SPE 101082
Optimized Perforation—From Black Art to Engineering Software Tool
M.R.G. Bell, SPE, and J.B. Davies, SPE, Shell Intl. E&P, and S. Simonian, SPE, FloDynamic
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition held in Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
While assisting production engineers in managing the
perforating process, Shell recognized the need for an
engineering software tool to guide and advise them. It needed
to address selecting the optimum perforating system for given
well and formation properties, and work at log resolution to
eliminate problems experienced with existing packages that
use input values averaged across the reservoir.
After consultation with staff engineers, the tool was
created in Excel to test functionality and later transformed into
a desktop application. It includes a perforating system
database built from published API data. This is not ideal,
since API Section I data are an unreliable predictor of
performance into stressed rock, but this is the only published
data allowing direct comparison between systems.
The tool calculates depth of fluid invasion, stress-corrected
penetration, and crushed zone properties at log resolution. An
inflow profile and IPR curves are then generated. The
analysis can be repeated for multiple guns to compare relative
performance; for example, to assess whether incremental
production predicted for a superior system justifies additional
expenditure.
The user can also test the sensitivity of inflow performance
to perforating system performance and input assumptions. If
system performance is critical, this may encourage laboratory
tests under representative conditions to verify penetration and
inflow.
Developing the tool highlighted fundamental shortcomings
in the industry’s understanding of perforation, such as: how
the crushed zone is formed and removed; the role played by
pressure dynamics; the sensitivity of penetration and tunnel
quality to formation and system parameters; and, how jet
perforators perform in targets other than sandstone. This lack
of understanding has contributed to technology stagnation,
sub-optimal well performance, poor decision making in the
area of sandface completions, and undue belief in the value of
allegedly performance-enhancing perforating services.
The work also brought into focus critical issues such as the
industry’s dependence on API Section I data - as a result of
which we continue to be hoodwinked by ‘record breaking’
penetration performance into concrete targets – and the lack of
performance metrics in poorly negotiated long-term
perforating service contracts.
As a result, Shell has initiated research programs to build a
better understanding of perforating phenomena - the results of
which will feed back into the software, refining its capabilities
and increasing the user’s ability to design and simulate
perforating operations - is driving the development of new
performance benchmarks, and is rethinking the way
perforating services are procured.
Introduction
When perforating a well - whether initially, for remedial
reasons, or to effect a change in functional specification – the
associated design and equipment selection decisions are
generally made somewhat arbitrarily, and are often based on
misleading input data.
The starting point in most cases is a vendor’s catalogue,
the service provider’s proprietary software, or the service
provider’s representative conveniently stationed in an office
along the corridor. All of these resources ultimately refer back
to a common data source: API RP-19B Section I test data.
The API Subcommittee on Perforating defined the test
protocols described in API RP-19B1 to serve a range of
purposes. The Section I test, which involves firing a full gun
section into a massive concrete target under ambient
conditions, was designed as a quality control test and to check
for charge interference. The Section II test examines single
shot penetration into a stressed rock target. The Section III
test examines performance under conditions of elevated
temperature. Finally, the Section IV test examines single shot
penetration and inflow performance under simulated
downhole conditions.
Some years ago, Section II testing was used as a routine
means for comparing the relative performance of perforating
charges. However, due to increasing variability in the
properties of Berea sandstone – the most prevalent rock used
for Section II testing – its use has declined, with most
manufacturers now relying on Section I testing as their
performance benchmark. Driven by the service companies,
the API further reinforced the credibility of the Section I data
by appointing witnesses to observe test execution and
publishing tables of ‘sanctioned’ test results on the API
website.
2 SPE 101082
While the Section I test is clearly not a representative
benchmark by which to evaluate expected in situ performance
(since it measures only depth of penetration into stressed
concrete), the operator community has come to accept it as the
only source of publically available data for comparing the
relative performance of different vendor’s products. Of
greater concern is that Section I test data are routinely used as
indicators of expected in situ performance, often without any
meaningful correction for downhole conditions.
Proprietary service company software estimates downhole
depth of penetration by applying corrections to the Section I
data using empirical correlations derived from test shots made
into rock at different levels of confining stress. While these
correlations are modestly reliable within a reasonable stress
range around the Section I test conditions (typically ~5,000 psi
compressive strength), their predictive capability declines
rapidly under more extreme conditions. Section II and IV
tests have shown Section I based predictions can over-estimate
depth of penetration under high-stress conditions by 100% or
more.
Apart from the inherent inaccuracy of correlations, it
should also be noted that the vast majority of test points from
which they are derived relate to sandstone targets. Very little
data exists for perforation into carbonates or other rock types.
Furthermore, the Section I test only measures – and the
software tools can thus only predict – depth of penetration and
entry hole diameter. While perforation length is an important
factor in determining inflow performance (since it contributes
to the effective wellbore radius and determines whether the
perforation tunnels extend beyond near-wellbore damage such
as drilling fluid invasion), it is by no means the only
significant variable. Within the API Recommended Practice,
only Section IV tests provide an indication of a perforation’s
relative inflow (or outflow) performance.
Our first observation is thus that the industry would do
well to reconsider its reliance on Section I data as a
performance benchmark and as a source of input data for
system selection.
Perforating system selection is therefore often based on
nothing more than a potentially erroneous depth of penetration
estimate. If any further analysis is performed, it will typically
involve inputing ‘perforating parameters’ into a wellbore
simulator to generate inflow performance relationships (IPR).
These will subsequently be overlaid onto vertical lift profiles
(VLP) corresponding to different completion options, and
used to select the combination of perforating system and
completion design that delivers maximum productivity.
Unfortunately depth of penetration is not the only suspect
input variable in this process. The wellbore model will
typically require additional perforation-related input such as
depth and permeability of the fluid-invaded zone, thickness
and permeability of the crushed zone formed around the
perforation tunnel, entry hole diameter, shot density and
phasing. The reservoir will generally be subdivided into a
(limited) number of discrete intervals, for which averaged
properties such as permeability, porosity, and hydrocarbon
saturation must be entered. On the basis of these parameters,
the model will calculate skin values (a measure of impairment
to flow) for each interval and thereafter an inflow performance
relationship.
Each of the input parameters described in the previous
paragraph presents challenges. Fluid invasion will vary along
the wellbore according to formation properties, drilling fluid
type, and exposure time. Depth of penetration and the quality
of the perforation tunnel – described in this case as crushed
zone thickness and permeability – will also vary according to
rock and reservoir properties, such as compressive strength
and permeability. By treating each of these parameters as a
constant across any significant interval – whether a reservoir
interval or the entire wellbore – the model immediately loses
the granularity necessary to perform a realistic simulation.
Our second observation is that to create a meaningful
wellbore model linking perforation performance to inflow
performance - and ultimately to well performance - it must
function at the log scale; that is, at whatever incremental depth
scale reservoir properties are measured.
Even when reasonable wellbore models are employed as
part of the perforation design process, no tool is available to
help the engineer compare between different vendor’s
products, or to compare different sandface completion options.
Nor can actual well performance data – such as production
rates or inflow profiles from production logs – be readily
compared to predictions in order to validate (or calibrate) the
model for subsequent use.
Our third observation is thus that there is an industry need
for an engineering software tool to elevate the perforation
design, selection, and evaluation process from the realms of
black art to that of engineering practice.
With these observations in mind, the Perforating Global
Delivery Team at Shell set out to create a software tool that
would ultimately serve several purposes:
• Enable rigorous comparison of sandface
completion techniques;
• Incorporate an impairment model to predict the
fluid invaded zone;
• Rigorously model perforations and the near-
wellbore region;
• Calculate skin and inflow at log resolution;
• Allow auditable evaluation of all vendors’
perforating systems;
• Integrate with vertical lift simulators for
completion design decisions;
Description of the Software Tool
The resulting software tool, known as SPOT (Shell Perforation
Optimization Tool), was first developed on a Microsoft Visual
Basic/Excel platform to facilitate rapid prototyping and
functionality validation. A significant proportion of the tool’s
constituent parts were assembled from pre-existing sources,
such as spreadsheets, laboratory reports, papers and theses,
and other in-house software. Some original code was
developed to link these modules, as well as a basic graphical
user interface.
Front line engineers were consulted at an early stage to
understand their immediate needs and common workflows. A
working prototype was tested with a limited number of
operating unit engineers some five months after project
inception. The prototype tool was eventually frozen after six
SPE 101082
months of development for translation into a C++ based
Windows application.
The tool consists of the following key modules:
• Well data entry & log import
• Perforating system database
• Drilling fluid invasion estimator
• Perforation performance analysis engine
• Inflow performance simulator
• Graphical and tabular output
The well data required by SPOT are similar to those used
by any wellbore simulator except that rock and reservoir
properties are obtained directly from open hole log data, rather
than averaged or constant values.
The perforating system database contains specifications
and performance data for a wide range of vendors’ systems.
Unfortunately the bulk of this information is still derived from
Section I tests, but stressed rock (Section II) and inflow data
(Section IV) are provided where available, and can be
augmented whenever the user obtains test results under local
conditions. Note that, should SPOT be made available to
users outside Shell, proprietary data – such as Section IV
results – would have to be restricted to users from the
originating company’s staff.
The drilling fluid invasion model uses a proprietary
algorithm to produce an invasion profile across the interval of
interest, accounting for drilling fluid type and rheological
properties, exposure time, and formation properties. This
model has been developed and refined by Shell over several
years, and has been calibrated to field and laboratory data.
To initiate the analysis process, the user either selects one
or more perforating systems directly from the database –
which can be filtered according to a number of different
criteria to reflect prevailing geometric, contractual or other
constraints – or chooses ‘quicklook’ mode, in which SPOT
will analyse all viable systems and present those offering
greatest potential. The user may also compare other
completion methods such as barefoot, slotted or pre-drilled
liner, gravel pack etc.
Using rock strength and other log-derived parameters,
SPOT estimates downhole penetration, crushed zone thickness
and permeability, and entry hole diameter at each log depth for
each perforating system. Combining this with the invasion
profile, SPOT then calculates component skin factors and
inflow potential for each log-scale increment using established
Darcy and Forcheimer equations. The incremental inflow
values are finally summed across the entire interval to
generate inflow profiles and inflow performance relationships
for each system.
The relative performance of different completion options is
displayed on a series of plots, which include such information
as:
• Depth of penetration and depth of invasion,
overlaid against along hole depth (see Figure 1)
• Sand failure risk, showing near-wellbore
effective stress overlaid with rock strength
• Inflow performance relationships for each
system, overlaid on the same plot
• Inflow profile for each system, overlaid against
along hole depth (see Figure 2). Note that a
3
production log can be imported and added to this
plot for calibration or verification purposes.
• Any of the along hole plots in combination with
open hole logs for visual correlation of results to
formation intervals
SPOT also features a scenario manager, which allows the
user to test result sensitivity to variations in specific input
parameters. This might be used to investigate the relationship
between, for example, borehole size or static underbalance and
inflow potential.
Finally, having assessed the inflow potential delivered by
different systems, SPOT includes a basic economic analysis
module to assist the user in developing the business case for
deploying a particular perforating solution.
Examples
Although the SPOT project was only initiated in April 2005, a
beta version of the Windows application has been undergoing
fieldtesting since late March 2006. Particular focus has been
given to matching SPOT outputs to well histories that include
pre- and post-perforating production logs. Unfortunately such
complete datasets are uncommon, but sufficient confidence
has been gained from the available data for SPOT to be
applied more widely.
Example 1 – Optimized Perforating Interval
In our first example, an asset team was faced with
perforating a long, heterogeneous, gas-bearing sandstone
interval. While it would be desirable to perforate as much of
the interval as possible in order to guarantee meeting gas
delivery targets (expected to be > 300 million scf/d per well),
this could mean a total perforated length in excess of 1,100ft.
Such an operation would require either coiled-tubing
deployment using CIRP connectors to allow retrieval under
pressure, or drill pipe deployment using gun anchors to allow
for slickline retrieval.
By virtue of working at log resolution, SPOT provided a
much more detailed inflow profile prediction than was
previously available. By comparing total inflow potential for
different perforating systems and lower porosity cut-off
values, the team showed that a reduction of over 60% in
perforated interval would result in less than 5% reduction in
well potential. The new total perforated length would be
around 400ft, making multiple electric wireline runs a viable
solution, greatly reducing the cost, complexity and risk of the
perforating operation.
Example 2 – Validated Well Performance
Our second example features a field where a horizontal
sidetrack had been perforated on the same interval as an offset
vertical well but delivered no measurable improvement in
productivity despite its geometric advantages. The team was
planning a new horizontal well and was concerned that some
aspect of the completion process had impaired the earlier
sidetrack. A SPOT analysis was performed to try and match
the existing well performance and optimize the completion of
the new well.
Starting with the simplest case, a SPOT model was built
for the vertical well, including perforating with the obsolete
gun design in use when the well was drilled (the SPOT system
4 SPE 101082
database includes obsolete systems for exactly this situation).
Initial results suggested a productivity index (PI) much higher
than was actually observed, but careful review of the log data
identified spurious multi-Darcy permeability streaks as the
source of unrealistic potential. The field geologist confirmed
that such streaks were artifacts of the porosity-permeability
transform and were not observed in cores. After conditioning
the log data to remove these artefacts, a PI of 10 sm³/d/bar was
obtained, respectably close to the value of 10.8 sm³/d/bar
interpreted from well tests.
A SPOT model was next built for the horizontal sidetrack,
applying the log conditioning learning while maintaining other
variables consistent between the two wells. A good
productivity index match was once again obtained, confirming
that the vertical and horizontal wells did indeed exhibit similar
productivities. The primary reason for the apparent under-
performance of the horizontal sidetrack was found to be its
reduced conduit size – 4½” liner in 6” hole versus 7” liner in
8½” hole – rather than any impairment mechanism.
Applying the cumulative learnings from these two models,
the team next constructed a SPOT model for the planned new
horizontal well. It would feature an 8½” lateral with a 7”
liner, and would be perforated with the incumbent service
provider’s premium 4½” tubing-conveyed perforating system.
For this case, a productivity index five times that of the
horizontal sidetrack was predicted. While such a PI might not
be achieved in practice without encountering other problems,
such as water coning or upper completion constraints, the
analysis gave the team confidence that the proposed well
design and completion strategy should yield significantly
greater potential than might have been feared in light of the
horizontal sidetrack’s poor performance.
These examples illustrate only two of many possible SPOT
applications within completion design and analysis workflows.
SPOT is continuously being adapted and improved by the
team to cater for new applications as they are uncovered.
Discussion
While SPOT is a major step forward in the quest to rigorously
model the perforation process and its impact on completion
performance, a number of fundamental issues remain to be
solved. We view SPOT as a vehicle, or framework, within
which discrete modules can be substituted as more
sophisticated components are researched and developed.
Areas for further improvement of particular interest or
concern are (in no particular order):
• Dependence on Section I data – may be mitigated
by providing alternative input data better
representing in situ perforator performance;
• The use of a somewhat arbitrary “perforation
efficiency” parameter – requires improved
understanding of fundamental processes during
perforating and tunnel cleanup, for multiple target
media and mechanical geometries;
• SPOT is a static model and should ultimately
include dynamic processes, both during
perforating (e.g. dynamic pressure and flow
effects) and later in perforation life (e.g. effective
stress changes, water breakthrough, sand
production, tunnel collapse or plugging)
Calculations to assess performance after some
period of production currently require multiple
static runs at different pore pressures
representative of depleted conditions;
• The need for a better understanding and
representation of potential interference effects
between adjacent perforations;
• The need to represent the influence of natural
fractures, other pertinent geological features, and
mechanical problems such as poor cement bond
or damaged casing;
• Independence from other completion operations –
need to link to other workflow components, such
as stimulation, fracturing, and sand control
simulators;
• Independence from other elements of the
production system – need to link to reservoir,
near-wellbore, and vertical lift simulators to
produce an integrated engineering tool with
appropriate levels of detail in each component;
It is clear that SPOT will not necessarily become the
ubiquitous tool for perforation engineering. At the time of
writing, discussions are ongoing regarding the potential for
releasing our in-house tool to a wider user group. Irrespective
of whether such a step is ever taken, however, we expect the
benefits demonstrated by SPOT will encourage the providers
of existing perforating software packages to enhance their
capabilities along similar lines. It remains to be seen whether
they will incorporate competitor system performance data in
order to overcome the inherent disadvantage presented by only
being able to analyse one vendor’s products with a given
package.
In researching the need for representative perforating
system performance data, we noted with interest that many of
the manufacturers are acutely aware of the inadequacy of
using Section I test data as either a performance benchmark or
input parameter for simulations. However, they are reluctant
to move to a stressed rock benchmark in part because their
products will appear to underperform relative to those of
competitors who do not adopt a similar approach. This
situation is propagated by ignorance among the customer base,
where many perforating products are purchased on the basis of
Section I test performance only. Until the problems with this
approach are more widely understood and accepted by the
operator community, it is difficult to envisage a general shift
away from Section I data.
However, we see an even more significant paradigm shift
on the horizon. At recent industry meetings on perforating, a
consistent call has been heard for systems and test protocols
optimised and designed for inflow, rather than depth of
penetration. With this comes a supporting request for
perforating product specifications addressing the performance
that can be expected of a given product under a variety of
operational conditions. These challenges will take time to
properly understand and address, although work on perforator
product specifications has been started before, probably
stalling for lack of general industry attention.
SPE 101082 5

Ultimately, with our engineers better educated and

properly equipped with design and decision making tools, we
see operators preferentially purchasing those perforating
systems – at the high-performance end of the product range, at
least – that are supported by credible product specifications
and representative tests demonstrating inflow potential. This
may result in a differentiated market featuring premium
systems with certified inflow performance (as well as depth of
penetration and other familiar parameters) and second-tier
commodity systems sold on the basis of lesser benchmarks.

Conclusions
In response to an observed industry need, the Perforating
Global Delivery Team at Shell has created an engineering
software tool focused on perforation design, selection, and
evaluation.
The tool serves several purposes including: comparison of
different sandface completion techniques; using an
impairment model to predict the fluid invaded zone;
rigorously modeling perforations; calculating skin and inflow
profile at log resolution; and allowing an auditable evaluation
of different vendors’ perforating systems. Work is ongoing to
integrate the package with vertical lift simulators to facilitate
completion design decisions.
Early applications of the prototype package have shown
significant benefits through: superior resolution, revealing
effects previously masked by layer averaging; the ability to
model, match and diagnose existing well performance;
rigorous comparison of all available technical solutions and
systems, irrespective of vendor; detailed sensitivity analysis
on input variables previously assumed to be constants; and
enhanced operational learning and performance as a result of
following structured design and decision making processes.
Further work is required to address known shortcomings in
the tool. Many of these are symptomatic of industry
paradigms that must change if perforating systems are to be
properly optimized and applied. Work is also required to
develop a better understanding of the fundamental processes
and phenomena associated with perforating, notably into
targets other than sandstones.
We hope that by publishing the rationale behind the
development of this tool and some of the methodology around
which it has been constructed we will trigger further debate on
the underlying issues, a renewed interest in perforating
fundamentals, and a general move to enhance the perforating
tools and products available to front-line production engineers.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Shell International Exploration &
Production for allowing publication of this paper. We would
also like to acknowledge Dr. Sam Simonian of FloDynamic
for his assistance in developing SPOT and in the preparation
of this paper, Dr. Hans van Velsen for developing the drilling
fluid invasion model, and the staff at QinetiQ (UK) who
helped develop perforation characterisation models.

References
1 American Petroleum Institute, “Recommended Practice for
Evaluation of Well Perforators”, Recommended Practice
19B, 1st Edition, 28 Sep 2001
6 SPE 101082

Figures

Figure 1 - Graphical Output Example Showing Depth of Penetration & Depth of Invasion Against Depth

Figure 2 - Graphical Output Example Showing Calculated Inflow Profiles Against Depth