Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PETSOC-2004-242 - Nodal Analysis For Aoil Wells With Downhole
PETSOC-2004-242 - Nodal Analysis For Aoil Wells With Downhole
This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Societys 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (55th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 10, 2004. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.
1
degrading the total mobility due to relative permeability effects drive where the datum corrected pressures (potential) in oil and
(Figure-1.) So, a representative well production analysis must water zones are equal. Another limitation in this model is that
consider water coning. the effect of changing water cut was not considered in IPR (i.e.,
the zone IPRs are assumed to be straight lines for oil and water
Production systems (Nodal) analysis seeks the highest oil or zones).
gas production rate. The method is named by its imposition of
consistent pressures and rates at key interfaces or nodes in the Arslan (11) identified the effects of producing water cut on
reservoir-well-pipeline system (e.g., the node at the bottom of a IPR response, oil productivity, and tubing performance. He
well couples the tubing and inflow performance, Figure-2) indicated the water cut response over the gross production rate
Valid solutions require that the tubing and inflow curves for a partially penetrated well using the term of oil productivity
intersect at the flowing bottomhole pressure (the rate and index and presented the effect of water intrusion on oil
pressure must be consistent). This production optimization productivity index. Water affects the well productivity by
technique requires a representative inflow model. Inflow decreasing oil mobility and degrades the tubing performance by
performance curves are generated either using analytical or increasing the hydrostatic gradient. He showed that Downhole
empirical models or by reservoir simulators. Sink Well (DWS) completions improve oil productivity in
comparison to the conventional partial penetration applications.
Muskat (1) was one of the earliest researchers analyzing However, he only considered steady state flow conditions in his
pressure rate relationships. He pointed that a straight-line analysis.
relationship should not be anticipated for multiphase (oil and
gas) flow conditions. He reported that when combining with gas A nodal analysis approach for dual completed wells is
oil ratio observations, the well productivity index might be of proposed to evaluate natural flow rate in this paper. Extending
value in interpreting abnormalities of well behavior in gas-drive this approach, reservoir depletion is also considered in
reservoirs. Following his work, five different methods to predict successive nodal analysis stages.
the pressure-production performance of oil wells producing
from solution-gas drive reservoirs were proposed by Vogel (2),
Fetkovich (3), Jones, Blount and Glaze (4), and Kilns and Nodal Analysis Method for DWS Wells
Majcher (5). These methods are widely used because they only
require parameters available from a production test. DWS wells comprise two completions: the bottom
completion drains water and keeps the top completion open to
Wiggins (6) suggested generalized three-phase IPRs similar oil inflow (Figure 3). The system performance depends on the
to Vogels. IPR equations are developed after a regression top and bottom rates to maximize oil productivity and produce
analysis on simulator results for a given set of relative oil-free water from the bottom completion. For DWS wells, the
permeability information, fluid property data and water rates for the two completions are adjusted to reduce or
saturation. Simulation results are obtained from a radial flow completely eliminate water from the top completion while
geometry produced at a constant oil rate production. Then, the drained water not contaminated with oil that can be injected
production ratios are regressed on the pressure ratio. His back into a lower zone without further processing.
solution didnt consider vertical segregation of water and oil
because all the simulator models based on 1-D - radial model Due to the absence of a representative analytical or
where water saturation is only dispersed in the reservoir. Gallice empirical model for oil inflow under water coning effects for
and Wiggins (7) later provided a detailed analysis for common both conventional wells and DWS wells, a numerical approach
inflow models. They concluded that none of the methods could was needed. Modern reservoir simulators and desktop
be considered as the best method over a wide range of reservoir computing could quickly simulate a particular case of water
conditions. One may provide the best estimation for a particular coning (a typical run would take 20 - 80 seconds on 2.0 GHz
case, while providing the worst for some other case. Therefore, Pentium 3); thus allowing many different producing scenarios
they recommend the use of more than one method to obtain a to be considered. Batch management programs are used to
possible range of outcomes. They pointed out that Fetkovichs create, queue, and analyze these scenarios by creating an
method tended to be the most reliable among these five interface with commercial software (ECLIPSE - 2002)TM. (12).
methods. Significantly, Gallice and Wiggins argued that a
single IPR method might not be reliable for varying reservoir Using the numerical tool written in Visual BasicTM a cluster of
pressures. Because changes in reservoir parameters in time inflow performance relationships (IPR) for a DWS well was
result in changes in its flow properties, real time optimization generated. Classical nodal analysis is extended for DWS wells
should consider a representative model for the reservoir by evaluating the pressure versus flow rate relationship for the
response; a flexible and accurate IPR is needed. top completion for a range of bottom rates. The diagnostic plots
are the same as used previously. Inflow curves for a
Gilbert (8) examined the effect of water-cut on IPR curves conventional well (zero bottom rate) and DWS well with 500
and its relationship to other factors such as interflow rates. For and 800-stb/day bottom rates are shown together with their
solution drive reservoirs, he showed that the gross inflow rate related tubing performances including the varying inflow water
decreases as the water cut increases whereas the gross inflow cuts (Figure 4) By reducing water production from the top
rate for active water drive wells will increase as the water cut completion, DWS increases the maximum natural flow rate,
increases. He considered the water production to be from reduces the flowing water cut, and produces oil-free water from
relatively low pressure source or relatively high pressure the bottom completion.
source depending on the IPR response for a particular well
producing water along with oil. Nind (9) presented a similar The two rates impose competing vertical forces on the water
approach, treating water production as moving from the water oil contact. The simulation interface software provides
source to the well via relatively conductive stringers in the visualization for a given range of rates of interest. Figure 5
formation. The approach studied by Gilbert, Nind and later by shows how the certain combinations of top rate and drainage
Brown (10) does not address the reservoirs with bottom water rate enhance oil productivity index defined by equation 1.
2
qo particular allowed pressure drawdown, the top completion
Jo = ....(1) production rate is improved by draining water to the bottom
p pw completion until to the point of flip-flop line where basically
top completion has no water coning.
Figure 5 indicates a sharp ridge where the top rate and
The nodal analysis for DWS wells is based on the following
drainage rate leads to maximum oil productivity for the top
operation principles:
completion. This occurs when the top completion is producing
Produce at maximum possible top rate (economic
water-free oil where the reduction in oil zone mobility is
goal).
minimal due to minimal cone presence as indicated by figure 1.
Maintain a pressure drawdown below or equal to
However, the best operating condition is not simply the highest
the maximum allowable pressure drawdown for
productivity index value from this plot. Analysis is based on:
both completions (completion limit)
Inflow performance relationship (IPR).
Maintain a water drainage rate below the flip-flop
Tubing performance relationship (TPR) or
line for any top rate (No reverse coning.) (An
outflow.
environmentally imposed limit)
Limiting drainage rate (depends on water
Set the top and drainage rates that can flow to
injectivity or disposal).
surface. (TPR limit)
Operating under/at maximum allowable pressure
Limit drainage rate according to maximum
drawdown at top and drainage completions (to
allowable injection limit possible. (Disposal limit)
ensure completion stability).
Maintaining oil-free water drainage for injection
without water processing (for processing or
environmental reasons). Time-dependent Analysis
Oil wells are generally produced at their highest possible Available nodal analysis solutions generally offer an inflow
rate to maximize the cash flow. However, the maximum
model that uses reservoir properties at given time. The
allowable pressure drawdown is a limiting factor due to the
calculated production rate from these models is employed to
practical considerations such as well integrity, sand control, gas predict the incremental recovery for period of interest. Using
liberation, etc. This limit is should also be considered in inflow
this incremental recovery, the change in the average reservoir
models.
properties at different stages of depletion is estimated via
material balance. The future rates are predicted successively in
The five operating limitations above are interrelated in a
this manner.
single plot called as DWS characteristic plot (figure 6). Water
coning and reverse coning (oil coning to drainage completion) The above approach is viable for oil wells with water coning
regions are shown in figure 6. There is also a segregated flow
problems due to two reasons. First, there is not an empirical or
region where the top completion produces only oil while oil-
analytical solution that can model the cone behavior and in
free water is drained from the bottom completion. This region is terms of inflow performance. Second, later stages of production
not obvious from the plot because high ranges of rates greater
should inherit the saturation distribution around the well as a
than the critical rates for water coning and reverse coning are
result of previous production stage. Averaging reservoir
considered. This small area for the segregated flow is located properties for the future stages will not preserve the realistic
around the origin.(13)
coning conditions as a result of earlier production stages.
The flow regions are separated by flip-flop line (11) (fw = Considering the operation principles listed above and
0 and fo = 0) under which top completion flow rate dominates
presented in figure 6, a successive nodal analysis approach is
over the drainage rate and water coning occurs (fw > 0). Above
proposed in this paper. The numerical tool mentioned above is
the flip-flop line the drainage rate overcomes the top completion used to model a representative DWS well inflow performance,
rate and reverse coning occurs (fo>0). The slope of this line is
and preserve the water coning conditions resulted from the
related to stabilized steady-state water cut of this system and
earlier production stages. The workflow for this approach is
therefore to end point mobility ratio. given in table 1.
3
conventional well inflow is not maximized because of TPR NOMENCLATURE
limit.
fw = ultimate water cut
The above analysis is applied successively for future hp = oil zone thickness
production stages. Nine production stages are analyzed in this hw = water zone thickness
example study. The well production rate and water drainage rate Jo = oil productivity index
response is given in figure 8 and the characteristic plot approach M = end point mobility ratio
in stages is presented in figure 9 for these stages. As the P = average reservoir pressure
depletion of oil zone continues the water oil contact moves Pw = flowing well pressure
upward. This depletion process resulted in: qo = oil production
1. Higher ultimate water cut values: As the water
thickness increased, the required drainage rate for low REFERENCES
water cut production rate at the top completion
increase. This is indicated by the increasing slope of 1. Muskat, M., Physical Principals of Oil Production.
flip-flop line for all stages in figure 9. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1949.
2. At average reservoir pressures that are sufficiently high 2. Vogel, J.V., Inflow Performance Relationships for
for flowing well production to surface, the maximum Solution Gas Drive Wells. JPT, Jan. 1968.
pressure drawdown limits control the well operation (a, 3. Fetkowich, M.J., The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells.
b and c stages). SPE 4529 presented the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las
3. Then, as depletion proceeds the TPR limit defines Vegas, NV, Sep. 30-Oct. 3.
DWS well production (c though i). This effect 4. Jones, L.G., Blount, E.M., and Glaze, O.H., Use of
narrows down the operable region in time. Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests to Predict
4. Comparing production rates for DWS and conventional Performance of Wells Having Turbulence. SPE 6133
well practices in figure 8, DWS well is shown to be presented at the 1976 SPE Annual Technical Meeting
effective in improving recovery for a given production and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
increment via enhancing well rate for a given stage of 5. Klins, M.A., and Majher, M.W., Inflow Performance
water oil contact and cone position. Relationships for Damaged or Improved Wells
The impacts of limiting conditions on well production and Producing Under Solution-Gas Drive. JPT, Dec. 1992,
drainage rate response are also shown in figure 8 where: p. 1357-1363.
ptop and pdrainage limit rate at early stages. 6. Wiggins, M.L., Generalized Inflow Performance
pdrainage and TPR limit rate at mid stages. Relationship for Three-Phase Flow. SPE 25458,
TPR and clean water drainage limited at later stages. Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
March 21-23, 1993.
7. Gallice, F. and Wiggins, M.L., A Comparison of Two-
Conclusion Phase Inflow Performance. SPE 52171, presented at the
A new nodal analysis approach is proposed for DWS wells. 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium,
The method considers five operational constraints that have not Oklahoma City, OK, 28-31 March 1999.
been analyzed in earlier studies. DWS improves reduces water 8. Gilbert, W.E., Flowing and Gas Lift Well Performance.
coning and the resulting adverse multiphase effects, thereby API Drilling and Production Practice, 1954, Dallas,
improving well productivity. Texas, 126-157.
9. Brown, K.E., The Technology of Artificial Lift
The maximum pressure drawdown limits early production Methods. Pages. 61-66, PennWell Publishing Co.,
rates. When reservoir pressure drops, tubing performance Tulsa, OK, 1977.
controls production rate. At late time, the oil-free water 10. Nind, T.E.W., Principles of Oil Well Production.
drainage constraint limits production. DWS technology may McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1964.
increase oil production rate more than twofold under all these 11. Arslan, O, Wojtanowicz, A.K, and White, C.D., Inflow
production regimes. Performance Methods for Evaluating Downhole Water
Because the process of water-free oil recovery in short time Sink Completions versus Conventional Wells in Oil
cannot be practically accomplished via conventional wells, Reservoirs with Water Production Problems, CIPC
DWS wells are shown to be effective in improving recovery for 2003 - 195, Calgary, Canada, June 10-12 2003.
a given production increment. 12. GeoQuest, Schlumberger, ECLIPSE Reference Manual
2001A(2001).
13. Shirman, E.I. and Wojtanowicz, A.K., Water Coning
Reversal Using Downhole Water Sink- Theory and
Acknowledgement Experimental Study. SPE 38792, PROC. 72th Annual
This study is part of an LSU research program Downhole Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, San
Water Sink Technology Initiative (DWSTI) funded by Joint Antonio, Texas, October 5-8, 1997.
Industry Project (JIP) for the application and development of 14. Shirman, E.I., DWS Well Selection and Production
the Downhole Water Sink Technology for water control in Optimisation Method for Maximum Performance.
petroleum wells. Authors would like to express appreciation to Downhole Water Sink Technology Initiative Year 2000
the DWSTI JIP and State of Louisiana EDA program for Annual Report (internal report).
supporting this study.
4
Oil 1.2 1
Total mobiltiy
Zone
1 kro
0.8
krw
0.8
t, md/cp
0.6
kr
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0
Water Zone
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Sw
Inflow (reservoir)
Outflow
pR performance
(tubing)
performance
pwf
ppump
minimum Pwf
Maximum
natural
flow
q, bpd
rdrainage
rwell
Dres-top
htop-loc
htop-pen
hoil
DWOC
( , k h , hv ) oil zone
WOC(Static)
hbot-loc
hbot-pen
( , k h , hv ) water zone
hwa
t
5
6200
Inflow Outflow WC
qbot=0 bpd 0 0 0.258
500 500 0.061
800 800 0.006
6000
qbot=500 bpd
5800
Pwf, psi
qbot=800 bpd
5600
5400
5200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Top Completion Rate, bpd
FIGURE .4 Nodal analysis approach for DWS wells at the top completion. (After Arslan, 2003)
2.4
1.8
Joil, bpd/psi
1.2
0.6
90
75
0
0
60
ay
45
2000
0
1500 l/d
30
1000 b
,b
15
500
0
Qdrainage, bbl/day 0
0
Q top
1000
fo=0.4
fo=0.3
fo=0.2
fo=0.1
800
600 fw=0.1
fw=0.2
400
fw=0.3
200
Water Coning
fw=0.4
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
6
1 Read input, create numerical simulation decks for the specified rates
2 Queue runs, call ECLIPSE, and feed each run
3 Read data from simulation results to the spreadsheets and generate plots for analysis
4 Generate TPR for tubing properties and simulation results
5 Generate DWS well - characteristic plot for given operational limits from the output
6 Find optimum operating top and drainage rates
7 Register production time and rates
8 Repeat for the next production stage
7
FIGURE .7 Example study - characteristic plot @ 1 yr DWS well production.
1500
Top Rate
1200 Drainage Rate
Ptop & Pdrainage
Conventional
limited
limited
600
300
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time, yrs
FIGURE .8 Top and drainage rate responses in time in comparison with conventional well rate.
8
2000 2000 2000
0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d
0 0 0
0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450
Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d