Back to Menu
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Thirty-Fourth Annual Convention & Exhibition May 2010
CASE HISTORY: IMPROVING WELL PRODUCTIVITY WITH IMPROVED PERFORATION
JOB DESIGN AND EXECUTION METHOD
Bagus Ari Wijaya*
Ficky Kusuma Adijaya*
Chris Avant**
ABSTRACT
Bekasap Formation is the main reservoir in
Kotabatak with current recovery factor is 26%.
About 31% of total recoverable oil reserve is
located in relatively low permeability reservoir (less
than 400 mD), which is not effectively drained by
current perforation technology and method which is
using conventional perforating gun (theoretical deep
penetration is less than 29”) and overbalance
method.
Producing oil from the relatively low permeability
Bekasap sand has proved challenging in the past.
Utilizing regular penetrating guns with overbalance
have historically resulted in less than 200 BFPD of
production. Productivity Index has been improved
via fracturing, but this increases completion costs
and the thin shale barriers do not always stop
fracture propagation into wet sands.
An opportunity exists to improve the effectiveness
of completion efforts while developing this field.
Perforating simulation software (SPAN*) indicates
potential performance for various perforating
systems under reservoir and completion conditions.
This modeling allows for application of the most
beneficial gun system.
Extra-deep Penetrating Shaped Charge (59.2”
penetration, API-RP19B) has been chosen to
maximize penetration depth. Static underbalanced
was applied when perforating in an effort to allow
perforation tunnels to clean up. WEM Simulator
was used to design the underbalanced pressure
needed to perforate the wells. This is as
combination of perforation technology and
method for first step in improving perforation
process.
Five wells had been completed using the methodo-
logy. 3 wells out of 5 wells are producing on single
* Chevron Pacific Indonesia
** Schlumberger
IPA10-E-083
sand, the others are producing commingle with
other sands due to high water cut. The first well
completed using this methodology, produced over
five times more fluid than previous wells perforated
with conventional perforating charges under
overbalanced conditions. Additional wells
perforated with this technique have had similar,
higher than expected, results.
The productivity index of relatively low
permeability Bekasap Formation has been improved
by implementing extra deep penetration gun and
static underbalanced perforation technique.
INTRODUCTION
The field was discovered in 1952 when the
Kotabatak No. 1 well was drilled near the crest of
structure in the northern portion of the field which
is about 45 Km. Northwest from Pekanbaru
(Figure 1). To date 355 wells have been drilled,
including 229 producer wells, 98 injector wells, 3
observation wells, 25 inactive shallow water source
wells. Secondary recovery by peripheral water
flooding has been implemented since year 1975 and
pattern water flooding since 1998. The main
completion target is in Bekasap formation at A, B
and C sand with 4000-5500 ft depth.
Kotabatak has 3 type of wells; vertical, deviated and
horizontal wells. The vertical and deviated wells
used 7” production casing while horizontal wells
used 9-5/8” production casing with open hole liner
completion. The common completion for vertical
and deviated wells in Kotabatak Field is cased hole
perforated.
Current production is dominated by Bekasap A1,
A3, and C sand because of better quality sand.
Bekasap A2, A4 and B sand are still challenging to
be produced since having sand quality is relatively
lower compared to A1, A3 and C sand. Using
previous perforation technology (deep penetration

Back to Menu
less than 29”) and overbalance method for opening
A2, A4 and B sand resulted low productivity index
as well as fluid production. Productivity Index in
A4 and B sand in some wells have been improved
via fracturing, but this increases completion costs
and the thin shale barriers do not always stop
fracture propagation into wet sands. Most of the
wells have thin shale barrier that can be penetrated
by fracture propagation.
Improving perforation technique and method from
previous state is the first choice for improving
productivity index in low quality sands. It needs
low cost and can be applied in recent condition and
technology availability.
Previous Perforation Method
Previous perforation used conventional gun with
deep penetration less than 29” theoretically or less
than 20” effective at the perforation with
overbalance method. There is no issue when
applying the conventional perforation gun from the
production stand point in relatively good sand
quality in Kotabatak Field. When dealing with low
sand quality, it will be an issue since resulted low
Productivity Index as well as Fluid Rate.
A general study was carried out to analyze and
evaluate the problem and establish a strategy and
methodology to optimize perforating design for
Kotabatak Wells. Diverse critical areas of
improvement were identified:
Formation damage
The additional near-wellbore pressure drop caused
by formation damage or skin significantly affects
well productivity. The skin factor is a dimensionless
variable that represents the degree of formation
damage in the near-wellbore zone, between well
and virgin reservoir. The skin damage caused by
fluid invasion and that induced by perforating are
the most important skin components which are
independent of nature and that can be optimized.
The first can be minimized by strict control of the
drilling and completion process. Improving
perforating practices can minimize the second.
Invasion formation damage
This refers to the effective permeability reduction in
the near wellbore region, caused by the
displacement of formation fluids by foreign fluids
during drilling or completion operations. This
occurs due to the overbalance pressure between the
wellbore pressure and formation pressure. The
effect of this damage is worsened by chemical
reaction induced by this process.
Perforation induced damage
Every cased well must be perforated so that fluid
can flow through it. Unfortunately, explosive
perforating also pulverizes formation rock grains
causing a change in matrix rock that results in low
permeability crushed zone immediately surrounding
the perforation tunnels and creating potential for
migration of fine particles. The process also leaves
some residual detonation debris inside the
perforation. The general practice to minimize the
detrimental effect of the crushed zone is to perforate
underbalanced.
METHODS
The main factors affecting well performance are
completion, formation and fluid properties, and
reservoir geometry. Of these, factors such as
hydrocarbon saturation, porosity, permeability, fluid
properties, and geometry can be measured or
inferred from measurements. However, they cannot
usually be controlled. By contrast, the completion is
a controlled operation, and as such its design affects
well performance. Because perforations are a
critical part of the completion, careful consideration
should be given to the type, size, number, and
orientation of the perforations in addition to the
conditions in the well during perforation whether
using overbalance, static underbalanced, or dynamic
underbalanced method.
Five Wells were chosen to conduct trial with static
underbalanced and Ultra-deep Penetrating Shaped
Charge gun. 4 wells are perforation job of new
wells, and 1 well is re-perforation job. Then, the
results were compared with the new well that
previously perforated using regular gun and
overbalance method.
Improved Perforation Method
In order to address the inefficient reservoir drainage
and lower than expected productivity, a multi-
disciplinary team comprising members from both
the operator and the service company, defined the
following perforating design requirements:
• Static Underbalanced Perforating
• Extra-deep Penetrating Shaped Charge
A. Static Underbalanced Perforating
The perforation method then was changed from
overbalance to be static underbalanced. This is as

Back to Menu
the first step improving the methodology from
previous state which was using overbalance
condition when perforating production zone. Static
underbalanced; this is the conventional
underbalanced perforating approach where the
pressure in the wellbore is less than the pressure in
the reservoir at the time of perforating. The intent is
to have the well flow immediately after perforating
to clean-up the perforations. Static underbalanced
perforating has long been recognized as the primary
means of removing perforating damage and
maximizing productivity through a cased and
perforated completion. The amount of static
underbalanced required can be a function of
porosity, permeability, tunnel diameter, reservoir
characteristics and is determined using one or more
accepted industry practices.
WEM Simulator was used to design the appropriate
wellbore pressure for conducting perforation static
with static underbalanced method. Operational
procedure for creating static underbalanced
condition in the wellbore is to swab unloads until
recommended depth (based on pressure
recommended by WEM results).
B. Extra-deep Penetrating Shaped Charge
Perforating simulation software (SPAN*) was used
to design the appropriate type of gun for perforating
the relatively tight sands. The simulation used 3
scenarios type of gun; 6 SPF and 8 SPF regular gun
with deep penetration less than 29” and compared
with 5 SPF Extra-deep Penetrating Shaped Charge
gun with deep penetration 59”. To bypass the
deeper invasion damaged zones, Extra-deep
Penetrating Shaped Charges were selected so as to
apply the maximum penetration available to the
industry based on API-RP19B certifications
(Figure2), because the simulation results showed
that Extra Deep Penetration Gun gave the best
productivity results.
Field Trial (Design)
A. Well KB340:
It was drilled and completed in 2008 to a total depth
of 5,230 ft MD. Target sand was A2 sand with an
average 200 md of permeability and 643 psi of
formation pressure. WEM simulator results the
minimum static underbalanced pressure is 351 psi
and maximum is 643 psi (Appendix 1.A). Then, 400
psi of wellbore pressure was applied for perforating
the well.
The SPAN results 5 SPF Extra-deep Perforating
Shaped Charge had the best results. Total
Penetration Average is 40.67” (Appendix 2.A).
Productivity analysis results PI: 2.51 STB/Day/Psi,
and 806 STB/day for the rate maximum at Pwf: 322
psi (Appendix 3.A).
B. Well KB352:
It was drilled and completed in 2009 to a total depth
of 5,189 ft MD. Target sand was B sand with an
average 140 md of permeability and 1437 psi of
formation pressure. WEM simulator results the
minimum static underbalanced pressure is 489 psi
and maximum is 1437 psi (Appendix 1.B). Then,
600 psi of wellbore pressure was applied for
perforating the well.
The SPAN results 5 SPF Extra-deep Perforating
Shaped Charge had the best results. Total
Penetration Average is 40.46” (Appendix 2.B).
Productivity analysis results PI: 0.2 STB/Day/Psi,
and 141 STB/day for the rate at Pwf: 719 psi
(Appendix 3.B).
C. Well KB354:
It was drilled and completed in 2009 to a total depth
of 5,189 ft MD. Target sand was B sand with an
average 2 md of permeability and 1649 psi of
formation pressure. WEM simulator results the
minimum static underbalanced pressure is 986 psi
and maximum is 1649 psi (Appendix 1.C). Then,
1000 psi of wellbore pressure was applied for
perforating the well.
The SPAN results 5 SPF Extra-deep Perforating
Shaped Charge had the best results. Total
Penetration Average is 41.46” (Appendix 2.C).
Productivity analysis results PI: 0.1 STB/Day/Psi,
and 13 STB/day for the rate maximum at Pwf: 300
psi (Appendix 3.C).
D. Well KB355:
It was drilled and completed in 2009 to a total depth
of 5,267 ft MD. Target sand was B sand with an
average 80 md of permeability and 1863 psi of
formation pressure. WEM simulator results the
minimum static underbalanced pressure is 590 psi
and maximum is 1863 psi (Appendix 1.D). Then,
1200 psi of wellbore pressure was applied for
perforating the well.
The SPAN results 5 SPF Extra-deep Perforating
Shaped Charge had the best results. Total
Penetration Average is 42.17” (Appendix 2.D).
Productivity analysis results PI: 1.27 STB/Day/Psi,

Back to Menu
and 1984 STB/day for the rate maximum at Pwf:
300 psi (Appendix 3.D).
E. Well KB275 (Reperforate):
It was drilled and completed in 2004 to a total depth
of 5,265 ft MD. Target sand was A4 sand with an
average 12 md of permeability and 1890 psi of
formation pressure. WEM simulator results the
minimum static underbalanced pressure is 590 psi
and maximum is 1890 psi (Appendix 1.E). Then,
600 psi of wellbore pressure was applied for
perforating the well.
The SPAN results 5 SPF Extra-deep Perforating
Shaped Charge had the best results. Total
Penetration Average is 41.54” (Appendix 2.E).
Productivity analysis results PI: 0.17 STB/Day/Psi,
and 270 STB/day for the rate maximum at Pwf: 300
psi (Appendix 3.E).
RESULTS
Once the work was completed, the well was
evaluated through swab test data and production
rate test. The results of this evaluation were as
follows:
• KB340: Produce single from A2 sand with 2000
BFPD/366 BOPD. Productivity Index is 2.85
BFPD/psi which is higher than expected
(expected PI : 2.51 BFPD/psi).
• KB352: Produce single from B sand with 600
BFPD/211 BOPD. Productivity Index is 2.22
BFPD/psi which is much higher than expected
(0.2 BFPD/psi).
• KB354: Produce commingles with other sands
since water cut is high. Swab data resulted 775
BFPD and 0.244 BFPD/psi which is higher than
expected (0.1 BFPD/psi).
• KB355: Produce single from B sand with 900
BFPD/44 BOPD. Productivity Index is 0.322
BFPD/psi which is lower than expected
(expected PI : 1.27 BFPD/psi). The main
concern is wellbore pressure when conducting
perforation job is still high (1200 psi).
• KB275: : Produce commingles with other sands
since water cut is high. Swab data resulted 1428
BFPD and 0.38 BFPD/psi which is higher than
expected (0.17 BFPD/psi).
• The new perforation technique and
methodology resulted better productivity index
compared to previous technique and
methodology (Figure 3).
CONCLUSIONS
• Preliminary perforating design using
perforation simulator is needed to get better
results.
• Productivity can be improved using new
perforation technology and methodology
compared to previous perforation technique and
methodology. 3 wells can be produced single
sand only, another 2 wells produced commingle
since high water cut.
• Perforating in static underbalanced condition
reduce the negative effects of perforation
damage and gives additional benefits in well
productivity whenever this is possible.
• Going from regular gun to 5 SPF Extra-deep
Penetrating Shaped Charge can have a
significant impact on well productivity.
• There is always room for improvement in order
to achieve targets and improve best practices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank BPMIGAS and PT.
Chevron Pacific Indonesia for permission to publish
this paper. We wish to thank William P. Lacobie
and William F. Mallett III support to this study.
Special thank to Alvaro Javier Nunez and Tony
Supriadi from Schlumberger for the support with
SPAN Simulator. My fellow Production Engineer
of RMT Kotabatak/Petapahan – Sumatra Light
Operating Unit, PT CPI for supporting this study.
REFERENCES
Haney Ibrahim, Ali Harrasi, Alan Salsman, Alvaro
Javier Nunez, Haposan Situmorang: Overcoming
Near Wellbore Damage Induced Flow Impairement
with Improved Perforation Job Design and
Execution Method, SPE 121964 (2009)
H. Rodriguez, O. Molina, A.K. Rondon, M.
Mendez, A. Fayard, C. Gama, C. Smitheman, A.
Marmol, E. Cervantez: Customized Reperforating
With New Technologies for Optimal Field Drainage
and Productivity Enhancement: East Venezuela
Applications, SPE 103070 (2006)
  

Back to Menu

Al-Marri Faisal, Hassan Ibrahim Khalil, Alan Tariq, S.M: New, Generalized Criteria for
Salsman, Majed Shaaban Abu Lawi: New determining the Level of Underbalance for
Perforating Technique Improves Well Productivity Obtaining Clean Perforations, SPE 20636 (1990)
and Operational Efficiency, SPE 101278 (2006)
Behrmann, L. : Underbalance Criteria for Minimum
Perforation Damage, SPE 30081 (1996)
  

Back to Menu

TABLE 1 - DESIGN VS RESULTS OF PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE

  

Back to Menu

Figure 1 - Kotabatak Field Location Map

Figure 2 - Extra-deep Penetrating Shaped Charge to maximize well productivity

  

Back to Menu

Figure 3 - Productivity improvement from Extra-deep Perforating Shaped Charge with Static
Underbalanced Method compared to Regular Gun with Overbalanced Method
  

Back to Menu

Appendix 1.A. WEM Simulator results of Static Underbalanced Pressure KB340

Appendix 1.B. WEM Simulator results of Static Underbalanced Pressure KB352

  

Back to Menu

Appendix 1.C. WEM Simulator results of Static Underbalanced Pressure KB354

Appendix 1.D. WEM Simulator results of Static Underbalanced Pressure KB355

  

Back to Menu

Appendix 1.E. WEM Simulator results of Static Underbalanced Pressure KB275

Appendix 2.A. SPAN Analysis : Perforating performance of KB340

Appendix 2.B. SPAN Analysis : Perforating performance of KB352

  

Back to Menu

Appendix 2.C. SPAN Analysis : Perforating performance of KB354

Appendix 2.D. SPAN Analysis : Perforating performance of KB355

Appendix 2.E. SPAN Analysis : Perforating performance of KB275

Appendix 3.A. SPAN Analysis : Productivity performance of KB340

  

Back to Menu

Appendix 3.B. SPAN Analysis : Productivity performance of KB352

Appendix 3.C. SPAN Analysis : Productivity performance of KB354

  

Back to Menu

Appendix 3.D. SPAN Analysis : Productivity performance of KB355

Appendix 3.E. SPAN Analysis : Productivity performance of KB275