Propellant-Assisted Perforating in Tight-Gas Reservoirs: Wireline Formation Tests Show Successful Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Propellant-Assisted Perforating in Tight-Gas Reservoirs: Wireline Formation Tests Show Successful Stimulation M. W. van Galen; M. W. van Galen Weatherford Canada Partnership Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar D. A Cuthill; D. A Cuthill Weatherford Canada Partnership Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar G. L. Peterson; G. L. Peterson Weatherford Canada Partnership Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar D.. Bouwmeester D.. Bouwmeester TAQA NORTH Ltd Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, June 2010. Paper Number: SPE-132002-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/132002-MS Published: June 08 2010 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation van Galen, M. W., Cuthill, D. A, Peterson, G. L., and D.. Bouwmeester. "Propellant-Assisted Perforating in Tight-Gas Reservoirs: Wireline Formation Tests Show Successful Stimulation." Paper presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, June 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/132002-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 International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China Search Advanced Search Abstract Propellant-assisted perforating systems are used to stimulate the near wellbore region and to alleviate the formation compaction damage from the perforating event. This method involves combining a perforating gun with a high pressure, gas generating propellant. Detonation of the perforating gun causes the propellant to deflagrate. The resulting combustion gas enters the newly created perforations. This breaks down the compacted region and extends a fracture network from the perforation tunnels. Wireline formation testing has demonstrated the capability of this perforating method to stimulate beyond the depth of drilling and cementing invasion, especially in tight-gas reservoirs.The wireline formation testing system is often referred to as a mini drillstem test (DST). It is conveyed into the well on wireline and it uses a dual packer assembly to isolate the perforated interval. With the pump-out capability of the tool, multiple drawdown and buildup cycles are performed. Pressure transient analysis (PTA) is applied to the measured pressure data to evaluate near-wellbore reservoir characteristics.Depending on the formation parameters, there are two extreme responses observed in these tests: a radial composite model; or a linear fracture model. The radial composite model represents a higher permeability region in the near-wellbore area, surrounded by a lower permeability outer region representing the formation matrix. The typical radius for the inner region is up to 3 m. The linear fracture model represents a small fracture into the formation, generally with a fracture half-length of 1 to 2 m. In reality often a combination of the two models is more representative. All responses show less resistance to flow in the near-wellbore area, representing a positive cleanup and stimulation. Modeling indicates that the propellant-assisted perforation systems are capable of penetrating beyond any induced damage. This is often not the case when using conventional perforation charges.This study comprehends 50 wireline formation tests in tight-gas reservoirs. These tests are used to demonstrate the successful application of propellant-assisted perforating techniques and to illustrate the different pressure responses created by propellant-assisted perforating in the near-wellbore area. The results are also compared to pre-job propellant stimulation modeling software analysis. Keywords: mobility ratio, radial composite model, tight-ga reservoir, radial distance, infinite-conductivity fracture, wireline formation tester, fracture model, permeability, reservoir, pressure transient analysis Subjects: Formation Evaluation & Management, Perforating, Completion Installation and Operations, Completion Operations Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".