Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An effective way to evaluate stimulation or to compare different stimulation designs is by comparing net payout due to stimulation over time. If a particular stimulation design pays out the cost of stimulation and yields a net revenueof x dollars in five months (whereas an altemative design does it in 10 months), the first design undoubtedly is the most acceptable or sellable design. Fig. 5.1 is an example plotof net payout vs time.
3020.-
COMPETITORS DESIQN
-50
TIME"
Fig. 5.1 Net Payout at any time = Extra revenuejiom oil or gas production due to stimulation at any rime, t - cost of stimulation.
pwh
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
I
PRESSURE
Artificial lift methods are used in oil wells that have adequate productivity but inadequate pressure to lift the oil to the surface. There are basically two methods of artificial lift. Pumping Gas Lift
E w
CI
Pumping Wells
Downhole pumps add pressure to the 5.1, the PNI p r flowing system. Fig. shown in As dead oil column is stagnant the and hydrostatic pressure of the column over- Fig. 5.2 Effect Of SUbsUrfaCePumps Of well pressure profile. comes the reservoir pressure stopping the inflow into the wellbore. Installation of a pump modifies the pressure profile adding a by fixed pressure gain between the suction and discharge sides of the pump. When properly designed, this pressure gain allows the fluid to flow to the surface at a fixed wellhead pressure. Pumps always operate with a positive suction pressure provided by a fluid column in the annulus above the pump level. This fluid level in the annulus can be monitored by an echometer. Before stimulating a pumping well, the fluid level in the annulus should be monitoredto make the post-stimulation troubleshooting possible.
5-1
Diagnostic of potential stimulation needs in pumped oil wells In general, if the fluid level rises and the pump discharge rate falls, the problem is in the pump, (Case1 of Fig. 5.3). It is not uncommon to encounter problems such after stimulation of a pumping well. In most of these cases, the old pump needs to be replacedor repaired.
P,
t
3
The other common problem is when the flow rate falls and the fluid level stays the same or recedes. This is commonly due to a , reservoir problem, such as depleq, q(STPD) -c q, tion or skin buildup (Case 2 of Fig. 5.3). Fig. 5.3 Showing potenrialproblems in a pumping well Note also that in a uumuinrr well after a successful stimulaiion: the pumps may needto be redesigned for optimum flow.It is very possible that aftera successful stimulationin a pumping well, the post stimulation production did not increase substantially due existing pump limitations. to
through IPR curves.
5-2
08 4
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
0 9
L
..
D .
Effect of Stimulation of Gas Lift Wells After stimulation with the improved IPR curve, a redesign of the gas lift system is normally required for optimized flow. This requires new setting of gas lift valves. It is possible that after stimulation a gas lift well loses production due to gas lift design problems. This section is to caution DS operations people against such gas lift system failures in a successfully stimulated well.
5-3
Example Problem 5.1 Clay Consolidation (Clay Acid) (Effect of moving damage away from the wellbore)
I I
Fig. 5.5
Average Permeability, F
100
r,
= 0.365 ft
FormationPermeability, k = 100 md Spacing = 160 acres (a) Calculate the percentageof original productivity due to80% damage I ft deep around the wellbore. (b) Calculate the percentage of original productivity due toan 80% damage collar, 1 ft wide and 4 ft from the wellbore.
5-4
Solution:
= 61.2md
1 0 lOg0.365 B 0
( ) m
1,489
0.01078
+ 0.00448 + 0.02443
3.6106
= 91 md
Summary
An offshore Louisiana well was tested followingits completion in the Pliocene formation. It produced 1,200 BPD at a wellhead pressure of 1,632 psig from a 71 ft. gravel-packed unconsolidated sandstonereservoir. Analysis of the test data identified severe wellbore damage which was restricting production (Skin = 210). It also showed that the production rate could be increased to 6,850 BOPD at the same wellhead pressure should thatdamage be removed. To treat the damage effectively, clear understanding of its a origin is needed.The analysis of the test data indicated inadequate perforations and a high probability of formation damage. This was confirmed by core analysis and production logs run after the test. An acid treatment was formulated and the post-acid indicated a significant improvement test in skin (Skin = 15). The production rate increased to 4,400BOPD at a wellhead pressure of 2,060 psig.'
For more details refer to SPE 14820 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February 26-27. 1986
indicates a high permeability homogeneous reservoir with wellbore storage and severe skin effect. The Nodal analysis (page 4) shows that the production rate is significantly restricted by the skin effect, and projects a rate increase of 5,650 BOPD if the wellbore damage is removed. Finally, the shot density sensitivity plot (page 5) suggests adequate perforations and the likelihood of formation damage. The interpretation charts and computation sheets are presented. Production Logs Results The production logging data indicate that all of the 40 ft. perforated zone is contributing to the flow rate except the bottom 5 to 6 ft. Since the permeability variation in the perforated interval is minimal and the flow profile appears nonuniform, it is assumed that formation damage has affected the producing zone unevenly. Post-Acid Test Results Significant improvement in the wellbore condition is noticed. The resulting increase in production rate matches the prediction of the Nodal analysis. The charts and computation sheets are presented in this section. PRE-ACII INALYSIS NODAL YALYSIS Test Identification
Test Type ...................................... Test No. Formation..... ................................. Test Interval (ft)
........................................
.........................................
............................
........... ..............
Completion Configuration
Total Depth (MD/l'VD) (ft) 11,920/10,800 6.094 Casingniner ID (in.) ........... 8.5 Hole Size (in.) 40 f) Perforated Interval (t.................. 12 Shot Density (shots/ft) 0.610 Perforation Diameter (in.) 71 Net pay (t f)
.......... ................
..
RockiFluld/WellboreProperties
Oil Density (" AFT) 29.5 Gas gravity .................................... 0.600 GOR (scf/STB) 628 Water Cut (a) 0 Viscosity (cp) 0.70 Total Compressibility (Vpsi) ........9.00E-06 28 Porosity (%) .................................. Reservoir Temperature (OF)..........218 Form. Vol.Factor @bl/STB) 1.37 Bubble Point Pressure, psi ............ 5120 1632 Wellhead Pressure (psig) 100.0 Wellhead Temp. (OF)........... Production Time (days) 3.0
............
Interpretation Results
Model ofBehavior Homogeneous Fluid Type used for Analysis Liquid ................5585 Reservoir Pressure (psi) 53390 Transmissibility (md-ft/cp) Effective Permeability (md)..........526.0 210.0 Skin Factor.
.........
........... ..................
..............
.................
5-6
Test Objectives The objectives of this test were to evaluate the completion efficiency and estimate the production potential of the well. Comments The test procedure and measurements are summarized on the following pages. The a storage and skin. The system behaved as a well in homogeneous reservoir with wellbore well and reservoir parameters listed above reveal a high permeability formation and a severely damaged wellbore. Removing this damage would result in increasing the production rate to 6,850 BOPD at the same wellhead pressure of 1,632 psig, without jeopardizing the integrity of the gravel pack. The shot density sensitivity plot suggests adequate perforations and high formation damage. This could be confirmed by production logs and core analysis. Acid treatment is recommended for removing the wellbore damage and increasing the production. Note that skin due to partial penetration cannot the be eliminated by acidizing - consequently the ideal production rate may not achieved. be
LOG-LOG ANALYSIS
1.1 Match Parameters
=
match
0.0093 bbllpsi
370.1
210
5-7
2.
= =
= =
P (0)
kh = 162'6 Bo m'
= 37,929 md-ft
Nomenclature permeability, md formation height, ft wellbore storage constant, bbl/psi scientific notation oil flow rate BPD dimensionless pressure pressure change, psi dimensionless time dimensionless wellbore storage constant time change, hr oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB oil viscosity, cp formation porosity
5-8
4000
0.00
L
2.00
40 .0
6.00
ELAPSED TIME lHOURSI
8.00
10.00
12.00
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
EVENT
DATE
TIME
( R H : W
1228 1540 1608
DESCRIPTION
ELAPSED
BHP
(PSIA)
NO.
TIME
048
(HRMIN)
WHP (PSIA)
I 23-APRI
23-APR 23-APR
1613.0
1636.0
2 3 4
400
428 945 5579.0
DURATION
(HR:MIN)
PRESSURE (PSIA)
FLOWRATE
on
START STOP
(BD)
GAS (MMSCFD)
#1. DD
3:40
1613.0
0164
#, 2BU
5-9
IO0
10'
102
o3
1o4
..
5400 -UI a 3
7
a
0
. . ..
"
0
"
8 51 00-w a n
4800-- 0
"
4500
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
5-10
0.00000E+00 1.50000E-03 2.83333E-03 4.16667E-03 5.66667E-03 7.00000E-03 6.33333E-03 9.83333E-03 1.1 1667E-02 1.25000E-02 1.40000E-02 1.53333E-02 1.66667E-02 1.81667E-02 1.95000E-02 2.08333E-02 2.23333E-02 2.36667E-02 2.5OOOOE-02 2.65000E-02 2.78333E-02 2.91667E-02 3.06867E-02 3.20WOE-02 3.33333E-02 3.48333E-02 3.61 667E-02 3.75000E-02 3.90000E-02 4.03333E-02 4.16667E-02
1
33
Delta time
4.45000E-02 4.58333E-02 4.73333E-02 4.86667E-02 5.00000E-02 5.56667E-02 6.1 1667E-02 6.66667E-02 7.23334E-02 7.78333E-02 8.33334E-02 8.9OOOOE-02 9.45000E-02 0.10000 0.10567 0.11117 0.11667 0.12233 0.13333
0.1 5000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
34 35
36
37
38
39 40 41 42 43
44
45 46 47 40 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
63
5581.7 64
4871.6 4.31667E-02 32
5-1 1
65 66 67 68 69 70
0.42763 0.47783 0.52783 0.57783 0.62763 0.69450 0.74450 0.79450 0.84450 0.89450 0.94450 0.99450 1.0445 1.0945 1.1445 1.1945 1.2445 1.2945 1.3445 1.3945
5582.3 5580.6 5578.2 5576.1 5574.0 5573.8 5574.1 5574.4 5574.5 5574.6 5574.9 5574.9 5575.1 5575.2 5575.3 5575.5 5575.5 5575.7 5575.7 5575.9 5575.9 5576.0 5576.1 5576.1 5576.2 5576.2 5576.2 5576.4 5576.4 5576.5 5576.4 5576.5 5576.6
99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 106 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
124
2.2612 2.3445 2.51 12 2.6778 2.8445 3.01 12 3.1778 3.3445 3.4278 3.8612 3.6945 3.9278 4.0945 4.261 2 4.4278 4.5945 4.7612 4.9278 5.0945 5.1333 5.1362 5.1390 5.1417 5.1473 5.1500 5.1526 5.1557 5.1583 5.1612 5.1945 5.2278 5.2812 5.2778
5576.6 5576.9 5577.0 5577.2 5577.4 5577.5 5577.7 5577.8 5577.9 5577.9 5578.0 5576.2 5578.3 5576.5 5578.5 5578.6 5578.7 5576.7 5578.9 5576.9 5576.9 5579.0 5579.0 5578.9 5579.0 5579.0 5579.0 5579.0 5579.0 5576.9 5578.9 5579.0
71
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 62 83
84
85 66 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
1A 4 5
1.4945 1.5445 1.5945 1.6445
1.e945
1.7445 1.7945
1a445
945
5-12
NODAL PLOT
"
"
"
"
3800
t
Fig. 5.9 Production Potential Evaluation, Nodal Plot
RATE vs. WELLHEAD PRESSURE
450
826
1200
1575
IS50
5-13
0
0.00
I
2.00 4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
Fig. 5.11
Tubing Length (fi)/I.D. (in) ..........11,830/2.992 Depth Packer (ft) 11,826 Gauge Depth (ft)nype 11,920iDPTT Downhole Valve(Y/N)nype N
Completion Configuration
Total Depth (MDITVD)(ft) Casingniner LD. (in) Hole Size (in) Perforated Interval (t f) Shot Density (shots/ft) Perforation Diameter (in) f) Net pay (t
..........11,920/10.800 .......... 6.094 ................................. 8.5 ..................40 .................. 12 ............... 0.610 .................................... 71
............ Homo geneous ........ Liquid ................5431 ........... 53751 ......... 530
15
Test Condition
Tubinwellhead Pressure (psi) 2.060 Separator Pressure (psi) ................ 150 Wellhead Temperature (OF) 100.0
.... ...........
RocWFluidWellbore Properties
Oil Density (" API) 29.5 Gas gravity 0.600 GOR (scf/STB) 1,013 Water Cut(%) 0 . . 0.70 viscosity (CP) 9.00E-06 Total Compressibility (l/psi) 28 Porosity (%) Reservoir Temperature (OF) .......... 218 1.37 Form. Vol.Factor (bbl/STB) Production Time (days)................. . 25
Interpretation Results
Model of Behavior Fluid Type used for Analysis Reservoir Pressure (psi) Transmissibility (md ft/cp) Effective Permeability (md) Skin Factor.... ................................
Test Objectives The objective of the test was to evaluate the effectiveness of the acid stimulation treatment. Comment: The test procedure and measurements are summarized on the next page. The acid treatment was effective in removing the formation damage. Analysis the data revealed of a significant improvement in the wellbore condition resulting in over a 3,000 BOPD n increase i production at 428 psi higher wellhead pressure.
1.OE16
kh
141.2Q
p
' O
32 (.P )match
= 37,626 md-ft
=
match
0.122 bbl/psi
486
2. GENERALIZED 2.1
HORNER ANALYSIS
m'
P* P (1 hr)
5-15
= = =
(0)
5,041 psia
Reservoir ParameterCalculations
kh = 162'6 Bo m'
= 37,635 md-ft
(' hr)-P
('))-log Nomenclature
k
= 15
= =
=
h
C
wellbore constant, storage bbl/psi scientific notation oil flow rate, BPD dimensionless pressure pressure change, psi dimensionless time dimensionless wellbore storage constant time change,
Q, =
PI,
=
AP =
To =
CD =
At
hr
Bo =
po =
5-16
PRESSURVFLOWRATE HISTORY
" "
5300
4850
00 .0
1.50
3.00
4.50
6.00
7.50
80 .0
Fig.5.12
PressurelFlowrate History
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
5-17
DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
X Derivalive Data. t 4 . Eu
Pressure Match
Time Match
--
8.3181E-02 1300
10
IO
1o3
1o4
Fig. 5.13
SUPERPOSITION DIMENSIONLESS
5470
I I
5-18
Deita time
(hours)
0.00000E+00 1.33338E-03 2.83330E-03 4.16667E-03 5.50003E-03 6.99997E-03 8.33333E-03 9.66670E-03 1.1 1666E-02 1.25000E-02 1.38334E-02 1.53333E-02 1.66667E-02 1.60000E-02 1.95000E-02 2.08333E-02 2.21667E-02 2.36666E-02 2.50000E-02 2.63334E-02 2.78333E-02 2.91667E-02 3.05000E-02 3.20000E-02
3.88334E-02 4.03333E-02 4.1 6667E-02 4.56333E-02 5.00000E-02 5.41667E-02 5.83333E-02 6.25000E-02 6.66667E-02 7.08333E-02 7.50000E-02 7.91667E-02 8.33333E-02 8.75000E-02 9.16667E-02 9.58333E-02 0.10000 0.10417 0.1 0833 0.11250 0.11667 0.12083 0.1 2500 0.12917 0.1 3333 0.13750 0.14167
3 4 5 6 7
8
33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22 23
24 25 26 27 28
3.33333E-02
3.46667E-02 3.61666E-02 5321.5 3.75000E-02 5363.8
5-19
Della time Bonomhole (hours) Pressure (psia] 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 0.15000 0.15417 0.15967 0.16800 0.17633 0.18487 0.19300 0.20133 0.20967 0.21800 0.22633 0.23467 0.24300 0.25133 0.25967 0.26800 0.27633 0.28467 0.29300 0.30133 0.30967 0.31800 0.32633 0.33467 0.34300 0.35133 0.35967 0.36800 0.37633 0.38467 0.39300 5383.9 5384.2 5384.6 5385.2 5386.9 5386.3 5386.9 5387.3 5387.6 5388.0 5386.4 5368.8 5389.0 5389.4 5389.8 5390.0 5390.4 5390.6 5390.8 5391.1 5391.4 5391.8 5391.9 5392.2 5392.4 5392.5 5392.8 5392.9 5393.2 5393.2 66 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 5406.3 118
Delta time Bonomhole (hours) Pressure (psia 0.401 33 0.40967 0.41 800 0.42633 0.43467 0.44300 0.45133 0.45967 0.48467 0.50967 0.53467 0.55967 0.58467 0.60967 0.63467 0.65967 0.70967 0.75967 0.80967 0.85967 0.90967 0.95667 1.0097 1.0597 1.1097 1.1597 2.1 638 2.1 763 2.1 668 2.2013 2.2138 5393.6 5393.8 5393.9 5394.2 5394.3 5394.5 5394.8 5394.8 5394.9 5395.4 5395.5 5395.9 5396.4 5396.5 5397.2 5397.4 5398.0 5398.7 5399.3 5399.5 5400.0 5400.5 5401.0 5401.2 5401.6 5402.0 5406.1 5406.3 5406.2 5406.3
77
78 79 80 81 82 83
84
65
86 5393.5 87
5-20
3.1138 136 137 138 139 3.3138 140 141 3.4138 142. 143
NODAL PLOT
5500
I I
4000
0
I I
1
352
907
1815
2722
4537
5444
Fig. S.1S
5-21
7000-
$ 6000" .I n
5000"
4000-
8 F
2
3000" 2000"
1000"
0 ,
900
I1350
1800
2250
2700
k = 5md h = 20ft
p 0 = 1.1 cp .
Spacing = 80 acres
pr =2,500 psig
s = -5
Bo = 1.2 RB/STB
r,., = 0.365 ft
Solution:
Drainage radius,
re =
= 1,053 ft
7.08 X 10-3kh
AOFP = q =
F~Bo[ In
:( )- 0.75 + s ]
5-22
p;
1.1 x 1 . 2 [ h ( g ) - - 0 . 7 5 - 5 ]
= 604 STBD
From example 4-2, the following tubing intake pressures are calculated for different flow rates:
800
910
1 .OS0
"0
Fig. 5.17
200
400
600
800
1000
These values are plotted on the figure shown above. The intersection of the tubing intake curve and the IPR curve gives the natural production of the well, i.e., 410 STB/D.
5-23
Solution:
The tubing intake curve is plotted as shown in Example Problem 5-3 with the following points:
Using data from Example Problem 5-3, the value of production rate q is calculated for different values of rw and plotted (i) rw = 100 ft
AOFP = 9 =
7.08 X 10-3 kh
pr
1
7.08 x 10-3 x 5 x 20 x 2,500 l.lxl.2[h(~)-o.75+2]
= 372STBD
Similarly, the flow rates at other values of rw are calculated and plotted
200 400
5-24
00
From the above plot, production rate is read-off at the intersection Of the tubing intake curves and the IPR curves for the different values of effective wellbore radius. These are tabulated and plotted -
"0
radius.
- Appendix F).
Note: Hydraulically induced fractures increase the effective wellbore radius (Rats, 1961
5-25
Solution
Calculate and plot the response curve from Fig. 5.17 (Example Problem 5-3)as follows:
4 (STB/D)
200
AP
250
300 350 400 410
Using data from Table 3.2, plot the pressure drop vs flow rate for different shot densities on the same plot as the response curve.
The intersection of the response curve with the shot density curves gives the production
Fig. 5.20 PIor offrow rate vspressure drop for varying shot densities.
5-26
Shot Density
Flow Rate
WF)
2 4 8 12 20
These values are then plotted as shown here.
500
(BPW
350 378 390 400 405 408 24
400
300
200
100
10
15
20
Exercises
1.
For the following well data, calculate theabsolute open flow potential of the well.
k , = 30md h = 40ft API = 30 ReservoirTemperature "Is = 0.7 (Produces oil) all Casingsize = 7 in.
P C GOR
hp
= 200F
= =
= 12-1/4 in.
5-27
2.
Calculate In (re&) for r, = 7 in. and for drainage areas of 20,40, 80,160 and 320 acres. Hint: make a table. Drainage Acres
20
40
re
rw
In (re/ r,)
80
160
3.
k
h
p,
=
= =
50md 100ft
2,000 psia (Producing
Depth
5,000 ft
all oil)
Determine the absolute open flow potential and an estimated production if you designed the tubular.
4.
Draw the IPR in Problem #I for skin of -50, +5. Using Vogels IPR relationship, construct an IPR for the following cases (a) P, AOFP (b) Pr
qo
5.
= = = = = =
= =
Pb.
pf w
6.
Given: P,
pb
PI
5-28
7.
Pr
2,500psi Test # 1 2 3
Pb
3,000 psia
PH (psia)
2,000 1,500
1,000 500
4
Calculate -
1.
2.
8,
The well in Problem #1 is fractured with the best proppant available, and the fracture half-length is 500 ft. Draw the post-frac IPR.
Construct JPRs for the following well as a function of penneabilities -
9.
P = 2,000psi ,
s =o
h = 50ft = 2cp k = 1,lO. 100,1,ooO, 5,000 md
re = 2,000ft r, = 0 5 ft . Bo = 1 2 RB/STB .
1 . For Problem No. 1, assume k = 100rnd and construct IPR curves for skin. 0
Draw a sensitivity of 90 vs S from Problem No. 2 . Givenp=* Flowline Length Flowline I D Depth Water Gr. Sp. Bottom Hole Temp.
=
= =
=
= =
= = = =
=
=
Pb
qo
Pf W
= =
3,000BPD
2,000 psia
Draw the IPR and intake curves and predict the rate in this well. flow 13. Make a tubing ID sensitivity and recommend the best tubing size for the following data GLR
Yg FW
API
pwh
T
Tubing ID
API
Yg
rP
1,
re
P,
r,
Po
Depth
200 psia 35
GLR
F W
0.65
0.021 ft 0.883 ft 2,000 ft 3,000 psia 0.365 ft 1.2 cp
B O C r
kP
h hP
k
Tubing I D
5,000 ft
5-30