Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPE 23666
This
paper was presenlad at tbe Second latin Amruican I'IIlfofeum E'
. Conference, nWEC, of tile Society of Petroleum Enginll9tS held in Caracas. VsnIlZUllla. Marcb S11. 1992
ngmerenng
This paper was sslsclad for presentation by an SPE Program Commllae foil'
. of . , .
..
as pressntlld, have nOl been revillwed by tlls II tAPEC or tbe SPE and a:-'~= ,~rma!on conlallled 11\ an abstract submittlld by tbe au!llar{s). Contents olille paper
position of tbe II tAPEC or tile SPE. its alfiC9f5, or merrilelS. Papers presented t
on y tile author{s}. The malerial. as presented. does nOl necessarily reflect any
Petroleum Engineers. Pennissian to copy is feslrieled 10 an abstract at no! mor: lila ;:I'":sare subJ9c1 10 pubicaton re\l!~ by Editoria! CommittlillS of tile Sociely of
adlnowlad~lIII!l\t 01 where and by whom Ihs paper is prsssnllld.
n
wo. ililSlrallons may no! be copied. Tile abstract.should contain COllspiQlOUS
spf"
Write Publications Manager. SPE. P.O.80x 833836 Richardson 1)( 7501l3-3836 U.S.A. Telex 730989 SPEOAL
Abstract:
This paper confirms the high AP friction in the production
sect!on of' a horizontal well as proposed by Oikken '.
Available pressure transient data validates his
theoretical pressure drops which are significantly
greater than previously thought
.
Due to short production intervals in most conventional
(relative to horizontal wells) the phenomenon has
minor Impact on the conventional well. It can however
play ~ significant role in the distribution of pr~duction i~
a hOrizontal well and needs to be considered when
running reservoir models to properly evaluate reservoir
performance. Because of the risks and costs associated
with production logging it is not generally detected.
w~lIs
T~is
239
Applications;
Without a correct AP profile the simulator's match of
production data does not represent the production
distribution from the reservoir. Correct AP friction loss is
important in evaluating the performance of new and
existing horizontal wells. It is affected by:
1. the size of the production liner,
2. the length of the perforated interval, and
3. the placement of the well in the reservoir (i.e.
horizontal, high angle, or inverted high angle). The
placement is particularly important when gas or
water coning are present.
These factors all affect the AP friction and how the fluids
enter the wellbore. Only when these parameters are
correct, is It possible to:
1. evaluate various horizontal well deigns,
2. accurately predict the performance of a horizontal
well prospect, and
3. properly analyze the performance of existing
horizontal wells.
SPE 23666
Discussion:
Because horizontal wells have a higher PI (productivity
index--oll rate/day/pressure drawdown) than
conventional wells there is a tendency to automatically
assume increased recovery. This may not be the case
even when additional recovery is predicted by a
reservoir simulator. If a simulator does not properly
account for the AP friction it may either overstate or
understate the recovery depending on the )yells position
in the reservoir relative to the coning fluid contacts.
Well
Type
Beginning
End
MMBO
MMBW
Horizontal Horizontal [MM m 3 ) [MM m 3 )
High
No AquHer
Angle
Inverted
High
Aquifer
Angle
Validation of Dlkken
Pressure profile data taken on real wells was used to
validate Dikken's theory. Figure 1 is a horizontal
produCing section pressure profile and Figure 2 is Step
Rate Test data on a second horizontal well. Both
validate Dikken's theory of AP friction.
Vears
Aquifer
23.4
(3.7)
63.1
(10.0)
21
No AquHer
23,4
(3.7)
75.8
(12,1)
21
0,0
[0,0)
12,7
(2,1 J
SPE 23666
Liner size.
The pressure drop and thus the
distribution of production along the horizontal is
directly affected by the liner size. Without a correct
understanding of the pressure profile, the impact of
the liner size cannot be properly evaluated.
Perforating strategy. Is it appropriate to drill a 1500
foot horizontal section and perforate the entire
section? Or is it better to perforate only a fraction (Le.
500 feet) of the wellbore and then recomplete at a
later date? These are questions that generally are
not evaluated in the performance of a horizontal well.
The perforating strategy will affect the skewing in the
production interval which will impact the ultimate
recovery.
The project justification. All of these factors play a
significant role in the ultimate justification of a
horizontal well project. The impacts of each factor
should be evaluated to choose the optimal
completion design.
Recommendations;
1. Build two simple radial flow models for horizontal
wells. Model 1 would calculate the AP friction for a
horizontal production interval with the Dikken
equations. Model 2 would calculate the AP friction by
the same method as the simulator which will be used
for reservoir studies. (If the simulator modifications
include Dikken .1P friction calculations, then perform
the reservoir studies outlined in Recommendation #3
and no Models need to be built.)
2. Determine the pseudo production diameter
required by Model 2 to match the .1P friction profile of
Model 1. The Model 1 profile is generated for
production parameters identical to those which will
be used in the simulation.
3. Use the "pseudo" diameter (or the Dikken AP friction
option, if available) in the simulator to study the
following:
Completion diameter. Design the completion in
such a manner as to either utilize or minimize the
impacts of the skewing of production to the front
end of the well.
Completion length. Evaluate the effect of varying
the completion length on the well's performance.
Partial completion. By completing only a portion of
the horizontal section the skew can be reduced
resulting in a more uniform production .profile.
Additional perforations or recompletion would be
possible when the production rate becomes
unsatisfactory. This option may have merit in
cases of severe skewing.
Rate restriction. Restrict the rate to generate a
more uniform pressure drawdown, less skew, and
improved recovery.
SPE 23666
Rw (Qw(@x)j(2-a)
..................( 1)
(6,9/R~(@x+e/d}/3,7)(t0/9)] F
[~(@
.. (3)
.. (4)
.. .. ...... (5)
Nomenclature:
d
inner diameter of liner (open to flow), m.
aid
wellbore roughness (dimensionless).
Pw pressure at position (x) along horizontal well,
Pa.
qw
well rate at position (x) along horizontal
wellbore, m3/s.
Aw flow resistivity inside horizontal well (Dikken).
Re
Reynolds Number (Eclipse).
a
parameter in description of turbulent flow (a ..
o rough inner surface; a - 0,25 smooth inner
surface) Dikken.
J.L
(dynamic) viscosity, Pas.
p
den&ity, kg/m 3 .
References;
1.
Dikken, Ben J.: "Pressure Drop in Horizontal
Wells and Its Effect on Production Performance,"
JPT (November 1990) 1426-1433.
2.
3.
23666
SPE
-8880
.c::
ii
QI
m
u
tQI
>
QI
:::s
....
-8900
-8920
16
iii (EHS)
c:
ena.-
-QI
.E
-a. a.
-8940 - ' 0 - - -
-0
c:
-8960
"u
-:::s---
I-
...0
'-a. -
-9000
3250
12
---
10
'----
Modell Match
"tJ
-8980
14
3450
3400
3350
3300
5000
PSI
FIGURE 1: Flowing pressure prollle (convened to True Venlcel Depth) of Inverted _
high angle well "A", The reservoir pressure drawdown profile (along the wellbore) IS
AP
1400
e-n
-::
a.
c:
1200
::tV
...
0
600
400
90~-----r-----.-----.------r---~
I
i
I
"-
70
200
.__ ."-
~
V
CASE A
..
---- .
...
..-
~-
......
404----~----~----
30+------r-----t
20,_ _ _
-I'
= 12340 SOPDl
~P = 1330 PSI
J
Q
1000
1500
Dikken Profile
Eclipse (Pseudo Diameter)
400
e:-
300
<l
200
a.
100
0
0
500
15
20
25
600
500
10
MMSO
en
-/---
60 - l - - - - - t t -
..
'" 0
500
; ,
,
!
50
-..
~".
---'+---'---r-=j~ _,
80
CASES
(Eclipse ~P Friction -"
Loss = 60 PSI)
a.
<l
............ ...........
"-
800
15000
FIGURE 2: Measured Productivity Indexes (PI) from Step Rate Tests on horizontal
well "8" and theoretical profile besed on Vogle alone. Measured pressures were
taken from. gauge .t the beginning of the horizontal production Interval.
1000
"tJ
..........
Rate 10000
(SOPO)
1000
1500
2000
Length (Feet)
FIGURE 5: Comparison 01 c.P pressure prolUes along a horizontal well.
One profile Is generated from Dikken's theory and the other by Eclipse
using the same well and reservoir parameters and a "pseudO diameter",
243
23666
SPE
-en
-c;::
Q.
1000 +-_..::!IiII~
__
!-1- - - - -
--t---
1,4-1----~
400
3:
200
1t----i9===:::::;;;~-+_---...J
O,6j--~~~:;J
0,4;------+------1----0,2+---O,O+--~--_ _ + _ _ - - - _ l _ - - - _ _ _ l
o
1500
500
1000
F--=.::::..=-~-=--=----"""----~---+------l
1000
1500
8000
-m:5:
-
6000
t il
G)
12000
7000
0
m
:E
10000
4000
:;::
6000
3000
"0
0
~
2000
Q.
1000
Q)
:5:
>
5000
c:
0
:::J
E
:::J
.-- t
I
.....
:::J
:;::
:::J
__-
0,8 'j--;=:=:i.=:l:=:-
a = 3460 iSOPO
t.P = 257 PSI - -
500
:E
800
<l
---
1,2-"",,_ __
Q.
2,0
1,8
1,6 -f---"'IIIoJe"
----1---------
"0
2 , 2 - , : : - - - - - - , - -_ _ _--r_ _ _ _~
1400 r---;:==+===~II----~
1200
a = 1~340 SOPO
I
+-'Wt:=-!=_t._P_=_13;-3_0_P_S_I_---I-
4000
.1
2000
\ -\
3000
6000
9000
12000
10
12
14
Years
244