SPE/PAPG ANNUAL TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 2005 November 28-29, 2005, Islamabad

OPTIMIZATION OF GAS WELL PRODUCTIVITY BY CONTROLLING WATER PRODUCTION

Amjad Hussain Shar
Mehran University, Jamshoro, amjadspe@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
It is seen that gas wells if produced without planned rates may produce water pre-maturely. Production of water basically loads the subject well by generating hydrostatic head within the well tubing. Secondly the water production alters the in-situ gas saturation in near well bore region resulting change in the relative permeability. Both these reasons make the subject well problematic due to decrease in well productivity and increase in the well operating cost. Also the handling of produced water is uneconomical in many cases. The work done for this study is general in nature, though the essence of this work comes from data collected from different gas wells having water production problem. This study gives an overview of all the methods and techniques, which can be used for, expel-out such problems and optimize gas production. Main stress has been given on Tubing Performance Curve study in order to select best tubing size and calculation of the optimum rates against selected tubing size. General tubing performance curve are also presented showing the behavior of the well before and after water production. On the basis of study of different techniques related to the Gas well production optimization and water production control we became, able to give a solution of interchanging the well tubing strings without purchasing any new string pertaining to large gas fields where different tubing sizes are used in different wells.

should occur a decrease in the backpressure of the static water column. The gas well loading phenomenon is one of the most serious problems that reduces, and eventually kills the production in gas wells [3]. The vertical flow in tubing changes to the slug flow, and the consequence of this slugging for a well is to have larger pressure drop which reduces the well productivity. The total pressure drop I equal to the sum of pressure drops due to Elevation (hydrostatic column pressure), friction and acceleration [1]. The importance of the term elevation increases due to the accumulation of the water in the well bore column. Friction and acceleration terms are well production rate dependant as for lower rates these posses smaller values and for higher rates these become significant. Fig. 1 shows the affects of gas flowing velocity on flow regimes in vertical tubing. Fig. 2 (a) shows the mechanism of liquid loading wells. This figure clarifies that once the water enters into the wellbore, how it changes the flow regime and Fig. 2 (b) shows the stages of decreasing production. Planning of proper tubing size can save from above water problems hence one can claim that the well production can be optimize [2]. This study gives the tubing planning idea for larger gas fields which have many wells with varying production-period and well tubing sizes. The idea based on this study is of interchanging the tubing sizes between the wells without investing money for new tubing strings. This paper discusses the critical flowing velocity and well tubing performance. On the basis of these studies suggestions and recommendations in general are made.

INTRODUCTION
It is considered that wells producing dry gas have usually lower flowing bottom-hole pressure [1]. Liquid loading happens when the gas does not have enough energy to carry the water out of the wellbore. Water accumulates at the bottom of the well, generating backpressure in the wellbore and blocking gas inflow [2]. For the optimization of the production of the gas it is necessary to unload that water from the wellbore so that there

TECHNIQUES OF HANDLING WATER PRODUCTION

Production of water from Hydrocarbon producing wells is always required to be avoided. There are many reasons why this is done; such as handling of produced water is a big problem. The water contains contaminants

in abundance and chemically it cannot be drained in cultivated land, near populated area or in any pond, river, watercourse, where people use water for drinking purposes. For making it utilizable, it needs much expensive treatment. Besides all that, production of water makes economic loss by corroding production and facility installations. This is not the end, on the basis of study of large samples taken from gas wells producing water; it was found that near about 20% of original reserves has been reduced, due to water production problems (National Energy Board for Canada, 1995). Different well dewatering technologies are available in the industry and some have been used successfully to control water loading problem in gas wells. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Gas Compression Technology Liquid Diverters Gas Lifts Foaming Beam Pumping Flow Controllers Swabbing Coiled Tubing/Nitrogen Venting Plunger Lift Concentric Tubing String

intake pressure, liquid tolerance, durability and best economics. Gas Lifts Gas lift technology is applied for reducing the amount of water accumulated in the wellbore. This method introduces the additional gas in the tubing string in order to decrease the flowing gradient so that increased fluid velocity can be achieved. The method of injecting the gas in the well bore is to inject gas through casing and allows it to flow in the tubing by means of gas lift valve [1]. Fig. 3 shows dewatering of well by gas injection technique. There are certain considerations for the installation of the gas lifting system for water removal in order to optimize the gas production: v Comparison of costs with wells should be made v It must be assured that high pressure gas injection sources are available within approach v Entire field well-to-well cost comparison should be made Foaming Foaming is introduced to decrease the hydrostatic head of the well column. This method is for temporary treatment. Which optimizes production of gas from a well only for a short interval. The mixing of liquid/ gas/ surfactant usually occurs downhole. This method works for water only. Foaming is not the best economic solution in case if larger quantities of the surfactants are required to decrease the fluid pressure gradient. The foam produces a less-dense mixture by increasing the surface area of the liquid with bubbles. There are various methods of introducing surfactants into the wellbore and the simplest method is to batch or continuously inject chemical down the annulus of the wellbore. Also soap sticks can be dropped into the wellbore tubing for this objective [1]. Fig.-4 shows dewatering of well by foam injection technique. Beam Pumping Beam pumping systems are a common method of dewatering gas wells. The application of this system is for the conditions when there is high Gas Liquid Ratio. Gas may cause gas lock in the pump, which in turn can cease the production [1]. If the pump is correctly built and spaced in order to obtain high compression ratio (CR) on the down stroke, as Fig. 5 shows.

Some of the above methods are discussed here, in order to get comparative idea of dewatering the wellbore to optimize production. Gas Compression Technology By introducing wellhead compression, well head flowing pressure can be decreased and the required gas delivery pressure can be achieved by compressing the gas to a desired pressure. This decrease in well head pressure increases the gas velocity to an extent that it also carries out with it the loaded water when the well is put on production. In this way the productivity of the well is increased for the time being. Well head compression considerations are given below: v Will well head compression increase the rate economically and provide long-term effects? v Match compression with the Tubing Performance curve v Compression should be applied on a group of wells or on a large field. v Type of compressor to be selected for throughput,

Swabbing Swabbing is used for unloading the well. This is generally used during initial well operating conditions when the well is killed. Small swabbing cups are used and well unloading is carried out, which causes decrease in hydrostatic pressure and the well flows. This job is cyclic by nature in a way that for a time-being well is unloaded and flows till next unloading time. Coiled Tubing/Nitrogen Nitrogen kick-off job is done for unloading wells by means of coil tubing. Nitrogen once enters into the liquid column reduces its density and so well starts flowing for some time. Venting Gas venting is made for liquid unloading as a cheap method. This usually does not need any extra mechanical equipment at the surface for de-watering instead a gas vent line should be available. Well is opened by choke and flow is diverted to atmosphere. Well can be flowed till it becomes clear. This method can also be called as the cyclic dewatering of the well. Velocity String The installation of velocity string represents a third possible solution to the liquid loading problems in bigbore completion [2]. The velocity string will maintain high gas velocity, which will keep the well from dying prematurely. Big bore completions have lower gas velocities than those with smaller bore. Installation of small tubing string in existing larger bore completion will reduce diameter and hence there will be increased velocity which keeps the well flowing at optimum rates, preventing the well from loading.

The equation suggested by Turner is given below [4]: V t = 1.915 [{ s ( r l r g )}

0.25

/ ( r g 0.5 )] ..(1)

Where, V = Terminal Velocity s = Interfacial Tension r = Density, subscripts t, l, g are terminal, liquid, and gas respectively. It is observed that heavier phase always dictates the limiting velocity, so incorporating the water properties in above equation we can determine the flow rate. We know that flow rate determines the combined effect of velocity and the area of the conduit. Qg = 3056 (P Vt Ap ) / (Tabs Z) (2) Where, Q = Rate of flow P = Pressure V = Velocity A = Area T = Temperature, and Z = Gas Deviation Factor The Critical Gas Velocity and Flow rate Calculations for two wells, XX and XY are shown in table 1.

TUBING PERFORMANCE CURVES

The generalized form of Inflow performance relationship (IPR) and Tubing performance relationship (TPR) is shown in Fig. 7. The performance curve shown in Fig. 8 is basically for the same well to show the effect of the water production. After a year of water production, there has been a decline in the performance curve as shown in Fig. 8. The effect of altering Tubing String diameter on optimum flow rate is shown in Fig. 9.

CRITICAL GAS VELOCITY CALCULATION FOR WELL UNLOADING

It is very difficult to determine the flowing velocity values, so as to save the well from loading with water and to produce it at optimum rates. Turner et al established a method [1] of determining the minimum fluid velocity value for continuous well unloading. This method is dependent on the model of entrained liquid droplets in a high velocity gas stream. The basis of the calculation was a larger possible droplet which was needed to be flowed from well. The velocity calculation on the basis of existing interfacial tension was calculated.

EXAMPLE OF WATER PRODUCTION

After the collection of data regarding the water production for a well, it was plotted and a typical plot was found. This plot (Fig. 10) represents complex behavior. First production of water increases and it gets a peak value of 1000gals, (note all values of water are given in unit of gallons), then it decreases and comes down to about 170 gals as shown in Fig. 10. But this is not the end, after this again water production increases becomes about 700 gals. The reason for decline in the water production is that well started load up and rate decreased. It was assumed that now the velocity of gas is not sufficient and hence it flows out at surface

by channeling. This happened for a short period. Lastly well was flowed in open atmosphere and it was offloaded. After its choke was decreased from 48/64 to 24/64; the reduced choke caused the well to control water production. It was then found that the gas channeling was because of larger tubing size; instead if tubing size has been smaller than there must not have been water flow at the very starting period of the well flow.

velocity will increase in this tubing string, and the liquid lifting potential will increase which in turn will prevent the well from load-up. When the well is not loaded we will get increased production.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is highly grateful to Dr.Hafeez-ur-Rehman Memon, Professor, Institute of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Mehran University and Assistant Prof. Mr. Shahzad Ali Baladi for providing their guidance and technical support. My profound thanks to Prof. Sikandar Ali Arbani (Director Instt: of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engg: Mehran University Jamshoro) and to all the teachers for their support and encouragement, which has done so much good to me.

CONCLUSION
From the study of different gas well unloading techniques, we came to know that there are cost effective methods and economically feasible in most of the conditions as gas venting in atmosphere (in case if it contains contaminants or diluents then venting should be through flare), well shut-off etc, all these are for a limited time interval. Among the discussed methods, the Interchanging of the tubing string between two or more wells will be the more suitable decision for optimization of gas well productivity for controlling the water production. The well, which is producing water, should be equipped with smaller ID tubing string. The gas velocity will increase in this tubing string, and the liquid lifting potential will increase which in turn will prevent the well from load-up. When the well is not loaded we will get increased production.

REFERENCES
[1] Robert P. Sutton, Stuart A. Cox, E. Glynn Williams: Gas Well Performance at Sub critical Rates. SPE 80887. [2] John Lee, Robert A. Wattenbarger, Gas Reservoir Engineering. [3] James F. lea, Henry. V Nickens,: Solving Gas Well Liquid Loading Problems, SPE Distinguished author Series. [4] Fitrah Arachman, Kalwant Singh, James K. Forrest, Monas O. Purba, Liquid Unloading in a Big Bore Completion: A comparison among Gas Lift, Intermittent Production, and installation of Velocity String SPE 88523. [5] Benesch, J.M., Nor, Nazri, and Ngatijian: Optimization of Big-bore HPHT Wells to exploit a Low Pressure Reservoir in Indonesial, paper SPE/IADC 87171. [6] M.A. Nosseir, T.A Darwich, M.H Sayyouh, M. El,: A new Approach for Accurate Prediction of Loading in Gas Wells Under Different Flowing Conditions, SPE Prod. & Facilities 15 (4), November 2000. [7] Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E: Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow rate for the continuous Removal of Liquids from the Gas wells, SPE 30197. [8] H. Dale Beggs, "Gas Production Operations", OGCI Publications.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. On the basis of above study made for production optimization of wells, which produce water, it is necessary to determine the exact water production volumes and rates should also be known. 2. Water production monitoring can be made by means of Flocometers, which note the approximate water volume passed through it. 3. Simplest method should be utilized to minimize the production of the water. 4. Among the analysis of certain methods (as shown in Fig-6) there are cost effective methods and economically feasible in most of the conditions as gas venting in atmosphere (in case if it contains contaminants or diluents then venting should be through flare), well shut-off etc, all these are for a smaller time period. 5. The best and cheap method keeping well fluids to be produced at sufficient rate is the interchanging of the tubing string between two or more wells. 6. The well, which is producing water, should be equipped with smaller ID tubing string. The gas

Fig. 1 - Flow type variation due to gas production.

Fig. 2(a) - Phenomenon of Well Load up by Water.

Fig. 2 (b) - Phenomenon of Formation of Heavier Slugs till Well Load up.

Fig. 3 - Dewatering of Well by Gas Injection Technique.

Fig. 4 - Dewatering of Well by Foam Injection Technique.

Fig. 5 - Plunger Lift Method.

Fig. 6 - Comparative analysis of some methods for dewatering a Well.

Table - 1: Critical Gas Velocity and Flow Rate Calculation.

Fig. 7 - A generalized Form of IPR and TPC.

Fig. 8 - Well Inflow Performance Curve Variation after well-started water production.

Fig. 9 - Effect of varying Tubing Sizes on Well Deliverability.

Month wise water production of well XX

Fig. 10 - Month wise water production of well XX.

10

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Amjad Hussain
Amjad Hussain is the student of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, currently studying in Third year in Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Jamshoro, Pakistan. In 2004 (June-July 2004) worked with Mari Gas Company Limited for 6 weeks as an Internee and with OGDCL for 2 weeks as an Internee in December 2004. He is also working as President 2005-06, for SPE Mehran Student Chapter at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology Jamshoro, Pakistan.

11