SPE 167562

A Holistic Approach to Defining Well Operating Envelopes

By Kassim Hamzat. Sonde Adenike, Ayeni Olukayode, Njoku Juliet, Ajayi Ayotunde and Akande Adebisi; Shell Petroleum
Development Company of Nigeria

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 5–7 August 2013.

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 have not been reviewed by the
Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Well performance management is a critical aspect of production particular well and
system optimisation in an oil and gas field. Accurately defining the iii) Surface facility constraints.
well operating envelope will not only ensure asset integrity, but will Several elements of the operating envelope were common for all 5
also ensure realistic production performance expectations fields but there were also field specific constraints that had to be
(forecasts) from available well resource. This paper discusses an evaluated. Once the envelopes have been defined for each field, a
approach to defining well operating envelopes that incorporates the calibration exercise is also performed with real life data gathered
technical limits and constraints of the various components of the over time. These checks serve to improve the confidence level on
producing well (i.e. reservoirs, sand face completions, tubing the calculated limits before deployment for use. .
erosion and surface production facility, etc.). The methodology
employs a visualization tool to graphically represent the operating Each component of the production system has established methods
envelope for the wells based on these constraints. for calculating the operating limits. The value of the holistic
approach lies in the integration of these various methods so as to
This approach has been implemented in several fields and wells in produce a combined outcome showing the interaction of the various
Shell Nigeria with varying completion types and field‐wide limits or envelopes. This ensures that the wells are producing in line
constraints. It has also been proven to be flexible enough to with statutory guidelines as well as applicable Shell well, reservoir
accommodate the possible variations between well types and field and facilities management (WRFM) standards.
peculiarities. The case study of five fields in SPDC Swamp West
Asset presented in this paper will demonstrate this flexibility. Some Field Descriptions
of the benefits realized include improved reservoir management The five fields discussed in the paper are located in the western
and water cut control. Furthermore, the visualization tool has been swamp area. R01 is an oil field with 44 producing conduits
used to carry out exception based well surveillance that has proven evacuated via 3 flow stations. The field is equipped with gaslift
to improve our response time to well deviations for better facilities. The R02 field, also equipped with gaslift has 59 conduits
deferment management. producing via 2 flow stations. Reservoir pressure depletion is a key
issue in R01 and R02.

Introduction R07, R09 and R05 fields are located in the southern swamp with a
combined conduit count of 38 producing strings via 2 flowstations.
This paper presents a holistic methodology and approach to These fields are not equipped with gaslift. The reservoirs in these
defining operating envelopes for oil wells. This approach has been fields benefit from strong aquifer drive and have recorded minimal
applied to five fields in the SPDC Swamp West Asset with depletion from initial pressure.
resounding success. The objective of wells operating envelope
calculations is to ensure optimal production of oil and gas wells
within the safe technical limits and constraints identified for the Defining the Envelope
field. Irrespective of the field constraints, certain elements of the
As illustrated in Figure 1, the well operating envelope is an operating envelope can be determined using the same methodology
interplay of three key performance boundaries: while some are field specific. The envelope is considered complete
i) The well integrity limits (e.g. tubing erosion, sand screen when the maximum and minimum liquid production, maximum
erosion, maximum allowable annular surface pressures, etc), GOR, maximum sand production rate, optimal lift gas (where
ii) The reservoir operating envelopes in relation to the applicable) and maximum annulus operating pressures are defined.
2  SPE 167562

This section describes the methodology used for specifying the 3. 3D Reservoir Simulation models
various components of the envelope. For each of these reservoirs, a range of liquid production rates was
chosen based on the historical production and pressure
Maximum Liquid Production performance of the reservoir. Prediction runs were then made with
The maximum gross rate for each well can be limited by various calibrated (history‐matched) reservoir models to assess the impact
parameters and this varies from well to well. Constraints identified of the different production rates on the reservoir pressure over
and calculated for the wells in these fields include: time. From the model prediction results (Figure 3), the maximum
 Rate dependent failure modes for wells with Internal liquid production rate from the reservoir, at which the reservoir
Gravel pack (IGP) as sand control pressure can be maintained or not depleted beyond 10% of its
 Maximum withdrawal rate for reservoir management initial value, was taken as the maximum liquid rate for pressure
(where applicable) management. These evaluations were carried out for all the
 Maximum Efficient Liquid Production Rates (where reservoirs which have pressure depletion issues in R01 and R02
applicable) fields.
 Tubing erosion rates
 Any other historical operational constraints Finally, the maximum liquid rate obtained for each reservoir was
The maximum rate for each well is then defined as the lowest of the split amongst the wells producing from that reservoir based on the
above rates. productivity of the wells, as determined from well tests. The rate
obtained for each well served as the well’s maximum liquid
Rate dependent failure modes for wells with IGP production rate in the well’s operating envelope.
For wells completed with gravel pack, screen erosional rates were
calculated based on empirical methods and real time data. Maximum Efficient Liquid Production Rates
Two globally recognized dominant failure modes/problems with For reservoirs which do not have pressure depletion issues in the
sand control completions using screens (e.g. in an IGP) as indicated R07, R06 and R05 fields, the maximum efficient liquid production
below were applied in computing the production constraint due rate (MELPR) above which the oil recovery from the reservoir
possible to screen failures: becomes compromised, was evaluated and set as the maximum
liquid rate for that reservoir. Different production rates were tested
‐ Annular destabilization criterion was calculated by limiting with calibrated (history‐matched) reservoir models to estimate the
critical velocity (Vc), i.e. the velocity of produced fluid as it total oil recovery from the reservoir at the different rates. The
maximum efficient liquid production rate for each reservoir was
enters the casing, at a maximum of 10ft/sec.
therefore obtained by:
‐ Screen erosion criterion was calculated by limiting screen  Making predictions using different maximum liquid rates in the
velocity (Vs), i.e. the velocity of fluid at screen after moving reservoir model.
through the gravel pack, to a max of 1ft/sec. (See illustration in
 Extracting the total oil recovery obtained at the end of a 10‐year
Figure 2)
forecast for each maximum liquid rate tested with the reservoir
model.
To calculate the liquid rate that translates to the maximum critical
and screen velocities, the approach used in the Gulf of Mexico (see  Plotting the total oil recovery obtained against the corresponding
Reference No. 3) was employed for all 5 fields. liquid rate tested with the model.
 From the plot obtained, the maximum efficient liquid production
In this application, the pressure drop across the perforations was rate, above which there would be no incremental gain in the total
determined from current production parameters and modeling (see oil recovery from the reservoir, or at which the total oil recovery
equation 3) where PTA data was not available. from the reservoir begins to decline, was taken as the MELPR
(Figure 4).
Equation 1 describes the general skin equation which can be
determined for producing wells at the current conditions. Equation Once the MELPR’s were determined for all the producing reservoirs,
2 shows the components of total skin, of which the mechanical skin the next step was to split the MELPR obtained for each reservoir
impacts the completion failure mechanism in question. Mechanical among the different wells producing from that reservoir. The split
skin can be related to the critical velocity Vc as shown in Equations between the wells was done based on the productivity of the wells
3, 4 and 5 and Vs can be expressed in terms of Vc and the annulus as determined from well tests, and the rate obtained for each well
area between the screen and the casing as shown in Equation 6. was taken as the well’s maximum liquid rate in the operating
envelope.
The equations for calculating Vc, Vs and the resulting maximum
liquid rate were embedded as formulae and in the operating Tubing Erosion
envelope spreadsheets thus enabling automatic computation of the The limits for tubing erosion for each well is determined by
screen erosion and annular destabilization criteria. simulation using the nodal analysis software PROSPER. To establish
the rate at which tubing erosion is likely to occur in the producing
Maximum Production Rates for Reservoir Pressure well, high rates are assumed as well as worst case of sand
Management production.
For reservoirs with pressure depletion issues, the maximum liquid
production rate which will ensure that the reservoir pressure is The model takes into consideration the Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) and
maintained or is not depleted beyond 10% of its initial value, was sand production rate in the determination of erosional limits.
evaluated and set as the Maximum Liquid Rate for that reservoir.
The maximum production rates were obtained using: Equation 10 & 11 describe the relation between fluid erosion
1. Historical Production/Pressure plots velocity and production rate as applied by the PROSPER simulation
2. Material Balance models tool. The C and F factors described in the equations are empirical
SPE 167562  3

constants that account for the kind of the service a tubular member five fields, the sweet spot was defined as the minimum (lower
is being used for. Equation 10 is applied for clear fluids however for value) between the DPR allowable rate and calculated maximum
sand laden fluids, both equations are evaluated and the more rate for the wells with the corresponding THP from the PQ curve.
conservative result is selected by the simulator. A C factor of 125
was applied as recommended by SPDC guidelines for tubing under These windows should also not be too small to allow for practical
continuous service and default S factor of 0.05. well operation which in reality is not perfectly stable and has its
allowable well test measurement errors. As a default, +/‐ 10%
Sand production is assumed to be at the maximum limit of 10 allowance has been defined for both pressures and rates.
Lbs/1000 bbls at any production rates.
Viewing the Envelope
Minimum Liquid Production An Excel based visualization tool was developed for viewing the
The minimum gross rate is defined by the outflow performance operating envelopes. The tool incorporates the tubing performance
curve of the well, which has to be produced beyond the lowest point and flowline curves as well as real time production data to display
of inflex of the curve to ensure stable production. A safety margin of the operating points with respect to the set envelopes. Being excel
10% beyond the actual minimum rate is also captured as well as based, it is flexible enough to be customized to display limits and
ensuring at least 1 bar in Flowing Tubing Head Pressure (FTHP) plots as required. For example, in the R01 and R02 fields where
from the top of the performance PQ curve. These boundaries have gaslift is available, the optimal lift gas injection plots were included
been set to allow for stable practical well operation. in the display. Figure 5 shows a snap shot of the visualization tool.

Maximum GOR Automation
For good reservoir management, the GOR should not exceed thrice To make the envelope easier to update and maintain, several
the Initial Solution Gas Oil Ratio (i.e.3*Rsi) or 5000 scf/bbl (based automation steps were incorporated. The tool was configured to
on statutory guidelines). The minimum GOR is 1*Rsi. The basis for interface directly with the IPM GAP system analysis software and
using Rsi as the lower limit is that based on the GOR vs reservoir extract the following for all wells concerned.
pressure curve for oil reservoirs, it is not expected for the well to 1. Tubing performance and flowline curves
flow at GOR’s significantly lower than Rsi. The low GOR trigger has 2. Tubing erosion rates
been set mainly to catch measurement / data entry errors. 3. Minimum rates for stable production
The methodology for manually calculating these rates were
Maximum Sand Rate translated into programs that enable this automation. If the
Well equipment / completion failure consideration defines the methodology is revised then the program will have to be updated
maximum sand rate limits. Generally, in SPDC, the permissible sand but this can be done fairly easily and will only be done once
limit for oil wells is 10pptb. In the absence of well specific sand irrespective of the number of fields required for update.
issues that may force a reduction of this limit, this maximum rate
has been applied. Calculation of the operating points was also automated to ensure
the data is always fresh as time elapses. When DPR allowables are
Annulus Pressure Operating Envelope updated for example, operating points are updated automatically
Maximum Allowable Annulus Surface Pressure (MAASP) is the while the corresponding THP can be extracted from the tubing
absolute maximum pressure measured at the annulus outlet valve performance curves at the click of a button.
that shall not be exceeded during any operation on the well. The
Maximum Allowable Wellhead Operating Pressure (MAWOP) Exception reporting for well surveillance
defines the upper limit of the operating pressure in the annulus and Exception reporting capability was also incorporated into the tool to
is, in the absence of any operational issue, set at 80% of the MAASP. extract the following.
The MAASP and MAWOP (annulus A) for the wells were calculated
and entered into the “Envelope data” worksheet of the operating ‐ Top ten oil gainers & losers,
envelope excel spreadsheet. ‐ Top ten BSW gainers & losers,
‐ Top ten GOR gainers & losers,
Gas lift Operating Envelope ‐ Top ten sand gainers & losers,
‐ Reservoir limit violations,
In fields with gas lift, the optimal lift gas injection rate was ‐ Reservoir limit bean up opportunities,
determined via simulation for each well and incorporated into the ‐ DPR allowable violations,
visualization tool. The aim is to give a view of lift gas injection and ‐ DPR allowable bean up opportunities and
possible opportunities for improvement and optimization during ‐ Wells yet to be tested.
well reviews.
The excel tool is used regularly to monitor production, check the
The Operating Window validity of well test and update the Operating Envelopes of the wells
Having established the boundaries for every component of the on production.
producing system, it becomes necessary to describe the region in
which the wells are to be operated. Within the stable regime defined Benefits of implementation
by the operating envelope, a further zone of optimization exists. The
“sweet spot area” is called the operating window. Apart from In R01, reservoir pressure management has been very critical for
optimization, this zone also allows for uncertainties (mainly rate several reservoirs. Since the implementation of this operating
and GOR related) as a result of metering equipment accuracy and envelopes methodology, pressure decline in reservoirs with
well tests execution issues. significant pressure depletion issues has been arrested, while
optimizing oil production. Figure 6 shows the decline profile for the
In other to ensure compliance with statutory requirements, for the largest reservoir in the field before and after the implementation of
4  SPE 167562

operating envelopes. 1. D.Hongen. A New Method of Predicting the Productivity and

Critical Production Rate Calculation of Horizontal Well (SPE
Deferment Management 97‐23, 1997)
With the use of the exceptions report, wells with significant
deviations are highlighted quickly and the team is able to respond 2. C. Price Simth, M. Parlar et al. Design Methodology for
accordingly. This has helped reduced the downtime of many of our
Selection of Horizontal Openhole Sand‐Control Completions
swing producers. A typical example is R01 well 13 which was
identified to have lost a total of 500 bbls of oil production over one Supported by Field Case Histories (SPE 85504, 2003)
month in one of the exception reports. This was investigated
immediately and rectified. The short fall was a result of a partially 3. G.K. Wong, P. S. Fair.et al. Balancing Act: Gulf of Mexico Sand
open subsurface safety valve due to a faulty surface communication Control Completions, Peak Rate Versus Risk of Sand Control
unit. Failure. (SPE 84497, 2003)

Driving Real Time Integration 4. Ivo Terziev and Ian Taggart. Improved Procedures for
Perhaps the most significant value derived from the use of this Estimating the Erosional Rates in High Offtake Gas Wells:
approach to defining well operating envelopes is the visualization
Application of University of Tulsa Flow Loop Derived
capabilities that foster integrated discussions around well
performance. During monthly production system optimization Correlations (SPE 88492, 2004)
meetings. Production technologists, reservoir engineers, production
programmers and operations engineers review each well vis a vis 5. J. Tronvoll, M. B. Dusseault et al. The Tools of Sand
the most recent well test and its operating envelope. Production Management (SPE 71673, 2001)
anomalies and data inconsistencies are easier to identify and
actions can be assigned immediately to resolve them. 6. SIPM B.V, Production Handbook Volume 4 Reservoir
Engineering
Conclusion
7. S. Srinivasan, J. M. Joshi et al. Feasibility of Development of
There are many methods for defining the operating envelope for Marginal Field Through Horizontal Well Technology (SPE /
different parts of the production system. The holistic approach
DOE 35439, 1996)
discussed in this paper has the advantage of bringing all the limits
together in one integrated environment where all the engineers
involved in the management of wells, reservoirs and facilities can 8. David L. Tiffin, Michael H. Stein, Xiuli Wang, BP America Inc.
have a joint understanding. Drawdown Guidelines for Sand Control Completions (SPE
84495, 2003)
This approach though flexible does not weaken the impact of the
methodology for calculating these constraints; instead it 9. J. P. Letkeman, R. L. Ridings. A Numerical Coning Model.
strengthens the message as it can be appreciated more easily with a (SPE 2812, 1970)
visualization tool.
10. S. J. Svedeman and K. E. Arnold. Criteria for Sizing
As other methods for establishing the limits for each of the
Multiphase Flowlines for Erosive/Corrosive Service (SPE
components are developed and accepted, the tool can be easily
updated to present the whole story all at once. 26569‐PA, 1999)

Forward plans for increasing functionality of the operating envelope 11. C. D. Wehunt. Well Performance with Operating Limits
will be to incorporate real time data from a real time operations Under Reservoir and Completion Uncertainties. (SPE
data historian like Plant Information (PI) to generate actions when 84501, 2003)
the well parameters are observed to be outside the established
operating envelope. 12. Slaats, Martijn. Implementation of well operating
envelopes. Shell Journal of Upstream Technology, 2010
References

Glossary of Terms
Department of Petroleum Resources (Regulatory body
DPR
for the Oil and Gas industry in Nigeria)

GOR Gas Oil Ratio

IGP Internal Gravel Pack

MAASP Maximum Allowable Annular Surface Pressure

MAWOP Maximum Allowable Well head Operating Pressure

SPE 167562  5

MBal Material Balance Simulation Tool by IPM

MER Maximum Efficient Rate

MoReS Shell’s Proprietary Dynamic Simulation Model

PQ Pressure‐Rate
PROSPER Well Nodal analysis tool by IPM
Rsi Initial Solution Gas Oil Ratio
THP Tubing Head Pressure



Equations

∗∆ …………………………………………………….…….……. 1
.
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ………….……….……………….. 2

∆ ……………………………….…………………….… 3

∆ ∆ ………………………………….…………………….… 4
Where

. ∗ ∗ ………………………………………….………….…... 5

. ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ …………………………………………………..….. 6

. . . ………………………………………………….. 7

.
. …………………………………………………..….. 8

………………………………………………..….. 9

Nomenclature
S = Total skin k = Formation permeability
h = reservoir thickness (ft) Q = flow rate (surface production) bpd
B = Formation volume factor (rb/stb) = Downhole fluid viscosity cp
PI = Productivity index (stb/d/psi) Vc = Critical velocity (the velocity of produced fluid as
it enters the casing)
Vs = Screen Velocity (the velocity of the produced fluid
as it enters the screen)
Lp = Length of perforation tunnel, inches Kg = Gravel permeability, mD
ρ= Down hole density, lb/ft3 β =Kinetic energy coefficient (for non darcy flow
through porus media) Beta Factor, 1/ft
A = Screen‐casing annulus area N = number of flowing perforations
= Average cross sectional area of perforations SPF = Shots per foot

6  SPE 167562

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . … … . 10

Where:

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . … … 11
√
Where:

Figures

Well Surface
Integrity Facility
Envelope Limits

Well
Operating
Envelope

Reservoir
Operating
Envelope

Figure 1: Illustration of Well Operating Envelope Components

SPE 167562  7

Figure 2: Typical completion components and flow schematic for cased hole gravel pack

Figure 3: Reservoir Model Predictions for evaluating maximum rates for reservoir pressure management
8  SPE 167562

Figure 4: Evaluation of Maximum Efficient Liquid Production Rate (MELPR)

Figure 5: Snapshot of Well Operating Envelope Visualization Tool

SPE 167562  9

Figure 6: Reservoir Pressure/Liquid Production Profile