Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 47

1

Impact of Dynamic Modelling on The Optimum GL Implementation Schedule Content 1. Dynamic Simulation 2. Dynamic Well Modelling 3. Optimum Gas Lift Implementation Schedule
ALRDC 2004 Spring GAS LIFT WORSHOP

be dynamic
www.scandpowerpt.com by
8 Juan Carlos Mantecon

1. Dynamic Simulation

Dynamic Simulation

10

Dynamic Engineering

11

Dynamic Engineering
SCREENING Fluid Properties Production Profiles Well Locations Pipeline Routings Process Options

CONCEPT/ FEED

INTEGRATION Field Layout Well Allocations Pipeline Data Process Scheme Control Scheme

PRODUCTION

OPERATIONS

DETAILED DESIGN

AS-BUILDING As-built Profiles Tuned Models Capacity Constraints Prod. Optimisation Troubleshooting

FIRST OIL

SIMULATION Operating Procedures Pipeline Management Well Management Training Simulators On-line/Off-line

APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT LIFE-CYCLE


12

ROUTINE CONSIDERATION OF TRANSIENT EVENTS


NORMAL PRODUCTION Steady State Short Term Slugging START-UP Pigging PLANNED SHUTDOWN Long Term Inhibit or Displace

Start-up
Wax / Corrosion Short Term Rate Changes Cooldown Hydrate Inhib.

Pressurisation

Blowdown Inject Inhibitor

EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN

13

Dynamic Simulation
Goals Alignment
CAPEX Well Cost Rate of Completion Well Uptime Production Volume OPEX Data Quality Safety & Environment Early Production CAPEX Minimisation Maximise Total Production Minimise OPEX Reduce Production Decline Incremental Production

Performance Measures

Business Drivers

Production Profile
Development
14
28

Plateau

Decline

Why use a transient simulator?


Normal production
Sizing tubing / pipeline diameter, insulation requirement

Stability - Is flow stable? How to achieve stable production


Gas Lifting / Compressors Corrosion

Transient operations
Shut-down and start-up, ramp-up (Liquid and Gas surges)
Pigging Depressurisation (tube ruptures, leak sizing, etc.) Field networks (merging pipelines / well branches with different fluids)

Thermal-Hydraulics
Rate changes Pipeline packing and de-packing Pigging Shut-in, blow down and start-up / Well loading or unloading Flow assurance: Wax, Hydrate, Scale, etc.

When not to use dynamic simulation

Photo: T. Huseb

When things are frozen in time


16

Multiphase Flow is Transient ! Well Production is Dynamic! Unstable vs. Stable flow situations
Pipeline with many dips and humps:
high flow rates: stable flow is possible low flow rates: instabilities are most likely (i.e. terrain induced)

Wells with long horizontal sections Extended Reach Low Gas Oil Ratio (GOR):
increased tendency for unstable flow

Gas-condensate lines (high GOR):


may exhibit very long period transients due to low liquid velocities

Low pressure
increased tendency for unstable flow

Gas Lift Injection


Compressors problems, well interference, choke sizing, etc.

Production Chemistry Problems


Changes in ID caused by deposition

Smart Wells Control (Opening/Closing valves/sliding sleeves)


17

O L G A / D -S P IC E

P/T Development Flow Assurance


O LG A O LG A O LG A

Typical phase envelopes


S LU G F LO W
F ro n t T a il F ro n t
(m 3 / s )

R E S E R V O IR S IM U L A T O R ( E C L IP S E )

L IQ U ID F L O W IN T O S E P A R A T O R

LIQUID

Gas Condensate

Temperature effects
S e p a r a t e d f lo w D is p e r s e d b u b b le

T im e ( m in . )

Pressure

Gas

Oil

Reservoir Temperature
70 -110 oC /160 - 230oF 40oC/ 104o F 30oC/86oF 20oC/68oF

Emulsion Oil Water


GAS

Wax Hydrate

Hydrate
GAS + LIQUID

~ +4oC/39oF < 0oC/32oF (Joule Thompson)

Temperature

2. Dynamic Well Modelling

19

Dynamic Well Modelling


Especially suited for: Start-up and shut down of production Production from several reservoir zones Reservoir injection Analysing cross flow between reservoir zones Flow from multilateral wells Smart Wells Gas Lifting Well testing Segregation Gas/Condensate Wells - Dewatering Simulation of fluid flow in conventional and underbalanced drilling operations Blowout simulations
20

Advanced Well Module

IPR models in OLGA 2000


Constant Productivity Index Forcheimer model Single Forcheimer model
(High Pressure Gas Wells)

Vogel equation Backpressure equation


(Gas Wells)

Normalized Backpressure
(Saturated Oil Wells)

Tabulated IPR curve

21

Advanced Well Module


The reservoir can be divided into multiple zones with differences in properties and IPR models

Properties can be defined as time series (wells life cycle) for each zone:
Reservoir pressure Reservoir temperature Gas fraction / GOR Water fraction / Water cut Drainage radius Skin Fracture pressure
22

Advanced Well Module


Productivity Index in OLGA
The following equations are used to calculate the PI for the oil, water and gas to be used by OLGA. The PI in OLGA is the TOTAL PI (the associated gas must be added to the given PIProsper): The GOR is given in
standard cubic feet per standard barrels, the densities as kilograms per cubic meters and the water-cut in fraction

PI OIL

PI Pr osper (1 WC ) OIL 6.29 24 3600 6895


PI Pr osper WC WATER 6.29 24 3600 6895

PI WATER

PI GAS

PI Pr osper (1 WC )GOR GAS 35 .315 24 3600 6895


23

Advanced Well Module


Mass Sources
The following equations show how the total mass flow is calculated in OLGA when Watercut, GOR and Volume flow are known The properties at standard condition are taken from the PVT table.

PHASE = GAS -

ST Qg

= STDFLOWRATE

tot Q ( m
ST g
PHASE = LIQUID -

ST g

1 1 wc ST ST o ( )w ) GOR GOR 1 wc
= STDFLOWRATE

ST Qliq

ST ST ST ST tot Qliq m (wc w (1 wc) o GOR(1 wc) g )


24

Advanced Well Module


Mass Sources
The following equations show how the total mass flow is calculated in OLGA when Watercut, GOR and Volume flow are known The properties at standard condition are taken from the PVT table.
ST Qo

PHASE = OIL -

= STDFLOWRATE

tot Q ( m
ST o
PHASE = WATER -

ST o

GOR

ST g

wc ST w ) 1 wc

ST Qw

= STDFLOWRATE

tot Q ( m
ST w

ST w

1 wc ST 1 wc ST o GOR( ) g ) wc wc
25

Advanced Well Module


Annular flow In annular flow there will be a higher wetted surface area compared to the flow area In OLGA 2000 a single pipeline with corresponding flow area is assumed The wall interfacial friction is calculated based on a hydraulic diameter, Dh:

4A Dh Dc - Dt S
26

Advanced Well Module


Gas lift
No library of commercial gas lift valves
OLGA is reasonably effective at simulating the unloading operation

Specific valve characteristics or controller routines can be defined:


The LEAK command coupled with the CONTROLLER command provides a means of reasonably accurate representation of an unloading valve
Casing and/or Tubing sensitive valves

Concentric casing or parasite string injection


Well kick-off Continuous GL to reduce static pressure

Gas Lift
Production Production Fluids GL Fluids + + GL

Riser gas lifting


To reduce static pressure To reduce / avoid slugging

Stability prediction with Slugtracking


27

Advanced Well Module


Gas lift The OLGA bundle can be use to calculate a source temperature at injection point
e.g. gas flowing in the annulus of the CARRIER Production

Gas Injection

Casing
Branch = GASINJ

Annulus flow model with normal OLGA Branch features gives very exact countercurrent heat exchange It is possible to combine various branch models with the BUNDLE, the SOIL and FEM-Therm

Branch = WELLH

Node
Branch = WELLB

28

Advanced Well Module


Gas lift Unloading (Duals, Check Valve Wash-out, etc.) The Annulus keyword is used to model the GL annulus with a number of Leaks installed to provide communication between the well annulus and the tubing
Each Leak is then assigned a GLV to control the opening and closing of the valve
TUBING

TUBING

PD AD AC AT PC

PT

ANNULUS

The GLV operation is simulated using a combination of cascade and PID controllers
e.g. Pdome is modified based on temperature and depth. The output is then used to determine the Ptbg at which the GLV will open based on the local Pcsg. This is compared against the actual Ptbg to determine if the GLV is open

PD AD AC AT PC

PT

ANNULUS

TUBING

PD AD AC AT PC

PT

ANNULUS

29

3. Optimum Gas Lift Implementation Schedule

30

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


OLGA is a powerful tool for establishing the watercut limits for which the well would not produce at steady state and where it would not kick off investigate a future kick-off problem Gas Lift will be required at some time in the future in order to kick-off the wells Wells will encounter kick-off problems at a lower watercut than their their natural flow limit Determining the kick-off limits is a key issue for determining the optimum gas lift implementation schedule
The installation cost of a GL system to support the kick-off of the well is high and deferring this expenditure is of high NPV ($MM). On the other hand, the inability to kick-off the well has a high impact cost in terms of deferred production ($100MM).

Watercut limits may increase with increasing Reservoir pressures Watercut limits are more sensitive to FTHP and PI.
The matrix of results (dynamic sensitivity runs) will determine at what point in the future the well will need GL to overcome the impact of fluid segregation on kick-off (and optimum GL volume)
31

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Elevation Profile vs. Horizontal and Tubing Length
Model from Reservoir to Christmas tree number of pipes =F(trajectory), pipe is divided into 50m section lengths
Well #SPT69
0
Top of tubing Top of tubing

-500

-1000

Elevation [m]

-1500

-2000

-2500
Reservoir

-3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Position [m] Horizontal Length


32

Pipeline Length

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Productivity Index and Oil Rate vs. Water Cut
The reservoir fluid PVT is critical to the model results The time at which the well will not naturally kick-off is dependent on PI, Reservoir Pressure and Watercut.
Well SPT69

Well SPT69 - FTHP = 500 psia


25,000

Production Index [bbls/d/psia]

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

20,000

15,000

Oil Rate [STB/D]

10,000

5,000

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Watercut [%]
2500 psia

Watercut [%] 3500 psia 3000 psia

3600 psia

3800 psia

33

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State OLGA vs. Prosper
The watercut limits at steady state may be found using OLGA (Transient) and Prosper (Steady State) software. Differences for the particular study case are shown below WC predicted by Prosper are lower than predicted by OLGA
Well SPT69 - FTHP = 500 psia
70
62

60
52

50
44

54 47 36 39 28 31 27

Water-cut [%]
40 30 20 10 0 2700

2900

3100

3300

3500

3700

Reservoir Pressure [psia] Prosper OLGA 2000


34

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
This well will only kick-off for 20-26% lower watercuts (absolute) than it will produce at steady state (this may increase with R pressure)
Well SPT69 - FTHP = 500 psia
70
62

60
52

50
44

Watercut [%]

40 30 20

36 32 28 24

38

10

10
0

0 2500

2900

3100

3300

3500

3700

Reservoir pressure [psia] Steady state Kick-off


35

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Roughness and U-value sensitivities Low (half), Base and High (double) Overall transfer Coefficient

Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure


50 45 40 35
46 44 44

Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure


50 45 40 35
44 44 44

Watercut [%]

26 24 24

Watercut [%]

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

24

24 22

0.0006

0.001

0.002

Low

Base

High

Roughness [inch] Steady state

U-value
Kick-off
Steady state Kick-off

36

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
FTHP and PI sensitivities Watercut limits increase a little with increasing PI Watercut limits are more sensitive to FTHP changes

Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure


70
60

Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure


60
48 44

60 50
44

50
40

40

Watercut [%]

40 30 20 10 0

38

Watercut [%]

30
24 20

28

28 24

20

10
6

500.00

700.00

900.00

Low

Base

High

FTHP [psia]
Steady state Kick-off

Productivity Index
Steady state Kick-off

37

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Temperature profiles at different points in time base case
Well SPT69 at 3000 reservoir pressure and 20% WC
Steady state 6 hours after shut-in 1 hour after shut-in 12 hours after shut-in 120 100

3 hours after shut-in 24 hours after shut-in

Temperature [C]

80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Pipeline length [m]


38

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Segregation during Steady State before Shut-in Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Steady state

-200

-700

Elevation [m]

-1200

-1700

-2200

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fraction [-] Water


39

Oil

Gas

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Segregation during Shut-in Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia The apparently sudden changes in O,W & G hold-up are due to the graphs being plotted as TVD rather than along the hole.
1 min after shut-in

6 min after shut-in

-200

-200

-700

-700

Elevation [m]

Elevation [m]

-1200

-1200

-1700

-1700

-2200

-2200

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

40

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Segregation during Shut-in Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia

1 hour after shut-in

24 hours after shut-in

-200

-200

GAS

-700

-700

Elevation [m]

-1200

Elevation [m]

-1200

OIL

-1700

-1700

-2200

-2200

WATER
-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

41

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Segregation during Start-up Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia

1 min after start-up

5 min after start-up

-200

-200

-700

-700

Elevation [m]

-1200

Elevation [m]
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

-1200

-1700

-1700

-2200

-2200

-2700

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

42

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Segregation during Start-up Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia

18 min after start-up

36 min after start-up

-200

-200

-700

-700

Elevation [m]

-1200

Elevation [m]

-1200

-1700

-1700

-2200

-2200

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

Fraction [-] Water Oil Gas

43

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Steady State after Start-up Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Steady state after start-up

-200

-700

Elevation [m]

-1200

-1700

-2200

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fraction [-] Water


44

Oil

Gas

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


Watercut Limits Steady State vs. Kick-Off
Steady State after Start-up Watercut = 26%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Steady state after start-up

-200

-700

Elevation [m]

-1200

-1700

-2200

-2700 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fraction [-] Water


45

Oil

Gas

Dynamic Wells Modelling Watercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation


OLGA is a powerful tool for establishing the watercut limits for which the well would not produce at steady state and where it would not kick off investigate a future kick-off problem Gas Lift will be require at some time in the future in order to kick-off the wells Wells will encounter kick-off problems at a lower watercut than their their natural flow limit Determining the kick-off limits is a key issue for determining the optimum gas lift implementation schedule
The installation cost of a GL system to support the kick-off of the well is high and deferring this expenditure is of high NPV ($MM). On the other hand, the inability to kick-off the well has a high impact cost in terms of deferred production ($100MM).

Watercut limits may increase with increasing R pressures Watercut limits are more sensitive to FTHP and PI.
The matrix of results (dynamic sensitivity runs) will determine at what point in the future the well will need GL to overcome the impact of fluid segregation on kick-off (and optimum GL volume)
46

be dynamic
Thank You!
47

Any Questions?