Dynamic Underbalance: DALLAS - FORTH WORTH. AUGUST 5-6, 2019. API - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance: DALLAS - FORTH WORTH. AUGUST 5-6, 2019. API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns 2019-NAPS-2.3 AUTHORS: Bernd Fricke, Davood Yosefnejad, Dr. Joern Loehken, Denis Will, DynaEnergetics.

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Overview ▪ Motivation ▪ Description of the test setup ▪ Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance vs. Extreme Dynamic Underbalance ▪ Differences in Productivity ▪ Summary and Outlook 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Motivation ▪ Previous tests of encapsulated 23g HNS DP charges before 23g HNS DP, encapsulated and after temperature exposure revealed clean, open Bentheimer tunnels on Bentheimer Gildehaus Sandstone ▪ The same was observed for encapsulated 23g HMX DP charge on Berea under very high overburden pressure (20kpsi) ▪ Other studies also observed clean tunnels in conjunction with dynamic overbalance (SPE 189490) Berea ▪ Systematic Research on the influence of DOB vs. DUB ▪ Influence of DOB and DUB on tunnel geometry and flow? 23g HMX DP, encapsulated ▪ How does the permeability and porosity of the rock influence the results? 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Test Setup ▪ Shaped Charge: 15g HMX, Deep penetrating, standard and encapsulated ▪ Rocks Rocks UCS [psi] Porosity [%] Permeability [mD] Bentheimer 3.500 - 4.500 20 - 22 800 - 1.600 Berea 8.000 - 9.000 17 - 18 95 - 120 Roter Bunt 9.000 - 10.500 10 - 14 3 - 20 ▪ Free Gun Volumes Free Gun Volume (FGV) Equivalent to 0.66 spf in a 2 7/8" Gun 1130 cm³ 2 spf in a 4.5" Gun 6 spf in a 2 7/8" Gun 125 cm³ 18 spf in a 4.5" Gun 0 cm³ Encapsulated charge system 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Test Setup no FGV (encapsulated) 1130 cm³ FGV 125 cm³ FGV Balanced conditions: ▪ Overburden Pressure: 6500 psi ▪ Pore pressure: 3000 psi ▪ Wellbore pressure: 3000 psi ▪ Fluid: OMS ▪ Accumulators activated Gun volumes: ▪ Extreme DUB: 1130cm³ ▪ Conventional DUB: 125cm³ ▪ DOB: Encapsulated charge directly in fluid Gun modules used for the tests: • Blue: water filled • green: air filled 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results Pressure Curves of different setups 450 400 350 Wellbore Pressure [bar] 300 250 conventional DUB 200 extreme DUB Encapsulated 150 100 50 0 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3 3,2 Time [s] 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results – Extreme DUB Bentheimer Bentheimer ▪ TTP: 14.44” ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 14.44” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 113.0 cm³ Berea ▪ TTP: 14.20” ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 12.35” Berea ▪ Tunnel Volume: 41.5 cm³ Roter Bunt ▪ TTP: Roter Bunt 12.98” ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 10.66” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 20.6 cm³ 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results – Extreme DUB Pressure Curves with extreme DUB on different rocks 250 200 Wellbore Pressure [bar] 150 Bentheimer Berea 100 Roter Bunt 50 0 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3 3,2 3,4 Time [s] 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results – normal DUB Bentheimer Bentheimer ▪ TTP: 13.84” ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 4.52” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 49.0 cm³ Berea ▪ TTP: 12.66” Berea ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 8.27” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 35.1 cm³ Roter Bunt Roter Bunt ▪ TTP: 13.57” ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 7.51” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 23.0 cm³ 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results – normal DUB Pressure curves with normal DUB on different rocks 450 400 350 Wellbore Pressure [bar] 300 250 Bentheimer 200 Berea Roter Bunt 150 100 50 0 0,8 1,3 1,8 2,3 2,8 3,3 Time [s] 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results – DOB Bentheimer Bentheimer ▪ TTP: 14.36” ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 14.36” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 101.0 cm³ Berea ▪ TTP: 12.39” Berea ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 12.39” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 46.9 cm³ Roter Bunt Roter Bunt ▪ TTP: 12.47” ▪ Clear Tunnel Depth: 3.30” ▪ Tunnel Volume: 6.1 cm³ 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results – DOB Pressure Curves with DOB on different rocks 400 350 300 Wellbore pressure [bar] 250 200 Bentheimer Berea 150 Roter Bunt 100 50 0 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3 3,2 3,4 Time [s] 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results – DOB Pressure Curves with DOB on different rocks 400 350 Wellbore pressure [bar] 300 Bentheimer Berea 250 Roter Bunt 200 150 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 Time [s] 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results TTP Tunnel Volume 16 120 14 100 12 80 Volume (ccm) 10 TTP (inch) 8 60 6 40 4 20 2 0 0 Bentheimer Berea Roter Bunt Bentheimer Berea Roter Bunt extreme DUB conventional DUB DOB extreme DUB conventional DUB DOB 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Results Clean Tunnel Productivity Ratio 120 1,4 1,2 100 Fraction of TTP (100%) 1 80 0,8 PR (-) 60 0,6 40 0,4 20 0,2 0 0 Bentheimer Berea Roter Bunt Bentheimer Berea Roter Bunt extreme DUB conventional DUB DOB extreme DUB conventional DUB DOB 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Observations ▪ As expected a more realistic free gun volume lead to a reduction in DUB and free tunnel length compared to tests with very large free gun volumes. ▪ Encapsulated charges create an dynamic overbalance which is comparable to conventional hollow carrier guns with 6spf, but without any DUB ▪ However encapsulated charges created on average cleaner tunnels than charges shot in normal guns ▪ Hypothesis: for conventional guns the gas stream escaping through the gun scallop hole disturbs flow dynamics ▪ Positive effect of DOB on free tunnel length decreases with decreasing permeability ▪ Transient behavior of DUB and DOB depend on rock permeability ▪ No obvious tip fractures visible on sandstone for all setups 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

Dynamic Overbalance vs. Dynamic Underbalance Outlook ▪ Broaden the study to different rocks, like carbonates, quartzite and other ▪ Deduce CFE values ▪ Research on the underlying physics ▪ FEM Modelling of the fluid dynamics ▪ Petrophysical investigation of differences in crushed zone strength (SPE 122845) ▪ Review the influence of the test setup References • Satti, R., White, R., Ochsner, D., Sampson, T., Zuklic, S., & Geerts, S. (2018, February 7). A Flow Laboratory Study of an Enhanced Perforating System Designed for Well Stimulation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/189490-MS • Heiland, J. C., Grove, B. M., Harvey, J. P., Walton, I. C., & Martin, A. J. (2009, January 1). New fundamental insights into perforation-induced formation damage. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/122845-MS 2019-NAPS-2.3 API 19b Section IV testing of encapsulated shaped charges compared to conventional hollow steel carrier guns

QUESTIONS? DALLAS - FORTH WORTH. AUGUST 5-6, 2019. THANK YOU 2019-NAPS-2.3 AUTHORS: Bernd Fricke, Davood Yosefnejad, Dr. Joern Loehken, Denis Will, DynaEnergetics.