Productivity Improvement in Mexico South, a Case History

Perforating with PURE* and Stimulation Treatment

1- Main Challenge
Maximize the well oil production by achieving the lowest possible skin in a naturally
fractured reservoir damaged by drilling and completion operations.

2 - Well Data
2.1- Drilling and Completion Summary
The well was drilled in 8 months with oil base mud fluid down to a total depth of 5870 m
reaching the reservoir target at 5700 m. The reservoir was cased and cemented with 7”
liner and completed with 2% KCl brine

2.2 – Petrophysics and Reservoir Data

Open Hole Logs and Interpretation

Perforated Intervals = 5723-5745 m, 5765-5780 m

Reservoir Pressure = 536 kg/cm2
Oil API = 40
Reservoir Temperature = 155 C
Porosity = 4-5 %
Permeability = 10 mD
Sw = 10%
Limestone = 50 %
Dolomite = 48 %
Shale = 2%
 Well Sketch
2.4–Previous Production Analysis
30” 50 m The initial production estimation for this
well was based in a Nodal Analysis model
based in reservoir and fluids properties
20” 1100 m
from offset wells. The previous productivity
analysis estimated an initial production
potential of 3000 bpd of oil with a negative
skin of -1 and a 3 ½” tubing

Previous Nodal Analysis

B. L. 9-5/8"

13 3/8”
3200 m

Inicia desv.
3600

B. L. 7"
5350 md

9 5/8” 5500md 2.5 – Offset Wells Production

The Production plot below shows the
production for one offset well with an
average oil production of 3000 bpd and
very low water cut.
5870 md
7”
Production History - Offset Well
4000 0.6

3000 Np (MMBLS)
Qo (BPD)

0.4

2.3 – Damage Characterization 2000

0.2

The Mechanical skin was attributed to be 1000

0 0.0

caused by drilling and completion fluids Apr/09 May/09 Jun/09 Jul/09 Aug/09 Sep/09 Oct/09 Nov/09 Dec/09 Jan/10

incompatibilities with original reservoir 10 1.4

Gp (MMMPC)

1.2
Qg (MMPCD)

fluids. The oil base mud invaded the critical 6

1.0
0.8
0.6
matrix causing solids bridging into the 4

2
0.4
0.2

fractures network. Some stable emulsions 0

Apr/09 May/09 Jun/09 Jul/09 Aug/09 Sep/09 Oct/09 Nov/09 Dec/09 Jan/10
0.0

were also observed in downhole circulation 500 5.0

oil samples.
RGA (m 3/m 3 )

400 4.0
Fw (% )

300 3.0
200 2.0
100 1.0
0 0.0
Apr/09 May/09 Jun/09 Jul/09 Aug/09 Sep/09 Oct/09 Nov/09 Dec/09 Jan/10
3 - Technical Proposal
Two productivity procedures were proposed in order to reduce the drilling and completion
mechanical skin down to a negative value and maximize oil production for this well. The
Dynamic Underbalanced Perforation Technology PURE* capable of removing the skin
caused by perforation operations followed by a Stimulation Treatment to create large
wormholes and improving reservoir-wellbore connectivity bypassing the critical damaged
zone.

3.1- Perforating Proposal

Based on perforating analysis performed in SPAN* including Penetration and productivity
performance the technology PURE* (Dynamic Underbalanced Perforation) was selected
as the best method to connect the reservoir with the wellbore using 2” guns with Power Jet
Omega charges. The PURE method simulated in SPAN delivered a Productivity Ratio of
0.74 against 0.44 for the same charges type without the Dynamic Underbalanced effect.

Perforation and Productivity Analysis

Company: PEMEX Well: TEOTECLO 42

0 deg
10 Perforating System #1
8 2" High Shot Density, PowerJet Omega 2006, HMX, 7.3 g
6 60º Phasing, 6.00 spf
4
2
0
Clearance Avg 1.70 in
Total Pen Avg 7.90 in
Formation Pen Avg 6.74 in
Formation Dia Avg 0.31 in
0 Casing EH Avg 0.18 in
2 AOF (at 6.00 spf) 0.15 in²/ft
4
6
API: Pen 21.80 in, EH Dia 0.22 in, 19B 1st Ed.
8
10

0 deg
10 Perforating System #2
8 2" PURE Gun, PowerJet Omega 2006, HMX, 7.3 g
6 60º Phasing, 5.50 spf
4
2
0
Clearance Avg 1.70 in
Total Pen Avg 7.90 in
Formation Pen Avg 6.74 in
Formation Dia Avg 0.31 in
0 Casing EH Avg 0.18 in
2 AOF (at 5.50 spf) 0.13 in²/ft
4
6
API: Pen 21.80 in, EH Dia 0.22 in, Based on 19B 1st Ed.
8
10 Rock Type: Limestone
Rock UCS: 14112 psi Water
Vertical Stress: 18898 psi Cement
Pore Pressure: 7623 psi Damaged Zone
Formation

The productivity Report for 2 guns system performed in SPAN* shows a higher
productivity ratio for PURE* guns even with a lower shot density. The permeability relation
for the crushed zone vs. virgin zone (Kc/K) is close to one for the PURE system against
0.14 for the Non PURE which indicates almost a complete removal of the compacted zone
along the perforation tunnel if the Dynamic Underbalanced perforation technique is used

The Penetration Report from SPAN* simulations shows similar formation penetration and
entrance hole diameter for both perforation guns but PURE* will deliver higher productivity
by eliminating the skin caused by perforation itself.
3.1.1 – Perforation Configuration
The perforating configuration was designed with specialized software according to the
following scheme:

Run 1 – 12 m, effective charges 10 m (Shot Density 5.5 spf, PURE density 0.5 spf)
Run 2 – 6 m, effective charges 5 m (Shot Density 5.5 spf, PURE density 0.5 spf)
Run 3 – 12 m, effective charges 11 m (Shot Density 5.5 spf, PURE density 0.5 spf)
Run 4 – 12 m, effective charges 11 m (Shot Density 5.5 spf, PURE density 0.5 spf)

PURE Charges

PURE + PJO Charges

PURE Charges

3.2- Stimulation Proposal

Based on the well data, reservoir properties and production analysis the following
stimulation treatment was designed:

-Non reactive fluid with Clean Sweep I (20 M3) to disperse emulsions and clean the
rock from the drilling mud oil phase leaving the rock ready for acidic fluids

-Reactive fluid with retarded system MSR 100 Organic @ 15% (40 M3) to improve
acid penetration because of high reservoir temperature

-Diverter fluid SDA 5% (10 M3) for better fluid placement along the two perforated
intervals

Nitrogen will be used as pre-flush, with the fluids and also for displacement to energize the
fluids if pumping pressure is not too high and it is possible to do it so.

Previous oil and drilling cuttings compatibility analysis was performed in the lab for all the
fluids proposed and no sludge or emulsions were observed in the systems. All the systems
showed good fluidity when passed through 100 mesh.

4 - Results
The PURE perforating technology and Matrix stimulation delivered 33% production
increase vs. expected production (4000 vs. 3000 bopd) observed in offset wells and
previous analysis.
4.1 – Final Production results
Production Test before Stimulation Treatment after Perforation with PURE*
WELL Time Cke Liquid Rate Oil Rate Water Rate Gas Rate fw
(Hrs) (inches) (bpd) (bpd) (bpd) (mmscfd) (%)
T-42 6 5/8 1594 1528 66 5.22 4.14

Production Tests after Stimulation Treatment

WELL Time Cke Liquid Rate Oil Rate Water Rate Gas Rate fw
(Hrs) (inches) (bpd) (bpd) (bpd) (mmscfd) (%)
T-42 6 5/8 4248 4199 99 10.7 1.15
T-42 6 5/8 4421 4206 215 4.86
T-43 6 1/2 3003 2921 82 8.38 2.73

5. – Post Nodal Analysis

After stimulation treatment the nodal analysis was adjusted with an estimated skin value of
-2 to match the final production. Following the production tests the well was choked back
to ½” to reduce the possibility of rapid water breakthrough

½” 5/8”

3/4”

Skin = -2

Present production
Condition ½” Cke