A Combined Well-Completion And Flow-Dynamic Modeling for a Dual-Lateral-Well Loadup Investigation
- Yula Tang (Chevron Energy Technology Company) | W.S. Huang (Chevron Asia Pacific E&P)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Production & Operations
- Publication Date
- February 2010
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 9 - 18
- 2010. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 2 Well Completion, 3.1 Artificial Lift Systems, 5.3.2 Multiphase Flow, 5.5.8 History Matching, 3 Production and Well Operations, 5.2.1 Phase Behavior and PVT Measurements, 3.1.6 Gas Lift, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 4.3 Flow Assurance, 1.12.6 Drilling Data Management and Standards, 5.6.8 Well Performance Monitoring, Inflow Performance, 2.3 Completion Monitoring Systems/Intelligent Wells, 4.5 Offshore Facilities and Subsea Systems, 4.2 Pipelines, Flowlines and Risers, 5.6.4 Drillstem/Well Testing, 5.2.2 Fluid Modeling, Equations of State, 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 4.2.4 Risers, 1.8 Formation Damage, 2.2.2 Perforating
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 875 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
A dual-lateral well was completed in a Chevron subsea condensate field with high peak rate. Within 1 year, the production declined significantly with high water cut (WC). The well was shut down and then brought back to production, showing much-reduced flow rate for 3 days, and eventually stopped flow.
During the production depletion, shut-in, restart, and (finally) stop-flowing periods, the gas well experienced liquid loadup involving unstable operation conditions and changing reservoir deliverability. The conventional steady-state-based liquid-loadup prediction approach and nodal analysis are insufficient to answer what happens when the well shuts in, restarts, and eventually dies. To address the intrinsically transient multiphase-flow problems, a combined study of completion inflow analysis and wellbore dynamic simulation was performed.
The analysis indicates that the well's productivity had been reduced substantially. Before shut-in, the surface pipeline system induced unstable production conditions because of the low flow rates. After shut-in, the wellbore fluids underwent phase redistribution, and liquid was loaded up in the lower-wellbore/laterals. Wellhead gas lift or changing to smaller tubing would not revive the well. Lack of gas supply was the main reason for the well's inability to flow. Analysis shows that if a coiled-tubing gas lift operation is feasible, the well could be put back on line with an average liquid-flow rate of 8,000 STB/D. Gas lift duration and allowable shut-in time were evaluated to consider the liquid-removal and cleanup effect.
The lesson learned is that shut-in is an irreversible process that causes gas/liquid redistribution in the wellbore. The very important operating principle for these kinds of well conditions is not to shut the welling to avoid unnecessary intervention. A combined study of completion inflow analysis and wellbore dynamic simulation provides a unique approach for solving liquid loadup and for providing mitigation measurements.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||10|
Bendiksen, K.H., Malnes, D., Moe, R., and Nuland, S. 1991. The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA:Theory and Application. SPE Prod Eng 6 (2): 171-180;Trans., AIME, 291. SPE-19451-PA. doi: 10.2118/19451-PA.
Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G., and Norris, L.H. III. 1991. A New Look at Predicting Gas-WellLoad-Up. J. Pet Tech 43 (3): 329-333; Trans.,AIME, 291. SPE-20280-PA. doi: 10.2118/20280-PA.
Golan, M. and Whitson, C.H. 1991. Well Performance, second edition.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Guo, B, Ghalambor, A., and Xu, C. 2006. A Systematic Approach to PredictingLiquid Loading in Gas Wells. SPE Prod & Oper 21(1): 81-88. SPE-94081-PA. doi: 10.2118/94081-PA.
Larsen, L., Kviljo, K., and Litlehamar, T. 1990. Estimating Skin Decline and RelativePermeabilities From Cleanup Effects in Well-Test Data With Buckley-LeverettMethods. SPE Form Eval 5 (4): 360-368; Trans.,AIME, 289. doi: 10.2118/17566-PA.
Lea, J.F. and Nickens, H.V. 2004. Solving Gas-Well Liquid-LoadingProblems. J. Pet Tech 56 (4): 30-36. SPE-72092-PA. doi:10.2118/72092-MS.
NETool™ 2.0 User's Guide. 2004. Norway: Drilling Production Technology(DPT).
Nosseir, M.A., Darwich, T.A., Sayyouh, M.H., and El Sallaly, M. 2000. A New Approach for AccuratePrediction of Loading in Gas Wells Under Different Flowing Conditions.SPE Prod & Fac 15 (4): 241-246. SPE-66540-PA. doi:10.2118/66540-PA.
Nossen, J., Shea, R.H., and Rasmussen, J. 2000. New developments in flowmodeling and field data verification. Presented at the BHR Group 2nd NorthAmerican Conference on Multiphase Technology, Banff, Canada, 21-23 June.
OLGA 2000 user manual, Release 4.17. 2005. Kjeller, Norway: ScandpowerPetroleum Technology.
Ouyang, L.-B. and Huang, B. 2005. An Evaluation of Well CompletionImpacts on the Performance of Horizontal and Multi-lateral Wells. Paper SPE96530 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,9-12 October. doi: 10.2118/96530-MS.
Parekh, B. and Sharma, M.M. 2004. Cleanup of Water Blocks in DepletedLow-Permeability Reservoirs. Paper SPE 89837 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 26-29 September . doi:10.2118/89837-MS.
PVTsim user manual, Ver. 15. 2005. Calsep Inc.
Straume, T., Nordsveen, M., and Bendiksen, K. 1992. Numerical Simulation ofSlugging in Pipelines. Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the ASME,Anaheim, California, 8-13 November.
Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E. 1969. Analysis and Prediction of MinimumFlowrate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells. J. PetTech 21 (11): 1475-1482; Trans., AIME, 246.SPE-2198-PA. doi: 10.2118/2198-PA.