Seminar on Well Performance Analysis

Politecnico di Torino, 3/2/2011

Giuseppe Tripaldi/RESM
giuseppe.tripaldi@eni.com

www.eni.it
Well Performance: the basic plot

n IPR
BHP
Inflow Perfomance Relationship
Related to the reservoir response
o
n o VLP
Vertical Lift Performance
Related to the tubing response
Also known as OPR (Outflow
Performance Relationship)

(0;0) Q

Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP)

plotted vs. surface rate (Q) at
standard/stock tank conditions

2
Well Performance: the basic plot

P* = Static Reservoir Pressure

BHP (no flow)

P* AOF = Absolute Open Flow

IPR VLP (Maximum Theor. Rate)

P0

(Q0;P0) = Current Working Point

(0;0) Q0 AOF Q

3
When

1.
1. Well
Well Testing
Testing

2.
2. Completion/workover
Completion/workover design
design

3.
3. Artificial
Artificial lifting
lifting

4.
4. Production
Production optimization
optimization

5.
5. Surface
Surface network
network optimization
optimization

6.
6. Integrated
Integrated asset
asset modeling
modeling

7.
7. Reservoir
Reservoir management/monitoring
management/monitoring

8.
8. Reservoir
Reservoir studies/modeling
studies/modeling

4
Agenda

1. Nodal Analysis for Well Performance

2. Inflow Performance Relationship (oil, gas)

3. Vertical Lift Performance (single phase oil/gas, two-phases)

4. IPR/VLP Matching and Workflow

5. Some Applications

6. Further Issues

5
Nodal Analysis

Nodes

Segment
Pi-1
For each segment can be
established a relationship:
Q

Pi Pi 1 = Pi (Q)
Pi

6
Nodal Analysis

NODE SEGMENT
Separator end-point i
Separator

Flow-line outlet h
Flow-line
Flow-line inlet g
Choke

Well-Head f
Tubing
Bottom-hole e
BH completion
Sand-face d
Reservoir

Reservoir end-point c

7
Nodal Analysis

NODE SEGMENT
Separator end-point i
Separator
Well Performance
Analysis whitin Well
Flow-line outlet h
Testing Framework Flow-line
Flow-line inlet g BH
BH completion
completion can
can bebe detailed
detailed
describing perforations,
Chokedescribing perforations, gravel
gravel
pack
packetc.
etc.
Well-Head f
Usually
Usuallyititisisaccounted
accountedbybythe
thetotal
total
Sometime

skin
skinof
Tubing ofthe
thereservoir
reservoirsegment
segment
Bottom-hole e
Usual

BH completion
Sand-face d
Reservoir

Reservoir end-point c

8
Nodal Analysis

NODE SEGMENT
1. Well Profile
Separator end-point i
Separator

Flow-line outlet h
Tubing segment isis refined
Tubing segment Flow-line refined
(internally
(internally by
by the
the software)
software) to
to
Flow-line
take inlet
intog account different
take into account different flow flow
regimes
regimesdue dueto:
to: Choke

Well-Head f
Tubing
Bottom-hole e
BH completion
Sand-face d
Reservoir

Reservoir end-point c
2. PVT

9
Agenda

1. Nodal Analysis for Well Performance

2. Inflow Performance Relationship (oil, gas)

3. Vertical Lift Performance (single phase oil/gas, two-phases)

4. IPR/VLP Matching and Workflow

5. Some Applications

6. Further Issues

10
IPR-Oil

BHP

P*
Linear trend
(undersaturated conditions)
Pb

Non-linear P(Q)
(saturated conditions)

(0;0) Qb AOF Q

11
IPR-Oil (Undersaturated Conditions)

P* and J (Productivity Index)

PI ENTRY measured with a test

TRANSIENT

k: Effective Permeability (mD) t: Production time (hrs)

h: Net Pay Thickness (ft) rw: Wellbore radius (ft)
: Oil viscosity (cP) : Porosity
B: Oil formation factor (rb/stb) ct: Total compressibility (1/psi)
S: Skin

12
IPR-Oil (Undersaturated Conditions)

PSEUDO-STEADY STATE

k: Effective Permeability (mD)

h: Net Pay Thickness (ft)
: Oil viscosity (cP) For radial flow: x= re /rw
B: Oil formation factor (rb/stb) rw: Wellbore radius (ft)
S: Skin re: External boundary radius (ft)
x: Drainage Area Factor

Generally,

A: Drainage Area (ft2)

CA: Dietz Shape Factor
: Eulers constant
(1.781)

13
IPR-Oil (Dietz Shape Factors)

31.6

25

14
IPR-Oil (Saturated Conditions)

Vogel Approximation

P/P*
(SPE 1476)

Q/AOF

15
IPR-Gas

BHP

Generally speaking, non linear

shape due both non-Darcy
effects and, below dew point,
saturated reservoir conditions

(0;0) AOF Q

16
IPR-Gas (Rawlins-Schellardt Formula)

17
IPR-Gas (Forcheimer)

Rigorously:

Approximately:
A: Non-Darcy Coefficient
B: Darcy Coefficient

o
o

o A

(0;0) Q

18
IPR-Gas (Jones)

: Pseudopressure (psi2/cp)
Q: Gas rate (Mscf/D)
: Turbulence factor (1/ft)
g: Gas specific gravity
T: Reservoir temperature (R)
hp: Perforated interval (ft)
rw: Wellbore radius (ft)
g: Gas viscosity (cP)
K: Gas effective permeability (mD)
S: Skin
x: Drainage area factor

19
IPR Matching
4800 120

110
4700
100

4600 90

80
4500
Models output: k, S etc.

Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

70
Pressure (psia)

4400 60

match parameter
50

Use unknown as
4300
40

4200 30

20
4100
10

4000 0
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390
Elapsed time (hrs)

Well testing provides BHP

BHP match points

Target: to find
a suitable IPR

(0;0) Q
(0;0) Q

20
Agenda

1. Nodal Analysis for Well Performance

2. Inflow Performance Relationship (oil, gas)

3. Vertical Lift Performance (single phase oil/gas, two-phases)

4. IPR/VLP Matching and Workflow

5. Some Applications

6. Further Issues

21
VLP - (Introduction)

Mechanical Energy Balance Equation

Kinetic Potential Shaft g: gravitational acceleration

Energy Energy Friction Work gc: conversion factor
: fluid density
f: friction factor
u: fluid velocity
D: tubing diameter

NO

Negligible in single-
phase flow except at
atmospheric pressure
or blow-out

22
VLP: Single Phase Oil

Incompressible flow: constant

Potential energy, gravity

or hydrostatic term.
Q
z
1
Friction term

23
VLP : Friction factor, Moody Diagram

0.001
Typical value

24
VLP: Single-Phase Gas

Compressible fluid

+ +
Mech. energy balance From real gas law Velocity from
(negligible kinetic energy) volumetric rate at sc

+
Numerical integration because Z, T are function of z

Non-Horizontal well, Oilfield units, P1 = BHP

25
VLP: Liquid-Gas Flow (Main Regimes in Vertical Pipes)

Annular
Bubble

Churn
Slug

26
VLP:Liquid-Gas in Vertical Pipes

Region 1. Bubble and low velocity slug

Region 2. High velocity slug and churn

Region 3. Annular

Transition. From a liquid continuous to

a gas continuous system

Velocity Numbers

qg,ql: gas and liquid rates

A: cross-section area
g: acceleration of gravity
: liquid-gas interfacial tension
l: liquid density

27
VLP: Popular Multiphase Correlations

28
VLP: Pressure-Traverse Calculation

29
VLP Matching

1, 2, matched with statistical regression

They should range in [0.9, 1.1]
More tolerance in 2 if there are uncertainties on downhole equipment

30
Agenda

1. Nodal Analysis for Well Performance

2. Inflow Performance Relationship (oil, gas)

3. Vertical Lift Performance (single phase oil/gas, two-phases)

4. IPR/VLP Matching and Workflow

5. Some Applications

6. Further Issues

31
VLP/IPR Matching

Good < 5 %
Fair < 10%

Otherwise improve
match playing with
input data.

Usually < 0.1 %

32
Well Performance Workflow
Begin
Begin

System
Systemdescription
description

Survey,
Survey,Downhole
Downholeeq.,
eq.,etc.
etc.

Fluids
FluidsPVT
PVT

IPR
IPR

VLP
VLPcorrelation
correlationselection
selection

VLP/IPR
VLP/IPRMatch
Match

NO
?
YES

End
End
33
System description

34
Deviation Survey

Top of perfs

35
 Downhole equipment

Top of perfs

36
Fluids PVT

37
IPR (Input data)

38
IPR Plot

39
Tubing correlation comparison (input data)

40
Tubing correlation comparison (output data)

41
Tubing correlation comparison (ouput data)

42
VLP/IPR Match (Input data)

43
VLP/IPR Match Plot

44
Agenda

1. Nodal Analysis for Well Performance

2. Inflow Performance Relationship (oil, gas)

3. Vertical Lift Performance (single phase oil/gas, two-phases)

4. IPR/VLP Matching and Workflow

5. Some Applications

6. Further Issues

45
Case Study 1
Design phase (appraisal oil well)
Given reservoir scenario
Constraint: WHP (related to Separator Pressure)
Aim: verify if we can produce 3000 STB/D or 5000 STB/D
Tubing: 4 DST string

Sensitivities

k (mD): 500, 1000, 2000

Skin: 0, 3, 10

46
Case Study 1

k = 1000 mD
Skin = 0

k = 1000 mD
Skin = 10

47
Case Study 2
Well Test Interpretation. Same well of case study 1
Results of PTA

48
Case Study 2

PETROLEUM EXPERT 2

49
Case Study 2

DARCY MODEL

50
Case Study 2

51
Case Study 3
Exploration Gas Well
Well Testing Results:

52
Case Study 3

53
Case Study 3

54
Case Study 4
Injection Testing (Water in Oil Reservoir)
Well Testing Results:

55
Case Study 4

56
Case Study 4

57
Agenda

1. Nodal Analysis for Well Performance

2. Inflow Performance Relationship (oil, gas)

3. Vertical Lift Performance (single phase oil/gas, two-phases)

4. IPR/VLP Matching and Workflow

5. Some Applications

6. Further Issues

58
Liquid Unloading in Gas Wells

BHP Turner criteria

Vunl: Unloading velocity (ft/sec)

: Surface tension (dynes/cm)
: Density (dynes/cm)

(0;0) Q

qunl

59
Liquid Unloading in Gas Wells

5 TUBING

60
Erosional Velocity in Gas Wells
BHP

(0;0) Q
Qma

61
Erosional Velocity

62
VLP: Generic Restrictions

63
VLP: Choke Performance

Critical Flow
Critical Flow
If the fluid velocity reaches the speed
of sound, a compressional wave is upstream downstream

generated. The compressional wave

prevents fluids particles to flow from
downstream to upstream.
Under critical flow condition any X
adjustment to the pressure at
downstream does not affect the
upstream pressure.
Critical flow conditions are as follow:
Sub-critical flow

upstream downstream

64
VLP: Choke Performance

Single-Phase Gas

65
VLP: Choke Performance

Two-Phase Gas

66
67