer zone switch, Well-2 was completed as a deviated dual producer
with the short string in the O5 Sand and the long string in the O6 Sand. The long string had quit production
due to high water cut while the short string was still producing at 623 BOPD. The NRWO was proposed to
isolate the long string completion, O6 Sand and zone switch to the N1 Sand above the uppermost production
packer via cement packer.

Well Data

Casing : 9-5/8″ 47 lb/ft, L-80 @ 9,530 ft MD

Tubing (S/S) : 2-7/8″ 6.5 lb/ft, L-80, EOT @ 8,695 ftMD
Tubing (L/S) : 2-7/8″ 6.5 lb/ft, L-80, EOT @ 9,385 ftMD

Completion Data
Isolation Target (L/S) : 9,405 – 9,420 ftMD (O6) watered out
New Target (L/S) : 8,375 – 8,385 ftMD (N1 Sand)

Cement Packer Execution

Below is a summary of the wellwork executed on the long string (see Figure 6):

• Tested tree and casing valves to ensure integrity

• Displaced the fluid in the long string into the reservoir by pumping twice the tubing volume of
inhibited filtered sea water (FSW) to prevent exposure to H2S as records showed fluid had historical
H2S concentration up to 6ppm
• Drifted tubing to confirm the long string is free to depth of interest

• Retrieved the gas lift valves on both strings and replaced with dummies

• Set plug below the new target (8,972 ftMD) in the long string and conducted negative test on plug
to ensure plug held and pressure tested tubing to 500psi to ensure tubing integrity
• Set plug at 4,284 ftMD in the short string and conducted negative test on plug to ensure plug held
and pressure tested tubing to 500psi to ensure tubing integrity
• Pressured up the tubing-casing annulus using inhibited filtered sea water (FSW) to 500psi to ensure
packer integrity
• Set Magna range (permanent plug) at 8,895 ftMD, dumped cement on plug and pressure tested
magna range/cement plug okay.
• Punched 5 holes in tubing (8,855 – 8,860 ftMD) and pumped through the tubing while receiving
returns through the casing to the flow-back tank until clear returns was observed at surface
• Attempted to pump cement the following day but no returns from casing until after pumping 60bbl.
This was a red flag and packer leak was suspected
SPE-193424-MS 9

• Conducted communication checks and established packer leak (Figure 7) through pressure/
temperature measurement (the next 4 steps describe how the packer leak was remedied)
• Pumped a mixture of gel and CaCO3 through the casing and allowed the CaCO3 to settle on the
packer
• Chased down mixture though the casing with 300bbl FSW at 1.5bpm and while pumping through
the casing, fluid was being received through the tubing
• Allowed CaCO3/gel mixture to settle overnight and successfully pressure tested dual packer to
200psi for 15min.
• Pumped the following fluid train (bullheading) down the tubing:

◦ 5bbls chemical wash

◦ 5bbls FSW

◦ 40bbls 15.8ppg cement slurry

◦ 10bbls 9ppg gel

• Two foam balls were launched into the tubing to clean up any cement residue on the tubing walls
and this was chased down with 2.4bbls of gel, 50.6bbls FSW and 5bbls sugar solution.
The plan was to have the cement column displaced 300ft shallower from the punched holes and
expected differential pressure was 200 psig
• Attempted to trap pressure in the tubing and closed the casing to ensure the cement column in the
annulus would not u-tube
• Initial trapped pressure of 190 psig dropped to 140 psig. To prevent cement u-tube into the tubing,
attempt was made to bring the pressure to 190 psig by pumping more fluid, however, this was not
successful. This resulted in additional 32bbl being pumped and led to the cement being displaced
above the proposed perforation interval.
• Waited 24hrs for the cement to set

Cement Packer Evaluation

After observing the surface cement sample was setting, a temperature log was carried out through the short
string to evaluate the depth of cement placement in annulus. 40bbls of cement that was pumped during the
cement packer job was expected to correspond to 700ft of cement column in the casing-tubing annulus. The
temperature log identified the cement interval as 7,486 – 8,180 ftMD (694ft column) which is shallower
than the new perforation interval of 8,375 – 8,385 ftMD (see Figure 8).
The original plan during the design of the cement packer job was to have the cement packer straddle the
new perforation interval, but this was not achieved. The integrity of the cement packer was tested to 300
psig through the casing annulus and tubing. The cement packer held integrity.

Perforation of Zone of Interest through Long String

Tubing drift was conducted on the long string with no HUD encountered signifying that the tubing was
clear below the new target in the N1 sand. This was necessary to confirm that the perforation guns could
access the depth of interest and therefore the perforations could be carried out through the long string.
The dummy run with the completion mapper clearly identified position of the adjacent string and gun
orientation of +10° and +180° was selected for the perforation. Perforation was not through cement packer
as it was in case study 1, but through the tubing metal, annular fluid (FSW) and the casing metal.
1.56″ High Shot Density guns were loaded with deep penetrating charges (6 shots per foot) to perforate
across 8,375 – 8,385 ftMD at 0 deg phasing to avoid perforating into the long string. The perforation was
10 SPE-193424-MS

done twice in two runs with gun orientation at +10° and +180° in the first and second runs respectively.
The well came in at 2,237 BOPD.

Figure 6—Well-2 schematic showing cement packer deployment. Modifications are highlighted in RED and BLUE.

Figure 7—Establishing packer leak in Well-2. Packer leak can be slowed down enough to
allow placement of cement packer by dumping very fine Calcium Carbonate particles on the packer
SPE-193424-MS 11

Figure 8—Temperature log confirming top and bottom of cement packer.

Evaluation of the Perforation Efficiency

The PI of Well-2 was estimated based on the workflow described in Well-1. The PI of Well-2 was estimated
at 4.5 STB/day/psi proving that perforating into annular fluid rather than a sheath of cement would lead to
a more favourable PI outcome. See Figure 9.

Figure 9—Well-2 shows higher estimated PI due to the absence of a cement sheath in the perforation zone.

The IP rate from the job (pre-execution) had initially been estimated at 500 BOPD based on the
assumption that there would be cement across the perforation interval however the well came in at 2,237
BOPD highlighting how much skin the cement sheath creates and its impact on production.

Merits and Demerits

Mitigation plans were developed to handle the risks of erosion because the short string had no blast joints
across the perforations. Some of the mitigation plans included:
12 SPE-193424-MS

• periodic pressure survey checks (THP & CHP) on the short and long strings to ensure they weren't
communicating due a tubing leak caused by erosion. Sand analysis showed the formation to
produce sand free
• choke optimization was also considered to control well drawdown.

Case Study 3 – Well-3

In this case study, cement was placed across the target sand in a dual-completion where the cement-packer
was deployed above the uppermost production packer. The well was perforated through the cement packer
to serve as the gas-source well for the field. A need for higher gas-source pressures to the gas-lift network
meant the well had to be re-visited for a re-perforation job. The re-perforation was completed achieving
additional phasing angle on the perforations and this significantly reduced the drawdown.

Well History
Well-3 was initially completed in March 1997 as a dual completion with the long string in the E7 Sand and
the short string in the D2 Sand. The well had high water-cut and sand production challenges which were
managed with choke reduction; but production declined and finally quit flowing in July 1998 on LTP.
The well had no further opportunity in the D2 Sand and was thus recommended for a non-rig workover
cement packer zone switch to a reservoir (B10 Sand) 1130ft shallower by straddling a 700ft cement packer
across the reservoir of interest and peforating a 10ft interval into the reservoir via oriented perforation.

NRWO Objective
The zone switch into the new zone with massive gas cap and thin oil rim was expected to utilize the idle
wellbore of the short string and provide gas-lift gas for the Field. The intent of NRWO was to restore
production to the Field by improving vertical lift, through gas lifting wells which were shut-in on Low
Tubing Pressure (LTP).

Well Data

Casing : 9-5/8″ 47 lb/ft, L-80 @ 8147′MD

Tubing (S/S) : 2-7/8″ 6.5 lb/ft L-80 @ 6207′MD
Tubing (L/S) : 2-7/8″ 6.5 lb/ft L-80 @ 7720′MD

Completion Data

Isolation Target (S/S) : 6372 – 6392′MD (D2 Sand) watered out

New target (S/S) : 5244 – 5254′MD (B10 Sand)

Cement Packer Execution

Below is a summary of the cement packer wellwork executed, leading up to perforation of new zone in
2016 (see Figure 10):
SPE-193424-MS 13

Figure 10—Well-3 schematic showing cement packer deployment. Modifications are highlighted in RED and BLUE.

• Tested tree valves to ensure integrity

• Fullbore drift to 6207’MD (end of tubing) to ascertain wellbore access down to the proposed
perforation interval within the new zone and to confirm wellbore access for effective isolation of
the existing reservoir.
• Live gas lift valves on both the long and short strings in the wellbore were replaced with dummies
to acheive adequate tubing integrity required for cement packer operations.
• Pressure tested the dual packer at 6159 ftMD to 500 psig by pumping into the tubing-casing annulus
while monitoring for response on both long and short strings. No change in casing head pressure
and tubing head pressures on both strings confirmed integrity of the dual packer and tubing srtings.
• The existing zone was isolated by setting a Magna Range plug at 5520 ftMD which gave a good
positive and negative pressure test.
• Punched holes in the tubing (5500 – 5503 ftMD) to establish circulation for proper annular cleanout
and cement placement. Circulation was acheived by pumping 1268 bbls of FSW (with surfactants)
down the tubing, through the punched holes and up the annulus into the flow-back tank. Clear
returns observed after pumping 600 bbls.
• Pumped the following fluid train (bullheading) down the tubing:

◦ 5 bbls of chemical wash

◦ 5 bbls of fresh water

◦ 40 bbls of 15.8 ppg cement

◦ 3 bbls of gel

◦ 32 bbls of FSW

◦ 5 bbls of sugar solution

14 SPE-193424-MS

• Trapped a pressure of 200 psig at the wellhead to prevent the cement column in the annulus from
U-tubing.
• Waited on cement for 48 hours.

• Ran temperature log run through the well after 48 hours of cement placement. TOC at 4713 ftMD.

• Pressure tested cement plug to 500 psig by pumping FSW through the tubing.

Short String Perforation

Prior to the e-line oriented perforation, a perforating gun dummy toolstring run (equipped with GR-CCL &
completion mapper) was made to 5500 ftMD; logging the interval 5500 ftMD to 4500 ftMD and obtaining
the completion mapping in the same process. The essence of this single run was to,

• mimic the run of perforating gun toolstring,

• log across the new zone / proposed perforating interval and

• acquire data for pipe-in-pipe surface simulation to mimic the tubings-casing orientation downhole.

In 2016, ten pipe-in-pipe surface simulations were carried out. Figure 11 shows 4 of the 10 different
configurations simulated. The signature obtained from Position-3 surface simulation was consistent with
the signature obtained from the dummy run data acquisition as seen in Figure 11. This advised shooting at
a relative bearing of 10deg – 15deg.

Figure 11—Pipe-in-pipe simulations done at the surface to understand gun-orientation signatures.

0.6bbls of wellbore fluid was swabbed from the well to achieve a 50psi underbalance prior to perforation.
The perforating gun assembly (consisting of 11.5ft High Shot Density gun carrier loaded with 10ft of deep
penetrating charges at 4spf and 0deg phasing) was run, with the gun positioned across the perforation interval
SPE-193424-MS 15

at 5244 – 5254 ftMD. The gun was oriented and shot at 10deg and 15deg relative bearings on the first and
second perforation runs respectively. Casing pressure and the tubing pressure on the long string remainded
unchanged at 0psig after perforation, while the shut-in tubing pressure on the short string increased from
0psig to 300psig. The well was lined to flow back tank, observed gas returns and 23bbls of fluid. The well
was shut in and the SITHP was observed to rise and eventually stabilize at 1900 psig while the pressures
on both the long string and casing remained unchanged.
The cement packer and perforation into the new zone converted the well into a gas source well. This gas
was routed to wells that were shut in on low tubing head pressure and restored about 350 BOPD to the field.
However, one of the wells failed to flow optimally due to a suspected limited gas supply from the new gas
source. The existence of a flow line constraint surrounding Well-3 made well testing impossible on the well.
To deliver more gas to the gas lift network at higher flowing tubing pressures, a reperforation job was
proposed on Well-3. This reperforation was expected to decrease the estimated drawdown from 1000 psig
to 600 psig, thereby increasing inflow into and deliverabilty from the well.

Evaluation of the Perforation Efficiency

Prior to the reperforation in 2017, flowing and static gradient surveys were carried out to bottom of
perforation at 5254 ftMD. The measured flowing and static bottomhole pressures were 1263psia and 2184
psia respectively; resulting in a calculated draw down of approximately 920psia. Prior to the e-line oriented
perforation in 2017, a perforating gun dummy toolstring run (equipped with GR-CCL & completion mapper)
was made to 5350 ftMD; logging the interval 5500 ftMD to 4500 ftMD and obtaining the completion
mapping in the same process. The mapping signatures obtained from the surface simulation and the dummy
tool string correlation run were consistent with those obtained during the perforation job in 2016. The
perforating gun assembly (consisting of 10ft High Shot Density gun carrier loaded with 10ft of deep
penetrating charges at 4spf and 0deg phasing) was run, with the gun positioned across the perforation interval
at 5244 – 5254 ftMD. The gun was oriented and shot at 180deg relative bearings during both perforation
runs as seen in Figure 12 above. No change was observed in the tubing pressure of the long string indicating
a successful oriented perforation.

Figure 12—Downhole dummy run data acquisition for perforation gun.

16 SPE-193424-MS

The flowing gradient survey was repeated and a flowing bottom hole pressure of 2175 psia was measured;
resulting in a calculated draw down of 9 psia. This translates into a 99% decrease in draw down just by
reperforating at a 180deg orienting angle.
This provided more gas to the gas lift network and brought about an additional 550 BOPD to the field.

Lessons Learned and Best Practices

As a best practice, SBHP and FBHPs should be conducted on cement packer jobs. The FBHPs should
be conducted after each perforation stage to help quantify the incremental improvement to the well's
productivity index after each perforation run.
Some of the lessons learned are captured below:

• Packer leak can be slowed down enough to allow placement of cement packer by dumping very
fine Calcium Carbonate particles on the packer. The finer the particles the better
• It is possible to set cement packer through a production tubing string with gas lift mandrels and
still use the mandrels afterwards
• Static temperature logs assist to identify the cement interval in the annulus

• Placing cement shallower than the proposed perforations reduces drawdown after perforation

• Perforating twice with deep penetrating charges help to reduce extra skin caused by the cement
sheath
• Achieving additional phasing is enabled by testing several surface simulation configurations with
a dummy before the main perforation job. Significant reduction in the drawdown was achieved by
adding phased perforations.

Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Management of Chevron Nigeria Limited, operator of the NNPC/
Chevron Joint Venture for permission to publish this work. The authors would also like to thank all past
and present team members of Production Engineering Engineering Unit and Asset Development for their
contribution to the planning and execution of the jobs used as case studies.

Nomenclature
BOPD Barrels of oil produced daily
EOT End of Tubing
FSW Filtered Sea Water
ftMD feet-Measured Depth
HUD Hold Up Depth
ID Internal Diameter
NRWO Non-Rig Work Over
PI Productivity Index
SITHP Shut-In Tubing Head Pressure
SSD Sliding Sleeve Door
THP Tubing Head Pressure

References
Idris, M., Rylance, M., Joenoes, K., Abidin, N. F., & Supriyono, A. (2007). "Multi Type Application of Cement-Packer:
Simple and Economic Method of Accessing By-Passed Reservoir Potential" SPE-108973-MS presented at the 2007
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Indonesia, 30 October – 1 November 2007.
SPE-193424-MS 17

Jaja, A. J., Adeyinka, B., & Atanda, B. (2017). "Cement Packer Re-Perforation – Well-AA Case Study" SPE-189087-MS
presented at the Nigeria Annual Conference and Exhibition, Nigeria, 31 July – 2 August 2017.
Mahmood, A., Maestrami, M., Paoli, C., Waheed, A., & D Angelo, S. (2013). "Cost-Effective Recovery of Bypassed
Reserves Using Rigless Cement Packer Completion Technique: Case History from Offshore Egypt" SPE-164734-MS
presented at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Egypt, 15 – 17 April 2013.
Ogbuagu, F., Afolayan, F., Esan, F., & Obot, N. (2017). "Managing Reservoir and Operational Decline without a Rig:
An Okan Case Study" SPE-189168-MS presented at Nigeria Annual Conference and Exhibition, Nigeria, 31 July –
2 August 2017.
Okoto, F., Mofunlewi, S., Kayode-Sote, O., Okeke, F., Fatile, O., Enekahi, H., & Atanda, B. (2013). "Recovery of Marginal
Reserves through a Cement Packer within Two Production Packers in Dual Completion Strings" SPE-167530-MS
presented at Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Nigeria, 30 July – 1 August 2013.
Olatunde F., Adegboye P. S. and Idedevbo K. (2010). "Cement Packer: A Key to Accessing Marginal Reserves in Brown
Fields" SPE-136993-MS presented at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition, Nigeria, 31 July
– 7 August 2010.
Wahib, S., Chun Seng, W., Jumaat, M. S., Jiun, C. D & Ramnarine, R. (2009). "Recovery of By Passed Reserves Above
Top Packer In Idle well Using Innovative Cement Packer And Through Tubing Add Perforation" SPE-123773-MS
presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Indonesia, 4 – 6 August 2009.