BOYUN GUO KAI SUN ALL GHALAMBORface xervoir Deliverability of Sym of Figu of Tabl ‘oduct Wells Well Abou Sum Refer Probl, »pertie Intrac Petro Props Prope Prope Sumr Refer Probl »pertie Introc Litho! Ibore Performance .. ductivity of Wells with Simple Trajectories - ues - .™ Reservoir Permeability 48. Effective Permeability 50 Summary 60 References 60 Problems 62 Introduction 63 Vertical Wells 64 Fractured Wells 70 Horizontal Wells 76 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) 77 Construction of IPR Curves Using Test Points 90 Composite IPR of Stratified Reservoirs 96 Predicting Future IPR 106 Summary 112 References 113 Problems 115 Introduction 119 Single-Phase Liquid Flow 120 Multiphase Flow in Oil Wells 127 Single-Phase Gas Flow 147 Mist Flow in Gas Wells 154 Summary 154 References 154 Problems 157 Introduction 161 Principles of Well Productivity Analysis 161 Deliverability of Vertical Wells 162 ity of Fractured Wells 185 Deliverability of Horizontal Wells 189 Rese..2. eens oe Reservoir Total Compressibility 47Summary 202 References 204 Problems 206 ductivity of Wells with Complex Trajectories . Introduction 217 Multi-Fractured Horizontal Wells 217 Multilateral Wells 226 Summary 241 References 244 Problems 242 ductivity of Intelligent Well Systems Introduction 247 IWS Description 247 Performance of Down-Hole Flow Control Valves 257 Well Deliverability 292 Summary 305 References 308 Conversion Factors imum Performance Properties of API Tubing. hematical Model for Obtaining Oil Rate Correction tor Fy. a Reference 323 hematical Model for Obtaining Gas Rate Correction COP Figg ssscccenersersesnnsnen: a Reference 328* Chapter 3 addresses issues related to estimation of reservoir if this book. On the basis of our collective experience, we ey k to be of value to reservoir and production engineers in the p lustry. Advan revolul becom all typ G With + Couper» astomarmes meus vr reuisumy posse OMUN, CUO, F in the | with complex trajectories. well m . ss sls jutelli * Chapter 8 presents productivity of wells with intelligent completions. wee ipier § presents p: Y ee ph COUISE! Recamse the substance of this book is virtually boundless in depth, ments knowing what to omit was the greatest difficulty with its editing. The This m authors believe that it would require many books to fully cover the basics. of well productivity rodeling. To counter any deficiency that might arise This & from space limitations. the book contains a list of reference books and college papers at the end of each chapter, so that readers should experience little simply difficulty in pursuing each topic beyond the presented scope. EMS Regarding presentation, this book focuses on presenting and illustrating EAgiO the engineering principles used for well productivity model han the Ua covering in-depth theories. The derivation of mathematical models is duction beyond the scope of this book. Applications are illustrated by solving wells % sample problems using computer spreadsheet programs except for very book h simple problems. All the computer programs are provided with the book. and gra Although the US. ficld wnits are used in the text, the option of using ST 7 units is provided in the computer spreadsheet programs. his be sally 1 This book is based On numcrous documents, including reports and papers models 2¢eumulated through years of industry and academic work by the authors. : We are grateful to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and to Baker Folk © i) Tools, Ine., for permission to publish their material. Special thanks are PreseMt dye to Chevron Corporation for providing Chevron [and Chevron IT pro- fessorships during the editing of this book. Our thanks are also due to Dr. * Ch Baojun Bai of the University of Missouri at Rola, wha made a thorough © Chapter 2 outlines methods for tens fluid properties thar are ess eatial for analyzing oil and gas wells,LISt OF [SDYTTIDPOIsS ross-sectional arca for Muid flow, or drainage ar hoke port area ‘PI gravity of stock tank oil pstream hydraulic flow arca ownstream hydraulic flow arca wmation volume factor of oil armation volume factor of gas armation volu e factor of water olytropic const nm rainage area shape factor hoke discharge coefficient pecifie heat of liquid otal compressibility: pecific heat of gas at constant pressure control walwe coefficient pecific heat of gas at constant vo me as heat capacity at constant volume il heat capacity at constant volume ‘ater heat capacity at constant volume ag coefficient aner diameter in feet, or non-Darcy flow cocfficchoke poriquuicd mass Pow, were Wwedraulic 2255 Dhow rate fromvineo layer # z as phasc mass Mow rare at dowmnso: squivalent quid phase mass flow race at down nertial fo, Stal mass Pow wate ipstream hotecular weiehe Of sas inetic enaass flow rate at wellhead ninimum @*8Ure mass Mow rate 26 downsemes . Oly ire pic ex pament far gas racture cc pe diameter mum ber Quid wiscasity mumtber fOrrectionLe ymolds numalber arey Wires velocity number = aid werhociny mun ber sorrection' ~ ™ nessun owo-phase UMGspheric pressure AWHANO) Bubble point pressure IWaVvilLaliOnowensteeccmm pressure muss flux *Servodr pressure rellhecad Mowing pressure jay zone t aitial reservoir pre inisotropy _ _ Messure at Kick-Oart point uae woductivi, crage pressure im the inner region weduchiVieres sare wat thes ondel-—che pth sroductiviTeSSure at choke outlet ss ote Sou Orcclimced pressure ffective KR =m acture permeability horizontal permeability ‘ertical permeability engthferage temperature wo aren Lendoreduced bem pera IPMS SM Gcdard tom perature lowing b Streak Gas bem perature WESSUNS (id welocity Sservour gxqure weloacity re SUS bperliicial velocity of gas phase WESSUIS 4nperficial velocity of liquid phase $eSsSUNC tixmunc Muid velocity at upstream IPS fate Mudd velocity at downst\mean Loo mre oe of the pipe segment iquid flovstream gas specific volume Ss pProdipwnmstrcam gas specific wolume iquid Mous volursc im standard! come icom nindmunestrcam liquid specific volume dow rate I wolurme im stock tank condition wittcal ofS Volume in standard come and prodmminal slip velocity water prot volume iniversal @cture wiclth mn stock tank condition adius of &¢ 2&5 in-situ quality at upstream i in-s adius of. situ quality at upstream ater im- iqudeallen siti quality at epserearn z macture F sorluticon wellbore © £85 quality at upstream 5 SW Ste aI fo upSstrcam pressure ro Wkin fact e P - a Win factor of the mon-fracturced welll emperature im IRuu Wow neues stance of boundary f density of stock tank oil ritical downstream-to- . water density OSU ELE Ne alf drainage length pe quid holdup density of fluid at wellhead as compressibility fac density difference verage gas compressit 5 mixture density at top of tubing seg alf of the distance bev pstream gas compress Mixture density at bottom of segme levation change arameter © = 7 Coane parameter group pstream-downstream liquid. interfacial tension clative roughness orosity Muid viscosity pecific gravity of the lpas viscosity EPSDE ole Beaty average gas viscosity il specific gravity pecific gravity of prod Joule-Thomson coefficient sater specific gravity liquid viscosity (uid density = verage mixture density ensity of air as density pstream gas density ownstream gas density ensity of fluid from/inte layer i quid density Vixture densityIntroduction 1.1 Wells and Reservoirs (Oil and gas wells are used for extracting crude oil and natural gas from oil and gas reservoirs, There are three types of wells: gas condensate, and gas. Their classification depends on the producing gas-oil ratio (GOR). Gas wells produce at a GOR greater than 100,000 scfisth; condensate wells produce at a GOR less than 100,000 sef/sth but preater than 5,000 scfisth; and oil wells produce at a GOR less than 5,000 scf/sth. Unit con- version factors for the SI systems are provided in Appendix A. A naturally flowing well consists of a reservoir segment, wellbore, and wellhead (Figure |= The reservoir seginent supplies the wellbore with production fluids (crude coil and/or natural gas). The wellbore provides a path for the fluids to flow from bottom hole to the surface, The wellhead permits control of the fluid rate. An il or gas reservoir is a single porous and permeable underground rock formation containing an individual bank of fluid hydrocarbons, and con- fined by impermeable rock or water barriers. It contains a single natural pressure system, An oil or gas field is an underground region ae of one or more reservoirs, all related to the same structural feature. An or gas pool is a more extensive region containing one or more reservoirs, in isolated structures, Engineers classi |. gas condensate, and gas reservoirs om the basis of the initial reservoir condition and hydrocarbon composition, An oil that is ata pressure above its bubble point is called an undersaturated oil, 1Figure 1-1 A naderafly flowing well proditces ail and gas by its own pressure because it can hold more dissolved gas at any given temperature (Figure 1-2). An oil that is at its bubble-point pressure is called a satu- rated oil because it can dissolve no more gas at any given temperature. In an undersaturated oil reservoir, single (liquid) phase Now occurs, Two- phase (liquid oil and free gas) flow occurs in a saturated oi reservoir. ‘Oil reservoirs are further classified on the basis of boundary type, which determines the driving mechanism. The three types of reservoirs are * Waterstrive = Gas-cap drive + Dissolved-gas drive In water-drive reservoirs, the oil zone is connected through a continuous Pressure path to 4 ground water system (aquifer). The pressure duc to the water column forces the oil and gas t the top of the reservoir against the impermeable barrier that restricts further migration (the trap boundary). This pressure forces the oil and gas toward the wellhore. Under a constantFigu, gasp Figure 1-3 Ina water-drive reservoir, pressure exerted at the water-oil contact (WOC) forces the oil up and toward the wellbore. will decrease rapidly, Some oil reservoirs display both water and gas-cap driving mechanisms. A dissolved-gas drive reservoir is also called a solution-gas drive reser- voir (Figure 1-5). The oil reservoir has a fixed volume, bounded by impermeable structures or layers (faults or pinch-outs), In dissolved-gas drive oil reservoirs, the driving mechanism is gas held in solution in the Be water, if any), During paOGOBEGAL, the dissolved gas expands and compensates for the inevitable pressure decline in reservoir sa. Dissolved-gas drive is a weaker mechanism in a volumetric res- ervoir than either water-drive or gas-drive. If the reservoir pressure drops. to a valuc below the bubble-point pressure of the oil, gas escapes from the and oil-gas two-phase competing flow begins. This reduces the effec- tive permeability of the reservoir to increases the viscosity of the remaining oil, and thus reduces productivity and ultimate oilFigure 1-4. /na gas-cap drive reservoir, pressure is exerted on the oil hy the overlying gas cap, forcing it award and inte the wellbore. recovery. Early attention lo pressure maintenance can increase ultimate recovery in the solution-gas drive reservoir. For a typical oil well that delivers Maids io the surface solely due to the natural pressure of the reservoir, a completed wellbore is composed of casings, tubing, packers, and optional down-hole chokes (Figure |). A wellbore is like an upside-down telescope, The large diameter borehole section is at the top of the well, Each suecessive section of the wellbore is cased to the surface using narrower and narrower strings of nested casing. Lastly, « liner is inserted down the well that laps over the last casing at its upper end. Each casing of liner is cemented into the well (usually up to at least where the cement overlaps the previous cement jab). ‘The final casing in the well is the casing (or production liner). Once this casing has been cemented, tubing is run down the well. A packer is usually used near the bottom of the tubing to isolate theFigure comes j falls be larly ee produc Tubing vides a head. 1 nomina inside | determi) ignated bers rey perforn Figure 1-6 A npicel flowing oil well requires specific equipment from the bottom of the wellbore to the producing weltheud. mechanical assembly used for hanging a casing string, The lowermost casing bead is threaded, flanged, or studded into the surface casing (Figure 1-7). Depending on the casing programs used during drilling, sew- eral casing heads might be installed. The casing head has a bowl which supports the casing hanger, which is threaded into the top of the casi jor utilizes friction grips to hold the casing). As in the case of the tubing, the ma casing is suspended in tension so that the casing hanger actually supports it down to the freeze point. In a similar manner, the intermediate casings are supported by their respective casing hangers and bowls, The casing heads are all supported by the surface casing, which is in compression and cemented to the surface. A com- pleted with three easing strings will have two casing heads. The uppermost casing head supports the Production casing, while the lowermost casing head is attached to and is supported by the surface casing. The wellhead is the surface equipment sct below the master valve ancl includes: multiple casing beads and a tubing head. A casing bead is aFigure 1-7) The wellhead is the link between casing and tubing within the wellbore and the surface production equipment. ‘The tubing string is supported at the surface by the tubing head, which is supported, in turn, by the casing head, The tubing string is in tension all the way down to the packer. ‘The “Christmas Tree” is connected to the tubing head by an adaptor and regulates fluid flow from the well (Figure 1-8). The Christmas Tree have one ow outlet (a tee) or two flow outlets (a cross). A typical Christmas Tree consists of a master valve, wing valves, and a needle valve, located just below the tbing pressure gauge. The master valve and wing valves can close the well partially or completely when needed, but to replace the master valve itself, the tubing must be plugged. At the top of the “Christmas Tree,” a pressure gauge indicates tubing pressure when the needle valve is open.Wellhead _~ Downhole Choke Figure 1-9 = Either wellhead or down-hole chokes can be used to regulate well fluid flow Figure 1-2 Well Productivity Passi “The past two decades have seen rapid changes in field development methods. The traditional way to develop oil and gas fields has been 1 Surfac Grill and complete vertical wells with specifi spacing chosen to cor- respond with the properties of a beapentli: oil and gas reservoirs being developed. New technologi construction and stimulation intro- duced over the Last 30 years include horizontal well drilling (Joshi 1991), multilateral well dri s (Gao et al. 2007), botton eMhanced oil recovery methods (Willhite 1986), and hydraulic fracturing (Economides and Nolte 2000). These aewer technologies permit drilling tothe’ fewer wells to develop oif and gas fields, with lower costs and improved In som il and gas recovery Tht ncctatal reeerveis “ataadlaisrs ave seviliitiataca WIE aad gas ses aa developmem. A development strategy targeting maximu: and gas Ov stream. A major disadvantage of the down-hole choke arrangement is that they are more expensive to replace than those chokes installed in the Christmas Tree.recovery can be designed using reservoir simulation in a few days to a few weeks. However, reservoir simulators are subject to GIGO (garhage- in, garbage-out). They require realistic well models and reliable input data for the specific reservoir and fluid properties. This book addresses both the well model and input data quality issucs and cmphasizes the realistic well models that should be used in both reservoir and simulation. Reservoir productivity is mot the same as well productivity. The former is usually described the inflow performance relationship (IPR), which predicts the oil or gas rate ala specified bottom-hol While reservoir productivity refers to the reservoir’s a to and gas te the wellbore, productivity refers to the rate of Gil or gas by a well against a specified wellhead pressure. Thus the welll ty is the well’s ability to deliver ail and gas to the wellhead productivity is determined by both reservoir producti and wellbore performance (flow resistance). This book presents welll models and productivities of various types of wells at designed wellhead pressures. For simple well trajectories such as vertical and horizontal well a Schlumberger patent) can Although analysis can be performed system as a solution node, it is usually conducted hole or wellhead as the solution node, This is because meusurcd pressure data are normally available at these two points and these data can be used for evaluating Pie of NODAL analysis, This book illustrates the principle of analysis using bottom-hole as the solution node where IPR is readily available for predicting the productivities of wells with simple trajectories. For more complicated well trajectories, such as multilateral wells, am iter- ation procedure proposed by Guo et al. (2006) can predict well produc- tivity. It uses a trial-and-error method to couple pressures. flow rates, and fluid properties in different wellbore branches, and equipment such as down-hole chokes to estimate oil and gas production at the surface. 1.3 About This Book This book provides realistic well models 0 use in reservoir and produc- tion sinvulations. The contents are arranged to make the material usefuloe a Cl Cha tical oc hat are the advantages and disadvantages of using dow oki rather than Wellhead chokes? addr Although U.S. field units are used throughout the text of this book, all attached spreadsheet programs are coded with both U.S. field units and ST units. Unit conversion factors are presented in Appendix A 1.4 Summary This chapter provides an introduction to ofl and gas wells and defines the concept of well productivi 1.5 References Economides, M_ J. and Nolt Sons Lid., New York (2000). Gao, C., Rajeswaran, T.. and Nakagawa, E.: “A Literature Review on nart Wall Technology.” paper presented at the 5 Production and Operations Symposium (31 March-3 April 2007), Oklahoma City, OK. Guo, B., Zhou, J., Ling, K., and Ghalambor, A.: “A Rigorous Composite- IPR Model for Multilateral Wells,” paper SPE 100923, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (24-27 September 2006), San Antonio, TX D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publishing Company, OK (1991). SPE: Mufrilateral Wells Reprint No. 53, Richardson, Texas (2002). Willhite, G.P.; Warerflooding, SPE, Vol. 3, Richardson, Texas (1986).‘Composition of a Typical Petroleum Fluid Component Mole Fraction Cc; O.775 C2 0.083 Cz 0.021 PCy 0.006 n-Cy 0.002 trodu RCs 0.003 vil, nai ws 9.008 erized Cg O.001 ropert 7 0.001 af thi Cr nd no Nz 0.050 Pthe fl co; 0.030 HS 0,020 atrole turalbOPe rties of Oil lydPGerties include its solution gas-oil ratio, density, formation vol 1 288. iscosity, and compressibility. The latter four properties are arbonshrough the fi rizes © (Cy he: solution Gas-Oil Ratio ixture = anatUtion gas-oil ratio is the fundamental parameter used to ch: Lol, [tis defined as the volume of gas, normalized to standard change and pressure (STP), which will dissolve in a unit volume of « ubble- @ pressure and temperature of the actual reservoir. That is 4 phas: the prsolution gas-oil ratio of an oil is 600 sefistb at 4.475, psia and 14 athe following PVT data, estimate density and viscosity of the c the following pressure and temperature: tubble-point pressure: 2.745 (psia) dil gravity: 35 (APD) jas specific gravity: 0.77 (air equals 1) ‘ON ‘his problem may be quickly solved using spreadsheet program i1Properties.xIs in which Standing’s correlation for oil viscos- y has been coded. Input data and program output are shown in “able 2-2. Properties of Natural Gas ral gas properties include gas specific gravity. gas pseudocri ure and temperature, gas v i ty, gas formation volume factor, and gas compressibi The depend on natural gas composition. The remainder depend on « ion, pressure, and temperature. Gas Specific Gravity specific pravity is defined as the ratio of the apparent molec ht of the gas to that of air. The molecular weight of air is ust | a8 28.97 (approximately 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen). TI the gas specific gravity can be expressed as y, = « © MW, is the apparent molecular weight of the gas, which can be on the basis of its composition. Gas composition ally d din laboratories and is reported in mole fractions of the tonents. For example, if y; is the mole fraction of component iOllProperties.xis pertics.xIs ation: This spreadsheet calculates density and viscosity of 2 il. ion: 1) Click a unit-box to choos on” section. Data: re (p) rature (t): :point pressure (p,): ank oil gravity (APT): nm gas-oil ratio (R.): eeific gravity (7,): 141.5 API+131-5 62.4y,, + 0.0136R,7, 1972+ p.000140 r, [ve + 125 ¥. ylm-aaes. 330 Arr) ¢ 7 aay BESS ‘ API 200) r+ 200 : a unit system; 2) Updat ter values in the “Input Data” section: 3) View result in the US Field Unit 4475 140 2745 35. 600 O.77 = 0.8498 = 44.90 = 4.6559 = 2.7956 oA cpOl, mi pressibility is defined as (2-21 ay oe ae = 52x10" r ompressibility is measured in laboratories, with values i 10°° psi-!. Water compressibility is often used in modeling + erformance and in reservoir simulation. 774x107 10x 107 = - Oummary g 'Opter defined relevant properties of oil, natural 102 a0, 2 provided several techniques for using empirical correlation “ their values. These correlations are coded in spreadsheet 4 vcluded with this book. Applications of these fluid properties - 4, #O.«nted in later chapters. . and produ t molecferences Te Hydrocarbon Phase Behavior, Gull Publishing Company . 1989. “The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Cias, Crude Oils and I ed Gases at Oil Field Temperatures and Pressures.” Trans. All 16): 94-112. TW, is al ponents1.D. and Robinson, J.R.: “Estimating the Viscosity of Crude € ean be.” Journal ef Petroleum Technology (September 1975}: | 140- uch ast 10.9. P.. and Beggs, H.D. The Hague, 1974. Two-Phas ‘low in Pipes.” INTERCOR jas Ps@.. Kobayash . ider Pressure vilar wa composy, J. R.: “Computer Routine Treats Gas Viscosity as a Variabl propertits Journal (16 August 1965): L41. nds it contains. Ihe gas critical properties determined in su R. and Burrows, D.B.: “Viscosity of Hydrocart Trans. AIME 201 (1954): 264-72.Dean, D-E_ and Stiel, L. L: “The Viscosity of Non-polar Gas Mixtures at Moderate and High Pressures.” AICHE Journal 4 (1958): 430-456. Glas, O.: “Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations,” Journal of Petroleum Technology (May 1985): 785-795. Hall, KR. and Yarborough, L.: “A New Equation of State for Z-Factor Calculations,” O11 & Gas Journal (18 June 1973): 82. Khan, 3..A.: “Viscosity Correlations for Saudi Arabian Crude Oils,"paper SPE 15720, presented at the 30" Middle East Conference and Exhibition (7-10 March 1987), Manama, Bahrain. Lee, A. L.. Gonzalez, M.H. and Eakin, B.E.: “The Viscosity of Natural Gases.” Journal of Petroleum Technology (August 1966): 997-1000. MeCain, W.D., In: Properties of Petroleum Fluids, PeanWell Books, Tulsa (1973). Standing, M. B.: Volume and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 9" ed, Dallas (1981). Standing. M. B. and Katz. D.L.: “Density of Natural Gases.” Trans. AIME 146 (1954): 140-9. Wichen, E. and Aziz, K: “Calculate Zs for Sour Gases.” Hydrocarbon Processing 51 (May 1972): 119. 2.8 Problems 2-1 Estimate the density of a 35 API gravity dead oil at 90°R, 2-2. The solution gas-oil ratio of a crude oil is 800 sefisth at 3,000 psia and 110°F. Given the following PVT cata Bubble-point pressure: 2,550 psia Oil gravity: 45 “APT Gas specific gravity: 0.70 air = 1 estimate the density and viscosity of the crude oil at 10°F: at 2.550 psia and at 3,000 psia.or the role —— | scuda x h | Zu 3-2) Parameters for a horizontal wellbore. Permeability Determination rtical wells fully-penetrating non-fractured reservoirs, it is ust wage (geometric mean) of horizontal permeabilities, £,,. that d ong-term production performance. The average horizontal pen nay be derived from data obtained during the horizontal radial . For wells draining relatively small portions of hydraulically- eservoir segments, it is usually the permeability in the dire dicular to the fracture surface that controls long-term prociue nce. This permeabilit, Ww be derived from the horizon Li isiim sorm 2gime. For horizontal wells draining relatively large port Ise thetured reservoir segments, it is usually ag: y faczontal permeabilities that dominates long-term production pe sia,$ This average horizontal permeability can be derived from y th¢e-radial flow regime. For vertical wells partially-penetrating oe ed reservoirs, both hor ontal and vertical permea s influ stiMpm production performance. These permeabilities can usuall 1 from the so-called hemispherical flow regime. n the geometric 1 che s O Mesimes are usually identified using the diagnostic pressure de nabb> &XPressed as dil st isa p= 74ap _ Ap intr) dt stimate density and viscosity of the crude oil at 50°C: at 5 MPa and at 20 MPa.Ap=P,—P., a wwdown tests where p; and p,, are initial reservoir pressure g bottom-hole pressure, respectively. For pressure buildup tests, efined as AP = P,.. — Pre G . and p,, are shut-in bottom-hole pressure and the flow i-hole pressure at the end of flow (before shut-in), respective y type of radial flow—that is, horizontal radial flow. vertical rav and horizontal pseudo-radial flow—the diagnostic derivative id from Equations (3.15), (3.17), and (3.20) as = BAP SBT GB dingt) 4k, = & is the average permeability in the flow plane (&, or &,.), and fistance of radial flow (f or £). Apparently, the diagno: constant over the radial flow time regime. The plot of p" vers vould show a straight line parallel to the tax ear flow—that is, flow toward a hydraulic fracture—the diagno ive is derived from Equation (3.16) as pa = I B zudo-1 ear flow—that is, flow toward a horizontal well—the di derivative is derived from Equation (3.19) as pon SP. qB ‘Hi a P< dint) 2EGh— =, )\RPe,k,Sen rene nt Ge agente oe B 7 toa(0) Htox{ tt aah } Ga ue, meek, log(p’) loz(p') H tes) +toe( st Saat K ) ns (3.27) and (3.28) indicate that the defining characteristic ow regime is the half slope on the log-log plot of diagnostic de rsus time. e flow regimes are identified, slope analysis can be used to ca ‘voir permeab For any type of radial flow, Equations and (3.20) indicate that plotting bottom-hole pressure ¢ ni-log scale will show a trend with constant slope mig where __ abu mm, G ‘rage permeability in the flow plane (k, or &,,) can then be + ¥ SE AH yin, type Of linear Now, Equations (3.16) and (3.19) indicate that 5 ttom-hole pressure against the square-root of time will sho constant slope mm, where qh Se 3 A,X, ‘ m, =—yp aN Ag Sada IO UNO; Sellbow WY ALS linear Factor Shape & Factor in be e: anape ae ‘Snape Re eA Factor apes: Factor "aS c. atten cn toe 2 ; 2 wizonts to bec I sermea | ES] 408 ‘(EEE evar z 2 z . 3 ie a gate 3 gh kya e insigh 7} |. ona si i eI Skin F, 7 45 Shape factors for closed drainage areas with high-asp actor is deal co itions wter that controls well production rate. The efficiency of the t for thePends on fracture dimension (length and height), and the jerivatiel the second stage depends on fracture permeability. The re ence of each can be analyized using the concept of fracture co ressur and (3.4fZawal ct al. 1979; Cinco-Ley and Samaniego 1981) define flow reg kw Fep = ‘ kx,Fcp = fracture conductivity (dimensionless) y tnd) ky= fracture permeab w = fracture width (Ft) = fracture half-length (ft) tions where the fracture length is much smaller compared to 2 area of the well, the long-term productivity of a fractured + estimated assuming pseudo-radial flow in the reservoir. In + 2 inflow equation for steady-state flow can be expressed as «alp,—P.,) =? (4. 141.28) In +S, Pe ‘pis the equivalent skin factor for the fractured well, and takes r alues. The factor of increase im reservoir deliverability can ed as a. J = productivity of fractured welll (stb/d-psi} J, = productivity of non-fractured well (stb/d-psi) ective skin factor Sjcan be determined based on fracture cond Cinco-Ley and Samanigo (1981) showed that the param: (x, /,) approaches a constant value of about 0.7 in the rangs O0—that is. = 0.7 —In(x, fr)on fracteatauey Gebinkanedustiniguéiacisn ant fen ility an Factor. spp In(x, / hat is, 200 too \ gives 190 100 [Ls 100 varing Uy “" neon o 200 400 soo aoa 1000 1 ‘ermeal res. Th 4 (stb/day) bl4 IPR curves for Sample Problem 4-5, Well A. revious lost fro. benefit FOR WELL B et alt hole rai de 4 Ps Pan Bors \" P-pP,) 1-o./ }-oa[ ‘| . [@ “Pl Pe Ps 900 fusion zy 3000: 2000 2000 000 — 3000) + "2 | 1-0-2] oo |- 0-8] ooo SAMPI| [e ) 1.8 ( Se ) ( 3000 ) | reservi 28 fds = 0.3156 stb/day-psi red to ¢ zal of increase in reservoir deliverability? EY Gr Guru usc Comer U4 Are Lu uae aca, Wwindt as uiE CApeESurcunmeu por no a Pup(psiad q (stb/day) oO 1157 500) 1128 1000 1075 1500, 909 lw 2000 900 = 2500 717 3000 631 5000 oO vic IPR curve is illustrated in Figure 4-14 e1 o 200 a0 600 800 1900 1 ai q (stb/day) Lol 4415 IPR curves for Sample Problem 4-5, Well B.IN EAWHON (4.04) Into Equanen (4.09) ana imegraung ves oorosze k, } in( s 1 2 | 2p, (p? — Pi.) (4a a, =F" (p? — pi,) el 2kh >, = 2.007082 4h ta[ = } Fe rivative of Equation (4.65) with respect to the flowing bottom-h re is tau dq, Se = 287) Pay ce AP uy nplies that the rate of change of g with respect to p,¢ is lower values of inflow pressure. we can modify Equation (4.63) to take into account the fact that ep, is not constant, but decreases with cumulative production. 1 stion made is that J", will decrease in proportion to the decrease e reservoir (drainage area) pressure. Thus, when the static pressi sp), the IPR equation is a=s% oe(e: —pi,) thwsewers (4 (4 equations may be used to predict future IPR. SAMPLE PROBLEM Fetkovich’s method, plot the [PR curves for a well in which ) ysia and J"; = 5 x 10 stb/day-p: Predict the [PR's of the we il shut in static pressures of 1500 psia and 1000 psia. te value of J,” at 1500 psia is 2000 =3.75%10~ stb /day- (psia)” ad the value of J,’ at 1000 psia is <10*( 3000) 2000 =2.5«10% stb/ day-(psiation (4.5 jy = mixture density at bottom of segment (Ib/ft?) ixture density at any given point can be calculated based on ma 2000 PSr< and volume flow rate, expressed as q (stb “Af Pay Gl Oo 38 72 74 M =350.17(7, +WOR y.)+GOR p.,7, G.l 5.61518, + WOR B,)+ (GOR — R.){ Y% = oil specific gravity (1 for fresh water) = producing water-oil ratio (bbV/stby) water specific gravity (1 for fresh water) producing gas-oil ratio (sef/sth) PR curv p,;,= density of air (b,/ft) % = gas specific gravity (1 for air) nmary V_ = volume of mixture associated with I stb of oil (15) B,, = formation volume factor of oil (rb/stb) wer DF B,.= formation volume factor of water (rb/bbI) ae R, = solution gas-oil ratio (sef/stb) flow reg P= in-situ pressure (psia) 7T = in-situ temperature (“R} against : me Lest | <= gas compressibility factor at p and T tmadel. At least two test points are required to validate an igle-gas flow or two-phase flow) IPR model.id forr as (2.2 plowing given data, calculate the tubing shoe pressure: head pressure: S500 ad temperatur 100 inside diameter: 1.66 shoe depth: S000 ature at tubing shoe 150 * eduction rate: 2000 at: 25 is the ing GLR: 1000 ae %0 developecifie gravit 1.05 gravity: 0.65 problem may be solved using spreadshe: psia op in. fe oR stb/day sefystb oAPI 1 for fresh we 1 for air program Poett- Dev) isn-CarpenterBHP-.xls, as shown in Table 5—1. eXPT Gil-water-sand four-phase flow model developed by Guo ,or (2005) assumes no-slip of the denser phases, but tak ntegrated) form, which makes it eusy to use. It is expres = l44p,, + My +N Bodin Spi, et sl |e urate 2 (t44p,., +My +N + mode! b ng stril alata + (Mee) (eg = = tan i tan ly to ee ale vn VN Mede)L dearest =) sprea ad and as umcruaeu in unas OOK.Re mw 5-7 SAMPLE PROBLEM Solve the problem in Sample Problem 5-6 using the Cullender and Smith method. ‘SOLUTION This sample problem cam be solved using the spreadsheet pro- gram Callender-Smith.xis. Table 5—5 shows the data input and result sections. The pressures at depths of 5,000 ft and 10.000 ft are 937 psia and 1,082 psia, respectively. These results are exactly the same as that given by the AverageTZ.xbs. 5.5 Mist Flow in Gas Wells In addition to dry gas, almost all gas wells produce a certain amount of liquids. co ig OF formation water and/or gas condensate (light oil). Depending on pressure and temperature, gas condensate may not be seen at the surface in some Wells, but it exists in the wellbore, Some gas wells also produce sand and coal particles. All of these wells are called multi- phase gas wells. Guo and Ghalambor's (2005) four-phase flow model presented in section 5.3.3.1 J to mist flow in gas we applications in liquid loading wea in be shown in Chapter 6. 5.6 Summary ‘This chapter presented and illustrated different mathematical models for describing wellbore/ftubing performance. Among many models, the modi- fied Hagedorn-Brown (mHB) model has been found to give results with sat- isfactory accuracy for multiphase flow. Industry practice is to conduct flow gradient (FG) surveys to measure the actual flowing pressures along. the tubing string. The PG data is then employed to validate one of the models and to tune the model, if necessary, before use in field applications. 5.7 References Ansari, A.M. et al: “A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores,” SPE Production and Facilities (May 1994) 143, Trans., AIM: 297,a4 ical level. liquids begin to accumulate and undergo annular flow and slug flow in the tubing, This accumulation of liquids ( loading} increases the bottom-hole pressure and further reduces the gas rate, The low-zas. ome rate will im turn cause gas velocity to drop further still, Eventually, the well will experience a bubbly flow regime and cease producing. The liquid loading problem can be solved by usiig various measures. fouming the liquid water can cnable the gus to lift the water from the ME TE acomer tubing or ensuring a lower wellhead pres- sure cai sometimes maintain adequate mist flow. The well can also be unloaded by gas-lifting or by pumping the liquids outof Heating the wellbore can peevem liquid condensation. Down-hole injection of water into an underlying disposal zone is yet another option. Liquid loading is not always obvious, and recognizing the problem is not an casy task. A thorough diagnostic analysis of data needs to be per- formed. The signs to look for include: + Onset of liquid slugs at the surface of the well + Increasing differential between tubing and casing pressures over time + Sharp gradient changes on a flowing pressure survey * Sudden decreases in a production decline curve Two methods for predicting liquid loading are presented in this section. 6.3.4.1 Tumer's Method Turner et al. (1969) pioneered work in analyzing and predicting the min- imum gas flow rate that can still prevent liquid loading. They presented two mathematical models describing the liquid loading problem: the film movement model and the entrained droplet movement model. Based on analyses of ficld data, they concluded that their film movement mode! did not represent the controlling liquid transport mechanism. Turner ct al.’s entrained drop movement model was derived from the ter- minal seUling velocity of liquid droplets and the maximum droplet diametercorres; a “he data given below, assuming the wibin; ‘PY Zone, predict the minimum gas Secielela ing is set just ab rate that can pres vading: Gas specific gravity (y,) 0.6 Tubing diameter (4): 2.441 in Accortr bing shoe pressure (py)! 530 psia from th The m€ubing shoe temperature (Ty, 116 °F conduit squid density (p)): 67.4 Ibmsft Interfacial tension (a): 60 dynesfcm 1 Turner. a) Problem can be solved using the spreadsheet program Turn- Hund Gading.xIs. Table 6-6 shows some calculated data which indi- aacljuestin s the minimum required gas production rate of L004 Msctid. ensure intheir¢ Result Given by the Spreadsheet Program spheres TurnerLoading.xis number ural gar = 576.00 °R ‘The m 149 droplet 7 0.0325 density 12:50 eravily mate oF 358.50 °R erent 576.00 °R flow. $30.00 Turner other n 0.79 with a 1.61 expand 04 10.37 fis approat 1004 Mseffa still reFlowing Bottom Hote Pressure (pala) a ‘300 1008. 1.5001 2.000 2500 Production Rate (stbiday) ure 6-S Curves given by the spreadsheet program Pseudusteady Pedic of Single-Fractured ‘Is. Use Equation (5.54) for TPR analysis of dry-gas wells, and Equation (5.18) for TPR analysis of gas condensate wells and gas wells with accompanying vast Soidor sod SOE. 6-10 SAMPLE PROBLEM From the data given below, assuming that the tubing strim; ‘sel just above the pay zone, predict the pseudosteady-state gas rate: Pay zone thickness: 78 ft Permeability: O17 md Wellbore radius: 0.328 ft Fracture half length 600 ft Fracture width: 03 in Fracture permeability: 50000 md Reservoir pressure: 4613 psia Total measured depth: 7,000 ft Average inclination angle: 5 deg Tubing LD.: 1.995 inTable 6-9 Data Given by the Spreadsheet Program Fractured Gas Well Production Forecast.xis —6.9220407 A= 3.1243196 = 0.16625 ft Tw = 600 °R cos(0) = 0.996 1953 6D 0.0100251 fue 040303742 2.045B-05 1.498B-09 c= 11456002 d= 0.017 1734 (0.0028505 562.9414 N= 3.7558+11 Gas production rate, q = 8798 Mscfid Bouom-hole pressure, pyy = 1.705 ps 6.5.1 Gil Wells in Volumetric Reservoirs For horizontal oil wells, use Equation (4.20) to construct the IPR curve. The mHB correlation described in Chapter 5 can be used to construct the TPR curve. The intersection of the two curves defines the operating point. Because Equation (4.20) incorporates the correction factor F,, (which depends on prothiction rate itself), the following iterative procedure is recommended: 1. Perform NODAL analysis to predict oil production rate, assuming that F.= 2. Use the predicted operating pressure at heel to calculate F,, value.3. Perform NODAL analysis to predict the oil production rate using the calculated F,, value. 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the calculated oil production rates converge. 6-11 SAMPLE PROBLEM A horizontal well is to be produced through a 4-in. screen. From the data given below, and assuming that the siring is set just above the screen, predict pscudosteauly-state «il rate: Pay zone thickness (h): 48 ft Effective horizontal permeability (ky): 68 md Effective vertical permeability (k,): 17 md Reservoir pressure (p,): 4053 psia Oil formation volume factor (B, Ll rh/sth Well drainage area (A): 640 acres Horizontal wellbore length (L): 2000 ft Radius of curvature (ROCY 1000. ft Total measured welll depth (H): 8500 fh Tubing inner diameter (d): 2441 in Oil gravity (APD): a2 Oil viscosity (41): 1S Producing GLR (GLR): 550 Gas specific gravity (y,): 07 Flowing tubing head pressure (py): 500 Flowing tubing head temperature (t,,)° 125 Flowing temperature at tubing shoe (ty): 210 °F Water cut (WC): 10 % Oil-gas interfacial tension (6): 30 dynesfem Specific gravity of water (¥,.): 107 Wellbore radius (r, O.428 ft‘Souuriow ‘This problem can be solved using the spreadsheet programs Pseudusteady-2Phase Horizontal PAuHuciLia Fore. cast_xls and Correction Factor Fo.xts. Assuming F,, = 1.0, the spreadsheet um Pseudastead 2Phase Horizontal recast xls gave IPR and TPR data shown in Table 6-10, Figure 6-6 presents the calcu- lated IPR and TPR curves which indicate an operating oil produc- tion rate of $600 sthvday at a flowing pressure at heel of 3200 psia. 1. Using the pressure at heel of 3200 psia as an input parameter value, the spreadsheet program Correction Factor Fo.xls gives a correction factor F,, = 0.9048. NW Substituting F,, = 0.9048, the spreadsheet program Pseudosteady- 2Phase Horizontal Well Production Forecast-xls gives an operating oil production rate of 5500 sib/day at a Mowing pressure at heel of 3100 psia. 3. Utilizing this pressure at heel of 3100 psia as an input parameter value, the spreadsheet program Correction Factor Fo.xis gives a correction factor F,, = 0.9003. 4. Substituting F,, = 0.9003, the spreadshect program Pseudosteady- 2Phase Horizontal Well Forecastxls gives an operating oil production rate of 5510 stb/day, which is only 02% higher than the previous value of 5500 sthiday. Thus, the procedure is completed. 6.5.2 Gil Wells in Water/Gas-Coning Reservoirs ‘The deliverability of horizontal oil wells in reservoirs with botiom water and/or gas caps is often limited by water and/or gas-co Several methods are available for predicting the crit rate, cluding Efros (1963), Chaperon (1986), Giger-Karcher (1986, 1989), Joshi (1988), and Guo-Lee (1992). The Chaperon and Guo-Lee methods ‘orporate the effects of vertical permeability on the critical rates with the Chaperon method giveing the most optimistic value.