You are on page 1of 44

Production from Two-phase Reservoirs:

Earlier flow relationships have considered only single-phase flow of oil.


The effect of simultaneously producing liquid (oil) and gas on the liquid
flow rate will now be considered.

As discussed earlier, the presence of a gas phase reduces the relative


permeability of oil.

The expansion of free gas creates an effective mechanism for the


production of fluids. The reservoir pressure, which is the driving force
for the flow, decreases rapidly with production from a reservoir
containing liquid only.

Comparing the Flow Equations for Single and Two-phase Flows:


STEADY STATE INFLOW:

INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP (IPR):

PSEUDO-STEADY STATE FLOW:

The complex analytical solutions to the two-phase flow equations will


not be considered in this course. The two-phase correlations of Vogel
and Fetkovitch will be presented.

Vogel's Correlations:
Vogel developed a set of inflow performance relationship (IPR) correlations.
The particular correlation that is appropriate is dependent on the magnitude
of the average reservoir pressure,

P,

and the wellbore pressure, Pwf, relative

to the bubble-point pressure, Pb. These correlations are valid for a wide
range of reservoir and fluid properties. Only the properties of the oil phase
associated with the two-phase flow are required for Vogel's correlations.
Case 1: Pwf <

Pb (original Vogel Correlation)

In this case there is two-phase flow throughout the reservoir:

o is evaluated using the arithmetic average of their values at Pwf and


(this approach is not theoretically justified).

Case 2:

> Pb but

Pb Pwf (Vogel's Generalised Correlation)

A limiting volumetric flow, qb, is defined which represents the flow that
occurs in the specific case when the wellbore pressure is equal to the
bubblepoint pressure (Pwf=Pb).

Fetkovitch Inflow Performance Relationship:


In some cases Vogel's correlations do not accurately represent well
behavior. The correlation of Fetkovitch can also be applied to two-phase
systems.
Fetkovitch developed an empirical equation based on two correlation
parameters, qo,max and n. To apply the correlation, well measurements
must be performed during at least two stable flow conditions.
Fetkovich's equation is adjusted to fit to the data using the parameters.
The following two equations are combined to give the final empirical
equation:

An IPR curve very similar to Vogel's is obtained when n = 1.24.

This correlation will be considered in more detail in a future section.

Calculations for Two-phase Flow in Horizontal Wells:


two-phase flow calculations in horizontal wells can be conducted using a
combined approach based on the horizontal well effective radius and
Vogel's correlations for vertical wells:

The value of rw' is substituted into the qo,max equation of Vogel's Original
Correlation, and in the qb equation in Vogel's Generalised Equations

Production from Natural Gas Reservoirs:


The development of flow equations for compressible gases is more
complicated than for nearly incompressible liquids (ex.oil). In particular, the
following effects are important with the flow of gases:
gas volumetric flowrate varies with pressure. Inertial effects, which result
from the expansion of gas caused by a reduction in pressure, are not
addressed in the incompressible liquid equations discussed earlier.
gas viscosity is a strong function of pressure (along with temperature)
which is not included in the earlier equations. This can have a significant
effect on pressure drop.
In addition, lower gas viscosity, combined with higher volumetric flow
rates, result in higher Reynolds numbers. It is possible for the flow
regime to be turbulent (not laminar as assumed in the earlier equation)
requiring a more sophisticated approach to calculations.

Equations of State:
For an ideal gas:

PV = nRT

For a real gas we introduce the parameter, Z, which is called the


compressibility factor or gas deviation factor. This factor compensates for
non-ideal behavior of a gas:
PV = ZnRT
One method of evaluating Z is to use the chart (see handout) which was
specifically developed for hydrocarbon mixtures. To use the chart, the
pseudo-reduced pressure, Ppr (=Pr), and pseudo reduced temperature Tpr
(=Tr), must be evaluated based on the pseudo-critical pressure and
temperature of the mixture, Ppc and Tpc respectively.
Ppr = _P_
Ppc

Tpr = _T_
Tpc

As temperature increases and pressure decreases Z 1 and the mixture


approaches ideal gas behaviour.

Real Gas Pseudo-Pressure:


Al-Hussainy and Ramey (1966) developed a different approach for
addressing non-ideal gas behaviour, which can be applied to the steady state,
transient (line source) and pseudo-steady state equations. This approach is
more accurate compared to the previous approach which used Z in situations
where there are significant changes in pressure.

The real gas pseudo-pressure is substituted for pressure in the flow equations
to compensate for the non-ideal gas behaviour. For example the pseudosteady state equation becomes:

The same approach is taken for the steady state and transient equations as
shown on the handout.
Approximations for the integral can be made for the following two cases:

Turbulent (non-Darcy) Dry Gas Flow from a Natural Gas Reservoir:


When low viscosity fluids (ex. gases) are produced at high volumetric flow
rates, the flow regime can become turbulent and the laminar flow
assumptions within Darcy's equation are therefore no longer valid. The
impact of turbulence can be addressed by using an empirical equation of the
form:

where C and n values are estimated from field data.


An alternative approach was developed by Aronolsky and Jenkins (1954)
through the use of a turbulent skin effect, Dqv:

Substituting the turbulent skin effect term into the pseudo-steady state
equation:

The general form for this equation (lumping together constants) is:

where a and b can be determined from field data.


Although the fitting of the constants a and b to field data is the most accurate
approach, the non-Darcy coefficient can be estimated from the following
equation:

HORIZONTAL GAS WELLS:


An approach similar to that used for vertical gas wells can be applied to
horizontal gas wells. Turbulent effects are normally negligible, therefore the
Dqv term is not required. The equations for horizontal gas wells are
provided on the handout.
When the horizontal well is only partially open to flow, turbulent effects
may become significant due to the higher gas velocities.

Gas Well Deliverability Testing:


This section considers methods which determine the coefficients employed
in the generalized equations for non-Darcy flow based on field data.
Generalized Equations:

Deliverability Tests:
Three deliverability tests will be considered:
1) Flow After Flow
2) Isochronal
3) Modified Isochronal
1) Flow After Flow Test: Initially, a specific flowrate of gas is delivered by
the well and the wellbore pressure is recorded after the flowrate has
stabilized. Next, a higher flowrate is applied and the stabilized pressure
is recorded. The method is repeated for a series of measurements.

Flow After Flow Figures:

Time to Stabilization:

2) Isochronal Test: A series of flows of increasing magnitude are set at the


well. A fixed time period is used from initiation of flow in the well to the
measurement of the pressure. Between flow measurements the flow is
stopped (shut-in) and the well is permitted to return to its original
pressure. The required shut-in time period increases with the magnitude
of the earlier flow. Overall, this method requires less time than the Flow
After Flow test.

3) Modified Isochronal Test: This testing method uses a fixed time period
for both flow and shut-in duration. A series of fixed flows of increasing
magnitude are applied.

Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOF): This represents the flow from the
2
P2 .
well when the wellbore pressure is 0 so that P 2 Pwf

Determination of the non-Darcy Flow Coefficient D and the Skin Factor S:

INTRODUCTION TO PRESSURE TRANSCIENT


ANALYSIS (PTA)
In earlier sections, gas wells were analyzed during the pseudo-steady state
flow regime (LTR). Using field data, parameters were determined for the
applicable equations. This section will consider the case where a well is
operating in the transient flow regime (ETR). This will occur when a well is
first being produced or when a shut-in or a change in flow is introduced.
Pressure transient analysis methods allow the Production Engineer to
investigate the character of the reservoir and obtain specific information for:
A) Reservoir Evaluation: For a new reservoir, the areal extent of the
reservoir and its producing capacity can be determined.
B) Reservoir Management: For a developed reservoir, the performance of
the well is analyzed to determine if stimulation is required.
C) Reservoir Characterization: The geometry of the reservoir can be
determined along with the presence of any features that would affect the
flow including faults and fractures.
As we saw earlier, the flow from an undersaturated well is governed by the
radial diffusivity equation:

When a given well testing method is used, certain boundary and initial
conditions apply. This gives a solution of the radial diffusivity equation
which is specific to the particular well test applied.

Types of Well Tests:


1) The Drawdown Test:
Following a period where a well was shut-in, a specific flow rate is
maintained. The wellbore pressure is measured while it is stabilizing to the
new flowrate.

Advantages:
There is production of oil during the test providing revenue.
Disadvantages:
It can sometimes be difficult to attain a stable uniform pressure prior to
the test.
It can also be difficult to maintain a uniform flowrate during the course of
the run.

2) The Buildup Test:


A constant flowrate is initially maintained at the well, then the well is shut-in
and the pressure recovery is monitored.

Advantages:
The flowrate is zero during the run so there is no difficulty associated
with maintaining a specific flow.
Disadvantages:
It is difficult to maintain a constant flowrate prior to the test.
While the well is shut-in, it is not producing any revenue.
3) The Injection Test:
Following a period of shut-in to allow the well-bore pressure to stabilize, the
wellbore pressure is monitored while a constant flow of an injection fluid is
introduced.

Advantages:
Pumping a constant flow of injection fluid is easily maintained.
Disadvantages:
The well produces no revenue during the test.
The injection fluid represents an additional expense for the well.
4) The Falloff Test:
In this test, fluid is initially injected, then the declining wellbore pressure is
monitored with the well shut-in.

Advantages:
Compared to the buildup test, it is much easier to maintain the flow of the
injection fluid compared to controlling the flow of fluid from the
reservoir.
Disadvantages:
The well produces no revenue during the test and incurs additional
expenses related to the injection fluid.
There are many other test methods including the Pulse Test, Drill Stem Test,
Interference Test, and Multirate Test.

Drawdown Testing of Undersaturated Wells:


In this testing, the well is considered to be operating in the Early Time
Region (ETR) where the infinite reservoir condition applies. Since the
reservoir is undersaturated, a single fluid phase is present (oil). The well is
operated such that there is a constant flowrate, qo. The following equation,
which was discussed earlier, applies:

The following approach is taken for Drawdown testing:


1. Wellbore pressure versus time data are collected while flow is held
constant.
2. The data are plotted on semi-log paper with log t on the x-axis and Pwf on
the y-axis.

The slope of the linear region is:

The straight line is extended and the pressure at 1 hour can be used to
determine the skin effect:

Buildup Testing:
This is the most popular well testing method. Buildup testing is particularly
useful because it provides an accurate estimate of P , the average reservoir
pressure, which is an important parameter for inflow equations as has been
seen earlier.
Horner Method: The following solution of the radial diffusivity equation is
used in this analysis (see Dake for the derivation of the technique):

This solution is obtained by subtracting two inflow equations written at the


time of the shut-in (tshut-in) and the other at some elapsed time after shut-in
(t). Using this approach, the skin effect factor is eliminated from the
resulting equation. This equation is idealized since it assumes, along with
the assumptions presented in the Drawdown section, the reservoir is
stabilized at the initial flow before shut-in. In addition, non-ideal effects
following shut-in are not considered. One effect, afterflow, causes the initial
pressure curve to be non-linear. Because the well is shut-in at the surface,
flow (afterflow) will persist in the column of oil in the production tubing for
a finite time period since the oil in the tubing is compressible to some
degree. The Horner plot is constructed by plotting log (tp + t)/ t on the xaxis and Pws on the y-axis which gives the following result:

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) Buildup Theory:


The MBH approach provides a method to determine the average reservoir
pressure, P , which is present at the time of the Buildup Test. Consider the
curves of the following figure for buildup tests conducted at different times
during the course of production from a reservoir:

The solid line represents the actual pressure curve that would be followed if
the well were shut-in for an infinite amount of time. The broken line
represents an extrapolation of the linear region which occurs just after shutin (the basis of the Buildup Test). When a well first starts to produce (Case
1), there is very little difference between the extrapolated pressure P1* and
the average reservoir pressure P 1:
After a short period of production, there is an increasing difference between
the extrapolated pressure (P*) and the average reservoir pressure ( P ):

The Mathews, Brons, and Hazebroek technique provides a method to


calculate the average pressure from the extrapolated pressure. Their method
uses the following steps:

Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) for Gas Wells:


The methods used to perform PTA on gas wells are very similar to those
used with undersaturated oil wells. For gas wells, the drawdown and
buildup equations are written in terms of P2 or real gas pseudo pressure
m (P).

Decline Curve Analysis (DCA):


In the previous section we considered the response of pressure to a step
change in flow. This approach allowed the calculation of k and S
(characteristics of the reservoir). The constant flow tests can be performed
over a period of hours or days.
With decline curve analysis the response of flow to a step change in pressure
is considered. This is used to estimate future well performance. Data for
this approach is collected over months or years.
To obtain higher accuracy, computational reservoir simulation is used in
place of decline curve analysis. Decline curve analysis remains useful for
rough estimates in larger reservoirs and in smaller reservoirs where the
expense associated with the computational approach cannot be justified.

You might also like