gas condensate reservoirs: sampling, characterization and optimization spe distinguished lecture...
TRANSCRIPT
Gas Condensate Reservoirs:Sampling, Characterization and
Optimization
SPE Distinguished Lecture Series
2003 - 2004
F. Brent Thomas
Presentation Outline
1.Fundamentals of Phase Behavior
2.Pitfalls to Avoid in Sampling Condensate wells
3.Characterization of Gas Condensate Fluids
4.Production Considerations
5.Performance Optimization
Sample set for this Presentation:
Good and Bad
35% of GIP produced before dew point pressure
85% of total GIP recovered
Only 10% GIP ultimately recovered
Abandon the reservoir
at the dew point.
What makes one retrograde reservoir so good and another so bad?
Presentation Outline
1.Fundamentals of Phase Behavior
2. Pitfalls to Avoid in Sampling Condensate wells
3. Characterization of Gas Condensate Fluids
4. Production Considerations
5. Performance Optimization
Basic Phase Behavior
TEMPERATURETEMPERATURE
PRESSURE
Gas-Oil Ratio - m3/m30 100 500 2000 10000
356 18BBL/MMscf
Rules of thumb
Volatile Oil – Condensate Transition : <12.5 mole% C7+
Presentation Outline
1. Fundamentals of Phase Behavior
2.Pitfalls to Avoid in Sampling Condensate wells
3. Characterization of Gas Condensate Fluids
4. Production Considerations
5. Performance Optimization
Standard Technique:
Stable flow rate and GOR are necessary conditions for sampling.
1. Allow the well to clean up.
2. Flow at a low rate (lowest drawdown where stability is maintained). Capture liquid and gas samples.
3. Flow at a higher rate – capture liquid and gas samples.
4. Beneficial to obtain samples for at least three rates.
As a general expectation -Apparent GOR vs Flowrate
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flowrate (MMscfD)
Ap
pare
nt
GO
R (
m3/m
3)
Formation issuesWellbor
e issues
Flowrate
GOR vs Gas Rate - 28 103m3/d
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
550000
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Cumulative Time (Hours)
GO
R (
m3 /m
3)
0.989 MMscfD
As a general expectation -
Apparent GOR vs Flowrate
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flowrate (MMscfD)
Ap
pare
nt
GO
R (
m3/m
3)
Formation issuesWellbor
e issues
Flowrate
4.24 MMscfD
GOR vs Gas Rate - 120 103m3/d
150001600017000180001900020000210002200023000
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Cumulative Time (Hours)
GO
R (
m3 /m
3)
4.24 MMscfD
What about Bottom-Hole Samples?
Mole Fraction Methane vs Well
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 2 3
Well Number
Me
tha
ne
Mo
le F
ract
ion
Sample 1 Sample 2
What about Bottom-Hole Samples?
Mole Fraction Methane vs Well
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 2 3
Well Number
Me
tha
ne
Mo
le F
ract
ion
Sample 1 Sample 2
Bubble Point
Mole Fraction vs MW
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Molecular Mass
Mo
le F
ract
ion
Wax Resin Asphaltene
For example:Comparison of C15+ Mole Fraction Distribution
Gas Condensate Samples
0.0000
0.0100
0.0200
0.0300
0.0400
0.0500
0.0600
0.0700
0.0800
0.0900
5 10 15 20 25 30
Component Number
Mole
Fra
ctio
n
BHS- 1 BHS- 2 Separator Oil
MW 216
MW 206
Multi-Rate Sampling :
resolves Liquid – Vapor Ambiguities
Bottom-Hole Sampling:
resolves Liquid – Solid Concerns
Therefore:
Presentation Outline
1. Fundamentals of Phase Behavior
2. Pitfalls to Avoid in Sampling Condensate wells
3.Characterization of Gas Condensate Fluids
4. Production Considerations
5. Performance Optimization
1-D thinking
100 C & 2000 Psi
50 C & 500 Psi
20 C & 200 Psi
Reservoir Fluid
100 C & 3000 Psi
100 C & 2000 Psi
50 C & 500 Psi
20 C & 200 Psi
Reservoir Fluid
100 C & 3000 Psi
4
1
1
2
Near Well-boreStill in the reservoir
Up the well-bore
Surface Separator
We do it all the time in characterizing condensates
70
60
40
1
2
3
MMscfD
bbl/MMscf)
BUT -
Time
Conclusion of the evaluation engineers -
-liquid yield was only 22.7 bbl/MMscf
-fluid in situ is a wet gas
-no concerns are foreseen.
Problem: Rates were too high.
Change the rate and you change the yield.
Constant Volume Depletion - % Liquid Accumulation
y = -9.8895E-09P2 + 1.6338E-04P + 2.2456E+00
R2 = 9.9916E-01
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Pressure (kPa)
Liq
uid
(%
)
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23
Compositon
Mo
le F
ract
ion
Feb. 19/2002
May 25/2002
Jun 24/2002
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.020
C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23
Compositon
Mo
le F
ract
ion
Feb. 19/2002
May 25/2002
Jun 24/2002
In addition to liquid volume, look at heavier ends -
EarlyMiddleLateThe heavier
ends are already gone!
Impact on composition is significant.
-Liquids condense from the gas
-liquids accumulate in the formation.
-surface liquid is apparently lighter (less heavy ends).
The result – lower apparent dew point pressure and lower apparent liquid yield.
1. Perform multi-rate sampling2. If any appearance of solids obtain BHS for reference on C12+.3. Sample early in the life of the well/reservoir.
We recommend -
Presentation Outline
1. Fundamentals of Phase Behavior
2. Pitfalls to Avoid in Sampling Condensate wells
3. Characterization of Gas Condensate Fluids
4.Production Considerations5. Performance Optimization
It should be producing at three times the rate! Get a bigger pump!!!
My consideration? Increase Revenue!
1. Interfacial Tension Effects
ΔP α IFT/D
- IFT increases as Pressure decreases
- greater P will be required to produce similar flow rates.
PCAP
D
Pressure
IFT
4520 psi
6000 psi
IFT may increase very rapidly with decreasing Pressure.
0.0125
0.50Increase of 40X
Regain Permeability vs DP
0
50
100
20 80 200 800 Lean Gas
Delta P (psi/ft)
Reg
ain
(%)
Regain Gas Perm vs DP
0
50
100
200 800 2000 Lean Gas
Delta P (psi/ft)
Re
ga
in (
%)
20684 kPa
(3000 Psia)
13789 kPa
2000 Psia
Bigger pump may be counter-effective!
Relative Permeability vs IFT
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Liquid Saturation
Rel
ativ
e P
erm
0.20 D/cm
2.0 D/cm
Impact of IFT on KREL
2. Porous Feature Size Effects
Permeability Reduction with Rock Quality
0
10
20
30
40
2 8 20
Rock Air Permeability (mD)
Per
mea
bilit
y R
educ
tion
Beware!
Example:
Core 1 had a permeability of 256 mD, =17.4%.
Core 2 had a permeability of 39 mD, =18.5 %.
Core 1 had 10X reduction in KG due to liquid
Core 2 had a 25% reduction in KG due to liquid
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Auto
corr
ela
tion F
unction
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Lag (microns)
Integrated Cuttings Analysisln(K)=9.33+5.75 ln(por) +0.737 ln(IS)
Integral = 32.5
Optical Porosity & Perm = 10.9% & 0.41 mD
Presentation Outline
1. Fundamentals of Phase Behavior
2. Pitfalls to Avoid in Sampling Condensate wells
3. Characterization of Gas Condensate Fluids
4. Production Considerations
5.Performance Optimization
Cal Canal field, California:
“ There were three simultaneous effects: a) the gas transmissibility drastically declined as a result of retrograde fallout around the wellboreb) the skin changed from negative to positive as a result of liquid blockage . . . and c) the production rate increased sharply, but rapidly declined to a much lower rate.”
SPE 13650, 1985, Roy Engineer.
Mass of hydrocarbon left behind?
What are the options:
Blow it down. Implement pressure
maintenance via different forms of gas cycling.
What is legal and what is moral?
Our observation – only if it affects gas production.
Easiest Pressure maintenance-start above dew point pressure
Phase Loop Shrinkage with Cycling
1000
6000
11000
16000
21000
26000
0 100 200 300 400 500
Temperature (K)
Pre
ss
ure
(kP
a)
Original After cycling
Tres
Shrinkage with Cycling at 4000 Psia & 197 F
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1 2 3 4
Cycle Number
Liq
uid
Fra
cti
on
Experimental EOS
More common approach:
Shrinkage w/ Cycling at Pres and Tres
27579 kPa (4000 psi)
13789 kPa (2000 psi)
Another factor is productivity
Relative Permeability vs Gas Saturation
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800
Gas Saturation
Re
lati
ve
Pe
rme
ab
iity
Gas Condensate
Regain Permeability vs DP
0
50
100
20 80 200 800 Lean Gas
Delta P (psi/ft)
Rega
in (%
)
Ultimately for cycling optimization:
1. How much of the liquid will be lost w/o cycling.
2. What will be the effect on gas rates?
3. What can you recover with cycling?
4. What are your objectives - short term/ long term?
Total Revenues - Costs
0.00
1000.00
2000.00
3000.00
4000.00
5000.00
6000.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Pressure
Do
lla
rs
1.50 $ 2.50 $ 3.50 $ 4.50 $
4.50 $/ Mscf
1.50 $/ Mscf
Assuming that liquid dropout does not significantly affect gas rate:
Optimization for recovery of liquid drop out
If gas rates decrease rapidly with liquid saturation, then gas cycling/ stimulation may be required regardless.
Relative Permeability vs Gas Saturation
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800
Gas Saturation
Re
lati
ve P
erm
eab
iity
Gas Condensate
In summary of optimization:
• how much hydrocarbon will be left behind
• how much can be re-vaporized/ kept from condensing
• need cheap gas – 6 Mscf/BOE
• When gas price is high, liquid recovery may be insufficient incentive to implement gas cycling
• if gas rates are severely impaired then cycling/ stimulation is only option
Presentation Outline
1. Fundamentals of Phase Behavior
2. Pitfalls to Avoid in Sampling Condensate wells
3. Characterization of Gas Condensate Fluids
4. Production Considerations
5. Performance Optimization