MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4244142925 · doi:10.2523/93638-ms

Dynamic Underbalanced Perforating on a Mature North Sea Field

2005· article· en· W4244142925 sur OpenAlexaff
Andrew Martin, David Clark, Gary Stirton

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of SPE European Formation Damage Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Établissements canadiensBGC Engineering (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCitationExhibitionPerforationSearch and rescueComputer scienceNorth seaOperations researchLibrary scienceHistoryArchaeologyEngineeringGeologyArtificial intelligenceOceanography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dynamic Underbalanced Perforating on a Mature North Sea Field Andrew John Martin; Andrew John Martin Schlumberger Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar David Gordon Clark; David Gordon Clark DGC Engineering Ltd. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Gary Stirton Gary Stirton CNR International Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Sheveningen, The Netherlands, May 2005. Paper Number: SPE-93638-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/93638-MS Published: May 25 2005 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Martin, Andrew John, Clark, David Gordon, and Gary Stirton. "Dynamic Underbalanced Perforating on a Mature North Sea Field." Paper presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Sheveningen, The Netherlands, May 2005. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/93638-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractDynamic underbalanced perforating[1] is a technique for obtaining clean perforation tunnels resulting in much improved production or water injection. This technique has been successfully applied to several wells in the Ninian Field in the UK sector of the North Sea, resulting not only in better wells, but also in increased completion efficiency. In August 2003 a closed-chamber, dynamic underbalance shoot and pull operation was performed on Ninian North—a world first. The well came in at 50% higher production than expected. Since then, several other wells have been perforated using the same technique. Gauge data on the early wells showed the sequence of events, but did not capture the detail. A more recent well has been perforated using a new high-speed gauge that revealed the extent of dynamic underbalanced achieved. This paper describes the method, shows the results and discusses the value of using this technique.IntroductionThe Ninian field is located 130 km northeast of the Shetland Islands in the UK sector of the Northern North Sea. Ninian is a mature field discovered in 1974 with first oil in 1978. Production is from the Middle Jurasic Brent Group sandstones via one concrete and two steel platforms.A typical completion has a cemented and perforated liner. Because of the length of the gross intervals that are perforated and depth of the wells, tubing conveyed perforating (TCP) systems are used.With TCP techniques, the traditional method of perforating is to start with the well underbalanced to pore pressure, fire the guns and then flow the well to clean up before removing the guns. The amount of underbalance required to achieve perfectly clean perforations depends on several factors including rock strength, insitu stress, permeability, porosity, and fluid type[2]. Most of these parameters are well known in mature assests. However, reservoir pressure is often not measured during open hole logging, and so estimates are used from reservoir models. Therefore, insitu stress is not known, placing an uncertainty on static underbalance requirements. More importantly, establishing the correct static underbalance before perforating is impossible if pore pressure is unknown.Creating the optimum underbalance condition often involves changing or displacing completion fluids. This can be time consuming, expensive, and, in some cases, impossible to achieve. If this stage can be avoided, then the perforating process can become more efficient and save cost.With dynamic underbalanced perforating, it is not necessary to start with the well underbalanced. In fact with TCP systems, the well can be overbalanced. So far, dynamic underbalanced perforating seems to give very good results across a wide range of permeabilities, porosities, pore pressures and well types—oil or gas producers, and water injectors[3, 4, 5]. In many cases results are much better than static underbalanced perforating and certainly no worse.This technique was proposed for several Ninian wells.Underbalanced PerforatingStatic Underbalanced perforating has long been recognized as the best method for obtaining clean perforations. Since the introduction of TCP systems, static underbalanced perforating has become common practice. Many papers have been written on laboratory experiments to determine the optimum static underbalance and on field experience measuring the success of this technique[1, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The most widely used criteria within Schlumberger is the minimum underbalance equation derived from experimental work by Behrmann[1]. This equation is included in the Schlumberger Perforating Analysis (SPAN) program and commonly used in the industry. The program is also used to calculate single-shot skin if the optimum underbalance is not used. The term single-shot skin is often expressed as a reduction in permeability around the perforation cavity (Kc). The ratio of this permeability to the virgin rock permeability (Kc/K) is used in both SPAN and nodal analysis programs. Keywords: firing head, behrmann, tester valve, schlumberger, gauge data, perforation, clean perforation, spe 93638, formation pressure, electronic firing head Subjects: Perforating, Completion Installation and Operations, Completion Operations This content is only available via PDF. 2005. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,326
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,558

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,204
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of SPE European Formation Damage ConferenceMême sujetHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisTravaux en français237 207