managing liquid loading problem in gas wells in burgos · pdf filemanaging liquid loading...
TRANSCRIPT
2006 Gas Well Workshop
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
Managing liquid loading problem in gas wells in Burgos fields
Otoniel Morales Martínez, José L. Martínez Galván, Dr Miso SolesaALS, México North, SLB; Leticia De la Mora, Eddi De la Vega, Region North, Pemex
2
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
• To present the Methodology developed to Analyze the behavior of the Wells producing of Gas, with the purpose of proposing the best alternative of exploitation.
OBJECTIVE
3
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
APPLIED METHODOLOGY FOR THE DIAGNOSE AND SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM
Symptoms Problem
Diagnoses
Multi-CriteriaRanking Analysis
Composit System
Analysis
Data Preparation Data Analysis
Solutions
?
4
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Type Number ofintervals Distance Flow type
Well completionscheme
Well productionand pressure
HistoryCurrent wellproduction Field Survey Data
Gas andCondensatecomposition
Fluid properties
Laboratory analysisof foamy agents
Monobore
Conventional
2-7/8"
3-1/2"
No packer
Packer
Sinlglezone
Multiplezone
Distance topacker
Distance betweenintervals
Coiled Tubing2", 1-3/4" and 1-1/2" Tubing
AnnulusTubing/Annulus.
Fractured
Short <= 50 m or justabove packer
Medium 50-200 m
Large > 200 m
Short <= 50 m
Medium 50-100 m
Large > 100 m
Gas rate
Liquid rate (waterand condensate)
Wellheadpressure
Casing pressure
Line pressure
Choke diameter
Flowing pressure andtemperature
Liquid level (casingand tubing)
Surface buildup anddrawdown test
Test with foamy agents
Correction of gascomposition according
to flowing pressure
Pipesim
Foam height andvolume
Foam declining time
Liquid lifting efficiency
Remaning liquidduring gas bubling
Remaning liquid aftergas bubling
5
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
COMPOSIT SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Composit SystemAnalysis
Gas Wells with LiquidLoading Problem
Set Input Parameters andbuild the model
Gas compositioncorrection using wellbore
pressure survey
Precursorydata preparation Static pressure estimation
Cu le bra - 262Sim ulador de Pre s ión de Yacim ie nto-Conociendo un dato de Prueba
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.60
0.61
0.62
0.63
0.64
1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060Pre s ión de Ya c im ie nto
Ma
xim
o g
ast
o d
e g
as
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
Qq m a x Mis hre Qg m a x Fetkovich D ife ren cia
Correlation matching
Model matching
Stable flowconditions?
No
Yes
Result:The best
correlation
Result:Well and reservoir
model
DetailedCompositional
Systemanalysis
Selection the mostimportant
paramets forsensitivity analysis
Reservoir pressureTubing sizeLine pressureChoke sizeHouldup factor......
Problens to match wellmodel
Unknown reservoir pressureMesurement data accurencyUnstable well operationCorrelations can notaccuratelly represent what ishappening down-hole whenthe well is loaded with liquidsTransient flow conditionsdue to very low permeabilityHigh system pressure andsubsonic flow through choke
Interpretationof the Results
Symptoms and ProblemDiagnosis using SA
resultsCritical gas rateFlow conditionsthrough the well and chokeSystem pressure influenceTubing sizeFuture performance
........
Recommendation using SAStable operation - leave the well toproduceRecomplete the well with CTDecrease the system pressure and use wellhead compresorUse liquid foam agentChange choke sizeReperforation...........
Intermittentoperation
Surfacebuildup test
available
Field testwith
chemicals
Perform thetest and
analyze results
Recommendations
Motor valve with electronic cycle controlerPlunger lift- casing, conventional and CTFoam stick with automatic lunchingcontrolCombined system (motor valve and foamstick)Two motor valvesMotor valve and coiled tubing
Yes
Yes
No
6
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
ADJUST OF THE COMPOSITION
Calculation of the % Mole
The Percentage of the condensate and water into the liquid phase are obtained from the Three phase Measurement
Gas Cond. Water Grad.Mixture Dens.Gas Dens.Cond Dens.Water(%) (%) (%) (kg/cm2/m) 0.61 0.75 1
19% 81% % Gas % Cond % Agua
99.5 0.095 0.405 0.002341 18.426 0.018 0.07567.6 6.156 26.244 0.032477 12.519 1.140 4.86068.6 5.966 25.434 0.032213 12.704 1.105 4.71066.9 6.289 26.811 0.034339 12.389 1.165 4.96570.0 5.7 24.3 0.032019 12.963 1.056 4.50061.4 7.334 31.266 0.040076 4.548 0.543 2.316
72.333 5.257 22.410 0.028911 73.548 5.026 21.426
Grad Mw Grad / Mw Molgr/cm3 grm/grMol grMol/cm3 %
Total 0.28910924 0.0157318 100.00Gas 0.21263449 17.672 0.012032282 76.484Cond 0.0145302 55.659 0.000261058 1.659Agua 0.06194455 18.0152 0.00343846 21.857
Depth Temperature Gradiente Notes( m ) psia Kg/cm2 ( o C ) (kg/cm2/m)0 343.43 24.15 11.14 *
500 360.08 25.32 26.96 0.002341 Gas1,000 591.29 41.57 48.90 0.032512 Gas + Líquido1,500 820.38 57.68 67.84 0.032214 Gas + Líquido2,000 1,064.66 74.85 93.22 0.034350 Gas + Líquido2,500 1,292.14 90.85 111.18 0.031988 Gas + Líquido2,700 1,406.12 98.86 122.51 0.040069 Gas + Líquido
Bottom Hole PressureFlowing Bottom hole Pressure Measured
7
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
ADJUST OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE GAS
V LVol Mw Dens. Masa Mol Mol Vol m Gas Liq.
bl/MMpc lbm/lbmol lbm/pie3 lbm lbmol % % % 70 30
16.0427 9.1131 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.02 0.00
30.0696 22.8660 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.00
4.76 44.0965 32.1946 860.48 19.5135 2.43 9.75 5.48 0.73 2.43
1.08 58.1234 35.0807 212.74 3.6601 0.46 2.21 1.36 0.14 0.46
0.6 58.1234 36.4283 122.73 2.1115 0.26 1.23 0.78 0.08 0.26
0.52 72.1503 38.9538 113.74 1.5764 0.20 1.06 0.72 0.06 0.20
0.17 72.1503 39.3190 37.53 0.5202 0.06 0.35 0.24 0.02 0.06
2.15 86.1772 41.3589 499.30 5.7938 0.72 4.40 3.18 0.22 0.72
28.0134 17.5532 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00
44.0099 52.4248 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 0.00
39.562105 18.0152 62.3388 13,848.01 768.6848 95.86 81.00 88.23 0.00 95.86
48.84 15,694.52 801.86 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
L i q u i d
LL V
m=δ
L
Lw Mole
mM = Estimated composition of the Original Fluid
Fraction Formula %Methane CH4 65.11Ethane C2H6 2.17Propane C3H8 1.24Isobutane iC4H10 0.23Butane nC4H10 0.13Isopentane iC5H12 0.10Pentane nC5H12 0.03Hexane C6H14 0.37Nitrogen N2 0.08Carbon Dioxide CO2 1.76Water H2O 28.76Total 100.00
8
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
INFLOW PERFORMANCE CURVE, IPR
Reservoir Pressure simulator-One test rate is known
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Reservoir pressure
Max
imum
gas
rate
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Qqmax Mishre Qgmax Fetkovich Diff
WellQgt 0.52 MMscf Test gas ratePwft 1122.6 Psi BHFWP test
Assumed Qqmax Assumed Assumed QgmaxPr Mishre Flow exponent Flow constant FetkovichPsi MMscf/d n c MMscf/d
1 1800 0.665 0.5870 0.000104686 0.694 0.0297892852 1750 0.680 0.5870 0.000110621 0.710 0.0302784133 1700 0.697 0.5870 0.000117351 0.728 0.0304504094 1650 0.719 0.5870 0.000125064 0.749 0.0301215095 1600 0.745 0.5870 0.000134018 0.774 0.0290010926 1550 0.778 0.5870 0.000144575 0.805 0.0266156217 1500 0.820 0.5870 0.000157262 0.842 0.0221633878 1400 0.952 0.5870 0.000192759 0.952 7.0783E-059 1350 1.063 0.5870 0.000219172 1.037 0.02590108110 1300 1.239 0.5870 0.000256622 1.162 0.076943637
Input Data
DiffIterations
Culebra-825
9
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
MULTI-CRITERIA MODEL
Structure of the MultiStructure of the Multi--Criterial ModelCriterial Model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Subclases: Individuals Factors at level micro
General Factors
Matrix of Evaluation
10
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
MULTI-CRITERIA MODEL
The parameters that influence in the problem of accumulation of liquid and selection of the appropriate artificial system are classified in the following main groups:
GENERAL FACTORSGENERAL FACTORS
PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE HISTORY
WELL COMPLETION
CURRENT WELL PERFORMANCE
OTHER PROBLEMS
COSTS
LABORATORY TESTS
FIELD TESTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
MATRIX OF EVALUATION
12
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
SYMPTOMS AND DIAGNOSES
13
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
SOLUTIONS
Intermittent liftFlowing production
Coiled Tubing 2, 1 3/4Ó y 1 ?Ó
Wellhead compressor
Capillary Tube
Coiled tubing with liquid foam injection in casing
Motor valve
Motor valve and foam stick
Foam stick application (mannualy or automatic luncher)
Coiled tubing and motor valve
Coiled tubing with two motor valves
Plunger lift
Intermittent lift
APPLIED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Velocity String 2”, 1-3/4”, 1-1/2” and 1”
Wellhead compressor
Capillary Tube
Coiled tubing with liquid foam injectionIn casing
Motor valve
Motor valve and foam stick
Foam stick application(mannualy or automatic launcher)
Coiled tubing and motor valve
Coiled tubing and motor valveInstalled on casing
Coiled tubing with two motor valves
14
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
PROCESS OF OPTIMIZATION
Initial welland network
anlalysis
RecommendationPrograms
Instllation
Check thewells
Compare withPrevious analysis
Operate according to analysis
There is possibilityto improve
New analysis
New operatingprogram
Check the Surface
conditionsContinue
with production
Initial wellanalysis
Programs to applyThe Recommendations
Installation
Check thewells
Compare withPreviousAnalysis
Operate according to analysis
There is possibilityto improve
New analysis
NewOperatingProgramCheck the
SurfaceConditions
ContinueWith
Production
Yes
YesNo
No
Yes
No
15
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
ARCHITECTURE OF THE TELEMETRY SYSTEM
•OASIS
•PANDURA•CORINDON
•JAUJAL•GIGANTE
•VELERO•ARCOS
•ALONDRA
•QUITRIN•GEMINIS
•ARCABUZ•STA. ROSALIA•VIBORITAS
•MOJARREÑAS
•P. BLANCA •CARRETAS
•CUATRO MILPAS
•CULEBRA
•MISION•CAÑON
•REYNOSA•FCO. CANO
•CUITLAHUAC
•COMITAS
•18 DE MARZO
•Occidental
•Oriental
•REYNOSA•MATAMOROS
•NVO. LAREDO
•PRESA
•SULTAN
•Central•TORRECILLAS
•BENAVIDES
•RODEO
•OVEJA
•EMU
•LOBO
16
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION
TELEMETRY
17
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
CASE STUDY
Well: CULEBRA-91
• Well Completion in “Tubing Less” 3-1/2”
• A single producing interval
• Belonging to the formation W-4, B3B
• Velocity String of 2 ”, 20 m above the producing interval
• Aligned to the Gathering Station Culebra 2
• Flow line of 3” and 530 m of length
157 m.
CULEBRA 91(ESTADO MECANICO ACTUAL)
Cul-91.PRZ
TR 9 5/8"
EXPLORACION Y PRODUCCIONEXPLORACION Y PRODUCCION
PROYECTO INTEGRALCUENCA DE BURGOS
EQUIPO ARCABUZ - CULEBRA
1566 m
2574.0 m.2547.0 m.
T. LESS 3 1/2" 2699 m.
TR 7"
(W-4)
PROF. TOTAL 2705.0 m.
DATOS FRACTURA W4FECHA:23/NOV/97INTERVALO 2547- 2574 m Arena Econoprop (20-40) = 3550 scsVol. Arena Super DC (20-40) = 858 scs
2501.0 m.2487.0 m. (W-3) PENDIENTE DE DISPARO
PMED=4280 PSI, PF=2050 PSI, Q=30 BBL/MIN, hP=314.
SE CUMPLIO 100% EL PROGRAMA 9:00-12:00 HRS WF-220, EMPLEANDO 405000 LBS DE 20/40 ECONOPROP Y 90000 LBS, DE 20/40 SUPER DC PARAMETROS OBETNIDOS: PR=3358 PSI, GF=0.8 PSI/PIE, ISIP=2030, PCIERRE= 1300,
Sarta de Velocidad de 2” a 2527 m
(1-may-02)
18
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
CASE STUDYHistory of Production
Features:• The production began in Nov
28, 1996.• During the first 2 years of their
history, a strong decline was observed
• When the well was aligned to the system “Comprimido Baja”, the production increment was of 850% (May 31, 200)
• The liquid loading started before aligning to “ C. Baja”and then it was solved for a short period
• The liquid loading was solved with the installation of the Velocity String of 2”
• Starting from December of the 2003 the declination increased considerably
Pozo: CULEBRA-91Historia de Producción, pozo con Sarta de Velocidad de 2" a 2527 m.
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
27-N
ov-9
6
27-F
eb-9
7
27-M
ay-9
7
27-A
ug-9
7
27-N
ov-9
7
27-F
eb-9
8
27-M
ay-9
8
27-A
ug-9
8
27-N
ov-9
8
27-F
eb-9
9
27-M
ay-9
9
27-A
ug-9
9
27-N
ov-9
9
27-F
eb-0
0
27-M
ay-0
0
27-A
ug-0
0
27-N
ov-0
0
27-F
eb-0
1
27-M
ay-0
1
27-A
ug-0
1
27-N
ov-0
1
27-F
eb-0
2
27-M
ay-0
2
27-A
ug-0
2
27-N
ov-0
2
27-F
eb-0
3
27-M
ay-0
3
27-A
ug-0
3
27-N
ov-0
3
Fecha, dd-mm-aa
Pres
ión,
psi
g /
Pr
oduc
ción
de
líqui
do, b
pd
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.6001.8002.0002.2002.4002.6002.8003.0003.2003.4003.6003.8004.0004.2004.4004.6004.8005.0005.2005.400
Presión en cabeza Presión de línea Gasto de agua Gasto de condensado Gasto de gas
Gas
to d
e G
as, M
MPC
D
Inge
nier
ía: 2
0-M
ar-0
2
Con
SV
des
de 1
-May
-02
"Comprimido Baja"
24/64" desde 24-mar-04
19
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
CASE STUDYDaily supervision
• The liquid loading started again in October, 2003 with the Velocity String
• The well was worked with Closings and foamy agents
• The maximum pressure at the well head was of 580 psig
• With the crew of Optimization it was possible to operate in continuous form and we could use the Technique of Nodal Analysis
Pozo: CULEBRA-91Datos de la Supervisión de pozos y Gasto de gas calculado con Ec. de campo.
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
24-M
ay-0
2
24-J
un-0
2
24-J
ul-0
2
24-A
ug-0
2
24-S
ep-0
2
24-O
ct-0
2
24-N
ov-0
2
24-D
ec-0
2
24-J
an-0
3
24-F
eb-0
3
24-M
ar-0
3
24-A
pr-0
3
24-M
ay-0
3
24-J
un-0
3
24-J
ul-0
3
24-A
ug-0
3
24-S
ep-0
3
24-O
ct-0
3
24-N
ov-0
3
24-D
ec-0
3
24-J
an-0
4
24-F
eb-0
4
24-M
ar-0
4
24-A
pr-0
4
24-M
ay-0
4Fecha, dd-mm-aa
Pres
ión,
psi
g
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.100
1.200
Presión de cabeza Presión de línea Gasto de gas Campo
Gas
to d
e G
as c
on E
c. D
e C
ampo
, MM
PCD
Hasta 24-Mar-04 16/64"
Con SV 2" desde 1-May-02
24/64"
Se trabajó con cierres y barras espumantes hasta re-establecer el flujo
20
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
CASE STUDYAdjust of the Model
14-jun-02 con 16/64”
2-jun-04 con 24/64”
21
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
CASE STUDYSymptoms and Diagnosis
• The well had a variable behavior of the production of gas
• At the end of October, 2004 the Wellhead Pressure declined until the load condition was reached and the well stopped to flow
• The well produces Water and Condensed, prevailing the phase Water
• The foamy agents present good efficiency when generating foam with the liquid of the well
• The main problem that affected the gas production was the liquid loading in the Velocity String
22
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
CASE STUDYRecommendations and Evaluation
• To continue launching 3 Soap Stick “A” daily
• When the liquid loading occur again, evaluate the system of Capillary Tube and the Motor Valve combined with Automatic Soap Stick Launcher
Pozo: CULEBRA-91Historia de Producción, pozo con Sarta de Velocidad de 2" a 2527 m.
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
01-A
pr-0
2
01-M
ay-0
2
01-J
un-0
2
01-J
ul-0
2
01-A
ug-0
2
01-S
ep-0
2
01-O
ct-0
2
01-N
ov-0
2
01-D
ec-0
2
01-J
an-0
3
01-F
eb-0
3
01-M
ar-0
3
01-A
pr-0
3
01-M
ay-0
3
01-J
un-0
3
01-J
ul-0
3
01-A
ug-0
3
01-S
ep-0
3
01-O
ct-0
3
01-N
ov-0
3
01-D
ec-0
3
01-J
an-0
4
01-F
eb-0
4
01-M
ar-0
4
01-A
pr-0
4
01-M
ay-0
4
01-J
un-0
4
Fecha, dd-mm-aa
Pres
ión,
psi
g /
Pr
oduc
ción
de
líqui
do, b
pd
0.0000.2000.4000.6000.8001.0001.2001.4001.6001.8002.0002.2002.4002.6002.8003.0003.2003.4003.6003.8004.0004.2004.4004.6004.8005.0005.2005.400
Presión en cabeza Presión de línea Gasto de agua Gasto de condensado Gasto de gas
Gas
to d
e G
as, M
MPC
D
Inge
nier
ía: 2
0-M
ar-0
2
Con
SV
des
de 1
-May
-02
"Comprimido Baja"
24/64" desde 24-mar-04
Se re-estableció la Producciónen 1.063 MMpcd
23
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
RESULTS OF THE PROJECT
Producción de Gas por SistemaDe Enero / 2002 a Agosto / 2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Ene-
02
Abr
-02
Jul-0
2
Oct
-02
Ene-
03
Abr
-03
Jul-0
3
Oct
-03
Ene-
04
Abr
-04
Jul-0
4
Oct
-04
Ene-
05
Abr
-05
Jul-0
5
PRO
DU
CC
ION
DE
GA
S (M
MPC
D)
Sarta de velocidad Tuberia capilar Válvulas motoras Reactivo barras Émbolo viajero
64%10%
16%
10% 0%
Total of Wells with a System installed= 763 (Aug/05)
Gas Production by SystemFrom January/2002 to August/2005
24
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
RESULTS OF THE PROJECT
APPLIED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND DATA RECORDEDAPPLIED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND DATA RECORDED
127 Velocity Strings 127 Velocity Strings 185 Flow Tubes Meter185 Flow Tubes Meter245 Motor Valve245 Motor Valve143 Automatic Soap Stick Launcher143 Automatic Soap Stick Launcher480,203 Soap Stick480,203 Soap Stick
2,713 Three Phase Measurement 2,713 Three Phase Measurement 863 Gauge of the Inside Diameter863 Gauge of the Inside Diameter764 Flowing Bottom hole Pressure764 Flowing Bottom hole Pressure
25
Schlu
mber
ger C
onfid
entia
l
CONCLUSIONS
• The developed methodology has demonstrated to be reliable and itis possible to apply it in other Gas Fields with Liquid Loading problems.
• We have been analyzed more than 763 wells and in 95% of them a system has been applied that has allowed to increase the production in 114 MMscfd during the period from Nov-2002 to Aug- 2005