You are on page 1of 311

Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data Economides, Michael J.


Buyer: Alexis Heydt Acquisition Editor: Beny Sun Production Editor: Camille Trentacoste Editorial Assistant: Kim Intindola Cover Design: Wanda Lubelska


The Role of Petroleum Production Engineering
1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4

Q 1994 by Prentice Hall, F R T '

Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 2

Introduction Components of the Petroleum Production System Well Productivity and Production Engineering Units and Conversions

Production from UndersaturatedOil Reservoirs
Introduction Transient Flow of Undersaturated Oil Steady-State Well Performance Pseudosteady-State Flow Wells Draining Irregular Patterns Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) Horizontal Well Production Impact of Skin Effect on Horizontal Well Performance Effects of Water Production. Relative Permeability

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America 10 9

I S B N 0-13-658683-X
Prentice-HallInternational (UK) Limited, London Prentice-Hallof Australia Pty. Limited, Sydney Prentice-Hallof Canada, Inc., Toronto Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana, S . A,, Mexico Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi Prentice-Hall of Japan, Inc., Tokyo Prentice-Hall Asia he. Ltd., Singapore Editora Prentice-Hall do Brasil, Ltda., Rio de Janeim


Productionfrom Two-Phase Reservoirs
3-1 Introduction 3-2 Properties of Saturated Oils 3-3 Two-Phase Flow in a Reservoir 3-4 O d Inflow Performance for a Two-Phase Reservoir 3-5 Generalized Vogel I d o w Performance 3-6 Fetkovich's Approximation








Production from Natural Gas Reservoirs
4-1 4-2 Introduction Correlations and Useful Calculations for Nah~ralG n w s 57 <o


9-4 9-5

m e General Material Balance for Oil Reservoirs Production Forecast from a Two-Phase Reservo Solution Gas Drive



5-5 Well Perforation and !&in ~ f f e c t 5-6 Horizontal Well Damage Skin Effect

11-4 Pressure Gauge Characteristics


Forecast of Well Production
9-1 Introduction Forecast under Pseudo-Steady-State Conditions
1 ~7

14-8 Acidizing of Horizontal Wells

vii 535 544 55 1 553 563 569

15-3 Matrix Acidizing Design for Carbonates 15-4 Acid Fracturing 16

19-8 Qas-Lift Requirements versus Time 20

Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation
16-1 Introduction 16-2 In-Situ Stresses 16-3 Fracture Direction 16-4 Length, Conductivity and Equivalent Skin Effect 16-5 Modeling of Fracture Geometry 16-6 Height Migration 16-7 Fluid Volume Requirements 16-8 hoppant Schedule 16-9 Propped Fracture Width

pump-Assisted Lift
20-1 20-2 20-3 20-4 Introduction positive Displacement Pumps Dynamic Displacement Pumps Selection of Artificial Lift Method; Gas-Lift versus pump-Assisted Lift


systems Analysis
21-1 ~ntroduction 21-2 pressure Drop Components of the 21-3 System Design and Diagnosis

573 574 575


Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments
Introduction Design Considerations for F r a c h g Fluids Boppant Selection for Fracture Design Fracture Design and Fracture Propagation Issues 17-5 Net Resent Value (NPV) for Hydraulic Fracture Design 17-6 Parametric Studies l7-7 Fracture Design with uncertainty: m e Monte carlo Technique 17-1 17-2 17-3 17-4


Environmental Concerns in petroleum Production Engineering
22-1 22-2 22-3 22-4 Introduction Wastes Generated in Pfoduction Operations Operating ~ssues--Handlig Oilfield Wastes Arctic Environments 579 579 583 588 59 1 593 597 599


A: well in an undersaturated Oil Formation Appendix 6: Well in a TWO-Phase ReseNoir Appendix C: Well in a Natural Gas Reservoir Appendix D: Nomenclature


Evaluatingthe Performance of Fractured and Long-flowing Wells
18-1 Introduction IS-2 Retreatment Testing of Hydraulic Fracture Candidate wells 18-3 Transient Response of a Hydraulically Fractured well 18-4 Choked Fractures 18-5 Fracture Face Damage 18-6 Fractured Vertical versus Horizontal Wells 18-7 Performance of Fractured Horizontal Weus IS-8 Interpretation of Surface Rate and Pressure Data 18-9 Decline Curve Analysis


Gas Lift
Introduction Natural versus Artificial Flowing Gradient Pressure of Injected Gas Power Requirements for Gas Compressors Impact of Increase of Gas Injection Rate; Sustaining of oil ~~t~ with Reservoir Pressure Decline 19-6 Maximum Production Rate with Gas Lift 19-1 19-2 19-3 19-4 19-5


i t
i i





For several years while teaching in academia or in the industry we have recognized a need for a comprehensive and relatively advanced textbook in petroleum production engineering. Currently available texts and monographs failed to provide sufficient scope and depth to be suitable for engineering education. We wanted to develop a petroleum engineering textbook at the level of analogous publications in other engineering disciplines, intended to offer terminal exposure to senior undergraduates or an introduction to graduate students. All of us have had extensive experience in both university and industrial settings. We feel that our areas of interest are complementary and ideally suited for this textbook, spanning classical production engineering, well testing, production logging, artificial lift, and matrix and hydraulic fracture stimulation. We have been contributors in these areas for several years. Puttine such a textbook together has reauired long, arduous, and concerted effort. It has also involved a number of our graduate assistants and support staff, Special thanks go to Professor Robert S. Schechter, Dr. Peter Valko, and Dip1.-ing. Michael Prohaska for reviewing some of the text. The twine. of Ms. Marion Flux and Ms. Ellen Hill is patefully acknowledged for -successfully having reproduced a huge number of complicated equations. The drafting of the figures by MS. joanna castill; and special artistic graphics by Michael Prohaska are noted with appreciation. We also thank Ms. Joye Johnson for her assistance in the production of this book. We would be certainly remiss if we did not acknowledge the hundreds of colleagues, students, and our own professors who, over the years, contributed to the evolution of our thinking in this vital area of engineering. In particular, we thank those students in our recent production engineering courses who have suggested numerous improvements and corrections while using a draft of this text.













We would like to gratefullyacknowledge the following organizations and persons for permitting us toreprint some of the figuresand tables in this text: for Figs. 2-3,4-1,4-2,4-4, 4-5,5-4,5-7,5-12,5-14,5-15,5-16~5-17,6-8,7-12,7-13,7-14, 10-4, 10-6, 10-7, 11-18, 12-10,13-3,14-1,14-2914-4,146, 149,14-10, 15-7,15-11,16-5, 16-6, 17-7, 18-4,18-5, and 18-6 and Tables 1-1,5-1,s-2,15-1, and 15-2, the Society of Petroleum Engineers; for Figs. 5-13, 14-3, 14-5, 15-9, 15-10, 15-12, 15-13, 15-14, 15-15, 15-16, 20-1, 20-2,204, 20-6, and 20-7, Prentice Hall; for Figs. 5-5,5-6, 15-2, 16-10, 17-1, 17-2, 17-3, 174, and 17-5 andTable 17-2, Schlumberger; Fig. 7-11,01980 AICHE, Fig. 10-5,01976 AICHE, and Figs. 15-1 and 15-3, 01988 AICHE, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, all rights reserved; Figs. 12-2, 12-3, 12-5, 12-6, 12-8, and 12-9, from Petroleum Engineer International, September, 1956, all rights reserved; Figs. 10-2, 20-3, 20-8, 20-12, and 20-13, PennWell Books; Figs. 7-6 and 7-7, American Society of Mechanical Engineers; Fig. 10-11 and Table 10-1, Crane Valves; Figs. 3-2 and 3-3 reprinted with permission of Chevron Research and Technology Company, @California Research and Technology Corporation, 1947(now ChevronResearch andTechnology Company, a division of Chevron U.S.A. Inc.); Figs. 15-4 and 15-5, Dr. Ymei Wang; Fig. 10-8, American Gas Association; Fig. 20-9, Centrilift, a division of Baker Hughes Inteq, Inc.; Fig. 14-7, Dr. E. P. da Motta; Fig. 10-14, Elsevier Science Publishers; Fig. 7-10, World Petroleum Congress; Fig. 10-1, Professor James P. Brill and the University of Tulsa; Fig. 17-8, Stimlab; Fig. 7-9 from Govier, G. W. and Aziz, K., The Flow of ComplexMixtures in Pipes, Reprint 1977, Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, H.4 Fig. 10-3, reprinted from International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1, Mandhane, J. M., Gregory, G. A., and Aziz, K., "A Flow Pattern Map for GasLiquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes", p. 537-553, 01974, with permission from Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford OX3 OBW, UK,Fig. 4-3, reprinted by permission from Hydrocarbon Processing, May, 1972, p. 121,01972, Gulf Publishing CO.,Houston, Texas, all rights reserved; and Figs. 6-2, 6-3, and 6-5 from Sand Control Handbook 2nd Edition by George 0.Suman, Jr., Richard C. Ellis, and Robert E. Snyder, Copyright 01983, by Gulf Publishing CO.,Houston, Texas. Used with permission, a l rights reserved. l


The Role of Petroleum production Engineering

Petroleum production involves two distinctbut intimatelyconnected general Systems: the reservoir, which is a porous medium with unique ~torag$A!!&&x&at&e&~~P the artificialstructures, which include the well,- bottomhole, and wellhead assemblies, ~~~lilf~Cagath&g;~p~-afi~b~&3 storage facilities. ---Production engineering is that part of petroleum engineeringwhich attempts to maximize production (or injection) in a cost-effective manner. One or more wells may be involved. Appropriate production engineering technologies and methods of application are related directly and interdependently with other major areas of petroleum engineering, such as formation evaluation, drilling, and reservoir engineering. Some of the most important connections are sunimarized below. Modern formation evaluation provides a composite reservoir description through three-dimensional (3-D) seismic, pteye11 lof+c+e&ti~p& well testing. This and descriptionleads to the identificationof geolog~cal units, each with specificcharacterflow istics. Connected flow units form a reservoir. Drilling creates the all-important well, and with the advent of directional drilyk? technology it is possible to envision many controllablewell configurations,including very long horizontal sections or multiplehorizontal completions, targeting individual flow units. Control of drilling-induced, near-wellbore damage is critical, especially in 10% h~rizontal


The Authors

Reservoir engineering in its widest sense overlaps production engineering to a great degree. The distinctionis frequentlyblurred both in the context of study (single versus multiple well) and in the time duration of interest (long versus short term). Single ell performance, undeniably the object of production engineering, may serve as aboundary condition

These issues become critical when long horizontal wells are drilled. Below. Figure 1-1 is a schematic showing two wells. includingthe extent of heterogeneities.i i i i e dformations t. Vb Figure 1-1 . Understanding the geological history that preceded the present hydrocarbon accumulation is essential. one can esthiate tTeetF&~lai-e~~B~f terms go^^'' and ''net'' height are US* t a r ~ . This is particularly true in identifying lateral and vertical boundaries and the inherent heterogeneities. several definitions. and anisotropies. Appropriate reservoir description.The Role of Petroleum Production Engineering Chap.1 Volume and Phase of Reservoir Hydrocarbons Reservoir.. in certain cases somewhat different from traditional nomenclature. &scontinulties. long-term.. 1-2 Components of the Petrokum ProductionSystem 1-2 COMPONENTSOF THE PETROLEUM PRODUCT~ON SYSTEM 1-2. V. vertical boundaries (shale lenses). it is firstnecessary to understand important parameters that control the performance and the character of the system. - Common -mob heterogeneities.. measurig-e spontaneous potential (SP) and knowing that sandstones have is . Whether a reservoir is an anticline. Ordinarily.Ifi=& &ween the thickness of~iientirirsequence and that portion which tears hydrocarbons. a fault block. or a channel sand not only dictates the amount of hydrocarbon present but also greatly controls the future well performance. The encountering of lateral discontinuities(including heterogeneous pressure depletion caused by existing vertical wells) has a major impact on the expected horizontal wqll production. 1 in a field-wide.m i m r ~ d ml -.different response $Ecay ~ ~ a l X ~ Y m i&&@ino a ~ O f layer). There is little doubt that the &st petroleum engineers are those who understand the geological processes of deposition. anisouopies. While appropriate reservoir description and identification of boundaries. it is somewhat forgiving in the presence of only vertical wells. - . and anisotropies (stress or permeability). contained within a reservoir with potential lateral heterogeneities or discontinuities (sealing faults). heterogeneities. set. reservoir engineering study.l . modem techniques such as 3-D seismic and new logging and well testing measurements allow for amore precise description of the shape and the ensuing production character of the well and reservoir.. discontinuities. simply defined as the ratio of the pore volume. or aquifer. The well trajectory vis ci vis the azimuth of directional properties also has a great effect on well production. are presented. Well logging techniques have been developed to identify likely reservoirs and quantify their vertical extent. and anisotropies is important. Conversely. and bundanes affecting the performance of vertical and horizontal wells. one vertical and the other horizontal. While the shape of the well and converging flow have created in the past the notion of radial flow configuration. fluid migration. The reservoir consists of one or several interconnected geological flow units. Porosity. there would be only one optimum direction. For example. while always important. Porosity. findings from material balance calculations or reservoir simulation further define and refine the forecasts of well performance and &ow for more appropriate production engineering decisions. All of petroleum engineering deals with the exploitation of fluids residing within porous media. (Courtesy WesternPenoleurn Services) k g water-&-g formation. In developinga petroleum production engineering thinking process. and accumulation. has become compelling after the emergence of horizontal wells with lengths of several thousand feet. to the bulk volume.

" Saturations larger than this due would result in free flow of water along with hydrocarbons. and reservoirs with this type of behavior are known as "renograde condensate reservob" Each hydrocarbon reservoir has a characteristic phase diagram and resulting physical and thermodynamic properties. as the pressure and in the presence of surface-acting chemicals. All hydrocarbon mixtures can be described by a phase diagram such as the one shown in Fig. . usually with de~mental consequences. Classification of reservoirs. or other activity. The maximum temperature of a two-phase envelop is known as the "cricondentherm. then free gas will at least f o m and will likely flow in the reservoir. because of the shape of the gas saturation curves. Plotted are temperature (x axis) and pressure (y axis). usually (but not always) 14. liquid or "condensate" is formed. For lower pressures (at constant t ~ ~ a m ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ & l ~ p 6 ~ t p r e "undersaturated7If the initial reservoir pressure is less than the bubble-point pressure or if the flowing bottomhole pressure is allowed to be at such a value (even if the initial reservoir pressure is above the bubble point). porous Flowing oil and gas in the reservoir imply. the fluid is gas. This type of a reservoir is known as '@pJ@ee' or "s&&d.E~~c~osfati_c~f~~ces. as a result of injection of fluids.mgl~cFu~es clkg to the T~~~ frequently.." Between these two points there exists a region where.o~.7 psi and 60°F. that either the initial reservoir pressure or the induced flowing bottomhole pressure are such as to allow the concurrent m Shale Sandstone Sandstone Spontaneous Potential and electrical resistivity logs identifying sandstones versus The presence of satisfactory net reservoir height is an additional imperative in any exploration activity. where the propertiesof liquid and gas c. are divided into oil A d gas.the ~ .-@Es!s!E enclosing the two-phase envelop is known as the "dew-point" curve. drilling.lI. 1-2 Components of the Petroleum ProductionSystem Figure 1-2 is a well 1% showing clearly the deflection of the spontaneous potentid of a sandstone reservoir and the clearly different response of the adjoining shale layers. Frequently the use of the terms oil and gas is blurred. For each temperature lessBthanantbee criti_~. Oil and/or gas are never alone in "saturating" the available p o k s ~ a c e Water is always present. These are usually measured in the laboratory with tests per- i s ~ w . If the water is present but does not flow. Any mixture depending on its composition and the conditions of pressure and temperature may appear as liquid (oil) or gas or a mixture of the two.~d F surface tension act to create these wettabilities which may change. ~-~). after w m e r pressure reduction results in revapo&atiOn. A s p e ~ i f i-is. This deflectioncorresponds to the thickness of a potentially hydrocarbon-bearing. 1-3. tlwate~rwet. after surface separation." imp~y~ggthat.~ tcriticalpoint. of course. 1 set. T h i s h a p ~ n s until a limiting value of the pressure.m~EC!!E left of %$ (to the.''$-wer. respectively.t~. Petroleum hydrocarbons. Oufside. which are mixtures of many compounds." FOI temperatureslargq&g the &tgp_0&t (to the right of Tc in Fig. the corresponding water saturation is known as "connate" or "interstitial.The Role of Petroleum Production Engineering Chap. Fluid saturations. converge. and reservoirs with these conditions are "lean" gas reservoirs..a. .~egion which t b % ~ o m e n o takes Place 1s k n o ~ n ~ d ' r e b C o g C a d e in n cgGnsation" region. Usually the corresponding pressure and temperature are "standard conditions:' that is. 1-3)there exists a pressure called the "bubble-point~~pre~gel. C ?&& ~! f s %:. Produced oil and gas refer to those Parts of the total mixture that would be in liquid and gaseous states. stimulation. IC_r Fig.~~~.&~g y"* oI?_~Eq$d (oil) is present and below which gas and liquid coexist.

D ~ C observed that the flow rate (or velocity) of a fluid through a Specific porous Y medium is linearly proportional to the head or pressure difference between the inlet and the outlet and a characteristic property of the medium. and Amyx.g.g. s P T < h e n &%<&. reservoir height. h is the reservoir thickness. 4 is the porosity. Instead. Therefore the porous medium is also "permeable. In other lithologies (e. Thus. VHC.S is the hydrocarbon saturation. is not a simple physical property. For gas. B. 1-2 components of the Petroleum Production System 7 where N is the standard volume of oil. e a t i o n s of porosity versusg_ermeabi!ity shouldbeps_ed_ with a considerable d e ~ E COrrelatiGnCriie rarely of caution. (1-4) constant phase dlslnbunon. N = 4 h 4 ( l .2 Permeability Areal extent.." The Propem that describes the ability of fluids to flow in the porous medium is permeability. and the newer book by Dake (1978) for further information. ~r ~ r b d ~ c t i ~ ~ ~ ~ @ e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l a t i o n s ~ useful. G= Ah@(l.i'ng matrix stimulation. in Combinationwith well testing. are not associated with proportionately large permeabilities. at times over 0. height.Favorable conclusions on the porosity.region of retrograde condensation. reflecting the of the oil volume because of the gas dissolution. very large porosities. The gas formation volume factor (traditionally. As more wells are drilled. . B. The reader is referred to the classic textbooks by Muskat (1949). fluid saturations. Thus. sandstones). Craft and Hawkins (revised by Teny. his factor is simply a ratio of the of a given mass of hydrocarbons under reservoir and under standard conditions. The areal extent is essential in the estimation of the "original-oil-(or gas)-in-placey The volume. for basic production engineering coverage the textbook by M e n and Roberts (1982) is recommended.. additionalinformation can enhance further the bowledge reservoir's peculiarities and limits.Sw) (1-3) B'7 be measured against pressure (head) for different Porous media. can increasegreatly the region where knowledge of the reservoir extent (with height. measured under reservoir conditions. and the cnhcal and cricondentherm points. water saturation. The oil formation volume factor (res bbVSTB). 1-2. The present textbook assumes basic reservoir engineering howledge as a prerequisite. u ci k A p 13 I I (1-5) I where k is the permeability and is a characteristicproperty of the porous medium. Thus the oil formation volume factor is invariably larger than 1. it is a thermodynamic relationship allowing for the reintroduction into the liquid (at the elevated reservoir pressure) of all of the gas that would be liberated at standard conditions. D ~ C Y ' s experiments were done with water. res ft3/scF). a larger porosity is associated with a larger permeability.) The porosity.. I fluids of other viscosities flow. chalks). is VHC= Ah$(l The presence of a substantial porosity usually (but not always) implies that pores will be interconnected.4. Discontinuities and their locations can be detected. simply implies a relationship and can be calculated readily with an application of the real gas law. In certain lithologies (e. advances in 3-D and wellbore seismic techniques. and w saturationcan of course vary within the areal extent of the reservoir. 199l). and Pressure (and implied phase distribution) of a petroleum reservoir. for oil. then the permeability f must be divided by the viscosity. The gas formation volume factor is much smaller than 1.. Bass. and S is the .Sw) B. The flow rate (01 fluid velocity) can . In this instance. porosit% and saturations) is possible. (Thus. m e concept of permeability was introduced by D m ( 1 8 5 6 ) in aclassicexpehental work from which both petroleum engineering and groundwater hydrology have benefited F i p e 1-4 is a schematic of Darcy's experiment. where G is the standard volume of gas. and Whiting (19601. are insufficient for both the decision to develop the reservoir and establishment of an appropriate exploitation scheme.set.Sw) where A is the areal extent. Equation (1-2) can lead to the estimation of the oil or gas volume under standard conditions after dividing by the formation volume factor. based on sing1e well measurements. 1 . correlations of the altered permeability with the altered porosity after stimulation are useful.

It is the net effect that is expected to be beneficial.. The former depends on the reservoir depth and the latter depends on the well length. . 1 set. . then the well is under "natural lift.zc6fg." . Finally. screens can be placed between the well and the formation.3 The Zone near the Well. artificial lift is indicated. and well completion are certain toL&-*e.-&ll. ~&. 1-2. .. &I ~ a c k i n s ~ ~ @as " ~additional .~ e ihown - _ -- Perforated Figure 1-5 ~pfions well completions.. "'Masx stimulation is intended to recover or even improve the near-wellbore permeability. . and the friction pressure drop. and the completion assembly.4 The Well Entrance of fluids into the well. . . an d s a guard and as a means to keep permeability-reducmg fines away f r o m ~ e . One of the purposes of cementing is to support the casing. Contamination of the produced fluid from other formations or the loss of fluid into other formations can be envisioned readily in an open hole completion. A cemented and cased well must be perforated in order to reestablish communication with the reservoir. . (There is damage associated even with stimulation.w e l I ~ .eresk~oE-near~e --.. ?ee is a required flowing pressure gradient between the bottomhole and the well-r pressure gradient consists of the potential energy difference(hydrostatic pressure) head. the Sandface.$. ...~ ." Otherwise. Slotted liners can be used if a cemented and cased well is not deemed necessary and if no wellbore stability problems are likely to be encountered.. ... This is accomplished by the injection of lean gas in a designated spot along the well. following their flow through the porous medium.. In both cases a longer exposure of the well with the reservoir is accomplished than would be the case for vertical wells. If no zonal isolation or wellbore stability problems are present. 1-2 Components ot the Petroleum Production System Darcy's experiment. .. the well can be open-hole. Water flows through a sand pack and the pressure diierence (head) is recorded. Another technique is to reduce the density of the fluid in the well and thus to reduce the hydrostatic . ..The Role of Petroleum Production Engineering Chap.) Many wells are cemented and cased. the near-well zone. The zone surrounding a well is importantr'First.. . Ability to direct the drilling of a well allows the creation of highly deviated and horizontal wells..~ f m e vanous well c o m p l e t i o n ~ ~ ~ ~ S U ~ g s ~ ~ ~ . msis in"&ably-'d-& .. requires that they are lifted through the well up to the surface. .~ d 1 ~ ~ r ein z o n e s . and the Well Completion . for 1-2. . . If the bottomhole pressure is sufficientto lift the fluids to the top..-.. ... ..-". This is known as "gas lift.-j4. . to combat the problems of sand other fines production. Mechanical lift can be supplied by a pump. all intrusive activities such as drilling. but at formation depths the most important reason is to provide zonal isolation.

and surface facilities are sketched in Fig. The reservoir. In reservoirs with pressure drawdown-rela&dpbhnx@es production. 1-3 WELLPRODUCTIVITY PRODUCTION AND ENGINEERING 1-3. lowering pwf is the other option available to the production engineer to increase well productivity. the separated fluids are transported or stored.clrs] . s. and water.d tw(j.5 The Surface Equipment After the fluid reaches the top. J. : . or sometimes the commingled production from several welfs. where production from subsea wells. water or gas conyng). The reservoir fluid consists of is useful here to present the productivity index. increasing the productivity can allow lower drawdown with economically attractive production rates. It can be reduced or eliminated through matrix stimulation if it p y u s e d by damage or can be otherwise remedied if it is caused by mechanical -G. including the reservoir.t h e ~ e s that control . The petroleum production system. well. the dimensionless pressure p~ depends on the physical model that controls the well flow behavior. gas (even if the flowing bottomhole pressure is larger than the bubble-point pressure. This would ordinarily result ion in a higher production rate. and with a fluid with fomation volume factor B and viscosity p. and water are not transported long distances as a mixed stream. Increasing the drawdown ( p . gas is likely to come out of solution along the well). unde'ground well completion. 1 ~ e c1-3 Well Productivityand Production Engineering . 1-2.1 The Objectives of Production Engineering A l of the components of the petroleum production systems can be condensed into l the productivity index. In the case of formation water it is usually disposed in the ground through a reinjection well. (1-6) that can be adjusted is the skin effect.The Role of Petroleum Production Engineerlng Chap. Traditionally. but instead are separated at a surface processing facility located in close proximity to the wells. ~ e ~ a ~ g . the only variable on the right-hand side of Eq. steady state (where p ~ = In re/rw)or others. These include transient or infinite-acting behavior. @nderstan&g ~ . Fist.<A-negatlve skin effect can be imposed if a successful hydraulic fracture is c r e _ a ~ ~ ~ u s s t i m u l a tcan improve the productivity index. gas.:*ha. The role of a petroleum production engineer is to maximize the well productivity in a cost-effective manner. the oil.pwf) by. wellhead assembly. and surface facilities. Finally. the well. / While these concepts will be dealt with extensively in subsequentchapters. it is likely to be directed toward a manifold connecting a number of wells. For a specific reservoir with permeability&. -- Figure 1-6 Equation (1-6) succinctly describes what is possible for a petroleum production engineer. may be transported long distances before any phase separation takes place. thickness&. While the uroductivitv index . 1-6. of an oil well (analogous expressions can be written f6ygasar. The flow systems from the reservoir to the entrance to the separation facility are the production engineering systems that are the subjects of study in this book.theprod?tiviQ i~dex(wel1 diagnosis)become imperative. An exception that is becoming more common is in some offshore fields.

84 x 3. To detect the influence of each component of the reservoir and well system. This is the purpose of systems analysis. Chapter 7 brings the fluids to the surface. 12. p in cp. TOemploy these equations with SI units. and re and r. EXAMPLE 1-1 Conversion from oilfield to SI units The steady-state. However.7. 14. hydraulic fracturing. Combination of inflow performance and well performance versus time. 13.9. All equations presented include the constant or constants needed with oilfield units. such as damage. 14. calculate the desired result in oilfield units.45 x lo4 3. Typical Units for Reservoir and Production Engineering Calculationsa Variable Oilfield Units SI Conversion (Multiply Oilfield unit) Area Compressibility Length Permeability Pressure Rate (oil) acre psi-' ft m2 Pa-' m m2 4. and gravel packing. and mechanical lift in Chapter 20. Chapter 10describes the surface flow system. then convert the result to S I units.radial-flowform of Darcy's law in oilfield units is given in Chapter 2 as for p in psi. or a similar trainiig exposure. in ft (s is dimensionless). 1-4 UNITS AND CONVERSIONS We have used "oilfield" units throughout the text. 5. . and gas reservoirs. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the condition of the near-wellbore zone. or none. Chapters 11 and 12 present the state-of-the-art in modem diagnosis that includes well testing and production logging. Conversion factors between oilfield and SI units are given in Table 1-1. 1-3. B in res bbUSTl3. while hydraulic fracturing is treated in Chapters 16. 17. which evaluatesthe reservoirpotential for flow and. anda gas reservoir-are resented in Appendixes. Finally. a saturated oil reservoir. taking into account single-well transient flow and material balance. data for three characteristic reservoir types-an undersaturated oil reservoir. which is presented in Finally. and 15. environmental issues confronting the petroleum production engineer are described in Chapter 22. and 18.2 Organization of the Book This textbook offers a structured approach toward the goal defined above. 3-contact-hour-per-week sequence of petroleum engineering courses. The production engineer has three major tools for well performance evaluation: (1) the measurement of (or sometimes. throughmeasurement of the To simplify the presentation of realistic examples.10. h in ft.8. Therefore. For an appropriate production engineering remedy it is essentialthat well and reservoir diagnosis be done.05 x lo-' 9. This textbook is designed for a two-semester. 16. is shown in Chapters 8 and9.pwf)in Pa for the following SI data. These data sets are used throughout the book. 19.The Role of Petroleum Production Engineering Chap. if an equation is to be used repeatedly with the input known in SI units. two-phase. Matrix stimulation for all major types of reservoirs is presented in Chapters 13. Gas lift is outlined in Chapter 19. it is recommended that the following chaptersbe emphasized: Chapters 1. q in STBId. From the well diagnosis it can be concluded whether the well is in need of matrix stimulation.04~101 1. Chapters 2 to 4 present the inflow performance for oil. (2) welltesting. artificial lift. Calculate the pressure drawdown (p. perforations. Chapters 1 to 10 describe the workings of the reservoir and well systems. 13 In summary. Table 1-1 part or parts of the production engineering flow system that may be optimized to enhance productivity. 1 ~ e c1.9 x 10-l6 6. and 20. well performanceevaluation and enhancementare the primary chargesof the productionengineer. We chose this system because more petroleum engineers "think"in bbyday and psi than in terms of m3h and Pa.28 x 'From Earlougher (1977). This textbook is aimed at providing the information a production engineer needs to perform these tasks of well performance evaluation and enhancement. it will be more convenient to convert the constant or constants in the equation of interest. combinations of the above.4 Units and Conversions . it will be easiest first to convert the SI units to oilfield units. Remedial steps can range from well stimulation procedures such as hydraulic fracturing that enhance flow in the reservoir to the resizing of surface flow lines to increase productivity.6. Taught as a single course with the presumption that Chapters 2 to 4 have been covered in other courses. even though this system of units is inherently inconsistent.11. it is necessary to isolate it. simply the understanding of) the rateversus-pressure drop relationships for the flow paths from the reservoir to the separator.9 x 101 md psi STB/d Pa m3/s m3/s 1. . 17. k in md.

P w = ~ kh ) + ) (1-16) The constant derived. Allen. New York. Pa-s. Jr. Often.. A. M. B=l. Amyx. 2nd ed. for permeability. Oil & Gas Consultants . 4. Roberts. as follows (including only-to-be-convertedvariables): P. cp. etc. in using Darcy's law. 1856.Vol. P. SPE monograph. C. we first convert d l data to oilfield units. . R. 6.14 The Role of Petroleum Production Engineering Chap. 1 and 2.043 x 107Pa (1-14) Alternatively. Now. L. Paris.8) ( ) + 0 ] = 4 4 s i (1-13 and converting this result to Pascals. Muskat.. In this instance. prentice Hall. as it should be for this consistent set of units. Elsevier.159.arlougher. J.. 1960.=O. Tulsa. 1949.2 to the appropriate constant for SI units. Bass. .159qBp Pe .. Les Fontaines Publiques de la Klle de Dijon. (Revisedby Terry. the units for these radii do not have to be converted. TX. the units for flow rate may be m3/d.l res m3/ST m3. McGraw-Hill. NJ. pe . Data q=0. B = 1. (141. Production Operations.1977. Dake.. 2nd ed.2)(543.. Solution Using the first approach. r.. 3.. 1991. Using the conversion factors in Table 1-1. (1-7). . and International.1)(2) Pe . M. my. 1 References 15 first by converting units to oilfieldunits and converting the result to SI units. 7.4)(1. Vols. SPE. C. 0.475 m. 5. . and s=O. we can convert the constant 141. B. Petrolewn Reservoir Engineering. For example. F. in regions where metric units are customary. Englewood Cliffs. then by deriving the constant in this equation for SI units. and Hawkins..pwf = (4411 psi)(6. T.pWf (Pa) ' or 0. and Whiting. 1978..043 x lo7 Pa.. L. M. 2. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Substituting the parameters in SI units directly into Eq. a mix of SI and non-SI units is sometimes employed. md. New York. Jr.Pwf = (10. 0 REFERENCES 1. Advances in Well Test Analysis.. . k=10-l4 mZ. craft. R. 5. Physic01 Principles of Oil Production. E ) Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering.1)(32. Vlctor Dalmont. 1 m.. Amsterdam.1 res bbl/STB (1-9) Since re is divided by r. Richardson.pwf = 3.001 m3/s. OK. is l n x . from Eq. W . fi = 2 x r. H.. 0 . R. for viscosity. we again calculatethat p. units can be convened to oilfield units in the same manner demonstrated here for consistent SI units. h=10 m. P. 1982.(1-15). McGraw-Hill.9 x l d ) = 3. D.

Also. this expression assumes c a single-phase fluid flowing and saturating the reservoiririr The diffusivity equation describes the pressure profile in an infinite-acting. and permeability k. the permeability k. has the classic form . aTImPleexpression of Darcy's law (1856) in radial coordinates can be used first: where A is a radial area at a distance r and is given by A = 2nrh. & sm. To understand the process of flow from the reservoir and into-$e well sandface. Equation (2-1) is general and suggests a number of interesting conclusions. 1959). The flow rate is large if the pressure gradient d p l d r . This equation. with similar expressions in wide use in a number of engineering fields such as heat transfer (Carslaw and Jaeger. and the reservoir height h are large or if the viscosity of the flowing fluid.I 1 C H A P T E R 2 Production from Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs I I 2-1 INTRODUCTION This and the following two chapters deal with the well inflow performance and describe the reservoir variables that control the production rate under different conditions. Wells drilled in oil reservoirs drain a porous medium of p o r o s n e t thickness h. with a slightly compressible and constant viscosity fluid (undersahuated oil or water). radial reservoir.a.

the exponential integral Ei(x) can be approximatedby . the area of flow at any distance. as shown in Fig. The more common constant-bottomhole-pressuresituation results in Figure 2-1 ate decline for an infinite-actingoil reservoir (Example 2-1). such as at the wellbore). where y is Euler's constant and is equal to 1. the well production rate is given by In a well. (2-3). can be approximated by (P..Production from Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs Chap. (2-8) the production rate q = 428 STBW. (2-1)becomes q = -2nkrh d p Assuming that q is constant. must be adjusted. t Figure 2-1 is a rate-decline curve for this oil well for the first year assuming infiniteactingbehavior.Eq. for large values of time or for small distances. Do this in increments of 2 months and use a flowingbottomhole pressure equal to 3500 psi. The rate decline is from 428 SW/d (after 2 months) to 386 S W (after 1 W For x i 0. and Eq. within a reservoir. Eq.6)(1. 2-3 Steady-State Well Performance Its generalized solution is = (162.). where the time. separation of variables and integration leads to . the resulting bottomhole pressure is also largely constant.e. r . must be in hours.f. etc..78. EXAMPLE 2-1 Prediction of production rate in an infinite-acting oil well 2-3 STEADY-STATE PERFORMANCE WELL Using the well and reservoir variables in Appendix A. Because a producing well is usually flowing for long times with the same wellhead pressure (which is imposed by the well hardware such as chokes. 2 set.1)(1. S0l~ti0n From Eq. (2-5) results in This expression is often known as the pressure drawdown equation describing the declining flowing bottomhole pressure.-In47rkh yq5@ctr$ Finally.. while the well is flowing at a constant rate q. 2-2.01 ( the wellbore and shortly after production. which is for constant rate. = ~ 4 ) qP 44t pwf =pi . p. is given by 2nrh. Therefore Eq. Therefore.7) where Ei ( x ) is the exponential integral and x is given by F~~ = 2 months. introducing variables in oilfield units as listed in Table 1-1 and converting the natural log to log base 10. develop a production rate profile for 1 year assuming that no boundary effects emerge. (2-6). (2-7) and substitution of the appropriate variables in Appendix A. from Eq.ln(yx). r .

Eq. and B is the formation volume factor to convert STB into res bbl.p. meaning that the pressure drop doubles or triples as the radial distance increases by one or two orders of magnitude.29Blr In. EXAMPLE 2-2 Steady-stateproduction rate calculation and rate improvement (stimulation) ? ~ . Describe two mechanisms to increase the flow rate by 50%.7)[In (2980f0. ! ! o ~ e s fprfiuction engineering !g_s to.4500) + 101 = 100 STBW (2-20) Two other important concepts are outlined below.pwf)D 1.p. (2-1 1) becomes Assume that a well in the reservoir described in Appendix A has a drainage area equal to 640 acres (re = 2980 ft) and is producing at steady state with an outer boundary (constant)pressure equal to 5651psi. In a damaged well. 2-3 Steady-State Well Performance 2 1 and thus Equation (2-1 1) is logarithmic in nature. q is in STBId.El~i@F . Figure 2-2 Reservoir schematic for steady-stateflow into a possibility is to increase the drawdown.4rwand403rw. . 4 J = -----. Calculatethe steady-stateproductionrate if the flowing bottomhole pressure is equal to 4500 psi. J>of a well is simply the production rate divided by the pressure difference. by 50%.PWL141. draw is can be accomplishedwith a decreaseof the skin effect(t%oughmatrix stimulation and removal of near-wellbore damage) or through the superposition of a negative skin effect from an induced hydraulic fracture.theL productivity index in a cost-effective manner. Therefore (2-21) = (5651 .:.respectively.2)(1.-s) 7 ( (2-17) (2.i!. To increase the production rate by 50%. h is in ft. Thus.2)(53)(5651 . thermal recovery may be indicated to reduce the viscosity. that is. (2-15) and rearrangement. p is in cp. (2-14) becomes Solution From Eq. in a stimulated well with. In reservoirs where the viscosity is very large ( p > 100 cp). . Show calculations. --.1)(1.. They apply to all types of flow. for example. o f .Productionfrom Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs Chap. where pe and pwf are in psi. 2 set.5(5651 . the reservoir drains into a well with an effective radius equal to 4.the drawdown for a given rate. s = -2 or evens = -6 (for a fracturedwell). The ern-uctiv2-index. s = 10.18) This is an interesting finding. In oilfield units.p w j = 141. to increase the flowrate for $given $@g ffbie (cjra+wn) or to minimize . = (141. with. Thus Eq. k is in md. Use a skin effect equal to +lo.4500) .5 x 10-5rw. Conversely.the p .n. then the effectivewellbore radii are 7. '@%_the near-wellbore pe . for example.2Bp [ln(relrw) s l -. (8. kh + (2-19) which can be added to the pressure drop in the reservoir.f.

However.r i ) h @ ar:h@ (2-26) and since dV = 2arhg d r .Production from Undersaturated Oil R ~ s ~ N o Chap. (2-26)becomes (2-27) Production Rate increases (over a 40-acre spacing) A (acres) re (ft) 745 1053 1489 2980 1 7. since p. is not known at any given time. Eq. Therefore a more useful expression @ep~dxsteadyZstate~equation would be one using the average reservoirpressure. and 640-acre drainage areas to that obtained from a 40-acre drainage area.11 q/q4~ Performing the integration results in jdpwf=kh 141.2qBp( hs-rw : I (2-29) 2-4 PSEUDO-STEADY-STATE FLOW Almost all wells eventually "feel" their assigned boundaries. 2 ~~s set.42 9. Solution Assuming that the skin effect is zero (this would result in the most pronounced differencein the production rate). 2-4 Pseudo-steady-state Flow leading to p. The well radius is 0. ' Table 2-1 = C p d ~ % jr: P dV ' n(r: .328 ft. j . This equation is not particularly useful under pseudo-steady state. 160-. (2-24)can be converted to The drainage radius for a given drainage area is calculated by assuming that the well is in the center of a circular drainage area. EXAMPLE 2-3 Effect of drainage area on well performance Demonstrate the effect of drainage area on oilwell production rate by calculating the ratios of production rates from 80-. the average reservoir pressure. can be obtained from periodic pressure buildup tests. the ratios of the production rates (or productivity index) can be given by an expression of the form At r = re. this Introducing the skin effect and incorporating the term 314 into the logarithmic expression leads to the inflow relationship for a nolflow boundary oil reservoir: . as shown in Chapter 11. Eq. Thus.73 8. This is defined as a volumetrically weighted pressure. A second possibility is to reduce the skin effect.6.f = 3925 psi.07 8. In the previous section the steady-state condition implied a constant-pressure outer boundary. In this case leading to s = 3. Naturally.

Production from Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs Chap. tp.2 k (2-35) for the onset of pseudo-steady state. denoted by CA.78 is Euler's constant. 4 2 4xr: 43ce312r: (2-36) Production from a no-flow boundary reservoir What would be the average reservoir pressure if the outer boundary pressure is 6000 psi.l) yields tps " 1200-$~ctr.66 5913 .1 Transition to Pseudo-steady State from Infinite Acting Behavior Earlougher (1977) has shown that the time.6 is a shape factor for a circle with a well at the center. a series of "shape" factors was developed by Dietz (1965).to56. The logarithmic expression can be modified (by multiplying and dividing the expressions within the logarithm by 4~ and performing a simple propeaty of logarithms) into re h . Eq. it is equal to 0.112 h(re/rm).PWI CJ . The product 43ce3I2in the denominator is equal. For a regular shape such as a circle or a square.3000 2-4. 2 see. denoted by y.PWI . these are distorted after production commences.. Therefore. EXAMPLE 2-4 2-5 WELLS DRAINING IRREGULAR PATTERNS Rarely do wells drain regular-shaped drainage areas..ln(re/rw). is in hours. (2-34) (with tm=O. and the well radius is 0..61 q2 -=: q~ + 3000 = 5913 psi The flow-rate ratio would be 4913 . (2-29) can be generalized for any shape into Figure 2-3 (Earlougher. at which pseudo-steady state begins is given by (2-34) has where A is the drainage area and ~ D A a characteristic value that depends on the drainage shape.. EXAMPLE 2-5 Impact of irregular well positioning on production rate Assume that two wells in the reservoir described in Appendix A each drain 640 acres. will "feel" the farther-off boundaries after a significantlylonger time. Solution A ratio of Eqs. 2-5 Wells Draining Irregular Patterns 25 If the drainage area can be approximated by a circle with an equivalent drainage radius re. The time tp. then Eq.78)(31.3.3000 = o.8.Dietz (1965) has shown that all well/reservoir configurations that depend on drainage shape and well position have a characteristic shape factor.314 (2-31)results in The drainage area A = 640 and therefore re = 2980 ft. Equation (2-29) is for a well at the center of a circle. and 31. 1977)containssomecommonlyencountered (approximate)drainage shapes and well positions. (6000 .36) 8. The flowing bottomhole pressure .)and that s = 0 .3000)(8. Substitutingthe given variables in Eq. ~ D A equal to 0.= . -. (2-25) and (2-30) results in P. For a well in a 1 x 2 rectangle.328 ft? What would be the ratio of the flow rates before ( q l ) and after (qz) the average reservoir pressure drops by 1000 psi? Assume that s = 0. Even if they are assigned regular geographic drainage areas.1. and for a 1 x 4 rectangle it is equal to 0. of course. Furthermore. and all other variables are in the customary oilfield-units.6). the drainage area is 640 acres. the flowing bottomhole pressure is 3000 psi. Offis centered wells in irregular patterns have even larger values of ~ D A implying that the well .1 n r. The reader is referred values. either because of the presence of natural boundaries or because of lopsided production rates in adjoining wells.32 or (1. to Earlougher's monograph for a complete list of ~ D A The argument xrz is. the drainage area of a circle of radius re. assume that 5 = 5651 asi (same as D. The drainage area is then shaped by the assigned production duty of a paaicular To account for irregular drainage shapes or asymmetrical positioning of a well within its drainage area.l3 . where 1.


(2-15). and (2-37) can be used for transient.43(5651 .f for any skin effect. separator or p i p e l i n e _ p ~ ~etc.~:!=~!!%!?~e. calculate the average reservoir pressure within each drainage area. shown in Fig. 2-6 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP -_ e in the reservou. & & . From Fig. (2-15)becomes pwf = 5651 . + + Using the well and reservoir data in Appendix A. a third equation is needed: AA AB Ac = @ ~~'&~tyequ$~elafethe we11 production rate and the driving f_orce / EXAMPLE 2-9 Pseudo-steady-state IPR:Influence of average reservoir pressure This calculation is the most useful and the one most commonly done for the forecast of well performance. -. Solution The drainage volumes formed by the production rate of each well are related by It i s . Finally. and therefore the three areas are to be allocated 140.06 x 10' ft2).265..W f? (200 x 200 ft). ~~e~. since h varies. construct transient IPR curves for 1.a given reservoir .5. As = 243 acres ? ) (1. Therefore. then the ratios of the areas would have sufficed. (243) must be entered in hours].6.g ~ e f uto present the we11 producti_o. EXAMPLE 2-8 Steady-state IF'R: Influence of the skin effect Assume that the initial reservoir pressure of the well described in Appendiw A is also the constant pressure of the outer -. Figure 2-5 is a graph of the transient IPR curves for the three different 0 times. Draw IF'R curves for skin effects equal to 0.3). The drainage divide must be normal to the tieline between adjoining wells. well B is shape no. t [which in Eq. Solution Equation (2-15) describes a straight-line relationship between q and p. respectively. a well will actually prodice iiiust be the combination of what the r e S e r v o i r = ~ v ~ d what the imposed wellbore hydraulics w o u l d . respectively.7 x lo6 ft2). From Eq. p. the volumes can be replaced by the product hiAi. and 118 squares. can be drawn.d = 480 acres Equations (2-39). steady-state. 2 4 . and 50. and 35.03 1.- ~ressui~ii~~>ds o~grmd~ctiieP_g~nee_ring If the bottomhole pressure is 2000 psi for each well.8. where i refers to each well. HOWf ever. 10.584 (2-44) Similarly. respectively. what .9.6 x lo6 f. Eq. 11. the bottomhole pressure is a function of the wellhead decisions. Each IF'R curve reflectsa:snnp~hoc. the production rate can be obtained readily.respectively. The next step is to sketch these areas on the fault block map. Use a drainage radius of 2980 ft (A = 640 acres). ( 2 4 % and (2-41) result in AA = 129 acres (5. Such uneven depletion is common and is an important variable to know in any reservoir exploitation strategy. 2-3. Solution Equation (2-7) with substituted variables takes the form ' Iogt +4. The following examples will illustrate these concepts. well A is shape no. These describe shapes and therefore approximate shape factors. ~ ~ . counting squares.6.h e b o ~ o m h o l ~ p ~ e s s u ~ e gaphedon the ordinate andthe productio? is ~ p . $ . that is t h e p ~ s s u r difference between the initialUouterboundary oraverggg reservou pres~~u. the approximate drainage areas.9). 0 The average pressures in the drainage areas for wells B and C are calculated to be 3271 and 2974 psi. Figure 2-6 gives the steady-state IPR curves for the four skin effects. Assume zero skin.pWf) (2-43) The relationship between q and pwfof course will depend on time. and 50 skin effects are 5. and 24 months. .and Ac = 108 acres (4.8)..54. (STB/d at time of shut-in) B 200 40 0 C 80 36 5 100 38 2 Y I the bottomhole pressure is given. ~ d Equations (2-7).Production from Undersaturated Oil Resenroirs Chap. 7 (CA= 30. (steady state). However. % ~ ~ hon the abscissa. 10 (CA= 3.n-ra_tg~sfunction-o_f_th_e_b_1~n_9mhole l a This type of presentation is known as&inflow p e ~ o E a n c e r e l a t i o n s h i ^ p ~ ~ c ~ u s u a l l yt. Thus. and pseudosteady-state IPR curves. For example.. 12 (CA= 10. (2-37) and for well A. Each map square represents 40. 2-6 Inflow Performance Relationship A q. 2 Sec. the multipliers of the rate for the 0. and well C is shape no. EXAMPLE 2-7 Transient IPR If the reservoir thickness were the same throughout.of.after substitution of variablesfor askin equal to 5.T .

For a circular drainage shape. Combination with volumetric materialbalances (treatedin Chapter 9) will allow the forecast of rate and cumulative production versus time. Use all other variables from Appendix A. This is a time-dependent calculation. each reflecting an average reservoir pressure. (2-45) will remain the same. as shown in Fig. The intercept will simply be the average pressure. the slope in Eq. (2-30) results (for p = 5651) in p. 2-7 Horizontal Well Production 31 pressure. done in discrete intervals. Substituting the variables from Appendix A into Eq. (2-30) is sufficient. 2-7 HORIZONTAL PRODUCTION WELL Figure 2-6 Steady-state IPR curves and impact of skin effectfor ~~~~l~ 2-8.Sec.r = 5651 . 2-7.f o ~ &(ih < 5Q ft) a reservoirsor_fo~~~q~es_e~v_olrsa d s x t k a l p e ~ e ~ i l i @ ~ k v . the pseudo-steady-state IPR curves are depicted as parallel straightlines. For this exercise. Starting in the 1980s. 0 q (STBId) Figure 2-7 Pseudo-steady-state IPR curves for a range of average reservoir pressures (Example 2-9). Eq. calculate the IPR curves for zero skin effect but for average reservoir pressures in increments of 500 psi from the "initial" 5651 to 3500 psi. Therefore.59 (2-45) For all average reservoir pressures. @eY proved to be e x d e n t p ~ ) d u c e ~ s . horizontal wells began capturing an ever-increasing share of hydrocarbon production. ~itkg e"- . Drainage radius is 2980 ft. Solution Equation (2-37) is the generalized pseudo-steady-state equation for any drainage shape and well position.

~ ~ b ~ i divc&ns. a horizontal well that is not intended to . Also graph the productivity index ratios between these horizontal wells and vertical wells in the same reservoirs. y ~ hydraulically fractured should be drilled along the direction of minimum horizontal stress. a is the large half-axis of the drainage ellipsoid formed by a horizontal well of length L. Repeat the calculation for reservoir heights equal to 25 and 250 ft and for kv equal to = 8.i = 0.~ ~ . 2-7 Horizontal Well Production 33 and horizontal permeabilities are described in Chapter 11.@ .t measurements i n ~ c p i l ohole can identify theemmgjmum minimum t and hirizontal stress directions. Graph length versus production rate.5 [ [ + 0. (248). (1990). Joshi (1988) presented a horizontal well deliverability relationship that was augmented by Economides et al. (2-48) EXAMPLE 2-10 Figure 2-8 Drainage pattern formed around a horizontal well. The expression for this ellipsoid is a = . . For the horizontal permeability anisotropy. Use re" = 2980 ft and PWJ = 3500 psi. From Eq. Usually.0. 2 Sec.9. Solution The calculations below are done for a horizontal well of length L. Production rate from a horizontal well: Effects of reservoir thickness and vertical permeability Using the variables for the well in Appendix A.Production from Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs Chap..25). calculate the expected production rate from a horizontal well of several lengths up to a maximum length of 2000 ft.2 md (Irni 1) and 131 md (I.@ ~ ~ ~ m m h _ 0 r ~ ~ n .25 + (- for L - e r .~ . equal to 2000 ft. they coincidew* ~ _ m ~ @ u _ m . (2-46). The relationship (mixed steady state in the horizontal plane and pseudo-steady state in the vertical plane) is where I~ is a measurement of vertical-to-horizontalpermeability anisotropy and is given (2-47) In Eq.

In thinner formations this requirement is relaxed. Figure 2-10 is a graph of the productivityindex ratios between these horizontal wells and vertical wells in the same resewoirs. estimate the equivalent vertical well skin effect. then for I. rh. The horizontal well production rate is given by Eq. the effective wellbore radius. 1. (2-52)] results in r' = re ([a + J-I/(L/~)] [Imih/rw(Li I)I'~'~ + (2-53) .i equal to 3.25. Using the data in Example 2-10. Develop an expression for a vertical well effective wellbore radius that would result in equivalent production from a horizontal well.6607.(2-46) [and the expression in Eq. Solution The logarithmic expression inside the large parentheses in Eq. and 0. 0 EXAMPLE 2-11 Eauivalent skin effect and effective wellbore radius from a horizontal well For a vertical well. (2-18). Figure 2-9 shows the flow rates for all three thicknesses and three permeability anisotropies for arange of horizontal well lengths.34 Production from Undersaturated Oil Reservoirs Chap.denoting the great significance of permeability anisotropy for thicker reservoirs. (246) can be gath- ered: L rw(Ih+l) Comparisonbetween Eq. (246). if h = 250 ft. respectively. (2-17) [and the definition of the effective wellbore in Eq. (2-18)] and Eq. In both graphs the great impact of good vertical permeability in thick formations is evident. = These results suggestthemoderate significanceof the vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy for amoderate-thickness formation.(246). is given by Eq. and if Imi 0.25. and remembering that for the base case. then q = 1958 STB/d. - then = 1634 STBW < L J I If Ih = 1 then q = 1862 STBW. the flow rates q are 4009. However. and 8600 STB/d. 2 From Eq.

Expressions for s& are also presented in the same chapter. and stimulation considerations will be addressed in Chapter 5.. is the connate water saturation.. 2 ~~s ~ e c2-9 Effects of Water Production..2B0p0 [In ( r e / r w ) s ] + (2-57) sum of these permeabilities is invariably less than the absolute permeability of the formation (to either fluid).5 and 3 for most applications. This results in a 58% reduction of the production rate compared to the case of an undamaged This issue. then the three terms in the denominator of Eq. In Example 2-10. 2-1 1. for steady-state production. (2-46) in the following manner: 141. respectively. S. This point is expounded upon in Chapter 5 . in an undersaturated oil reservoir.. h = 53 ft. a = 2500 ft. So. I~ = 3 and re" = 2980 ft.65. = kkroh(~e ~ w f ) o 141. For example. as shown in Fig. L = 2000 ft. When the water saturation. Thus. its relative impact. rh = 341 ft. ~~eieitGd S.. (2-54) ranges between 1.0. L = 2000 ft. OF RELATIVE PERMEABILITY sw Figure 2-1 1 Water production. its effect on the production rate can be substantial. being functions of S. relative permeability effects. Therefore. the magnitude of damage. (2-55) (2-56) 2-8 IMPACT EFFECT HORIZONTAL PERFORMANCE OF SKIN ON WELL The horizontal well skin effect is added to the denominator of Eq. Even if it is multiplied by I&h/L. The impact of this skin effect on the production rate reduction can be very large. is characteristic of the shape of damage in horizontal wells. (2-54) would be 1.. Relative Permeability ...2Bwgw [In ( r e / r w ) s ] with the relative permeabilities. and s& = 20. The first logarithmic expressionin the denominator of Eq. ko = kk. 2-1 1. k. Similarly.6. if I~ = 3. -- -- 1 kw 2-9 EFFECTS WATERPRODUCTION. S. &&wdwactice to u s m e k t k ~ a b i l i t i e s obtained for one reservoir to predict the performance of another? ~ s u a l l y . and from Eq. the resulting skin effect can be calculated. then no oil would flow and its effectivepermeability would be equal to zero.2Bg (h [ [ ' + ~+ ( y ) [-] } [In +s & ] ) Relative permeabilities are determined in the laboratory and are characteristic of a given reservoir rock and its saturating fluids.. h = 100 ft.. For example. 1 This skin effect. = '" + . k. would be equal to zero. = kk. when the oil saturation becomes the residual oil saturation. The second logarithmic expression ranges between 2. a = 3065 ft. ~ v ~ ~ i i f i Z a b ~ t y ~ ~ GfunctiGns of the water saturation.9.. 37 For a given r. and 3. from Eq. which ranges between lo-' and 0. s = -6. no free water would flow and therefore its effective permeability. k. kkrwh(~e ~ w j ) w (2-58) 141.. taking into account the permeability anisotropy and the likelihood of larger damage penetration nearest to the vertical section. (2-18). as shown in Fig.. whereas s& can be as high as 50 with common values about 20. and k.Production from Undersaturated Oil R ~ s ~ N o Chap. denoted as s&.5 and 4. inflow equations must be written for both oil and water. (2-53).3.5.

. C. ' m e Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Resevoirs.Elsevier. What would be the average reservoir pressure at that time? The flowing bottomhole pressure is 3500 psi. What will the ratio of the flow rates be afrer 6 months? 2-3. "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure from Build-up Surveys.. Joshi. 3. Use this flow rate to solve for from the pseudo-steady state relationship). 640 versus 320 acres). (Note: Calculate flow rate from transient relationship. If the well drainage area in another is half that of the first reservoir (e. Equation (2-35) provided the time for the beginning of pseudo-steady state. 1 ~ t u r e p e & o l e u r n a r e ~ s . and Jaeger. PROBLEMS 2-1..) 2-6.g. ~ h i p p e r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a j . The discount rate (time value of money) is 0. 2-11. G h ? well is often referred to as a "shipper" with production rates of less than 10 STB/d of o i l ./(l +iY. 186: 305-324. R.10. Van Everdingen.Fundamentals of Resewoir Engineering.. ConductinnofHeat in Solids. Darcy. 418426. develop a cumulative production curve for 1 year. what fraction of this pressure gradient is across the damage zone? .15. N.. 2-10. 2.10.. X. Deimbacher. Advances in Well Test Analysis. A horizontal well. Clalculate this time for the well described in Appendix A if the drainage area is 640 acres.. where (AN. 1000 f t long. 1856.87s. 1959. How would the presence of a skin effect distort this comparison? Use skins equal to 0. Dallas. 0. 2 ~ problems 39 Note that the pressure gradients have been labeled with subscripts for oil and water to allow for different pressures within the oil and water phases.AIME. and 20. 2980 ft. Construct a transient IPR for the well in Problem 2-8 at the time of the beginning of pseudo-steady state. Clarendon Press.. Assume a production rate of 80 STBId and a drainage area of 640 acres. Assuming that the skin effect is equal to 10. Les Fontaines Publiques de la W e de Dijon. R. Dake. The ratio q. 2-7. "Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and Horizontal WeUs. In each case. The drainage area is 640 acres. [NPV= (AN. D. and 30 and P W ~equal to 3000 psi. calculate the performance for 1 year and compare it with the performance of a well with zero skin.328.August 5. and SPEFE. Victor Dalmont. J. 9 in Fig. 955959. In an almost depleted reservoir it would not be unusual to obtain water-oil ratios of 10 or l a r g e r . the outerboundarypressureis 5500.. 1977. Paris. 8. ~ 6 n s t i & t e majority the-overwhelming of producers. Wells produce under steady-state conditions in four reservoirs of permeabilities. Continue Problem 2-2.01. December 1991.1990. Pwf. 7. Dietz. W.1. Amsterdam. REFERENCES 1.. H. S. what should be its average reservoit pressure to produce the same well flow rate? Use zero skin and 3000-psi bottomhole flowing pressure for both wells. E. is drilled in a reservoir as described in Appendix A. = 2980 ft and pWf = 3500 psi. At what time will the well produce 50% of the total? The flowing bottomhole pressure is 3500 psi. 6. L."JPT. and Heinemann. reH. W. Use the well and reservoir properties in Appendix A.1949. 2-2. s& that 3500 psi.). Calculate the net present value (NPV) for the expected cumulative pmduction of the first 3 years. 7.June 1988. and the flowingbottomholepressure is 3500psi./qo is referred to as the water-oil ratio. Economides. Obtain all other variables from Appendix A. = 0. the skin effect must be added inside the large parentheses as 0.. Calculate the production rate before and after skin removal. 729-739. Using the variables for the well in Appendix A.and H u t .5. Oxford. 2-9. Sociely of Petroleum Engineers. would halve the well production rate? 2-5. is drilled in a reservoir with zmi = 1. A horizontal well. 1978. m a t would be the impact on the well production rate if the well were placed within the drainage area as depicted in configurationsno.] What are the fractional contributions from each year on the 3-year NPV? 2-4. The average pressure in a reservoir is 6000 psi. 8. In Eq. (Note: The improvements in the production rate that are calculated in this problem would provide an insight as to the decision for an appropriate stimulation treatment: fracturing versus matrix. 0. C. F." Trans. What would be the skin effect. What should be the horizontal well length to produce the same flow rate if 1~= 3? The drainage radius. and 10 md. "Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance:' SPE 20717."JPT. A. Their economic viability is frequently one of the most important questions confronting production engineers. 2-8. J. The skin effect is equal to 10 in all four cases. 2nd ed. H. 4. Carslaw. All other variables are also the same. and no. and the flowing bottomhole pressure. (2-7).). 2-3? Assume a drainage area of 640 acres and r.1. E. 2000 ft long. All other is necessary variables are in Appendix A. Earlougher.. no. D.Production from Undersaturated Oil R e s e ~ o i r Chap.M. Repeat for half the time. Brand. Calculate the total pressure gradient required for values of skin of 0. respectively.Z. is the cumulative pmduction in yearn and i is the discount rate. S. Assume that the price of oil is $25. C.

while gas may come out of solutionafter oil enters the well. Figure 3-1 is a schematic of a classicphasediagram.-----r- free or solution gas is a much more efficient mechanism than the expansion of oil. ii--3.l.f and temperature qf are also marked. . e initial reservoir conditions for an undersaturated oil reservoir are marked as pi. . is marked within the two-phase region. Thus the reservoir fluid would follow a path from the reservoir to the surface. It is likely that e-vednthe best of cases (the issue will be addressed in Chapter 9). with pressure p. The wellhead flowing conditions. the reservoir is above the bubble-point pressure. the use of thoserelationships does not consider free gas to be present in the reservoir. p h . T.T. the paths for the - - - 41 . th .x. joining these three points.f. The flowing bottomhole pressure.C H A P T E R n Production from Two-Phase Reservoirs The performance relationships presented in Chapter 2 were for single-phase oil wells and. all three points would be within the two-phase envelope.~. plotting pressure versus tempera~ n d i n pressures g ture and identifying the important variables. D and the reservoir tem rature a diagram such%Eig. reflectingthe typically isothermal flow in the reservoir. In this depiction. 3-1 can indicate whether single-phase df& i~ --i . p.~I:<se_n_tedn C b ? p t ~the two-phase p i if ~ ? p ~ equations presented in this chaptercgee_rl_ed. The flowing bottomholetemperature is taken as equal to the reservoir temperature. For comparison. Expansion of oil itself as a means of recovery is a highly inefficient mechanism because of @e oil's small compressibility.keepjng the > --"--. In an initially saturated reservoir.

? Solution ding fromFig.615 meoriginal-oil-in-place at pi=pbis (B0b=1. Then from Eq.S. BOb=1. below the bubble point.7. 500 Calculate the total formation volume factor at 3000 psi for the reservoir fluid described in Appendix B. B. If R. must be divided by 5. areduction of 4 x lo7 STB.Production from Two-Phase Reservoirs Chap. Rrb= 850 SCF/ STB. Starting from the right at B 0 ~ 1 .) .1 General Properties of Saturated uid. then B. the intersection . 3-2 properties of Saturated Oil Bt = Bo 43 + (Rsb .3 x lo8 STB. In the latter case there is a much more pronounced path. T . ~ ~ a . and YO=~~"API.58 ~ ~ ~ I S N(-N. ..=1. ~ band Bo for a large number . T=18O0F. B. from Standing's (1977) significant work in oilfield hydrocarbon relate important variables such as R. gas N Ah+ (1 . point pressure. res TB.7) Boi (1. bottomhole.=1000 SCFISTB. pb=2750 psi.. and wellhead flowing conditions for an oil reservoir. What would be the impact if %=I000 SCFISTB but all other variables remain the same? ~f ~ . 3-2 in a stairstep manner with the first set of variables. Masked are reservoir.2 bblISTB.58 res bbUSTB 0 5.550) = 1. QF. Y.7 x losSTB = (3-3) F~~ ~. B-1.(7758)(4000)(115)(0. If B.31 + ~ ( 8 5 . B-la) (3-2) 3-2 PROPERTIES OF SATURATED OIL 3-2.) = 3. 0 EXAMPLE 3-2 Use of correlations to obtain PVT properties of saturated oil reservoirs ~~~~~~j~~ that Rs=5@ SCFISTB. and T=160°E calculate the bubble7. of hydrocarbons.43 res bbVSTB from Fig. = 5 0 0 SCF/STB.43) = 3.= 550 SCFISTB. Figure 3-3 can be used for the last question.Rs)Bg (3-1) where R~~ the solution gas-oil ratio at the bubble-point pressure.31 res bbl/STB. y. What would be the reduction in volume of oil (STB) in 4000 acres of the reservoir described in the same Appendix when the average pressure is reduced from the initial pressure to 3000 psi? Assume that the initial pressure is the bubble-point pressure and is equal to Solution From Fig. Figures 3-2 and 3-3. = 5 x lo-' res ft3/scF. y0=28"API. EXAMPLE 3-1 pVT propelties below the bubble-point pressure: Impact on oil reserves Schematic phase diagram of a hydrocarbon mixture. = 1. Y O . 3 see.= 1. then pb=5200 psi.615 to convert to res bbl/SCE These PVT propehes are usually obtained in the laboratory and are unique to a given reservoir fluid. and R. (3-0. should be res what the gas gravity.21)(0. and 0 of the two lines results in yp0. 2 res b b ~ s mT = ~ ~ O and yo=320API then from the left at Rs=500SCFISTB. These correlations should be used only in the absence of PVT properties obtained for the specific reservoir. is given in res is ft3/SCF. reffecting Joule-Thomson expansion effects a 5x B.

22 barrel F r barrel of h n t oil. t point drop v. formation volume of bubble-point liquids.r.PROPERTIES OF NATURAL HYDROCARBON MIXTURES OF GAS AND LIQUID FORMATION VOLUME of BUBBLE POINT LIQUIDS EXAMPLE REQUIRED: Fernofion volumr a t 2OO. VI P FORMATON VOLUME of BUBBLE POINT LIQUID - Figure 3-3 Properties of natural mixtures of hydrocarbon gas and liquids.F fine.) .F of a bubble point liquid having a gas-oil r a t i o o f 350 CFB. From this . 1977. Th* rqu. 7 5 .rfically to Me JOYPI fine. to a 9 8 ~ r ~ v i o fy 0. and o iank oil g r a v i t y o f 3 0 'API.75.d fbnna+ioion volume is tbund to b* 1. PROCEDURE: Starting at 1 h f f ride of thr rharf. Proceed horizental/y f r o m the h n k w'l gravity scale to the 2OO. . 0 gar gravity of 0. proceed horizontally along the 350 CFB fin. (After Standing.

Production from Two-Phase ReseNoir~ Chap. with R. the gas gravity is corrected to the reference separator pressure of 100 psig Fluid Density. 1959). 0 + 4 . Above the bubble point.180yz. where Bo is calculated from Eq.01361ygdRs BO (3-15) where p. Then Eq. and GOR is the gas-oil ratio in SCF/.~'~ where If the stock tank oil viscosity is known. (3-21) through (3-23).~ ~ . the oil density is (3-16) where Tsepis in O . Bo: ql = Boqo Here ql is the actual liquid flow rate at some location in the well or reservoir.. according to 9z = Bg (GoR ad for pressures above the bubble point is Bo c0 = -1. this value can be used for pod with Eqs.715(Rs + 100)-O. 3-2 Properties of Saturated Oil 47 3-2.433 (3-13) (3-14) + 5R. so the bubble-point pressure can be estimated from Eqs. 1 3 3 7 ~ 1(3-11) ~ . . (3-10) or (3-ll). 1 1 ~ 1 0 . The oil density at pressures below the bubble point is [8. such as those in Appendix B.)]+ o. 3-2 and 3-3. ~ 0-~ a = 10. (3-13) and Bob from Eq. R. The "dead" oil viscosity is and for H z 3OoAPI. + 17.2 Property Correlations for Two-phase systems This Subsection Presents the most widely used property correlations for two-phase oilfield hydrocarbon systems.5 Po = + Y.0324 . given in Figs. The solution gas-oil ratio is then.. They can be obtained from laboratory PVT data. or from correlations.$TB.0. where Bg is the gas formation volume factor and will be addressed further in Chapter 4. R. (3-10) or (3-11) may be used to calculate Bob. the oil-formation volume factor for 5 30°API is A=- + B = 10' C = 3. 3-4 (Katz et al. is in lb. 6 7 ~ 1 0 .=GOR and solving for p. Another correlation that is accurate for a wider range of nude oils is that of Vasquez and Beggs (1980). 830/(131.2T . + 0 .=GOR. pod = loA. It can be estimated from Fig. Oil viscosity can be estimated with the correlations of Beggs and Robinson (1975) and Vasquez and Beggs (1980). The downhole gas rate depends on the solution gas-oil ratio. = 1 . given here. ~ the formation volume factor at the bubble point. psepis in psia.~ ~ + 0 .Rs)qo a d B . The oil-formation volume factor and the solution gas-oil ratio. (3-7) or (3-8) setting R. and fi is in "API. First.163 y~ T 460 For pressures below the bubble-point pressure.02023~1 The oil viscosity at any other pressure below the bubble point is where B . 3 set. Fluid Viscosity. At the bubble point. The downhole volumetric flow rate of oil is related to the surface rate through the formation volume factor./ft3 and yid is the dissolved gas gravity because of the changing gas composition with temperature. will vary with temperature and Pressure.. One common correlation is that of Standing.1 (3-17) (3-18) (3-19) (3-20) A = BT-1. for F H 5 30°API. + 1 2 . the solution is gas-oil ratio is equal to the produced gas-oil ratio (GOR). 6 1 ~ p x 105 .1.

the liquid flow properties are generally taken to be averages of the oil and water properties.513 . (3-8)and (3-9).= 0. estimate the volumetric flow rates of the gas and liquid and the density and viscosity of the liquid at a point in the tubing where the pressure is 2000 psia and the temperature is 150°F. and B.1337 x 10-8(369)(4. A = -----. 3-2 Properties of Saturated Oil 49 to estimateliquid viscosity and surfacetension.reprodwed withpermission of McGraw-Hill.5 + 1.98 x 1 0 .67 x 10-4)(369) 0. and a is the surface tension.0525 15032 460 + Solubility (scflbbl) Predictionof gas gravity from solubilityand crude-oil gravity.5 and a GOR of 500.22) = 1360 bbUday = 7640 ft3/d (3-34) . the formation volume factor for water is normally assumed to be 1. can be calculated from the real gas law. When water is produced. 41 = 90(WOR m= + Bo) WORpw + B o ~ o W O R + Bo (3-26) (3-27) (3-28) (3-29) where W O R is the water-oil ratio. (3-17) through (3-23). Then m = 2.056x lo3)= 1.(This type of calculation will be shown explicitly in Chapter 4. The separator conditions for properties given in Appendix B are 100 psig and 1 WE Using the cornelationspresented in Section 3-2. Thus.97 x res ft3/SCF. Solution The first step is to calculate R. For T=150°F and p=2000 psi.~ p ) Gas viscosity can be estimated with the correlation that will be given in Chapter 4.2.. though there is no theoreticaljustification for this approach.6p1. EXAMPLE 3-3 Estimating downhole properties Suppose that 500 bbl/d of the oil described in Appendix B is being produced at a WOR of 1.. = 1 + (4. (AfterKah et al. B. Also. The volume fraction-weightedaverages will be used The gas-formation volume factor. . y = y. when water and oil are flowing.Production from Two-Phase Reservoirs Chap. 1f there is no slip between the oil and water phases. it is 6. the liquid density is the volume fraction-weighted average of the oil and water densities. The reader should note that in the petroleum literature it has been common practice to use volume fraction-weighted average liquid properties in oil-water-gas flow calculations. B.22 res bbl/STB (3-33) Accounting for the presence of water.1s7exp(-11.) Figure 3-4 (3-30) For pressures above the bubble point. McGraw-Hill. copyright 1959. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. 3 set.) The volumebic flow rates are [Eqs.056x lo3) + + 0. the viscosity at the bubble point is first computed with Eqs. From Eqs.0 because of low compressibilityand gas solubility.8... (3-26)and (3-27)] ql = (500)(1. Since the separator is at the reference condition of 100 psig.11 x 10-4(4.

5 + 3211 + (0. k .01361)(0. it is necessary to understand the impact of competing phases on the flow of a fluid through the porous medium.97 X 10-3)(500.. would Cause some reduction in the effective permeability to oil._a~_t~rnati_~a!!~f0~fe_~~~~~~_.. being simply the relative permeabilities .715(369+ 100)-0. If there are two or three fluids flowing at the same time in a porous medium. = k' kw krw=k.515 = 0. one for each fluid.0 0. . such as connate water.657 = flo 0.02023)(32) = 2. ..qiifi3 1. (2-15) for adjusted to steady state.163 0.369)(500) = 457 ft3/d : ..0..o A = (242.0 0.p w f ) o (3-47) .1 = 4. Therefore.~~_ Pressure w e n t test-derived~rmeabilitiesare far more reliable (not only because of the reason outlined above but also because they accountfor reservoir heterogeneities.. (3-17) though (3-23): ~r61a'tivT&ea%f1iB-&ta-&~e~~d f o r ~ f i S e r ~ 6 i r ~to ~ d i ~ ~ d (3-38) (3-39) (3-40) (3-41) (3-42) (3-43) (3-44) c = 3.19)0..7 x >.5 0.multipliedby the absolute permeability..3 0.2 0. = (6.I. in multiphase flow.2Bopo[l~ (re/rw)+ s] koh(pe .d and gas relativepermeability. with air or water ~ho~ld_~~~..~A --. 1.Figure 3-Tlsa schematic diagram of laboratory-derived oil and gas relative permeability data. Thus laboratory-derived core permeabilities 0.8 0 0. .- (3-35) -.8 .7 = m>@isvensee. 3 set. water with k.1 0.7 0.338 0. ko.O ss Figure 3-5 similar.6 0.(0.451 b = 5. and gas with kg. The oil viscosity can be estimated with Eqs. The effective permeabilities are analogous. whose saturation is denoted by SWC.19 cp a = 10. cores reflect only local pemeabilities). from ~ q (3-27). The effective permeabilities are related to the relative permeabilities by simple expressions: ko k.- P 3 0.385 B = 1d. formation3 -. oil flows with an effectivepermeability.9 = 0.. k. 830/(131.385 242.16cp = Y 3 2 - . Therefore.-. kg krg=x (3-46) (3-36) I and.-.6 3-3 TWO-PHASE IN A RESERVOIR FLOW Although a rigorous treatment of two-phase flow in a reservoir is outside the scope of this textbook. Even the Presence of a nonflowing phase. Eq.~~~~ed.657 1.715 = P& = . rearranged for the flow of oil.22 . the absolute reservoir permeability. PO = -...-. I me rate equations developed in Chapter 2 for single-~hase of must then be flow effectivepermeabilities in the presence of gas. is necessarily divided into "effective" permeabilities.7)(150)-'.9 1.0324 . 3-3 Two-Phase Flow in a Reservoir 51 TOcalculate the oil den~itv+he A. . .44(369 f 150)-0.451(4.8 0.~. when compared to a core fully saturated with oil.85)(369) = 47. becomes 90 = 141.4 0. .50 98 Productionfrom Two-Phase Reservoirs chap.

Pb P ~ J (3-56) and is related to qv (denoted here as ''VogeY flow) by qv = 1. if p. from Eq. where D is the turbulence coefficient..21 and. (3-47). B-2 in Appendix B at Sp0. Note the shape of the curve which is 0 no longer a smight line as for the single-phase oil in Chapter 2- mote: The value of 8 is the average value between 4350 and 3000 psi in Fig. (2-15). a significant reduction from the ideal value. fro* Eq. ~t first. This can be done for transient.3000) = 748 STB/d (141..406)] with Eq.2(pwflp) .the term ~ ) q be n can to account for turbulence effects in high-rate wells. From Fig.37)(1. taking into account propew . 3-4 OIL INFLOW PERFORMANCE A TWO-PHASE RESERVOIR FOR 96 = kh(pi .472re/rw)and p. The generalized expression for the flow of oil. 40 = 4o.0.08. can be written for steady state as and therefore koh$[l 90 = .8 . For example. me flow-rate '" = (13)(115)(4350. steady state. . 3 Set. 8 ( ~ w/$)zl f (3-53) ForPseudo-steadY state.2)(1. Also note that the pressure gradient is denoted with a subscript o.iddkro 3-5 GENERALIZED VOGEL INFLOW PERFORMANCE the reservoir pressure is above the bubble point and Yet the flowing bottomhole is below. can be written as ~f resulting in %=I57 STB/d.0 . for pseudo-steady state.pb) 141. where pwf=pb. Solution Equation (3:53) for P=4350 psi becomes Solution From Eq. and pseudo-steady state. EXAMPLE 3-4 The effect of relative permeability on the flowof oil in a two-phase reservoir EXAMPLE 3-5 calculation of inflow performance using Vogel's correlation Developan IPR curve for the well described in Appendix B. Finally. (3-54). in the brackets i the denominator of Eq. can be changed to ln(0. (3-48). (3-54) is simple. the relative permeability to oil k.2Bp(po + (3-55) S) J=- 9b Pi where.=0.ariation and relative permeability effects. indicating that it must be withim the oil phase. 3-5 GeneralizedVogel Inflow Performance 53 where ko =kro k.f= 3000 psi.. 0 The Permeability used in Eq. ln(re/rw) p.7)[1n(1490/0. The drainageradius is 1490 ft and the skin effect is zero. q. &la). (3-49) is the test-derived effective permeability without free gas. respecand tivel~. a generalized inflow perf0nIXUIce can be written. the flow rate. which may be different from that in the gas phase.Productionfrom Two-Phase Reservoirs Chap. ~i~~ 3-6 is a plot of the IPR curve for this well. = 680 STBId. qb.

.. the PVTproperties in Fig. 3-4. ands=O. 3.. and the p. PROBLEMS 3-1. 6. = C-". and the data in Appendix B. D. V. Plot IPR curves as in Example 3-5 but for a range of average reservoir pressures in increments of 500 psi. Volumeiricand Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. Dallas. regardless of the temperature? Figure 3-6 InIlow performance curve for a two-phase well. 1973. D.f is 3000 psi. Poettmann.. (3-60). L. 2. 7 What would bethemaximum B. January 1968.. The tem7 . C. F.. R.. 968-970. ~ ~ 9 . Fetkovich (1973) suggested a normalization with q. J. M. and Weinang. H. For the problem in Example 3-5. June 1990. Assume that each 0. and Robinson. Vogel. Finally.. M. Elenbaas. versus pressure for the data in Appendix B. Vary. and n in Fetkovich's approximation given by Eq. Comell. 4. use Eq..02 in the gas saturation in Fig..McGraw-Hill.. 3-5. Equations (3-53) and (3-60) are both empirical fits and thus should be used accord- REFERENCES 1.. J.. 3-3. Hint: You must plot the data on log-log paper. Katz.. 3-2. "Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems:' JPT. 'The Isochronal T s i g of Oil Wells:' SPE Paper 4529. and in a flow equation of the form the relationship becomes 3-6. &Pation (3-60) requires the determination of two unknowns. 3 References 55 therefore a test at two stabilized flow rates can allow the calculation of the corresponding @d therefore can leaxto the dZiGiGnation of go. 1140-1141. Skin effect is equal to zero. September 1975.=1490 ft. and n... etn 3. 1977.. Supposethat Rs=1000 SCFISTB.. 5. Kobayashi. Plot B.=1490. 1959. Beggs. What arethe relative contributions to the flow rate from the pressure difference above and the one below the bubble pint? 3-7. peratwe is 180°F. Plot the bubble-point pressure versus yo for Rs=500 SCFISTB and ~ ~ 9 . is frequently not in accordance with field data. Vasquez. r. B-1. Assume that the initial pressure of the well described in Appendix B is 1000 psi above the given initial (which also is the bubble-pint) pressure. Standing. R. L. F. H.. Do these curves follow a similar pattern.New York. and Beggs. A. Calculate the flow rate if pwf=3350psi(1000psi below pb). 1. D. the absolute open flow tentid.and . r. as would be the case for a single-phase oil well? Do they approach each other more or less? Why? 3-6 FETKOVCWS APPROXIMATON Vogel's normalizing 90 by 90.. and the exponent n. B. "Correlations for Fluid Physical Propew Predictions:' JPT. Society of Petroleum Engineers... D. With these relative permeability data..yO=3OoAPI. Fetkovich. M.Production from Two-Phase Reservoirs Chap. 83-92. (3-48) to forecast the well oil flow rate. Both of them are characteristic of a specific well and . calculate the q. B-2 represents a reduction in the bottomholepressure of 200psi. H... J.. "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells:'JPT. R. % m a .

is the ratio of the molecular weight of a natural gas to that of air.C H A P T E R 4 Production from Natural Gas Reservoirs Natural gas reservoirs produce hydrocarbons that exist primarily in the gas phase at reservoir conditions. temperature. higher than 0. This is particularly important (more so than in the case of oil reservoirs) because certain physical properties of gases and gas mixtures vary significantly with pressure. In order to predict the production rate from these reservoirs. and gas isothermal compressibility.9. as used in natural gas production and reservoir engineering. is where yi and MWi are the mole fraction and molecular weight. A light gas reservoir is one that containsprimarily methane with some ethane.1 Gas Gravity The gas gravity. respectively.97 (approximately 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen). Therefore the gas gravity. in some rare cases.97) = 0. and gas composition.04/28. symbolized by yg. A rich or heavy gas reservoir may have a gravity equal to 0. there is a need to review some of the fundamental properties of hydrocarbon gases. Pure methane would have a gravity equal to (16.of an individual Component. itself a mixture of gases. gas viscosity. The molecular weight of air is usually taken as equal to 28.75 or. the real gas law. 4-1. gas compressibility factor (and the impact of nonhydrocarbon gases). Table 4-1 gives the molecular weights and critical properties for most hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon gases likely to be found in a natural gas reservoir. Following is a brief outline of gas gravity. .55.

Cz=0. . . . Calculate the gas gravity to air. The behavior of natural gas mixtures can be approximated by the real gas law pV = ZnRT . N 2 co2 Hzs 72.017.--_ _. . From P o A-1 7 = n ~4 V = (0. Finally.C3= 0. 4 set.926 0._.. Calculate the volume of 1 Ib-mol of and p = 4000 psi. Table 4-2 give: The pseudo-reduced properties are then D.748 mixtures and Dalton's law of partial pressures.97 = 0. the gas gravity is 18.69.255 0 14. C1=0. the gas deviation factor.. .II 58 Production from Natural Gas Reservoirs Chap. . are the pseudo-critical pressure and temperature of the mixture.021. with brief descriptions of the use of these correlations.880 0.08 482 485 434 397 361 492 1072 1306 830 847 915 973 1024 227 548 673 where pp.466 0..225D8. = 4 460)/378 = 1.082 0...' a . EXAMPLE 4-2 Use of the real gas law to caculate tne volu I A natural gas consists of the following( m o l a r ) : and CO2 = 0...04 673 344 . as can be seen from Fig. To use Fig. iso-Pentane n-Pentane n-Hexane n-Heptane n-Octane Nitrogen Carbon dioxide Hydrogen Sulfide C5H12 CsHlz CKHI~ C7H16 CsHls N z COz HzS i-C5 n-C5 n-C6 n-C7 n-C._. nv u-r----. The temperaturemust be absolute (R or K). 4-1 it is n and temperature) of the Inis--. Following is a summary of these.115 2. Compound CI Composition 0. -.017 yi MWi c z coz c 3 18..01 34. which is simply O F + 460°F or "C + 273. = 60°F = 520°R. 4-1. and T.63.855)(l)(l0. Z can be taken as equal to 1. .. at the standard conditions of p.. .15 86.7 psi and T. 4-2 CORRELATIONS USEFUL CALCULATIONS NATURALGASES AD N FOR 4-1.02 44.2 114. = 14.2 Real G a s Law Several important works have presented correlations for natural gas properties. respectively.880.082.2 28.15 72.021 0.73)(640) = 4000 .17 100. 4-2 Correlations and Useful Calculations I Compound Methane Chemical Symbol Molecular Critical Critical Composition (for calculations) Weight Pressure (psi) Temperature (")R 16. .. . 0 Therefore.


4-3.15 86.006 0.65. 2. leading to y.18 114. which compare with 671 psi and 378"R calculated explicitly in Example 4-2.349 0. Tp. The pseudocritical properties.0005. 180°Fand 4000 psi.92128.083 001 .15 72. 4-2 can be used to adjust the pseudo-critical properties of a gas mixture to account for the presence of nonhydrocarbon gases.0001n-Cs=O. Therefore.N24. i-C44. 4-2. 4-3 and using the compositions of C02 and H2S.008 001 .85 12.0 1.~ 344 550 666 733 766 830 847 915 1024a Y~T. C2=0.99 44 .2 1.216 0.577 0. Of course.496 0.116 0. can be corrected by T' = TPC .875 0.021. 4-1) in the presence of nonhydrocarbon gases. in the same manner as for Example 4-2. = 18.'.12 58. 4-2.5 3.) EXAMPLE 4-3 Calculation of the gas deviation factor of a sour gas A natural gas has the followingcomposition: C1=0.8 3 pc PER CENT H ~ S Figure 4-3 Pseudocritical temperature adjustment factor. a more proper calculation is to calculate the pseudo-critical properties.0 001 .07 44..0005. C02=0.65 13.003 0. 35R from Eq. = 670 psi and Tpc= 375'R.Calculate the gas deviation factor. The gas gravity used is for the whole mixture. n-C4=0.87 58. C6+=0. 0.12 72. Figure 4-2 can be used as an approximation when only the gas gravity is known or when a quick calculation is indicated.6 301 45.086 0.C3=0.98 31 .3 2. (4-6) .OOO1. Solution The pseudo-reducedpropefiies are calculated as shown in Table 4-3.8 14 . 4-2.0003.49 67 .1 58.0245.2 0.Production from Natural Gas Reservoirs Chap. 1972.97 = 0.and H2S= 0.02 'Use the properties of n-octane. eg. From Fig.23* 14. taking into account the nonhydrocarbon gases.3 03 . A gas with a high content of H2S is often referred to as a "sour" gas.3 Gas Deviation Factor Correction for Nonhydrocarbon Wichert and Aziz (1972) have presented a correlation that allows the use of the Standing-Katz graph (Fig.the adjustment factor ~3 = 2.152.035 2.926 0. yipci T. From Fig.0592.114 673 709 618 530 551 482 485 434 31 6' 588. 15 .7410. pp. where Y H ~ Sis the mole fraction of hydrogen sulfide and the term &g is a function of the H2S and COz concentrations and can be obtained from Fig. and pp.002 0.8 09 .0007.2 Presence of Nonhydrocarbon Gases The inserts in Fig.4 60 30. (From Wichert and Aziz. 4 Calculation of Pseudo-critical Properties for Example 4-2 Compound yi MWi yiMWi p.88 04 .



903) = 1. (4-2) and the derivative aV/ap from &.12' lo' .. Pe . calculations are shown in Table 4-4. Although this is done in the style of IPR curves as shown in the previous two chapters.615)q(MSCF/d)(0. where non-Darcy flow is evident in the reservoir. The "irregular" shape of the curve in Fig. (2-15) in Chapter 2. the associated pseudo-reduced temperature curye). Graph the gas flow rate versus flowing bottomhole pressure for the well described in Appendix C. V. Use the steady-state relationship given by Eq. As an example calculation.e.. at the correspondingtemperature (i. A similar approximation can be developed for pseudo-steady Figure 4-6 is a graph of p . 4-3 Approximations of Gas Well Deliverability 69 4-2. as will be shown in a later section of this chapter. For reasonably small gas flow rates this approximation is acceptable.0122 cp and T = 1. aZlap. . Solution Equation (4-23) after substitution of variables becomes 2.. (4-26) would yield a straight lime with slope equal to n Equation (4-20) is useful because it allows the calculation of the compressibility of a real gas at any temperature and pressure. (2.15). (4-17) results in Equations (4-23) and (4-24) are not only approximations in terms of properties but also because they assume Darcy flow in the reservoir. more conveniently.= -Substitution of the volume.pLf)" or. (4-24) [or Eq.07 x l d MSCF/d '. and p W f Therefore. ~ versus q for this example.Productionfrom Natural Gas Rese~oirs Chap.e.69 throughout.22 x 102 MSCF/d. For a real gas.0283)Z~/17. (4-25) q = c ( j Z . Needed are the gas deviation factor z and the the Standing-Katz correlation. A common presentation of Eq. by its equivalent from Eq.Pwf = 141. n A log-log plot of q versus p2 .128 x lo7 . is exactly equal to l/p. 4-6 reflects the changes in the Z factor. this is not a common constructionfor gas reservoirs. which 0 for this example reaches a minimum between 2500 and 3000 psi. it can be shown readily that c.. since the reservoir is considered . (4-27) yields and from Eq. That relationship can be adjusted for a natural gas well by converting the flow rate from STB/d to MSCF/d and using an average value of the gas formation volume between p. 4 set. after rearrangement and gathering of terns. (Note that p . has an exact thermodynamic expression: Equation (4-23) suggeststhat a gas well production rate is approximately proportional to the pressure squared difference.2(1000/5. a deviation of 14%. (4-23). the derivative a Vlap can be evaluated: . (4-18) into Q. where 0 .79 x 105)(0. 5 ~ < 1.pif= (5. am = 0.P f : and intercept C . often referred to as isothermal compressibility.6 Gas Compressibility The gas com~ressibiliq. [(pe = (5. not averages) the flow rate q would be 9. p. for pwf = 3000. Assume that s = 0 and re = 1490 ft (A = 160 acres).022)(0. EXAMPLE 4-6 Flow rate versus bottomhole pressure for a gas well 4-3 APPROXIMATIONS GAS WELL DELIVERABILITY OF The steady-staterelationship developed from Darcy 's law for an incompressiblefluid (oil) was presented as Eq. Eq.300d (4-28) + ~wf)/2lkh which results.79 x (4-27) For pwJ increments of 500 psi from 1000psi to 4000 psi. The properties fi and Z are average properties between p W f (Henceforth the bars will be dropped for simplicity). in If the initial pi and Ziwere used (i. It has the form For an ideal gas. (4-23)] is q = c(jZ-p2wf) For larger flow rates. using Eq. (4-21.

.933 0. following T = 1. .24 2.0195 0.10 1. p.+irithmetic average with Zi= 0. and the slope is b.022 0.0195 0.0226 0. The non-Darcy coefficient. D.472re. is frequently of the order of and therefore a rate of 10 MMSCFId would make the term Dq near the value of I rd/rU)(usually between 7 and 9).0189 0.930 + + 'From Fig.000264kt The first term on the right-hand side of Eq.945 (at .70 1. bArithmeticaverage with w i= 0. The flowing bottomhole pressure. is the gas viscosity in cp. This khU2 .1.96 1.0207 0. In the absence of field measurements.850 0. where y is the gas gravity.882 0.903 0. Approximationsfor thenon-Darcy coefficienthave been givenby a number of authors. .69. Eq. the non-Darcy coefficient.f.35 1. . The intercept of the straight line is a. k. both in ft.p i f ) (4-29) q (MSCFId) = 1424&?~[ln (rdlr.912 0. = 4613 psi).9 d. (4-32) may take the form p2 .0205 0. is calculated for four dierent stabilized flow rates.0244 cp (at p. Smaller values of q would result in proportionately n smaller values of Dq.860 0.0235 0. Otherwise 1.urwh& h (4-34) Figure 4-6 rate versus flowingbottomhole ~ESSUE for the gas well in ~~~~~l~ 4-6. 4-4 Gas Well Dellverabiltiyfor Non-Darcy Flow 71 4-4 GASWELL DELIVERABILITY NON-DARCY FLOW FOR Viscosity and Gas Deviation Factor for Example 4-6 A more "exact" deliverability relationship for stabilized gas flow was developed by konofsky and Jenkins (1954) from the solution of the differential equation for gas flow through porous media using the Forchheimer (rather than the Darcy) equationfor flow. and .915 0. .0177 0.49 2.Pif is graphed on Cartesian coordinatesagainst q. and for certain high rate wells it can be substantial.0146 0. 4 Sec.0226 0.903 0. (4-33) can be calculated from a "four)/q point test" where (p.Pif aq + bq2 = (4-33) In field applications the constants a and b in Eq.98 3. From b and its definition [see Eq.60 1.860 0. and therefore Eq..) s Dq] where D is the non-Darcy coefficient and rd is the Aronofsky and Jenkins "effective" drainage radius. (4-29) is rearranged as t~ = 0.5& rd rw (4-30) *. The second term accounts for non-Darcy effects. evaluated at the flowing u bottomhole pressure.878 0. D can be obtained.920 0.898 0. is the near-wellbore permeability in md.0134 0. following T.uctri The term Dq is often referred to as the turbulence skin effect. 0. (4-32)]. 'From Fig. Frequently.0165 0. All multipliers of q and q2 can be considered as constant. = 4613 psi). an empirical relationship is proposed: D= 6 x lom5 kO' .45 1.Production from Natural Gas Reservoirs Chap. .85 0.73 4.22 5. (4-31) 4. 4-1. h and hpe8the net and perforated thicknesses. = 1 6 .914 0.47 5. 4-5. (4-32) is identical to the one developed earlier [Eq. and is time dependent until rd = 0.20 1.0211. (4-24)] for Darcy flow.

02)(0. and Develop a deliverability relationship. and graph the Darcy and nonDarcy components and the correct deliverability curve. From Eqs.9x (0.14)(0.022 cp. is the same as the reservoir permeability. (MSCF/d)-.472)(1490) (0. 4 set. 2d. = 1.Productionfrom Natural Gas Reservoirs Chap. the stabilized relationship implied by Eq. and the non-Darcy coefficient.328)2 (0.p2f = 1.5(. (4-34) and substitution of the variables in Appendix C.017 md. (4-33) can be calculated next: (1424)(0. would be 1420 MSCF/d.) 0 6 ) 0 1 . G=0.17) Therefore.70'(8 D= = ft (half the net thickness).000264)(0.5 x (MSCF/d)-I. but that h. whereas this AOF. (6 x 1 .6 (0. D. and therefore which i radial coordinates reduces to n (4-4 1) (4-42) From the real gas law.93.The skin effect is equal to 3. when taking into account only the Darcy flow contribution.. The absolute open flow potential (AOF) for the correct curve (at p w f 4and therefore j 2 = 2. m P=-=V pMW ZRT (4-43) (4-44) . Solution The first step is to calculatethe time required for stabilizedflow. The coefficients a and b in Eq.02 cp. + Figure 4-7 is a log-log graph of the Darcyand the correct curve incorporating non-Darcyeffects. Use a viscosity p=0.=0.) 7 ) 05(.is equal to 4.93)(640)(4. OF 4-5 TRANSIENT FLOW A GASWELL G~~flow in a resepoir under transient conditions Can be approximated bination of Darcy's law (rate equation) and the continuity equation.5)(0.5 x lo4 psi-'. In general. Show the absolute open flow potential (AOF). c.. (4-30) which leads to ' = [ (1. the EXAMPLE 4-8 Estimation of the non-Darcy coefficient Calculate the non-Darcy coefficient for the well in Appendix C. that is.022)(0. (4-32) will be in effect after this time. then D = 4.=1490 ft ( A = 160 acres). Nan-DmY and DmY effects.9 x (this is a very large coefficient).5 x 104q 68Sq2 = 68.5 x 10-4)(0.13 x 10' psi2)is 460 MSCFId. what the flow rate would be if pWf=O.~bility relationship for the gas well in Example 4-7. Assume that k.~. 4-5 Transient Flow of a Gas Well 73 EXAMPLE 4-7 Development of a gas well deliverability curve Use the data in Appendix C and r.328) ] = 2260 hr = 94 d (0..5 Figure 4-7 ~~li.328)(39)2 If k.17)(78) The deliverability relationship for this well is then b= j 2 .022)(1. What would happen if the near-wellbore permeability is reduced by damage to one-tenth? Solution From Eq.

= . Thus. (4-49) leads to a2p2 . 4 set.a (rp ) am - (4-55) pz 2~ ap r (4-56) For an ideal gas. as a result. (2-2) in Chapter 21 and its solution. the real gas pseudo-pressure can be used as an integrating factor for an exact solution of the diisivity equation for a gas. (4-29) would be of the form q (MSCFId) = kh [m(F) . Z = T F This approximation is in the form of the difisivity equation [see Eq.m(pwf). the logarithmic approximationto the exponential integral [compare Eqs. Dimensionless time has (by convention) been defined as t~ = and dimensionless pressure as PD = kh [m(pi) . (2-3) and (2-5)] would lead to an analogous expression for a natural gas. = l l p and. could have the shape of the solutions of the equation for oil. The real gas pseudo-pressure function.m(pWf)] 1424T[ln(0.2 P a P ap at pz a t . The differential pseudopressure Am(p).472re/rw) s Dq] Via rearrangement and remembering that + + (4-54) it becomes Of course.Productionfrom Natural Gas Reservoirs Chap.analysis. . m(p). From the definition of the real gas pseudo-pressure [Eq. (4-44) can be approximated further: whereas for high pressure (both pi and pwf higher than 3000 psi). 4-5 Transient Flow of a Gas Well 75 If the permeability k is considered constant.--a P . 211. the assumptions used to derive Eq.i ap2 @PC ap2 ar2 + . they can lead to large errors in high-rate wells with large variations in the flowing pressure. more appropriately. For example.000264kt @(Pct)i r i (4-58) where p. For low pressure it can be shown that All solutions (such as the line source solution and the wellbore storage and skin effect solution) that have been developed for oil wells using the diffusivity equation in terms of pressure are applicable for a gas well using the real gas pseudo-pressure. However. For example. (4-45) can be written as q ~ L ap2 L aZP2 -. it can be written readily that Therefore. +(idp % P 2G(pi-pwf) (4-53) Performing the differentiation on the right-hand side of Eq:(4-45) and assuming that Z and p are either constant or they change uniformly and slowly with pressure. Eq. Equation (4-45) can be the basis for this. under the assumptions listed in this section. E . is then the driving force in the reservoir. Eq. c.I ap2 kpat ar2'F-G a -m(p) at a m(p) . (4-57) is exactly similar to the solution for the diisivity equation in terms of pressure. (4-45) becomes a2m(p) + -1 a m(p) -=-ar2 r ar @PC* a m(p) at k (4-57) The solution of Eq. Eq.m(pWf)] 1424qT (4-59) 0. then The real gas ps&do-pressure can be used instead of ~ressure squared difference in any gas well deliverabilityrelationship (properly adjusted for the viscosity and the gas deviation factor). (4-50) are limiting and. is some arbitrary reference pressure (could be zero). presuming that p2 instead of p is used. in fact. defined as m(p) . Therefore a better solution can be developed. using the Al-Hussainy and Ramey (1966) real gas pseudo-pressure function. is defined as Therefore. (4-5 I)] and the chain rule. then Eq. This approximation was used in earlier sections of this chapter and was developed independently. Pressure squared differences can be used as a reasonable approximation.

0235)(1. viscosity. Thus the total system.) Figure 4-8 is a graph of pressure versus the real gas pseudo-pressure. (4-60) becomes log 240 and finally. and gas deviation factor are 1. 3 months.231 -1 (4-63) q = 2.18 x 10-~[1. 0 .045 = 1. are slightly different from the ones in Appendix C.87.045 was obtained from Fig. compressibility is c 1 . the real gas pseudo-pressure. gas deviationfactor.3. then the denominator 1638T must be replaced by 1638pZT.4613 c.69 and pp. derived from numerical fits.968)(671) The slope 0. 4-1 at T . 4 This expression can be used for transient IPR curves for a gas well.17) + log (0. and 1 year. (4-20).265 x lo9 psi2/cp.08 x psi-1 (4-62) Hence for time equal to 10 days (240 hr).475 x = 1. = 1. Figure 4-9 is a graph of the transient IPR curves for 10 days. Eq. and 1 year. The gas compressibility can be calculated from Eq. If pressure squared differences are to be used. and 0. % S8c8 % 0.76 Production from Natural Gas Reservoirs Chap.968. Equation (4-60)can beusedforthetransient PRcalculations ifreal gas pseudo-pressures are to be used.73 x 1. 0.0235 cp.328)2 . 3 months. This graph will be used for the remainder of the solution to this problem.475 x lo4 psi-' (4-61) (0. (0. Solution Table 4-5 gives the viscosity.14)(0. For the initial condition of pi = 4613 psi. EXAMPLE 4-9 Transient P R for a gas well With the data for the well in Appendix C . At initial conditions.08x 10-4)(0. = 6. calculate transient P R curves for 10 days. (These values. respectively.265 lo9 . and real gas pseudo-pressure for the reservoir fluid described in Appendix C. 0.m(pWf)] x (4-64) Similar expressions can be developed readily for the other times.

0223 0.0229 0.408 x lo8 9.0241 0.974 0. the inflow performance relationships for a horizontal well in a gas reservoir are as follows For steady state: keh(p. Gas Deviation Factor.982 0.0217 0.0214 0.0220 0.059 x lo9 1.) 4= 1424pZT For pseudo-steady state: (ln[* ]+ keh(PZ .989 0. (4-23) (for steady state) and (4-24) (for pseudo-steady state) can be written for a horizontal well.954 0.0211 0.947 0.917 0.961 0. (4-65) and (4-66). 4 Table 4-5 (Continued) Calculated Viscosity.967 0.260 x lo9 1.0235 0.382 x lo9 1.929 0.0244 0.78 Production from Natural Gas Resewoirs Chap. instead of the approximation ( j Z- .0226 0.802 x 108 1.p i f ) (4-65) +~ q ] ) (4-66) 4= 1424 pZT Figure 4-8 Real-gas pseudo-pressure versus pressure for Example 4-8 (ln1-( + [ln -$ +~ 4 ) ) Pif/ p ~ .935 0.139 x 109 1.0232 0. Also. Allowing for turbulence effects.342 x lo9 1. 4-6 HORIZONTAL IPR IN A GASRESERVOIR WELL Analogs to Eqs.941 0.180 x lo9 1. f ) [hrw$$. ) In both cases.0238 0.220 x lo9 1.020~109 1.923 0. the damage skin effect can be added within the second set of braces in the denominatorsof Eqs.301 x 109 1.423 x lo9 Figure 4-9 Transient IPR curves for Example 4-9.0247 0. -~ . and Real Gas Pseudo-pressure for Example 4-9 P (psi) P (CP) Z m (P) (psi2/cp) 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000 0.099 x lo9 1.996 9.

Kobayashi. R. With the data in Appendix C. Comment on the results.30002 . What would be the initial gas-in-place at the given pressure.R. Plot the volume versus pressure of 1 lb-mol of this gas from atmospheric pressure to the reservoir pressure... B. B. the product fi2 is at the average pressure between p. In Appendix C the initial reservoir pressure is 4613 psi. and /1=0. As for the horizontal oil well cases. How would the cumulative production obtained in Problem 4-9 compare with a calculated value using the pseudo-steady-state relationship? F a t is. 4-8.. May 1966. and p W f Temperature is constant. L. Oberfell. "Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons:' NGAA. D= lo-). L. 2.903 (see Example 4-6). 4 the red-gas ~ s e u d o . and Katz. M. (2-48) and r. the turbulence coefficient calculated in Example 4-8 would be reduced (if L=2000 ft and Imi=l)to 1. calculate the bottomhole pressure ai that could deliver the same flow rate in the horizontal well as with the 311 psi bottomhole 033 pressure in the vertical well. . L. G. assume that the well reached pseudo-steady state and that for the duration of the year the "average" pressure was equal to the initial reservoir pressure. Brown. (4-32). 1972.. What would the flow rate be for the bottomhole pressure calculated in Problem 4-7 if the permeability is 17 md (instead of 0. This is not a major issue and would be eliminated if real-gas pseudo-pressures are used. Problems 81 3. In Eq. E. a re is the large axis of the drainage ellipsoid and is given by Eq. REFERENCES 1. C. Tulsa.. Y4~plication Real Gas Theory to Well Testing and Delivmiility of Forecasting:'JPT. other than methane remain the same and with the same composition. 103 From &. andBunows. for and for 0 These rates compare with q=1070 MSCF/d calculated in Example 4-6 for the vertical well. Equations (4-65) and (4-66) can be used without the terms Dq. and pWf=3000 psi.. OK.93.1 or H2S.3 flowrate f o r v 1 the c well is 1 . I. and Aziz.7 psi and T. the 4613' .. D. (4-60). 637642. = 1.. a=1533 ft for L=1000 ft and a=1667 ft for L=2000 ft.. h n o f s b .. 4-6. It is commonly assumed that Z at standard conditions (p. "Calculation of 2's for Sour Gases:'Hydrocarbon Processing. 1954.022 cp and Z=0. Cam.Production from Natural Gas F ~ s ~ N o ~ ~ s Chap.. "ViscosityofHydrocarbonGases. 201.. Solution From &. (4-60)] for 1 year. To ~alculate required drawdowns to deliver 1070 MSCF/d in a 2000-ft well. compute the expected flow rate for the given permeability of 0.. This would reduce the associated pressure drop from the near-wellbore turbulence. In the case of the 2OOCl-ft well.. AIME. Turbulence effects in horizontal wells usually can be neglected. (4-63. calculate the required flowing bottomhole pressure after 6 months if the flow rate is 1000 MSCFId. 146. 6. T=640°R. Calculate the change in the gas deviation factor and viscosity at reservoir conditions. infinite-acting behavior [Eq. and Jenkins. 51 (5)..17 md and for permeabilities 10 and 100 times larger. and pwf=lOOOpsi.~=1490ft. An exception would be a horizontal well that is only partially open to flow. What would be the difference in the production rate at the two instances described in Problem 4-4? Assume that pwf=I000 psi..5270 [Equation (4-68) is not exactly true.17 md)? 4-9. c.3 x 10-7. Jr. (4-23) and other deliverability expressions.N. and what would be the residual gas if the pressure dropped to 3000 psi? 4-5. K. Calculate a cumulative production curve for the gas well in ~ppendix assuming C. Compare with the exclusively hydrocarbon mixture. C. Use In = 3. Standing. and Alden. While all gases EXAMPLE 4-10 Horizontal gas well deliverability Calculate the gas well flow rate for a 1000-ft and a 2000-ft horizontal well and compare results with the vertical well in Example 4-6 for pwf=3000psi.=60°F) is equal to 1. Katz. 4-7. Assume that a gas well reached stabilized flow as described by Eq. 4-3. which is equal to 4613 psi.] 4-4. D. since they are multiplied by the scaled aspect ratio I. 149-154. Show whether this is a good assumption using the fluid data in Appendix C. R.) Comment on the shape of this curve. With the data in Appendix C and re = 1490ft. What comments can you make on the results? Equation (4-67) results in q=2995 MSCFI~ L = I ft~ q=5270 MSCF/~ ~ = 2 0 0 ft. (Use a temperature of 180°F. Suppose that the composition of the gas in Appendix C was altered. What fraction of the original gas-in-place will be produced if A4000 acres? reducing water coning and sand production.n U d e r u)1. pe=4613psi. 1948. 4 2 .264-272. H. AIME. 1942. show the difference in the production rate if the fi2 is calculated at the initial pressure rather than the average. The real-gas pseudo-pressure data in Table 4-5 can be used for a number of calculations along with Eq.1954.. R. 0 7 ~ MSCF/~. . 5. F0rpwf=3000psiand ~ ~ 4 6psi. Bottomhole pressure is 2000 psi. 2=0.022 cp.5 X 10'4psi-'.D. Thus. G.~ r e s s udifference can be used. 1 S. "Density of Natural Gases:' Trans. = 14. Al-Hussainy.140-149. (2-48) in Chapter 2.. assume that 20% of the methane is replaced by C0. p=0. pi4613 psi).ih/L. 'ASimplified Analysis of Unsteady Radial Gas Flow:' Tram. With the data in Appendix C. PROBLEMS 4-1. wchert. Suppose that the drainage area is 4000 acres. since it assumes that P Z % const. 4. and Ramey. Use the data in Appendix c and Example 4-6. G. Flowing bottomhole pressures are 1000 and 3000 psi. 4-10..

e. of course..472re/rw) for pseudo-steady state. and. A negative skin effect denotes that the pressure drop in the near-wellbore zone is less than would have been from the normal. reservoir flow mechanisms.the skin effect has no physical dimension and is analogousto the film coefficient in heat transfer. a perforated height that is less than the reservoir height) and inadequate number of perforations (again.(2-1211. undisturbed. Van Everdingen and Hurst (1949) introduced the skin effect as a means to characterize this region with a steady-state pressure difference Aps.5-1 INTRODUCT~ON The semilogarithmic nature of the pressure-versus-distance relationship presented in Chapter 2 [Eq. Mathematically. @e additional pressure drop associated with the skin effect is defined in terms of the same group of constants as the dimensionless solutions to the pressure drop in the porous medium. ln(0.(2-1 I)] suggests that the condition of the near-wellbore region is critical. or a negative contribution to the total skin effect. by damage to the natural reservoir permeability. which is proportional to the skin effect [Eq. The skin effect can then be added to ln(re/rw)for steady state. causing a distortion of flow lines). though. In general. may be the result 83 . any phenomenon that causes a distortion of the flow lines from the perfectly normal to the well direction or a restriction to. Positive skin effects can be created by "mechanical" causes such as partial completion (i.flow (which could be viewed as a distortion at the pore-throat scale) would result in a positive value of the skin effect. Conveniently. or p~ forthe transient solutions. Such a negative skin effect. by phase changes (relative permeability reduction to the main fluid). The well skin effect is a composite variable. the sum becomes proportional to the total (reservoir plus near-wellbore) pressure drop. Therefore. turbulence.

The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization;Skin Effects Chap. 5

of matrix stimulation (the near-wellbore permeability exceeds the natural value), hydraulic fracturing, or a highly inclined wellbore. In Chapter 2, the impact of the skin effect was quantified through the concept of the effective wellbore radius, rh [Eq. (2-18)]. A positive skin value has the effect of reducing the wellbore radius, whereas anegative skin has the opposite effect. An interesting, extreme case is when a large conductivity fracture penetrates the well. As is shown in Chapter 16, this situation leads to an effective wellbore radius equal to half the fracture half-length. It is important to realize that there may be high contrasts in skin along the length of the productive interval. This is particularly likely in wells in which production from two or more dissimilar and vertically separated intervals is commingled. Different formation properties (permeability, stress, mechanical stability, fluids) and differential pressure create an environment for uneven damage due to drilling fluid invasion, poor perforation cleanup, and other causes. Similar reasoning also implies the likelihood of uneven damage along a horizontal borehole. Chapter 15 describes stimulation techniques for commingled wells. In this chapter, the skin effect, its components, and the estimation of the mechanical contributions are presented in detail. Skin effects characterizing the damage and the (potentially) partial stimulation around a horizontal well are also introduced. Finally, the nature of formation damage and the types of formation damage are outlined as a precursor to the appropriate choice of matrix stimulation treatments.

While the skin effect is dimensionless, the associated damage zone is not. Figure 5-1 is a typical depiction of the near-wellbore condition, with rs and ks being the penetration of damage and permeability, respectively. Outside this zone the reservoir remains undisturbed, with permeability k. A well-known equation relating the skin effect and the above variables has been presented by Hawkins (1956) and is frequently referred to as Hawkins' formula. Figure 5-2 provides an easy means for the development of this relationship. If the near-wellbore permeability is the reservoir permeability (i.e., no damage), then a steady-state pressure drop between the outer boundary pressure ( p , ) and the well would result in a Pwf,ideal given by
p, - pwf,i,jeal= 2In 5 27rkh r,

0 I


Figure 5-2


Near-wellbore zone. Ideal and real flowing bottomhole Pressures.



CL rs




Equation (5-4) is Hawkins' formula and is useful in assessing the relative effects of permeability impairment and the penetration of damage.

The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization; Skin Effects Chap. 5
EXAMPLE 5-1 Permeability impairment versus damage penetration

set. 5-3 The Skin Components


where sd is the damage skin, s,+g is the skin due to partial completion and slant, y d s, is the perforation skin effect. A11~"pseudo-skins"are grouped together within the summation









Assume that a well has a radius rwequal to 0.328 ft and a penetration of damage 3 ft beyond the well (i.e., r,=3.328 ft). What would be the skin effect if the permeability impairment results in klk, equal to 5 and 10, respectively. What would be the required penetration of damage to provide the same skin effect as the latter case but with k/ks=5? Solution From Eq. ( 5 4 , k/ks=5, and the given r, and r,, 3 328 s = (5 - 1) In -= 9.3 0.328 For k/k,=lO and rs=3.328then, similarly, s=20.9. However, if s=20.9 and k/k,=5, then rr = rWem9f4 61 ft =

discussion of these skin effects. Subsequent sections will discuss the mechanical skin components. . - The rate-dependent effect has been discussed in Chapter 4 in conjunction with the turbulence in high-rate gas producers. (It can also affect very high-rate oil wells.) This skin effect is equal to Dq, where D is the non-Darcy coefficient (see Section 4-4). The skin effect extracted from a well test in a high-rate gas well is likely to be larger and, in certain instances, much larger than the non-rate-dependent skin effect. Thus, from a well test, an apparent skin, stcan be obtained that is equal to



effect, a penetration of damage such as the one calculatedin Eq. (5-6) is impossible. Thus, skin effectsderived from well tests (frequentlyranging between 5 and 20) are likely to be caused by substantial permeability impairment very near the well. This is a particularly important point in the design of m a w stimulation treatments.

Tests performed at several different rates can be used to isolate the skin effect, s. A plot such as the one shown in Fig. 5-3 of s' versus q suggests that s is the intercept and D is the slope. This is the proper manner for the field determination of D and the forecast of the impact of the rate-dependent skin on future well production.

EXAMPLE 5-2 Pressure drop in the near-wellborezone versus in the reservoir

With the skin effects calculated in Example 5-1, compare the portions of the pressure drop due to damage within the near-wellbore zone versus the total pressure drop. m e difference will be in the reservoir). Assume that A=640 acres (r,=2980 ft). Solution The ratio of the pressure drop due to damage within the neat-wellbore zone to the total pressure drop is proportional to s/[ln(r,/rw) + sl (for steady-state flow), as can be seen readily from Eq. (2-13). For r,=2980 ft and rw=0.328ft, In r,/rw=9.1. This quantity will be largely constant for almost all drainagelwellboreradius combinations. The skin effects calculated in Example 5-1 for the 3-ft damage zone are 9.3 and 20.9, suggesting that the portions of the total pressure drop due to damagewould be 0.5 1and 0.70, respectively. Possible elimination of these skin effects, at aconstantp, - p d , would result in productionrate increases of 104%and 233%,respectively.

Well Test Rate, q Phase-dependent skin effects are associated with phase changes because of the nearwellbore pressure gradient. In the case of oil wells, if the flowing bottomhole pressure is below the bubble-point pressure, then a gas saturationwill form, causing a reduction in the effectivepermeabilityto oil even if the gas phase is not mobile. A version of Hawkins' formula with k / k, substituted by the ratio of the effective (or relative) permeabilities can be used. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the case of gas retrograde condensatereservoirs, where liquid is formed around the well, causing a reduction in the gas permeability.

The total skin effect for a well, s, consists of a number of components. Generally these can be added together, and therefore

s = Sd

+ Sc+6 + S p +


The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization; Skin Effects Chap. 5 This is a particularly adverse occurrence. While in the case of gas that is formed in an oil reservoir the gas will reenter solution at an elevated pressure (e.g., as the pressure builds U when the well is shut in), in the case of a gas condensate reservoir much of the formed P condensate will not reenter the gas. Several authors (Fussell, 1973; Cvetkovic et al., 1990) have studied the Process of liquid condensate deposition with time and have shown that permeability impairment to gas in gas condensate reservoirs is not eliminated following a shut-in. Thus, after reopening the well, the gas flow rate is still affected by the nearwellbore permeability reduction. A method to combat this skin effect is by the injection of neat natural gas, which may redissolve the condensate and displace it into the reservoit This "huff and puff' operation can be repeated periodically. The skin effects in Eq. (5-7) are those that cause an alteration of the flow near a vertical or inclined well in a radial reservoir. Other skin effects have been introduced for other flow configurations, especially associated with fractures (choke, fracture face) or fracture-to-well contact as in the case of a largely vertical fracture intersecting a horizontal well transversely. These skins are addressed in Chapter 18. However, the reader must be alerted here that once a hydraulic fracture is generated, most pretreatment skin effects (sd, SCM, are bypassed and have no impact on the posttreatment well performance. sp) Similar phenomena may be in effect in the case of a deeply penetrating perforation that may bypass the near-wellbore damage. Phase- and rate-dependent skin effects are either eliminated or contribute in the calculation of the fracture skin effects. ~ngeneral, it is not correct to add pretreatment skin effects to any postfracture skin effects.

Set. 54 Skin from Partial Completion and Slant


of Cinco-Ley et A. (1975) solved the problem semianalytically and presented these skin effects for various combinations of partid completion, completion elevation, and well deviation. Figure 5-4 shows therelevant variables. Here hwis the perforated height, z w is the elevation of the perforationmidpoint from the base of the reservoir, h is the reservoir height, 0 is the angle of well deviation, and rw is the well radius.

Vertical Well

Slanted Well

Figure 5-4 ~ ~ ~ l i ~ completed,and skewed well configuration.(Afer C i n c o - k ~ d ,

5-4 SKIN PARTIAL FROM COMPLETIONN SLANT AD Frequently, wells are partially completed; that is, the height that is open to the formation is smaller than the reservoir height. Sometimes this is known as partial penetration. This situation can occur as a result of a bad perforation job or by deliberate undercompletion to retard or avoid coning effects. In certain modem reservoir testing practices, partial penetration may be created to form early-time spherical flow to allow the calculation of the vertical permeability. Late-time radial flow would have the distinguishing characteristics of partial completion. If the well is not completed at the middle of the reservoir height, the problem will be aggravated further. In all of these cases the ensuing bending of the flow lines would result in a skin effect denoted by sc. The smaller the perforated interval compared to the reservoir height and the more skewed the completion, the larger the skin effect would be. If the completed interval is 75% of the reservoir height or more, this skin effect becomes negligible. While partial completion generates a positive skin effect by reducing the well exposure to the reservoir, a deviated well results in the opposite. The larger the angle of slant, the larger the negative contribution to the total skin effect will be. The skin effect due to slant is denoted by so, and the composite skin from partial completion and slant is denoted

~ ~5-1 and 5-2lgive ~ results for reservoir dimensionless thicknesses, h~ (=h/rw) b the ~ equal to 100 and 1000, respectively. Relevant ratios are Z W / ~ (elevation ratio) and h w l are (completion ratio). The composite skin effect, s~+o, the individual Parts*sc and and and in can be seen, the absolute value of So illcreases with the angle of listed. ceM may render s,+e negative in spite of the positive sc associated with a partial cases comp~ation.lqinally, the correspon&mg skins for the same completion and elevation ratios are larger when hD=lOOO rather than 100, reflecting the longer penetration of flow]ine distortion.

p d d penetration and slant skin effect
A well with a radius rw=0.328 fi is completed in a 3 3 4 reservoir. In order to avoid severe water coningproblems,only 8 f t are completed and the midpoint of the perforationsis 29 fi c m lo pe abovethe base of the reservoir. Calculatethe skin effectdue to well. What would be the composite skin effectif 6'=45"? Repeat this problem for h=330 fi, hw=80 fi, and &F2g0 ft. solution ~h~ dimensionlessreservoir thickness hn is h/rw=33/0.328 100, the elevation ratiois z,/h=29/33 = 0.875, and the completionratio is hw/h=8/33=0.25. FromTable 5-1for . 6 a vertical well (0=00), sc+e=8.6,of which ~ ~ ~ 8 . 6 If 8=45", then ~ ~ 8but se=-2.7, and resulting in s,+s "6 6 . 1000 although all otherratiosare the same,fromTable 5-29 s ~ + e = ~ ~ . ~ ~fhD=330/0.328 0 for the verticalwell and ~,,+,=10.4 for the 45" slant.


spe.5-4 Skin from Partial Completion and Slant


The Near-WellboreCondition and Damage Characterization; Skin Effects

Chap. 5

set. 5-5 Well Perforation and Skin Effect


Modem well perforation is done with perforating guns that are attached either to a wireline or to coiled tubing. Figure 5-5 shows a schematic of a gun system with the shape charges arranged in a helical pattem. This pattern allows good perforation density with small phasing (i.e., the angle between adjoing perforations.)

The perforating guns are loaded with shape charges, which consist of the case, the explosive, and the liner, as shown in Fig. 5-6. Electric current initiates an explosive wave; the phases of the detonation are shown in Fig. 5-6. Perforations with a diameter between 0.25 and 0.4 in. and a tunnel between 6 and 12 in. are typically created.

Detonator cord

Forwardjet (7000 mlsec) Rear jet (slug) (500 mlsec)

(Courtesy of Schlumberger.)

with Detonator

The perforating string contains a cable head, a correlation device, apositioning device, and &e perforation guns. The cable'head connects the string to the wireline and at the same time provides a we* point at which to disconnect the cable if problems arise. The correlation device is used to identify the exact position with a previously run correlation log, and frequently it locates casing collars. The positioning device orients the shots toward the casing for more optimum perforation geometry.

Transfer boosters

Figure 5-6
Detonation process of a shaped charge. (Courtesy of Schlwnberger.)

5-5.509 8.155 7. 1988.The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization.2398 bl 5.1023 0.025 -2. Below.905 -1.6E-5 2.8115 1.320 6. but its total contribution is usually small. the angle of perforation phasing.0373 1.8672 1. the distance between the perforations.532 5.d=0. rw. I@. 5-5 Well Perforationand Skln Effect 97 .6E-3 1. that is. and.898 -1.6935 1. SPF. two dimensionless variables must be calculated: where kH and kv are the horizontal and vertical permeabilities.018 -1.7770 1.648 0.5674 1.6136 1.. effect is then Sp = SH + SV + Swb The constant as depends on the perforation phasing and can be obtained from Table 5-3. which they divide into components: the plane flow effect. rp&. 2 shots per foot.1 Calculation of the Perforation Skin Effect where r. (FromKarakas and Tariq. s ~ . result in h.0453 0. and the wellbore effect.g. hPd. sb The total perforation skin . To obtain sv.813 0.791 'From Karakas and Tariq.6E-1 2.Perforating is usually done at underbalance.9E-3 3.860 1. the pressure in the well is less than the reservoir pressure..250 0.1915 b~ 1.1038 0. number.0943 0. Table 5-3 Figure 5-7 gives all relevant variables for the calculation of the perforation skin.0634 0. Calculation of Sv. (8) is the effective wellbore radius and is a function of the phasing angle 8: Karakas and Tariq (1988) have presented a semianalytical solution for the calculation of the perforation skin effect.3654 1.OE-4 4. Calculation of SH.6392 CI c2 60" 45" 0. the vertical converging effect.5 ft). 8.500 0.6E-2 6. sv. The dimensions.the perforation length.) with a = a1 log ro + a2 . 5 Set. and phasing of perforations have a controlling role in well performance.726 0. respectively.091 -2. This skin effect is negative (except for 0=0). Skin Effects Chap. the method of estimating the individual components of the perforation skin is outlined.1313 3. very important. carryiig the debris and resulting in a cleaner perforation tunnel. 1988.788 s 0.6490 1.675 4. and The vertical pseudo-ski is then Figure 5-7 Well variables for perforation skin calculation. Constants for Perforation Skin Effect Calculationa Perforation Phasing O" (360") 180" 120" 90" a 0 al -2. These include the well radius. This facilitates immediate flowback following the detonation. which is exactly inversely proportional to the perforation density (e.the perforation radius.

025 log(0.0373)(0.7and swb=O.5.2. t h e n s ~ a .".".5 well Perforation and Skin Effect 99 and b = (3. and 0=180°. 3sv=3. L -1n Repeat the calculation for 0=O0and 0=60°. . and 1.328 f.. sWb (2. ~ ~ ~ 0 4. show the effect of the horizontal-to-vertical permeability anisotropy with k~/kv=l.sV=4. If 0=0".004. For the well in this problem. from Eq. (5-12) and remembering that hperf=l/SPF. sv. rk(0) = (0.then sH=-0.". for small perforation densities."'.9. Calc~lation Swb. is potentially the largest contributor to s. develop a table of sv versus perforation density for perme? ability anisotropies kH/kv=lO. . (5-1'0.3+0. Solution From Eq.25 in. " ' 2 .5)(0. and If If=6Oo. The constants a l ..&. Vertical Contribution to Perforation Skin Effect sv and r. + 0. (0. ~ ~ ~ 0 . reflecting the beneficial effects of good vertical permeability even with relatively 0 unfavorable perforation density (2 SPF).667) = 0..25 in. (5-10).=0.667 ft). leading SH to sp=0. 5 set. Using typical perforation characteristics such as rp.98 The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization..027) + 1. bl.027) + 0. (5-18).9. (5-12) to (5-16).1 = = The total perforation skin effect is then sp = -0.5 (5-19) Solution Table 5-4 uresents the skin effect sv for perforation densities from 0.532)(0. For high perforation densities (3 to 4 SPF). sv.271 (5-23) . (0. l p p 8 in. of For the calculation of s.3 ina ally. az.6 x lo-') e(4. For low shot densities. 3 7 ~ .sUb=0. and b are also functions of the perforation phasing and can 7 - - From Eq. sv = 1 0 ~ .894 (5-24) 111 be obtained from Table 5-3. (0. SH=-0. Calculate the perforatiop -Gin effort .C L-.4+4. though.328 ft is perforated with 2 SPF. that is. For 0=180° and k ~ / k ~ = l . (5-1 1) and Table 5-3 (0=180°). and c2 also can be obtained from Table 5-3.=0.0208 ft). swb=0... 5. therefore ~ ~ 4 .1 =4 'lne constants c.this skin effect in normally anisotropic formations can be substantial.. t. is only 1. I EXAMPLE 5-5 Perforation density in.0208 ft). .5 SPF to 4 SPF using Eqs. Iny-I". If 0=180°. Skin Effects Chap. EXAMPLE 5-4 Perforation skin effect Assume that a well with rw=0. Table 5-4 From Eq. rfl.6. large h p ~ sv can be very large..".667 f) a well with r. this skin contribution becomes small. a dimensionless onantitw i c r n l and with the constants in Table 5-3 and Eq.h.0943 = 3.andsp=4.328 Then.8115 = 1. from Eq..9. (5-17). 3 .and sub do not change.4. The vertical slcin effect.= 2 7 ' .rnm Fnr lG-lG' ^-a /5-16) and the constants in Table 5-3. a = -2.33) 0. lperf=8 (0.

(5-29). In Eq. production-induced damage would also be elliptical. of a horizontal well is a fat more involved Process than the The matrix stimulation of a vertical well. If the perforations terminate outside the damage zone. First. (2-47).techniques have been developed to handle both difficulties. 5-6 HORIZONTAL DAMAGE EFFECT WELL SKIN In Eq. Therefore. The time of exposure during drilling and completion would result in a truncated elliptical cone with the larger base near the vertical section of the well. . (5-10) to (5-18) for the calculation of the skin effects contributing to the composite skin effect in Eq. the required volumes are much larger. production.2 Near-Well Damage and Perforations Karakas and Tariq (1988) have also shown that damage and perforations can be characterized by a composite skin effect. Effect of vefical-tot damage horizontal permeability anisotropy. (5-30). then (sdlp = sh (5-30) where sh is evaluated at a modified perforation length Iks and a modified radius. These include mechanical methods of fluid distribution (coiled tubing. (sd).). Simulated responses are shown in Fig. the Pressure profilein the well would imply the largest pressure gradient normal to the well trajectory nearer to the vertical section. Skin Effects Chap. Prick and Economides (1991) developed equations for the skin effect that reflect the damage around a horizontal well. Permeability anisotropy would generate an elliptical shape normal to the well. Figure 5-8 describes the shape of damage along and normal to a horizontal well. (2-54). 5-8 for three differentvalues of 1 ~ . was added to the horizontal well production rate equation. ~ 1 ~during 0 . the placement of the stimulation fluids along the well is much nlore difficult. 5-6 Horizontal Well Damage Skin Effect 101 5-5. 5 Set. The geometry of the shape of damagaresulted in a skin effect analogous to Hawkins' formula for a vertical well: Figure 5-8 ~ i ~ h i b ~of i ~ n along and normal to a horizontal well. (5-41. the damage skin effect. if the perforations terminate within the damage zone (1.. (2-54).' shown in Eq. as would be expected. is the open-hole equivalent skin effect given by Hawkins' formula [Eq.100 The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization. s&. The shape of damage depends on the permeability anisotropy index I~ given by Eq. Therefore. zonal isolationdevices) and deliberate understimulation (leaving a collar of damage around a stimulated zone) Or .s < r. Second. These are and These variables are used in Eqs. rh.

is cylindrical (a subject of current research). aiH.(2-19) with s = 0 results in the productivity index ratio between a damaged horizontal and an undamaged 1 Figure 5-10 Horizontal well equivalentskin effect for range of penetrations of damage and permeability impairments (Example 5-6). then the resulting skin effect is vertical well. . eliminating foreign damage. k. largest radius) is the Figure 5-9 Productivity index ratios between adamaged horizontal and a undamagedverticalwell n (Example5-6). where the stimulation fluids will penetrate the pore space. EXAMPLE 5-6 Calculation of a horizontal well skin effect and impact on well performance Usethe data forthe well in Appendix A. These issues will be addressed in Chapters 14 and 15. This is plotted in Fig. In Eq.e. (5-341. Here penetrations of damage (maximum axis of the ellipse near the vertical section of the well) up to 5 ft and plausible permeability impairment ratios are plotted. and ki are the virgin. ~ ~ different permeability for ) impairment ratios (k/k. If the reservoir is a carbonate.Skln Effects Chap. ks.andA=640acres. L=2000ft. is left surrounding a zone of stimulation with a maximum axis of the stimulation ellipse. These results are significant because they denote that the productivity index benefits (either increased production rate or decreased drawdown) may be affected greatly by damage in the horizontal well that is not removed. Solution Application of the given variables to Eq. damaged. (Note that I d = 3 . and stimulated permeabilities. a. respectively. (2-54) for the productivity index ( J ) of a horizontal well and division by the productivity index for a vertical well [Eq.. If a collar of damage with a large axis of the damage ellipse. 5-9 are reasonable. . s&. 5 Set. The range of skin effects.102 The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization. plotted on the abscissa of Fig.328ft. leaving sections that are not perforated vis i vis other sections that are fully stimulated).max. as can be seen in Fig. ) Also plot the skin effect versus penetration of damage ( a ~ . This expression is for the situation where the shape of stimulation mimics the shape of damage. 5 6 HorizontalWell Damage Skin Effect 103 deliberate undercompletion of the well (i. Show the productivity index ratio between a vertical and a horizontal well versus skin effect. affected by reaction kinetics and not by flow in the porous medium. and 5).. 5-10. rw=0. 5-9. This is likely the case for a sandstone reservoir.H. . then it is possible that the shape of the stimulated zone. pwf=3500psi. 0 Equivalent skin effects up to 30 can be calculated.=20. 10. and the partial stimulation skin effect with elliptical damage but cylindrical stimulated zone (with riVmax..

dispersion of clays present in the rock. 5 Set... Skin Effects Chap. Figure 5-12 Scanning electron micrograph of pore space in a sandstone. (Example 5-7). is 5 ft. they will often be deposited.~. and the growth of bacteria. 30 - 5.rnax ) ( ' Figure 5-1 1 Partial stimulation of a horizontal well and associated productivity index ratio increase (over that of a vertical well).1 Particle Plugging of Pore Spaces 'i~. The maximum penetration of stimulation is a " . The maximum penetration of stimulation. Large particles transported to the surface of the porous medium will bridge over the surface pores and form a filter cake external to the porous medium.". and if this deposition occurs in the pore throats. Figure 5-13 (Schechter.=5 ft.=20. Show on the same graph the productivity index ratio (between a horizontal and a vertical well) improvement if L=2000 fi and dl other variables are as for Example 5-6. 1992) illustrates possible modes of particle entrapment. ~ ~ . The posttreatment skin effect is obtained with Eq.a i ~ is on the abscissa. ~ ~ . Formation damage can be caused by plugging of the pore spaces by solid particles.. Wen a i ~ . = a ~ then. . of damage during well operations are described. 34). l a.e. s&=O The correspondingJH/Jvcan be used in an economic evaluation of the benefits versus costs of the treatment. The original maximum penetration of damage a.. This shape would require the appropriate distribution of the stimulation fluids. precipitation. and k/ki=l for a sandstone reservoir. An example of surface bridging and .7. ~. Plugging of pores by solid particles is the most pervasive of these mechanisms and can result from many sources. ~ .104 The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization.) When fines are moving through a porous medium. (From Krueger. the underlying causes of formation damage and the source. including the injection of solids into the formation. 5 7 Formation Damage Mechanisms 1 05 E X A M P L E 5-7 Partid stimulation in a horizontal well Calculate the p ~ a stimulation effects (i. the reduction in the skin effect) if k/k. Solution Figure 5-11 is a summary of the results of this example. (5. 5-7 FORMATION DAMAGE MECHANISMS In the next two sections. assuming that the shape of stimulation imitates the shape of damage.. by mechanical crushing or disaggregation of the porous media. 1986. a severe reduction in the permeability may result. or by fluid effects such as the creation of emulsions or changes in relative permeability..

monovalent cations are much more damaging than \ + where F is the average pore length multiplied by a tortuosity factor.=O. or may bridge in the pore throats. the pore size density function is approximately . Formation damage is often caused by the dispersion of fine clay particles when the salinity of the interstitial water is reduced or the i$ic-composition is changed. q(A). with their sizes given by a pore size density function. resulting in little permeability impairment. depends on the cations present in the brine. It can be assumed that this describes the distribution of pore throats.) should have an fluid ionic composition that will be nondamaging. This phe. the pH.a sandstone will cause formation damage by dispersing clay particles.the fines and the pore throats is a primary factor in determiningwhether formation damage due to fines movement will occur. this permeability impairment would result in a skin effect 0 approximately equal to 1.5 ft. the permeability is (5-42) Most of the pores would be plugged by the particles.10-4 .61 k 10-4.(drilling filtrate. nomenon. Skin Effects Chap. Thus.106 The Near-Wellbore Conditlon and Damage Characterization. If particles bridge over and completely plug all pore throats that are less than seven times larger than the particles. etc. 5 x an)' = 3. cm) are injected into the pornus medium deParticles with a radius of 5pm (5 x scribed above until the permeability no longer changes. Bridging can occur when the particles are on the order of one-third to one-seventh* sue of %pore throat. ' Numerous studies have shown that a sudden decrease in salinity of the brine flowing through. q = O q = A-2 q = O for A i lo-" cm2 . 1969)describes the porous medium as a collection of capillary tubes. The smallest pore that would be plugged is seven times the size of the patticles or has a radius of (7) (5 x loV4 or 3. but is also relatively easily removed or bypassed. effectively plugging the pore. however. since the largest pores are not affected. Using Hawkins' formula and assuming that rs=3ft and r. completion fluids. and the rate of salinity change.(3. the area of the smallest effective pore in the damaged porous medium is Ad = n(rd)' = ~ ( 3 .the permeability impairment is not severe. or larger. Such a filter cake greatly reduces the ability to transport fluids to or from the porous medium. 5-7. called water sensitivity. for lo-'' cm2 < A < for A z lo4 cm2 cm2 (5-37) (5-38) (5-39) Cake Formation by Large Particles where q is the number of pores per cubic centimeter. 5 Set.2 Mechanismsfor Fines Migration The fines responsible for particle plugging may come from external sources or may originate in the porous medium itself. defined as the number of pores per unit volume with a cross-sectional area between A and A dA. In general. what would be the ratio of the permeability after injection of the particles to that before? Solution AU pores small enough to be plugged will be eliminated from the pore size distribution contributing to permeability.5 x cm) cm. Thus. 5-7 Formation Damage Mechanisms 107 filter cake formation is the mud cake formed on the wellbore wall during drilling operations.10-lo Small fines passing through the porous medium may adhere to the surfaces of the pore bodies..85 x 10-5) = 0. thus. With this model. EXAMPLE 5-8 Change in permeability due to pore throat plugging A capillary model of pore structure (Schechter and Gidley. any fluids that may come in contact with the producing fofoiination. the relative sizes of.85 x cm2 (5-40) Surface Deposits o Adhering Particles f ' The ratio of the damaged to the original permeability is then 3 . Fines in the porous medium may be mobilized by a change in the chemical composition of the water or simply mechanically entrained due to the shear forces applied by the moving fluid. stimulation fluids. For Berea sandstone.

. the precipitation can be due to changes in temperature or pressure near the wellbore or from alterations in the composition of the phase by injected fluids. combined with carbonate or sulfate ions. 1992). leading to a damaged region around a perforation like that shown schematically in Fig. In the formation. through the introduction of surfactants or fines that tend to. any aqueous fluid that may come in contact with the formation should have a minimum concentration of a-monovalention or a sufficient fraction of divalent ions. The ionic species in solution in the connate water in a reservoir are initially in chemical equilibrium with the formation minerals. Pulverization and compaction of the rock in the vicinity of a perforation is an unavoidable consequence of perforating. The formationof water-in-oil emulsions in the reservoir rock around the wellbore can cause damage because the apparent viscosity of the emulsion may be more than an order or magnitude higher than that of the oil. 5-7 Formation Damage Mechanisms 109 divalent or trivalent cations. 1986). the asphaltenes can flocculate.3 Chemical Precipitation . Lea et al. 5 - See. This was addressed also in Section 5-3. This type of damage is possible in friable formations or those weakened by acidizing in the near-wellbore region. which breaks one of the phases into small droh:ts dispersed in the other phase. If the brine is initially saturated with respect to calcium bicarbonate.4 Fluid Damage: Emulsions. Thus. Addition of calcium ions will cause calcium carbonate to precipitate. Commonly used criteria to prevent damage are for brines to contain at least 2 wt% of KC1 or that at least one-tenth of the cations are divalent cations. . - CaCOs(s) + Hz0 + CO&) . in a reservoir with high bicarbonate concentrations. 5-7. injection of fluids high in calcium. These types of damage can be thought of as temporary. can occur any time aqueous fluids are introduced into the formation. Apparent formation damage can also be due simply to an increase in the water saturation around the wellbore. an increase in the concentration of species on the left side of the equation or a decrease in the concentration of any species on the right side of the equation will drive the reaction to the right and calcium carbonate will precipitate. 1984). The most common organic species that cause formation damage are waxes (paraftins) and asphaltenes. resulting in a reduction of -the permeability to oil. Krueger (1986) reported the damaged zone around a perforation to be 114 to 112 in. creating particles large enough to cause 5-7. the water sensitivity is greatest for NaCl brines and decreases The higher the pH. and again precipitation may occur. thick with a permeability of 7% to 20% of the undamaged permeability. However.5 Mechanical Damage The formation near the wellbore can also be damaged by physical crushing or compaction of the rock. as the pressure decreases neai a production well. Skin Effects Chap. likewise. changing the relative permeability characteristicsof the formation entirely. and Wettability Changes Formation damage can be caused by changes in the fluids themselves rather than a change in the permeability of the rock. it is more likely that emulsions are formed chemically. formation damage. The damage caused by fluids is due either to a change in the apparent viscosity of -the oil phase or to a change in relative permeability. Likewise. For example. in either case. C02 will be liberated from the brine. the equilibrium reaction between calcium and bicarbonate ions can be ca2+ + 2HCO. Relative Permeability. Inorganic precipitates causing formation damage are usually divalent cations. or the oil composition changes because of the liberation of gas as the pressure is reduced. 5-14 (Krueger. Mechanical damage around the wellborecan also result from the collapseof weak formation material around the wellbore. this small layer of damage around a perforation can significantly impair the productivity of the perforation. 5-7. m. Based on laboratory testing of perforating into sandstone cores. calIed a water block. certain chemicals can alter the wettability of the formation. (1991) showed that a crushed zone with a permeability of 10% of the original permeability results in a perforation skin factor of about 15. -Finally. emulsions are often non-Newtonian and may require sufficient force to overcome a yield stress to be mobilized. removal of C02 will lead to precipitation. If a water-wet formation is changed to oil-wet around the wellbore. The formed precipitates can be' either inorganic compounds precipitkting from brine or organic species precipitating from the oil. the oil relative permeability may be greatly reduced in the near-wellbore region. such as CaC12 completion fluids. Because of the convergent flow to a perforation. Precipitationof CaC03 from the bicarbonate-rich connate water is a common source of formation damage at the Prudhoe Bay field ( v i e r et al. The reader is referred to Schechfer (1992) for a complete discussion of clay particle dispersion. To prevent clay dispersion because of a salinity change.108 The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization. when these resins are removed. Asphaltenes are high-molecular-weight aromatic and napthenic compounds that are thought to be colloidally dispersed in crude oils (Schechter. In addition. Emulsions are most commonly cadsed by mechanical mixing of oil and water. This effect. the more sensitivethe porous medium will in the order Na > K > be to salinity changes. Chemical changes to the crude oil that reduce the resin concentration can thus lead to asphaltene deposition in the formation. such removal is sometimesd'icult. Waxes are long-chain hydrocarbons that precipitatefrom certain crude oils when the temperature is reduced. such as calcium or barium.s_tabiilize small droplets. For example. may cause severe formation damage. This colloidalstate is stabilized by the presence of resins in the crude oil. because the fluids are mobile and theoretically can all be removed from the near-well vicinity.Precipitationof solidsfrom the brine or the crude oil the formation can cause severe formation damage when these solids plug the pore spaces. A change in the composition of the brine may lead to precipitation.

) 5-7. EXAMPLE 5-9 The depth of filtrate invasion 5-8 SOURCES OF FORMATION DAMAGE DURING WELLOPERATIONS Calculate the depth of drilling mud filtrate invasion after 10 hr and after 100 hr of drilling mud exposureto the formationfor amud with a dynamic fluidlosscoefficient of 5 in?/ii?-hr'". Drilling mud filtrate will invade the formation to a greater depth than drilling mud p&cles. ranging from less than an inch to a maximum of about 1 ft.6 Biological Damage Some particularly Water injection welts. where uf is the filtrate flux. the mud particles should be larger than the pores. The dfkamic filtration rate accounts for this balance &tween filter &e fonkation and erosion and is given by C uf = . To minimize this damage.+ 3600b3 4 (5-44) Figure 5-14 Damaged regions around a perforation. However. and 3 is the shear rate at the wall (sec-I). Assume that b is 5 x and that the shear rate at the wall is 20 sec-'. fortunately.. t is the exposure time w. Abrams (1977) suggests that having 5 ~01% the mud particles with a diameter greater than one-third of of the mean pore size will prevent significantparticle invasion. 5-8. As filtrate fie fohation. 1983). plugging the pore spaces with the bacteria thanselves or with precipitates Gat result from rlj& biological activity of the. Since the invasion depth is v= 1' (5+ 2nrw MWby) dr = 2xrW(2 C& + 3600b).. the filter cake will also-be eroded by thi-shkk'force of the drilling fluid. (From Krueger. b is a constant accounting for the mechanical stability of the filter cake. The fluid loss coefficient can be obtained from a laboratory dynamic fluid loss test. are susceptible to damage caused by bacteria in the near-wellbore environment. and the formationporosity is 0. This issue was addressed in a'@revioussection of this chapter.1 Drilling Damage (. may grow rapidly in the formation. organisms.t) (5-47) l-he volumeof filtrateinjected per unit thickness is related to the depth of penetration of the filtrate by (5-48) v = x+(ri . C is the dynamic fluid loss coefficient for the filter cake. a filter cake of drilling mud solids is built up on the formation face.2. The deposition of drilling mud particles in the formation around the wellbore can reduce the permeability in this critical region. m e shape of damage along a horizontal well is likely to reflect the longer exposure near the vertical section. The volume of filtrateis then the integral of the volumetric flowrate with time: qf = 2xrwuf = 2nr.+ 3600by ) (5-45) more severe.Set. The cm3/cmz wellbore radius is 6 in. 1986. 1980). it is often possible to overcome drilling mud particle damage by perforating through fie damaged region or by acidizing. Bacteria injected into the formation. deaeasing the rate of filtrate invasion. The drilling of horizontal wells with reported horizontal lengths up to 8000 ft poses new problems of significantpenetrations of darnagebecause of the long exposures to drilling fluids while the horizontal well is drilled. Solution Equation (5-44) gives the filtrate flux at the wellbore. the depth of particle invasion is usually small. the v01Umelric flow rate per unitthickness of formationis just the fluxmultiplied by the borehole circumference. $8 sources of Formation Damage during Well Operations ill small.r i ) . with depths of invasion of 1 to 6 ft being common (Hassen. The permeability reduction caused by bacteria can be so significant that the injection of bacteria to intentionally reduce the permeability of thief zones is under active study as an enhanced oil recovery method (Zajic et al. Hassen (1980) reports values of b of 2 x lo-' to 5 x lod7 cm3/cm2. particularly anaerobic bacteria. Biological damage is best prevented by treating injection waters with bactericides. however.

The actual filtrate invasion is likely to be somewhat higher than that calculated here because of higher fluid loss rates that occur before a stable filter cake is formed. This damage is minimized by perforating underbalanced. 5-15 and 5-16 (King et al. p i Figure 5-16 Underbalance needed minimize perforationdamage in oil zones..8 sources of Formation Damage during Well Operations 113 Equating V from (5-47) and (5-48). Thus. 0 1000 10000 Total Underbalance. rp=44in. rp = . Thus./*' + (2)(6) [(2)(5)t1" + (3W) (=) 5 x 10-7 RO)~] (5-50) From Eq. that is. It is recommended that completion fluids contain no more than 2 ppm of solids of a size less than 2 pm (Millhone. by precipitation. by cementing.) .2 Completion Damage Damage to the formation during well completion operationscan be caused by invasion of completion fluids into the formation. Perforating will inevitably result in some crushing of the formation in the immediate vicinity of the perforation. Drilling fluid filtrate can damage the formation by fines movement. 5. with the wellbore pressure lower than the formation pressure. 1982). (From King et 5-8. or by water blocking.. rp=78in. It is particularly important that completion fluids be filtered well to prevent injection of solids into the formation. 5 Set. into the formation after 10 hr and 72 in. Underbalance ded Total Underbalance. Since cement filtrate will usually contain a high concentration of calcium ions. 1985).112 The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization. Cement filtrate is another potentially damaging fluid when it enters the formation. the filtrate has invaded 38 in. as discussed in Section 5-7. we find that for t=10 hr.) (From King et . psi Figure 5-15 to minimize perforationdamage in gas zones. damage can result similar to the damage caused by drilling mud. by perforating. if the completion fluids contain solids or are chemically incompatible with the formation. The minimum overbalance needed for a given formation permeability can be read 1985. precipitation damage may occur. and for t=100 hr. If water blocking is a serious problem. (5-50). Guidelines for the amount of underbalance needed in gas and oil zones are given in Figs. completion fluids will be forced into the formation. or by well stimulation techniques. water-based muds may have to be avoided. Since a primary purpose of the completion fluid is to maintain a higher pressure in the wellbore than in the formation (overbalance). Fines migration and precipitation damage can be minimized by tailoring the ionic composition of the drilling fluid to be compatible with that of the formation. we obtain and for the data given with appropriate unit conversions. into the formation after 100 hr. to 1985.Skin Effects Chap.

860-870.g. F. 3.J. E. Fussell.. 1979) illustrates this mechanism. Hawkins.. 4. M..Skin Effects chap. which can plug the formation just like any other solid particles.. a n d ~ i l l e r m Drilled Wells:' SPE Paper 5589.Jr. B.l4 5-8. Omrcen. "AField Study of Underbalance Pressures Necessary to Obtain Clean Perforations Using Tubing-Conveyed Perforating:' SPE Paper 14321.. Dynamic processes such as cation exchange must be considered. 9. Abrams. Ramey.) the Precipitationof solids. Frick. either inorganic material from the brine or organic solids from may occur near a production well because of the reduced pressure in the . February 1986.. (From Muecke. 1980. this critical velocity depends on the particular rock and fluids in a manner. M. . These sources of formation damage can often be overcome with ocaasional stimulation treatments (e.region. E. and since most formation fines are water-wet.. and bactericides should be added to the water if the potential for formation damage is indicated.Injection water may contain bacteria. Hassen. 5. R.. M.. "Mud Design to Minimize Rock Impairment Due to Particle Invasion:' JPT. acids to remove carbonate precipitates or solvents to remove waxes) or can be prevented with chemical squeeze treatments using sequestering 5-8.. 5 References 115 Production Damage damage during production can be caused by fines migration in the formation or by precipitation.. T. Cinco-Ley. B. and Longaric. orbdurn present. K ~ e g e rR. . I.. A. the fact that no precipitation occurs when a sample of formationwater is mixed with a sample of injection water is not sufficient to guarantee that no pfeci*@tion will occur in the formation.. D. and Bingham. "An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity in Oilfield Operations:' JPT. Cvetkovic. D. P. Karakas.... Economides.1990. King. 10. the only means of determining the critical velocity is through laboratory coreflood tests. Injection water should be tested for the presence of bacteria. above which formation damage by particle migration occurs (Schechter. 131-152.1991. 586-592.1988.. magnesium. Figure 5-17 (Muecke.1975.H. 2(n: 356-357. M. Because cation exchange with clays in the formation can release divalent cationsinto solution when a waterwith a diierent ionic composition is injected. The high velocity in the porous medium near the well is sometimes sufficientto fines that Can then plug pore throats. 8. causing severe formation damage.1985.1956. Andenon.. "Production from Heavy Gas Condensate Reservoirs:' SPE Paper 20968. 1992). Numerous studies have shown that a critical velocity exists. The most common problem of this type is the injectionof water with relatively high concentrations of sulfateor carbonateions into formationswith divalent cations. "Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs:' JPT. H. In other words. Damage by precipitated solids can occur whenever mixing of the injected water with the formation water leads to supersaturation of one or more chemical species. precipitation may occur in the formation even when the injected water is apparently compatible with the fi%ition water. 6. 2. 1979. Unfortunately. .. the Presence of a mobile water phase can cause fines migration and subsequent formation near-wellbore. G. Injected bacteria may also grow in the near-wellbore vicinity. y Fines mobilization caused by water movement. May 1977..AIME. 7. Fines are most likely to *Ove when the phase they wet is mobile. S. A. B. may be mobilized in the vicinity of a production well when water production &gins. filtration to remove all particles larger than 2 p m is recommended. or by the growth of bacteria.4 Injection Damage Injection wells are susceptible to formation damage caused by the injection of solid by precipitation due to incompatibility of injected and formation water.. REFERENCES 1. "A Note on the S k i Effect:' Trans.3 The Near-Wellbore Condition and Damage Characterization. B. 3.. Modeling of these processes is beyond the scope of this book. "New Technique Estimates Drilling Fluid Filtrate Invasion:' SPE Paper 8791. Solids injection is always a danger if the injected water is not well filtered. "Horizontal Well Damage Characterization and Removal:' SPE Paper 21795. such as calcium. "Semi-Analytical Production Models for Perforated Completions:' SPE Paper 18247. M. and Economides. July 1973. Jr. and Tariq.

and Gidley. D. K. NJ. Metzger. the shear rate at thewall is 50 sec-' and b is 5 x lo-' cm3/cmz. 'The Application of the Laplace Transfornation to Now Roblems in Reservoirs:' Trans. h d h o e Bay. E.=lO. Zajic. 5-8. If rw=0. and 15 in. Oil Well Stimulation. respectively? 5-2. (Hint: Use Fig. and rw=0. R. T y lpefiequal to 6 . k ~ / k ~ = land. 1992. the damage penetration is 3 ft.The Near-Wellbore Conditionand Damage Characterization. what length L is required to provide a 2:l productivity ratio over a vertical well with no skin if the damage skin effect in the horizontal well is 15? 5-10. reducing the permeabitiw the of the original reservoir permeability. T. skin for r p p 0 . At which angle of well deviation would the contribution from so nullify the effects of s. 5-11. 3 3 and 0.. Cooper. May 1969.e. 186: 305-324. L. 339-350. r 4 . Qler. For 6'=120°. 18. (i.328 ft. and A=640 acres.2-hr'12. R. (S... and Ibyford. and Hunt.328 ft.. 2 5 in.& in. N. AK:'SPE Paper 12471. S. Schechter... J.3/ii. What is the depth of drilling filtrate invasion assuming that 4 = 0. 144-150. Van Everdingen. and ~ ~ 4 2ft. N.. 12. 9 .. 5 117 11.04. "Analysis and Treabnent of Formation Damage. 5-7. J. Hill. and 4 ft.328 f t . W.25 in.5 in. rw=0. Muecke. M. What should the k / k . be for the same skin effect if the penetrations of damage are 1. 15. h=165 ft. If the penetration of damage... B-2 to obtain the relative permeability-to-oil reduction in the near-wellbore zone). Jack. 5-4. ~ O)? x 5-5. assume that.2. N. Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery. k/k. 5-9.Skin Effects Chap. s . and 4 SPF. Suppose that the pressure value 10 ft away from the well in Appendix B is the bubblepoint pressure. 16. What is the skin factor resulting to combined particle and filtrate damage? PROBLEMS 5-1. calculate the combined skin effect from damage and perforations.1984. February 1979.1991. (midpoint of the reservoir). 6'=120°. calculate the perforation O. '‘Fornation Fines and Factors Contsolling Their Movement in Porous Media:' JPT. Lea. k ~ / k ~ = l and 2 SPF.. PennWell Publishing Co. Jf the permeability impairment k/k.Prentice Hl. r 5-6. and Sepehmoori. 1983. 17. r. R. R. During the 20 hr that the formation is exposed to this mud during drilling.AIME. If the bottomhole pressure would result in a gas saturation at the sandface equal to 0.328 ft. 3 2 8 ft. l e 8 in. A. into the formation.R.1949.=O).. R. 14. 1982. IF. 2 SPF. in the well 5-10.. "The Effect of Fluid Diversion on the Acid Stimulation of a Perforation:' SPE Paper 22853. krr/kv=lO. S. For 0=120°.. al Englewood Cliffs. and Kosaric.. A. 'IbIsa. 12.. Ifahorizontal well is M l e d i n thetese~oirof AppendixAandpwf=3500psi. and rw=0. calculate the well skin effect. R. estimate the phase-dependent skin effect.. In addition to the filtrate loss and resulting damage. . rw=0. T. "Completion Fluids-Maximiuing Productivity:' SPE Paper 10M0. F. C.. Repeat Problem 5-7 but with rs=6 in. is 8. A drilling mud has a dynamic fluid loss coefficient of 10 in.. Millhone.19? What is the skin factor if the filtrate reduces the permeability to 50% of the original value? The drainage radius is 660 ft.. S. Schechter. calculate 5 the partial completion skin effect for a vertical well. show the impact of the O pedoration length on the perforation skin effect... 5-3.328 ft. 13.drilling mud particles penetrate 5 in. T. rw=0..=2 fl.OK. G. r d . "The Change in Pore Size Distributions from Surface Reactions in Porous Mediq" AICHE J. D.. L. hw=75 ft.328ft..

(1983). or sand consolidation treatments. and clogging of surface processing equipment. Thus.C H A P T E R 6 Gravel Pack Completions 6-1 INTRODUCTION Many reservoirs comprised of relatively young sediments are so poorly consolidated that sand-willbe produced along with the reservoir fluids unless the rate is restricted significantly. and surface flow lines. particularly at offshore fields. collapsed casing because of the lack of formation support. In a gravel pack completion. with gravel pack completions being by far the most common approach. Sand production leads to numerous production problems. A review of sand-control completion practices is given by Suman et al. and the annular space between the screen and 119 . fittings. including erosion of downhole tubulars. the wellbore filling up with sand. erosion of valves. disposal of the produced sand is a problem. but is limited to single-zone completions. The two most common types of gravel pack completions are an inside-casing gravel pack and an openhole or underreamed-casing gravel pack (Fig. a means to eliminate sand production without greatly limiting production rates is desirable. should retain most of the formation sand. though it is actually sand in grain size). A successful gravel pack completion must retain the formation sand and offer the least possible resistance to flow through the gravel itself. gravel must be adjacent to the formation without having mixed with formation sand. slotted liner completions. Even if sand production can be tolerated. The underrearned-casing gravel pack provides better conductivity through the gravel. sand that is larger than the average formation sand grain size is placed between the formation and a screen or slotted liner. The gravel pack sand (referred to as gravel. Sand production is controlled by using gravel pack completions. 6-1). 6-2 GRAVEL PACK PLACEMENT For a successful gravel pack completion. but let very fine particles pass through it and be produced.

1984). 6-4. In open-hole completions. After . the gravel-laden fluid can be pumped down the tubing casing annulus. washdown. During squeezing. leaving the gravel in the annulus. viscosified fluids. For insidecasing gravel packing. Crossover : the casing or formation must be completely filled with gravel. Just as with the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing. This is the reverse-circulation method depicted in Fig. In the washdown method. 6-3) (Suman et al. low sand concentrations and high velocities were needed.. solutions of hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC). 1983.. after which the camer fluid passes through the screen and flows back up the tubing. (Afer et 01. it is desirable that these solutions degrade to low viscosity with little residue. The reverse-circulation and crossover methods are analogous to c.. reverse-circulation.. crosses over to the screen-open hole annulus. signaling the beginning of the squeeze stage. More commonly. or other debris being swept out of the annulus and mixed with the gravel. Special equipment and procedures have been developed over the years to accomplish good gravel placement. Reverse Circulation b. Gravel is first placed below the perforated interval by circulation through a section of screen called the telltale screen. and then the screen is washed down to its final position. When this has been covered. A modem crossover method. in which the gravel-laden fluid is pumped down the tubing. pipe dope. 6-2 Gravel Pack Placement 121 Underreamed undernamed casing completions. placing gravel in the perforation tunnels.) a. Notice that the open-hole section is usually underreamed through the productive interval to increase well productivity. Now. are used so that high concentrations of sand can be transported without settling (Scheueman. the gravel is placed opposite the productive interval before the screen is placed. and crossover methods are used (Fig. 6-2a (Suman et al. described in detail by Schechter (1992). a crossover method is used. 1983. 1983). 1983).Set. requiring the addition of breakers to the polymer solution. damaging the pack permeability.) those used in open holes. the canier fluid leaks off to the formation. is shown in Fig. Because these fluids could not suspend the sand. A primary disadvantage of this method is the possibility of rust. the pressure increases. 6-2b). flows into a wash pipe inside the screen. (From suman et al. most commonly. Water or other low-viscosity fluids were first used as transporting fluids in gravel pack operations. and then flows up the casing-tubing annulus to the surface (Fig. Crossover Figure 6-3 Gravel placement methods for insidecasing gravel packs.

6-3 Gravel and Screen Design 123 first step in determining the gravel size is to measure accurately the formation particle size distribution.68 1.38 2. the washpipe is raised. forming a dune in the casing-screen annulus.351 0. Shryock's results also Suggestthat an intermediate-viscosity c h e r fluidmay be preferable to high-viscosity fluids in deviated wellbores. this causes a higher velocity over the dune in the annulus et between the screen and the casing by increasing the resistance to flow in the screen-washpipe annulus. standard mesh sizes are given in Table 6-1 (PeW 1963).0555 0. In deviated wells. 6 Set.265 0. produced sand samples or bailed samples should not be used to size gravel. gravel packing is greatly complicated by the fact that the gravel tends to settle to the low side of the hole.0197 0. Yet large enough that clay particles and other formation fines flow through the pack.) 0. the gravel must be small enough to retain the formation sand.0098 0.0394 0.S. Squeeze C Upper Circulation .297 0.83 2.S.0661 0.68 4. conventional cores.00 0. 01 sidewall cores.73 6.157 0. 1979). in order of preference. 6-3 GRAVEL SCREEN AND DESIGN A critical element in designing a gravel pack completion is the proper sizing of the gravel and the screen 01 slotted liner.589 0.210 0. (From Schechtq 1992. 1983). s ~ h w m ' s Table 6-1 me a.840 0.0232 0. and the canier fluid circulates through the production screen.41 1. R d u c e d will tend to have a larger proportion of smaller grain sizes. Lower Circulation Through Tell Tale Screen b.0787 0. using a series of standard sievetrays.S.187 0.710 0. The results of the sieve analysis are usually repofled as a semilog plot of cumulative weight of formation material retained versus grain size.132 0.00 3.0117 0.0083 0. Typical grain size distributions from California and U. Gravel placement is improved in deviated wells by using a washpipe that is large relative to the screen (G~esbeck d. n u s . me formation grain size is obtained with a sieve analysis.250 0.0070 (mm) 8. 6-5 (Suman et s c h w m (1969) and Saucier (1974) presented similar @ut slightly different) ~orne]ations for optimal gravel size based on the formation grain size distribution. filling the casing-production screen annulus with gravel. Standard Sieve Sizesa Sieve Opening U.76 4. A representative sample of formation materid can be obtained.177 Figure 6-4 Steps in a crossover method of gravel pack placement. m e screen must be sized to retain all of the gravel.) squeezing. Standard Mesh Size 2 1/2 3 3 1tZ 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 (in.Gravel Pack Completions Chap.00 1.0165 0. n i s problem is significant at deviations greater than 45" from vertical (Shryock.36 2.0331 0.0469 0.315 0.0138 0. from rubber-sleeve cores.00 6. Gulf Coast unconsolidated sands are shown in Fig.19 1. Gravel is also placed in a section of blank pipe above the screen to provide a supply of gravel as the gravel settles. .. the sieve opening sizes for U.0937 0. the optimal gravel size is related to the formation particle size distribution.111 0. while bailed sand will have a larger proportion of large1 grain sizes.223 0.0280 0. To perform its sand control function and maximize the permeability of the gravel pack.420 0.500 0.

6-6. .) is found to be 0.054 in.0041 0. 6-6. and from Eqs..0469 in.) = 0.062 0. 6 Table 6-1 (Cont.053 0.667Dg50 (6-6) DgSrnax 1.Gravel Pack Completions Chap. This range is shown as the shaded region in Fig.) Standard Sieve Sizesa Sieve Opening (in.0135 in.0117 in. 0 Grain Diameter (inch) Correlation depends on the uniformity of the formation and the velocity through the screen.. The screen size should be less than 0.124 0. (6-3) and (6-4) to be 0.088 to 0.081 in. From. From Table 6-1.037 where Dg. calculated with Eqs. EXAMPLE 6-1 Selecting the optimum gravel and screen sizes Using both the Schwartz and Saucier correlations. respectively.047 in. From Table 6-1. so that all of the 16 mesh gravel is retained by the screen.059 or 0. we find that DJm = 0.615Dg~ Dgrnsn= 1. the mean grain size (DJ.11 in.088 0. the sieve sizes most closely correspondingto the maximum and minimum gravel sizes are 7 mesh and 16 mesh.0015 'From Peny.0024 0. and a uniformity coefficient.5 or less.. Saucierrecommends that the geometric mean gravel size be five or six times the mean formation grain size.05 and 0. The recommended grain size distribution is shown graphically as the dashedlineon Fig. min = 0. since 7 mesh is rarely used.0035 0.074 0.0059 and DgTmax the minimum and maximum sizes of gravel to be used.383Dgm (6-3) (6-4) U. The recommended mean gravel size is (5 or 6)(0.039 to 0.070 in. (1963). then Dg. determine the optimal gravel and screen size for the California unconsolidated sand for which the grain size distribution was given in Solution Schwartz correlation The grain size distribution for the Califomia unconsolidated sand is replotted in Fig.0049 0.149 0. Standard Mesh Size 0. while the maximum gravel size is 0. set. 6-3 Gravel and Screen Design 125 should be 1. (6-6) and (6-7).104 0.5Dg50 = (6-7) The screen openings should be small enough to retain all of the gravel. are Equations (6-3) and (6-4) define the range of recommended gravel size. requiring that the screen openings be slightly less than the smallest gravel size.. these grain sizes correspond to sieve sizes of 8 mesh and 16 or 18 mesh. The 40% grain size for the gravel is then (6)(0. Saucier correlation Fmm the formation grain size distribution. defined as .0029 0. the intersectionswith thecumulative weight % = 100 and = 0 lines define the minimum and maximum gravel sizes. U.5 The 90% grain size is Dg40/ = 0. If we apply Schwatz's criteria. we find DgSmin= 0. these requirements. an 8/16 mesh sand would probably be chosen. or Dg50 = (5 or 6) Df50 (6-5) Saucier gave no recommendation about gravel size distribution. Schwam recommends that the gravel size distribution should plot as a straight line on the standard semilog plot. 1.) = 0.) 0. To fix the gravel size distribution. with a screen size of less than 0.0017 0.0021 0. but for most conditions (nonuniform sands) is Dg40 = 6Df40 where Dg40 is the m m m e n d e d gravel size and D f 4 is the diameter of fornation sand for which 40 wt% of the grains are of a larger diameter.01 17 in. the minimum gravel size is 0..0469 in. An 8/16 mesh sand would again be chosen. Reading from the plot for a cumulative weight fraction of 40%.0135 in.044 0.S.105 in. 6-6.

15 .). Golan and Whitson (1991) presented the following equations for inside-casing gravel packs: and for gas wells. I@ is the gravel-packed perforation length (in..).. and p.Gravel Pack Completions Chap. it is important to check that the gravel used conforms closely to this size. More detail about gravel pack sand quality control is given in API RP 58. is viscosity (cp). D. the pressure drop through the gravelpacked perforationscan contribute significantly to the overall pressure drop.S. The Darcy and non-Darcy contributions to the pressure drop through the perforations can be represented by a gravel-pack skin factor. .17 x 105 . and the non-Darcy flow coefficient for the gravel-filled perforation. U. unless the gravel permeability has been severely reduced by formation particles. the gravel pack should contribute a small negative skin effect. Also.056 0.) 0. kg is the permeability of the gravel (md). since it will behave like a larger-diameter wellbore. If the productivity is expressed based on the radius of the liner. .4 13 . turbulence in the perforations may add to the laminar (Darcy flow) pressure drop through the perforations.014 0. (in." . is the gravel turbulence factor. p is fluid density (lb. y is the gas gravity. kh is the formation permeability-thickness product (md-ft). Values of the constants a and b for common gravel sizes are given in Table 6-2 (Golan and Whitson. as Once the gravel size has been chosen.080 Permeability (rnd) 1 2x 105 . 6 set. D.24 2./ft?). a b 4/60 20140 1On0 8/12 16 .7 8 4 x 10" . if this pressure drop is significant compared with the pressure drop in the formation. . The turbulence factor is correlated with the gravel permeabiiity (Cooke.12 x 10" 3 3 x 10l2 .025 0. 6-4 Productivity of Gravel-Packed Wells 127 of an unconsolidated sand requiring gravel packing is often high. p. since the Properties Approx. In these equations. 6 = bk. s.d is the perforation diameter (in.6 5 x 1 .4 1. The API (1986) recommends that a minimum of 96% of the gravel pack sand should pass the course designated sieve and be retained on the fine designated sieve. Mesh Size Mean Diarn.correlations. 1991).. 1973). 1 2 x 105 . while for oil wells. 6 1 7 x lo6 . Grain Diameter (inch) Figure 6-6 Gravel size dishibutionspredicted by Saucier and Schwa. 5.31 x 10" aAfter Golan and Whitson (1991). n is the number of perforations. In an open-hole gravel pack. Table 6-2 Gravel 6-4 PRODUCTIV~TY OF GRAVEL-PACKED WELLS The productivity of a gravel-packed well is affected by the pressure drop through the gravel pack. 5 x 10' . For inside-casing gravel pack completions. the pressure drop through the gravel should be very small compared with the formation.

and the well is perforated 4 shots/ft with ID-in. for lODO mesh sand. which will vary depending on the pressure.1 1000 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0. of the casing is about 7 in. instead of 0.5 108.D. gravel-packed gas well Develop a plot of pwf versus q for the gas well described in Appendix C (as in Example 4-65). in for example Eq. 6 sec. (4-23).0177 0.. In actual practice.7 67.933 0. that is. (6-8).6 25. re = 1490 ft. the problem is analogous to Example 4-6. 6-7. .0211 0. so the perforation length through the casing and cement is (11 in. (6-9).6 43.. from Eq. casing with 10120 mesh sand. Finally.0195 0. because of other restrictions on the flow rate. after substituting for all known quantities. .6 117. from Eq.0235 2 0. for increments of 500 psi in p w f . and D. is Notice that D. is a function of p.. so the Darcy flowskin effect through the gravel-packedperforation is insignificant.. The results are given in Table 6-3 and plotted in Fig. we use the values of p .0195 0. (2-15) or Eq. The well is gravel-packed inside the 7 718-in. Equation (6-12) is quadratic in q . we have 80 90 100 110 q (MMscfld) 120 130 Figure 6-7 IPR curve for a high-rate. D. in using Eqs. (6.898 0.903 0. and solve the quadratic equation for q.56 x 10-3(2. a = 1. Notice how large the non-Darcy flow term.9 59. D. Eq.903 0.)D = 2 in.17 md. The I.q. and 2. The term.1. and rearranging. 73.0226 5000 4000 124. (4-29) can be written for this case as Table 6-3 Example 6-2 Results PWJ (Psi) W@PW~ (CP) ACP) 0.914 0.912 0.p i f ) As in Example 4-6. From Table 6-2. is 8.. From Ea.128 Gravel Pack Completions Chap.6-4 Productivity of Gravel-Packed Wells 129 Equations (6-8) through (6-1 1) are based on the the use of the casing radius.0205 0. accounts for the apparent skin effect of the gravel pack. the flow rate actually decreases with a decrease in pwf because of this term. This is because it is unlikely that a perforation tunnel can be maintained in an unconsolidated medium. 0 EXAMPLE 6-2 IPR for a high-rate. I.0 71. as rwin deliverability calculations.0189 0. k = 5 x 10' md.6 We must evaluate s. . and b = 8. At low values of p.93 q (MMSCFId) Dq . (6-8) though (6-1 I). We will use the viscosity evaluated at pwf for the viscosity of the fluid in the perforation--these have been calculated in Example 4-6.0165 0. in particular.8 125. the perforation s k i effects discussed in Chapter 5 will also occur in inside-casing gravel packs and will be in addition to the gravel-pack skin effect discussed here.34. with the following change: k = 100 md. Other skin effects will still be present.3 52. sg Dgq.0207 0.9 35. gravel-packedgas well. when added to the [In (re/rw) SJ term.128 x lo7 .4 x 10".1 93.2 123.0226 0..then. + + which. for this high-rate well. other than due to the gravel pack.. this would probably not occur. the drilled hole diameter is 11 in.0220 0.7 in.-diameter perforations. Solution Since the skin effect. is zero.0134 0. 3000 Q 1000 0 70 so.1l). the difference between the drilled hole radius and the casing inside radius. the perforation length should be the length through the casing and cement only. not the screen radius.

typically cesium-137. 1985. the detectorresponse is a minimum while void spaces yield higher count rates. through a large region of the completion the y -ray intensity is high. Thus the y-ray intensity measured at the detector should provide at least a qualitative measure of the amount of gravel present-where the annulus is completely filled. 1985). CCL = casing collar log OR = gamma ray log Figure 6-8 ~~~~~l pack evaluation response to voids in gravel pack. the material through which the y -rays travel should be constant except for the amount of gravel present in the annular space between the liner and the casing or formation. 6-8 (Neal and Carroll. In a gravel-packed well.) . The tools used are gamma-gamma density devices having a gamma-ray source. 6 iec.Pack Evaluation 6-5 Gravel 131 6-5 GRAVEL PACK EVALUATION Unfocused y-ray density logs can be used to locate the top of the gravel-packed section and to detect voids in gravel packs by measuring the density of the materials in the region of the well completion.Gravel Pack Completions Chap. Though a portion of the gravel-packed region produces a low count level. indicating an incomplete pack of gravel. and a single y-ray detector. (FromNeal and Carroll. as illustrated in Fig. An unfocused y-ray density log displays regions of high y -ray intensity in the packed zone when the gravel pack containsvoids.

1984. E. However. gas and liquid) present. the drilled hole is 10 in. Perry. in most production wells. The casing is 7 in. 1991. R.. The properties of the fluids. compare Dg50from the two correlations). 603609. S. E. E. the flow of interest may be in any direchon relahve to the gravitational field. 1035-1040. and Snyder. Sdathiel.. Suman. E. the flow is m_u_l. sometimes occurs.. at with least two phases (e.. Successful Sand Control Design for High-Rate Oil and Water Wel1s:'JPI. 10. e. M. G.Gravel Pack Completions Chap. Some production wells and most injection wells experience single-phase flow. NJ. The flow geometry of interest in wellbores is usually suchas flow through a circular pipe.f from 2000 to 5000 psi.R. Golan.I~~~dict Single-phase flow can be characterized as being either laminar or turbulent. McGraw-Hill. depending on the flow rate and the fluid properties. and the flow rate.-^m" ~ a t~ i So . both their PVT behavior and their rheological characteristics. Assume that the grain size dishibution for a sand plots as a straight line on the usual semi-log plot of percent sand retained versus grain size. 1963.. The well is completed with an inside-casing gravel pack with 20140 mesh gravel. N R ~The ~ e y n o l d number 133 .^... March 1986.New York.Bakersfield. Prentice Hall. 4. Determine the optimal gravel size for the Gulf Coast formation sand grain size distribution given in Fig. 1193-1198.-thick. September 1969.~ ~~ the c ~ ~ o pressure as.1 Laminar or Turbulent F l o w @'co~dhgwe~~bo~flow y. depending on the flow geometry. 1101-1 107. "Considerations in Gravel Pack Design:'JPT.~ ~ ! ~ x ? ~ e . 8. Shryock. "Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing Operations:' API Recommended Practice 58 (RP58).. Plot pd versus q for a range of D ) and p. American Peholeum Institute. CA. the flow in a wellbore will be either single-phase or multiphase. Schechter. The undersaturated oil described in Appendix A is being produced from a 50-ft. the fluid properties. (c) 4 shotlft. 800-md unconsolidated sand reservoir with a drainage radius of 1490 ft. 31: 1OP-115.-diameter perforations and a shot density of (a) 1 shot IR @) 2 shotlft. Prentice Hall. 1st ed. . For the well describedinExample6-2.R. . 2nd ed. 1992.g. Englewood Cliffs. Jr. M. Scheueman. Show the relationship between the predicted mean particle sizes of the gravel from the Schwartz and Sauciercorrelations (i. bet.. which is appropriate for most hydrocarbon fluids. particularly when interpreting production logs. ChemicalEngineer's Handbook. Englewood Cliffs. NJ.March " 12. flow in a wellbore may be either laminar or turbulent. "Design of Gravel Packs in Deviated Wellbores:' JPT.. 5. E. 205-212. Houston.n~$i o ~su&Ee". D.R. In this chapter the fluid flow relationships assume Newtonian behavior. Wellbore flow can be divided into several broad categories. though flow ~ ~ .. 6-5.. (6 in. . H. 11.5-in.. the flow behavior is non-Newtonian. Gulf Pub. calculate the total apparent skin effect (skin + nonDarcy flow term) if the damage skin effect is 20 and the flow rate is 20 MMSCFId.... R. the Reynolds number.?c on 3 p o s ~P t C~ ~~ ~ O i~ i ~~ ~ ~ f ~.Fbing y d casing.September 1973. depending .wey.J.. Cooke. C. G. C H A P T E R 7 Wellbore Flow Performance 9. 7 Saucier.. Furthermore. "New Look at Gravel Pack Canier Ruid:' SPE 12476.presented at the Seventh Formation Damage Conmi Symposium. 4th ed.n U the velocity profile a%Tfie%rn=3 the phases 1 1 r m a F a z % r a r e sometimes of interest. Sand Control Handbook. PROBLEMS 6-1. assuming 0. "Gravel-Packing Studies in Full-Scale Deviated Model WeUbore:'JPT. H. using both the Schwartz and Saucier correlations. E. H. 7-1 ~NTRODUCTION 6-3. C. C. Fist.. Gmesbeck.. Febmary 1974. 0. 6 REFERENCES 1. 6-2. J. Schwartz. ~ i ~ ~ ~ a f e ~ . S. 2. and Echois. and this will be covered in Chapter 17. and Carroll. 3.. Oil Well Stimulation. and Whitson. "Conductivity ofFracture Proppantsin Multiple Layers:'JPT. J. C. when injecting gelled fracturing fluids. 7-2 SINGLE-PHASE FLOW AN INCOMPRESSIBLE... and this will strongly influence the flow behavior.January 1979.. . Finally. "A Quantitative Approach to Gravel Pack Evaluation:'JPT. L .. must be considered in describing wellbore flow performance. June 6. Jr. FLUID OF NEWTONIAN 7-2.. in diameter.. Well Performance.R. s on the value of a dimensionless group. Co. Ned. 2nd ed. Ellis. W M.

Whether the flow is laminar or turbulent will strongly influence the velocity profile in the pipe.4890 DP (7-7) When the flow is laminar. when the fluid is a low-viscosity liquid.. The transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs at NRc = 2100.0q and therefore q = 81 bblld.- -- For the injection of 1./ft3. the cross-sectional area is Example 7-1 illustrates that laminar flow occurs at low flow rates. The viscosity of the water at bottomhole conditions is 0. For this problem. the velocity profile in a circular pipe can be derived analytically and is given by u(r) = (@a The units must now be converted to a consistent set.)(ft/l2 inJ(0.@L'" ~ P L . at rates higher than 81 bbUd. For these oilfield units. and other factors (Govier and Aziz.03-specific gravity water (p = 64. Variation of Reynolds number with volumetric flow rate.. Laminar flow will occur at relatively high flow rates in wells in which a viscous fluid is being produced or injected. 7-2. The average velocity is simply the volumetric flow rate divided by the cross-sectional area of flow.3 lbm/ft3) = 26. entrance conditions. with no fluid motion transverse to the bulk flow direction. on the other hand./ft-s-cp) n(6.0q lb.2 Velocity Profiles Substituting for u in Eq. the fluid moves in distinct laminae. with pipe size and viscosity as parameters.615 ftybbl)(day/86. or variation of velocity with radial position. p is in lb. English engineering units will be most convenient.094 in. among other factors.6 cp)(6. 2100 -. positions.0 is specific to the pipe size and fluid properties of this example. Below about 81 0 bbud. the flow will be laminar. Of course. and the dispersion of solutes contained in the fluid. generally less than about 100 bbl/d. The appropriate conversion factors are given in Table 1-1.Q2] (7-8) 4(q bbl/d)(5. Figure 7-2 shows the variation of Reynolds number with flow rate. The transition from laminar to turbulent flow in circular pipes generally occurs at a Reynolds number of 2100. and fi is in cp.6 cp. (7-I). and fluid properties. To calculate the Reynolds number. is sometimes an importantconsiderationwhen analyzingflow in wellbores. flow is turbulent.3 1bm/ft3) an injection well with in 7% 32-lb/ft casing. Q L = p~ p g z ~ PO and p~ are the pressures at longitudinal . 7 is the ratio of the inertial forces to the viscous forces in a flowing fluid. + . 70 and Z L are the heights above some datum at these axial . r is the radial distance from the center of the pipe. 400 s)(64. As the viscosity increases. 7-1). 1977). the constant 26. Turbulent flow. The velocity profile. all variables must be expressed in consistent units so that the result is dimensionless. the frictional pressure drop behavior. At what volumetric flow rate will the transition from laminar to turbulent flow occur? Solution Equation (7-1) relates the Reynolds number to the average velocity. pipe size. is characterized by eddy currents that cause ff uctuating velocity componentsin all directions. particularlywith regard to certain production logging measurements. the likelihood of laminar flow will also increase. In laminar flow. EXAMPLE 7-1 Determining the Reynolds number for flow in an injection well We see that the Reynolds number varies linearly with the volumetric flow rate for a given pipe size and fluid (Fig. Newtonian Fluid f 135 where q is in bbUd. all of these attributes are considerations at times in production operations. construct a graph of Reynolds number versus volumetric flow rate (in bbVd). 7-2 Singlephase Flow o an Incompressible. positions a distance L apart. the Reynolds number can be expressed in general as N R= ~ 1. N Re . though this value can vary somewhat depending on the pipe roughness. D is in in.. so for this example 2100 = 26.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. R is the inside pipe radius. and for flow in a circular pipe is given by Set.72 x where cP0 = po + p g a . 81 and for flow in a circular pipe.

and maximum or centerline velocity. From this expression. in turbulent flow varies with Reynolds number and the roughness of the pipe. This equation shows that the velocity profile is parabolic in laminar flow with the maximum velocity occuning at the center of the pipe as shown in Fig.. of single-phase flow in a pipe can be obtained by solving the mechanical energy balance equation. - (I-IU) The pressure drop over a distance. One such expression that is fairly accurate for ld > NRe> 3000 is the power law model . in turbulent flow. = L - Flow Rate. . 7-3. RATE -4 111 I I I . (7-8) that the average velocity.--- e u . which in differential form is (7-1 1) If the fluid is incompressible ( p = constant).75-0. u. 7 &c. viscosity. L. empirical expressions have been developed to describe the velocity profile in turbulent flow. but is generally in the range 0. u . are Thus. 7-2 Slngle-Phase Flow of an Incompressible. It can be readily shown from Eq. 7-2. Newtonian Fluid 137 . the velocity profile is much flatter than that found in laminar flow and the average velocity is closer to the maximum velocity (Fig. and pipe size. 7-3). it can be shown that and u(r) is velocity as a function of radial position.LAMINAR FLOW Figure 7-3 flow because of the fluctuating nature of turbulent flow. The ratio ulu.3 Pressure Drop Calculations 4PL so that the ratio of mean velocity to maximum velocity in laminar flow in a circular pipe is I.86. 1 pauation (7-9) is a foxm of the Hagen-Poiseuille equation for laminar flow in a pipe. From experiments. q (STB/d) (&\ll" \R/J (7-12) Figure 7-2 Variation of Reynolds number with volumetric flow rate. Tube Center \ Tube Wall.'1 136 10000 Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. and there is no shaft work device in the pipeline .

a 2=0 . (7-20) F~~ fluid of any other specific gravity. P = (1. It willbe zero for an incompressiblefluid unless the cross-sectionalarea of the p i p is different at the two positions of interest.433 yv AZ (7-21) (7-22) F~~ examplegiven.I: ( ) 2gc ~f the fluid is incompressible. APKE thePressure hop resulting from a change in the velocity of the fluid between positions 1 and 2. = sin o is A ~the . 4 3 3 ~ ~ dz where ywis the specific gravity.433~wL 0 = -292 psi.jzontal. The velocity then varies only with the cross-sectional area of the p i p . change for an incompressible fluid is (7-27) .z l = Lsine dp = b p= dz gc (1%) (62.the Potential energy pressure drop per foot of vertical distance is APPEI Pressure drop due to potential energy change. Calculate the pressure hop over 1000 fi of tubing due to the potential energy change. and frictional contributionsto the overall pressure drop. A m = 0. (7-151. the potential energy pressure drop is given by g Ap = . the accounts for the Pressure change due to the weight of the column of fluid (the hydrostatic head). (7-19).05)(62. (a) upward flow Figure 7-4 Flow geometry for pipe flow. n u s . From Eq. Thus. Az is the differencein elevation between positions 1and 2. the flow dii=tion is -40" from ho. (b) downward flow u = -4 A (7-25) and since A = JC 0 1 . Newtonian Fluid 139 (a pump. it will be zero for flow in a horizontal pipe. 7-2 single-phase Flow of an Incompressible. y = 1. etc.05.6-lbm/ft = tubing in a well that is deviated 50' from vertical. For flow in a straight pipe of length L with flow direction 0. (7-17) and (7-18). 0" for horizontal flow. compressor. turbine. 7 Set. the volumetric flow rate is constant.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. this equation is readily integrated to yield Solution Combining Eqs. A P P = -g~ ~ s i n e ~ gc (7-19) for fluid moving from position 1 to position 2.05) is being injected through 2 7/8-in. SO APPE 0. The three terms on the right-hand side are the potential energy.). shortcut solution For fresh water with yw = l(p = 62.. Thus.pressure drop due to kinetic energy change. combining E ~(7-24) and (7-26). the . kinetic energy.4 1bm/ft3). A z = a . and Az = L sin 8. From Eq. (7-15). the kinetic energy pressure drop due to a p i p diameter ~ . and -90" for downward flow in a vertical well (Fig.p A z I this equation. Converting to oilfield units. or AP = APPE APKE App + + For downwardflowin a well deviated 50" from vertical.5 lbm/fe and ~p~~ = -292 psi from Eq.7-4).49 nD z (7-26) EXAMPLE 7-2 Calculation of the potential energy pressure hop that 1000 bbl/d of brine (yW 1. P A m = -( A U ~ ) 2gc (7-23) P (7-24) APKE= -(u: . g. Yw. then '4 u = . with increasing n 0 is defined as the angle between horizontal and the direction of flow.4)lbm/ft3 = e is -40".4%) (&) = 0433psi~. 0 is for vertical flow.

D is in in.(7-27) and unit conversions can be combined to yield where q is in bblld. and in. First. the constants for in Eq. Calculate the kinetic energy pressure drop caused by the diameter change. D (ft) Solution Equation (7-27) can be used if the fluid is incompressible. However. the frictional pressure drop. 7-2 single-Phase Flow of an Incompressible. The relative roughnesses of some common types of pipes are given in Fig. to 2 in. For oilfield units of bbl/d for flow rate. Newtonian Fluid 141 EXAMPLE 7-3 Calculation of the kinetic energy pressure drop is Suppose that 2000 bblld of oil with a density of 58 lbm/ft3 flowing through a horizontal pipeline having a diameter reduction from 4 in. and ApF. the friction factor is a simple function of the Reynolds number. Pipe Diameter. from the Fanning equation. k E = - D (7-33) where k is the length of the protrusions on the pipe wall. 7-5. the friction factor may depend on both the Reynolds number and the relative pipe roughness. The relative roughness is a measure of the size of surface features on the pipe wall protruding into the flow stream compared with the pipe diameter. Ibm/fi3 density. 1944. D (in) Figure 7-6 Relative roughness of common piping material. so that the relative roughness is essentially an empirical parameter that can be obtained through pressure drop measureFlow with a reductionin pipe size (Example 7-3). 7 Set. 1944). 7-6 (Moody.) . p is in Ibm/ft3. whereas in mbulent flow.130 Ri/sec (7-28) and from Eq. The frictional pressure drop is obtained where ff is the Fanning friction factor..Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. Pipe Diameter. as illustrated in Fig. it should be remembered that the pipe roughness may change with'service. (7-27). for diameter. the volumetric flow rate must be conve~ted ft3/sw: to 4 = ( O bWd)(5. 6 . (From Moody. In laminar flow.6~5 2 m ff'lbbl) (&) = 0.

5 lbm/ft3)(2.D.(7-7). . X3 0 C . however.') = 5.6-lbm/fttubing has an I. 1944). 7 The Fanning friction factor is most commody obtained from the Moody friction factor chart (Fig. This chart was generated from the Colebrook-White equation. Using E .17 fi-lb. 7-7) or the Chen equation [Eq. the constant 1.2 cp) Note that the oilfieldunits used here are obviously not consistent. . the Reynolds number must be calculated to determine if the flow is laminar q or turbulent.5 lbm/ft3) = 35. (7-31). J ggg q q q q APF = 2(0. .-----. 700 (2. for solution.2 cp. . An explicit equation for the friction factor with similar accuracy to the Colebrook-White equation (Gregory and Fogarasi. . and noting that 2 7/8-in. Moody.48 converts the units to a consistent set. and Now using Eq.. ..14 psi Notice that the frictional pressure drop is considerably less than the potential energy or hydro0 static pressure drop. and the pipe relative roughness is 0.001. b%U33. 8.0063)(65. The Reynolds number is well above 2100.259 inJ(1. . (7-35)] can be used to determine the friction factor. which we calculated to be -292 psi in Example 7-2. Solution First. m . . of 2. then. 7-7. requiring an iterative procedure. The brine has a viscosity of 1. N R= ~ (1.48)(1000bbUd)(65./lb. 1985) is the Chen equation (Chen. so the flow is turbulent. Using the Chen equation. . Either the Moody diagram (Fig. such as the Newton-Raphson method.-s2)[(2.O m C O N(UN 0 0 00000~ 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ q m . 1979): EXAMPLE 7-4 Calculating the frictionalpressure drop Calculate the frictionalpressure drop for the 1000bbUd of brine injection described in Example 7-2. O N 0 lc O b h N .259 in.33ft/~)~(1000 ft) (32. The Colebrook-White equation is implicit in ff.142 - Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. .259p2) ft] = (740 lbf/ft2)(@144 in.

The constants and conversion factors for oilfield units for Eqs. sin 6 and s are zero. pi. Once the pressure. in terms of gas gravity. the last two terms can be combined as or the special case of horizontal flow. With no shaft work device and neglecting for the time being any kinetic energy changes.can be obtained as afunction of average temperature. the compressibility of the fluid must be considered. the friction factor must be obtained from the Reynolds number and the pipe roughness.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. average values of temperature and compressibility factor over the segment of pipe of interest can be assumed. When the fluid is compressible. Newtonian Fluid 145 To calculate the pressure drop in a gas well. the density is expressed as p=- M WP ZRT or. Using average values of Z and T.5 1) can be combined to give For vertical or inclined flow: This equation still contains three variables that are functions of position: Z. 7 3 Single-Phase Flow of a Compressible. (7-42) becomes evaluated at the average temperature and pressure as was the The viscosity should compiessibilityfactor.007 X Yg ffZ T ~ ~ L D5 (7-54) . temperature. Eq. the compressibility factor. Eq. given by where + For horizontal flow: pf -pi = 1. the equation simplifies to Anestimateof the averagecompressibility factor.97~~~ ZRT The velocity can be written in terms of the volumetric flow rate at standard conditions. (7-14). integration of Eq. single. NRe can be calculated based on standard conditions as Then. as de_scribedin Chapter 4. 7 set. (pl + p2)/2. To solve Eq. To derive an equation for the pressure drop in a gas well. If the temperature varies linearly between upstream position 1 and downstream position 2. pu. the fluid density and fluid velocity vary along the pipe. Since the product. 1987). (7-44) and (7-43. This approach will likely require numerical integration. q.and the @own pressure. Z can be checked using T and the mean pressure. Z. and these variations must be included when integrating the mechanical energy balance equation. is a constant for flow of a compressible fluid. the average temperature can be estimated as the mean temperature ( F T2)/2 or the log-mean temperature (Bradley. Eq. 2. 28. (7-46) gives From the real gas law (Chapter 4). ( 7 4 8 x 7 . (7-46) can be integrated for nonhorizontal flow to yield where s is defined as Since dz is sin 6 d L . 'f .the pressure calculation can be repeated using a new estimate of Z. p=- To complete the calculation. and pressure. If the new estimate differs significantly. p2. has been calculated. the temperature profile can be provided and the compressibility factor replaced by a function of temperature and pressure using an equation of state. we begin with the mechanical energy balance. (7-46) rigorously. substituting for p and u from Eqs. Alternatively.

At the surface.09)(0. From Fig. The well is next divided into two equal segments and the calculation of bottomhole pressure repeated. For the second segment. from a depth of 5000 ft to the bottomhole depth of 10. From Eqs.)(0.935)(647. little error from using average T and Z for the entire well. we have The bottomhole pressure is calculated from Eq. so. and all other variables are dimensionless. (7-53).013 cp) n i s calculation is approximate. Viscosity is again 0. tubing in a vertical well. 9 = +90°. We have also neglected changes in kinetic energy to develop these equations.685 x : - EXAMPLE 7-5 Calculation of the bottomhole flowing pressure in a gas well Suppose that 2 MMSCFId of natural gas is being produced through 10. p. The first segment is from the surface to a depth of_5000ft.97y. Z = 0. D is in in. So.5) (7-60) p = e0. S = Zz(pxl P Z ) ( T Z / T ~ ~ ) ~ A p=- (7-66) and the average density is = -(0. = 1.) Calculate the bottomhole flowing pressure directly from the surface pressure. 7 Set. 0. and (7-56) are needed to solve this problem. even though we know that velocity will be changing throughout the pipe. . y .2196 (0. Show that the kinetic energy pressure drop is negligible. Frequently.0375)(0.5"F and p = 935 psia. and viscosity over the pipe segment of interest.93)(622. The kinetic energy pressure drop in this well can be estimated by N R= ~ (20.709)1si~(90)1(5~) = -o. (7-55).66.2296 (0. Solution Equations (7-53). in calculating the bottomhole pressure from the surface pressure. is 1. the temperature is 150°F and the pressure is 800 psia. The kinetic energy pressure drop can be checked after using these equations to estimate the pressure drop and corrections made. p is in cp. f is 162.but this time dividing the well into two equal segments. s = - (0.. Sincethe flow direction is vertical upward. T.0044.30.709)[sin(90)1(50~) = -o.2296(800)22.0006 (this is a common value used for new tubing.000) = -o. and p..2. the pseudo-reduced temperature is T = (175 460)/374 = 1. and from Fig.709)[sin(90)](10. and pl = pwf = 1078 psia. if necessary.935) (635) - 28. Newtonian Fluid 147 In Eqs. 4-1.0375)(0. (7-52) to solve for pl.0131 cp. The gas has the composition given in Example 4-3."8(800)2 . (7-53) and (7-56).935. the bottomhole temperature is 200°F. 2 = 0.70 (2. p. the u n h o w n pressure may be the upstream pressure. Thus. From Example 4-3. Rearranging Eq. T = 1. the larger will be the error due to this approximation. but this can be checked. p is in psia. The velocities at points 1 and 2 are Zl(psz/~~)(T~lTsz)q (7-65) U1 = A and U2 and E = 0. p l . 7-3 Single-Phase Flow of a Compressible.12 as before.also because of the small changes in temperature and Pressure. 4-1.709. the upstream pressure is the unknown. 7-7). For this segment. Remember that these equations are based on the use of an average temperature.5) (7-62) + and pl = pwf = 1078 psia. Since neither temperature nor pressure varied greatly throughout the well. Thus. and pjm = 935 psia.000 fi.0131 cp.5"F. in a gas production well. 175"F. T is in OR. . The longer the flow distance.0375)(0.. For example. Repeat the calculation. It is not likely that kinetic energy changes are significant.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap.709)(2000MSCFId) = 9. L is in ft. .0006.. and y is 0. from the Moody diagram (Fig.685 x lo-) : Equations (7-51) through (7-56) are the working equations for computing the pressure drop in gas wells. is 1. compressibility factor.@ 2~F (7-67) . in production operations. ff = 0. Using the mean temperature.70. (7-56): p = e0. The viscosity is essentiallythe same as before.73. =- (0.93. we use f = 187. and using the . (7-51) through (7-53. T is 374'R. using Eq.259 in. It is advantageous to divide the well into multiple segments and calculate the pressure drop for each segment if the length (well measured depth) is large.448 (0. q is in MSCFJd. the Reynolds number and friction factor will be the same as in the previous calculation.000 ft of 2 718-in. for this segment. is 717 psia. Now. and the relative roughness of the tubing is 0. since an average density is being used.

In this chapter. p. average temperature. The holdup of the lighter phase.12. y. gas-liquid flow will occur. The input volume fIWtions+ A.76.Yp (7-7 1) gas-liquid flow. = 1. p = 800 psia. and h p . as where q. and from that point to the surface. = 1 .1 Holdup Behavior In two-phase flow. Slip velocity is not an independent property from holdup. called the holdup phenomenon.. the amount of the pipe occupied by a phase is often different from its propoflion of the total volumetric flow rate. T is 150°F. but is simply another way to represent the holdup . Slip velocity is defined as the difference between the average velocities of the two phases. = 1. and Z = 0. 7-4 MULTIPHASE IN WELLS FLOW Multiphase flow---the simultaneous flow of two or more phases of fluid-will occur in almost all oil production wells. To calculate average densities. In an oil well./ft tubing... 0. where LY is less dense than p. and qp are the volumetric flowrates of the two phases. the denser phase is "held up" in the pipe relative to the lighter Ya = 1 . whenever the pressure drops below the bubble point. T = 200°F. the in-situ volume fraction of the denser phase will be greater than the input volume fraction of the denser phase-that is. Because of this fact. are also referred to as the "no-slip holdups. so the cross-sectional area is . in upward two-phase flow. 7 Set.93. 175% and average compressibility factor. two-phase flow will occur in the wellbore andfor tubing. and up we the average in-situ velocities of the two phases. is sometimes called the voidfraction. T. = 1. Many oil wells also produce significant amounts of water.6-lb. ypl. of parameter used in describing two-phase flow is the input fraction of Another each phase. upward vertical and inclined flow are described. are used.defined as 1 p = 48 (7-72) --401+ 46 1. ve (7-70) 7-4. For 2 718-in.up (7-74) The local holdup. Thus. 7-4 MultlphaseFlow in Wells 149 At position 2 (surface). 939 psia. unless the surface pressure is above the bubble point. p. ypl is the fraction of the time a where I . resulting in oil-water flow or oil-water-gas three-phase flow. is defined identically to yp as YU= 7 or. and in some types of injection wells.06 e psia. the holdup of the gas phase.925. 0. Schematic of two-phase flow.. T. because the pipe is completely occupied by the two phases." Another mesure of the holdup phenomenon that is commonl~ used in production 1% interpretation is the "slip velocity:' u s . cr and p... ypl. gas will evolve. is. 7-8. p = 1078 psia. is a time-averaged quantity-that given location in the pipe is occupied by phase p. in many gas production wells. even in a well producing from an undersaturated reservoir. Thus.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. the average pressure.93. y. - . = 1. consider the upward flow of two phases.. U s = u.. the I D is 2. while at 1 (bottomhole). the lighter phase (a) will be moving faster than the denser phase (p). 1. and Z = 0. as shown in Fig..1 p (7-73) where Vp = volume of denser phase in pipe segment and V = volume of pipe segment. 8.259 in.. can also be defined in terms of a local holdup. As an example of a typical two-phase flow situation.63. yp. Two-phase flow behavior depends strongly on the distribution of the phases in the pipe.. which in turn depends on the direction of flow relative to the gravitational field. The kinetic energy pressure drop is negligible compared with the potential energy and frictional contributions to the overall pressure drop. Typically.0278 ftz. The holdup.50. horizontal and near-horizontal flow are treated in Chapter 10. W then calculate Apm = 0.

This flow pattern map does account for some fluid properties. The holdup of the gas phase is then y.US.Y? . vertical. Chum flow is characterized by oscillatory. = 1. the The average in-situ velocities. the liquid and gas velocity numbers. 7 set. the solution is y. A brief description of these flow regimes is as follows. . ' -.usl)yi . if it were single-phase flow. a highly turbulent flow pattern with both phases dispersed. For us = u = u. 1 1 and Region 1 1contains the annular flow pattern. shown in Fig. The "flow regime" or flow pattern is a qualitative description of the phase distribution. gas-liquid.l =: 60 Wmin. 1977) shows these flow patterns and the approximate regions in which they occur as functions of superficial velocities for air-water flow. Chum flow: With a further increase in gas rate. (7-82) Correlations for holdup are generally used in two-phase pressure gradient calculations.l and Nu. Region 1 is high-velocity slug and chum flow.(us . upward flow. The superficial velocity of a phase would be the average velocity of the phase if that phase filled the entire pipe. and pipe size. (7-79). Between the large gas bubbles are slugs of liquid that contain smallerbubbles of gas entrained in the liquid. the larger gas bubbles become unstable and collapse. In two-phase flow. a quadratic equation is obtained: U. or usp.62.5). . the only variables in the dimensionless groups are the superficial velocities of the phases. gas becomes the continuous phase.38. The Duns and Ros map correlates flow regime with two dimensionless numbers. 3. fluid properties.Annular flow: At higher gas rates. The holdup of the liquid is greater than the input fraction (0. up-and-down motions of the liquid.. The flow regime in gas-liquid vertical flow can be predicted with a flow regime map. . four flow regimes are now generally agreed upon in the two-phase flow literature: bubble. however. Region I contains bubble and low-velocity slug flow. slug.2 Two-Phase Flow Regimes The manner in which the two phases are distributed in the pipe significantly affects other aspects of two-phase flow. but also included a transition region where the flow changes from a liquid continuousto a gas continuoussystem. 7-10. Figure 7-9 (Govier and A&. that for a given gas-liquid system. that is. 2. These occur as a progression with increasing gas rate for a given liquid rate. resulting in chum flow. Duns and Ros defined three distinctregions on their map. since superficial velocity of a phase is q / A .US^ = 0 . Solving for y1. us.yl = 0. . the slip velocity is usually used to represent holdup behavior in production log interpretation. 4. & and 6 are related to the superficial velocities and Substituting these expressions into the equation defining slip velocity (7-74) yields 1 Bubble flow: Dispersed bubbles of gas in a continuous liquid phase. . defined as 7-4. that eventually fill the entire pipe cross section.Yl -U"' Yi (7-83) where pl is liquid density. what is the holdup of each phase? Solution From Eq. note. and annular flow.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. One such map that is used for flow regime discrimination in some pressure drop correlations is that of Duns and Ros (1963). as is typical in upward gas-liquid flow. = 0. Slug flow: At higher gas rates. with liquid flowing in an annulus coating the surface of the pipe and with liquid droplets entrained in the gas phase. the bubbles coalesce into larger bubbles. and a is the interfacial tension of the liquid-gas system. chum. g is the acceleration of gravity. EXAMPLE 7-6 Relationship between holdup and slip velocity If the slip velocity for a gas-liquid flow is 60 Wmin and the superficialvelocity of each phase is also 60 ftlmin. we introduce the definition of superficial velocity. called Taylor bubbles. N. such as slippagebetween phases and the pressure gradient. 7-4 Multiphase Flow in Wells 151 phenomenon." " S 1 . In order to show the relationship between holdup and slip velocity. a plot relating flow regime to flow rates of each phase.

7-11. The water density is 62. EXAMPLE 7-7 Predicting two-phase flow regime 200 bbyd of water and 10. This map must be generated for particular gas and liquid properties and for a particular pipe size. vertical pipe. 1963. This map identifies five possible flow regimes: bubble. Figure 7-9 R o w regimes in gas-liquid flow. The slug/chum transition is significantly different than that of other flow regime maps in that chum flow is thought to be an entry phenomenon leading to slug flow in the Taitel-Dukler theory. pipe is shown in Fig. beyond this distance slug flow is the predicted flow regime.Set. chum.D. For example. The D lines show how many pipe diameters from the pipe entrance chum flow is expected to occur before slug flow develops.000 Plday of air are flowing in a 2-in. and annular./sec.) First. 1977. ft. a Taitel-Dukler map for air-water flow in a 2-in.-I. the superficial velocities are calculated as 152 . if the flow conditions fell on the D line labeled LE/D = 100. churn flow is predicted to occur. Solution Superficial Gas Velocity. VSG..) A flow regime map that isbased on a theoreticalanalysis of the flow regime transitions is that of Taitel and Dukler (Taitel et al. (FromGovier anddziz. dispersed bubble (a bubble regime in which the bubbles are small enough that no slippage occurs). for a distance of 100 pipe diameters from the pipe entrance. (FromDuns andlos. Predict the flow regime that will and occur using the Duns-Ros and the Taitel-Dukler flow regime maps. slug. 7-4 ~ultiphase Flow in Wells 153 Flow Direction Figure 7-10 Duns and Ros flow regime map. 1976).4 Ibm/ft3 the surface tension is 74 dyneslcm.

+ () ($). otherwise. flow conditionsfall in region 2. and friction factor are used i the different correlations to calculate the kinetic energy and frictionalpressure gradients. As in single-phase flow. 1977). For units of ft/s for superficial velocity. .4). 7-4. Ib.) Az (7-92) . We will consider two of the most commonly used two-phase flow correlations: the modified Hagedom and Brown method (Brown. the Griffith correlation is used. the overall pressure drop is then obtained with a pressure traverse calculation procedure (Section 7-4.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. . Thus. These correlations are selected based on the flow regime as follows. the Beggs and Brill correlation can be applied for any wellbore inclination and flow direction. -. these = . with LE/D about 150. 1976. Using the physical properties and flow rates given. The heart of the Hagedom-Brown method is a correlation for liquid holdup. 7-11). = (7-88) most two-phase flow correlations. If the flow regime is found to be bubble flow..13.62m/s . if the calculated value of Lg is less than 0. 111 and N = 9. the flow regime is also of predicted to be slug or chum. the Refemng to Fig.3 Two-Phase Pressure Gradient Models In this section we will consider correlations used to calculatethe pressure drop in gasliquid two-phase flow in wells. The modified Hagedom and Brown method (mH-B) is an empirical two-phase flow correlation based on the original work of Hagedom and Brown (1965). lw (From Taitel et al.Thus. we find N. theTaite1-Duklermap predicts that The modified Hagedorn and Brown method. 7-4 Multiphase Flow in Wells 155 FINELY DISPERSED C ' the pressure gradient for:a particular location in the pipe. (7-89) P = (1 . < L B . For the Duns and Ros map. 1961) for the bubble flow regime. viscosity.. Various definitions of the two-phase average velocity.8. slug flow is predicted. the starting point is the mechanical energy balance given by Eq. The first of these was developed for vertical. and dyneslcm for surface tension. 2. we must calculate Flow regimes other than bubblejlow: The original Hagedorn-Brown correlation. the modifications of the original method include using the no-slip holdup when the original empirical correlation predicts a liquid holdup value less than the no-slip holdup and the use of the Griffith correlation (Griffith and Wallis. (7-16). Using the Taitel-DW map (Fig.where (7-91) and LB ) 0. 1973). The form of the mechanical energy balance equation used in the Hagedom-Brown correla- . the predicted flow regime is highvelocity slug or chum flow. n . upward flow and is recommended only for near-vertical wellbores.13.Y I ) P+YlPr ~ Taitel-Dukler f o regime map./P for density. 7-10. the potential energy pressure gradient is based on the in-situ average density. p..13. and the Beggs and Brill method (Beggs and Brill. A differentialform of the mechanical energy balance equation is % ($).g d p --P+dz g~ 2f P u i gcD + ~(ui/2g. the liquid and gas velocity numbers must be calculated. 7 lo- set. the original Hagedom-Brown correlation is used.) (7-90) = 5 3 ftJs = 1. Bubble flow exists if I. Since the flow properties may change significantly along the pipe (mainly the gas density and velocity) in gas-liquid flow. LB is set to 0.

from Fig.575p.0. (7-93).D is the diameter (ft).? N R= .? is the in-situ average density [Eq. compute N ~0. Nu. the averagedensity. Gas velocity number.~ prpF-~d (7. where superficial velocities are in ft/sec. NL: In field units.0 0.2 x 10-2m Dprp~-~~) . 7-13. The mixture velocity used in H-B is the sum of the superficial velocities. we get yl/+. surface tension is in dynes/cm. The liquid holdup is then (7-103) The mixture density is then calculated from Eq. the liquid holdup is obtained from a correlation and the friction factor is based on a mixture Reynolds number. (7-90). defined as Durn. 7 see. Then the group Nurpo. density is in 1bm/ft3. in terms of mass flow rate and using field units. ND: Liquid viscosity number. and the pressure gradient is in psilft. (FromHagedorn and Brown. First. and hence. these are 0. 7-14. (7-90)l (1bm/ft3). 1965. 7-12.) The frictional pressure gradient is based on a Fanning friction factor using a mixture Reynolds number.001 001 .Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. urn is the mixture velocity (ft/sec). Finally.104) or. The liquid holdup.380 V8 + L To calculate the pressure gradient with Eq. from Fig.7-4 Multlphase Flow In Wells 157 which can be expressed in oilfield units as 7-14.'(CNL) No. = us1 usg is calculated. NRe = 2.01 NL 01 . Nu1: and read 16. Here p is the absolute pressure at the location where pressure gradient is wanted. and pa is atmospheric pressure.: Pipe diameter number.1ND U8 where f is the friction factor. m is the total mass flow rate (Ibm/d).. is obtained from a series of charts using the following dimensionless numbers. 1 Figure 7-12 Hagedorn and Brown correlation for CNL. CNL is read from Fig. Liquid velocity number.

(7-106) is where rnl is the mass flow rate of the liquid only. neglecting any kinetic energy contribution to the pressure gradient. Calculate the pressure gradient at the top of the mbing.The oil-gas surface tension is 30 dyneslcm. tubing.For field units. The surface tubing pressure is 800 psia and the temperature is 175°F. EXAMPLE 7-8 Pressure gradient calculation using the modified Hagedom and Brown method Suppose that 2000 bbyd of oil ( p = 0. The Reynolds number used to obtain the friction factor is based on the in-situ average liquid velocity. .p = 2 cp) and 1 MM SCF/d of gas of the same composition as in Example 7-5 are flowing in 2 718-in. Eq.8 ftlsec.8 g/cm3. and the pipe relative roughness is 0. The liquid holdup is where us = 0.0006.

Converting volumetric flow rates to superficialvelocities with A = (n/4)(2.14 x 105) = 5.0. yi/$ = 0.259/12)(2)0.72) = 13.kI.L. 7-14.0046.6) = 24. * NFR= 4.0046)(614. we calculate the two-phase Reynolds number using Eq. (7-122) = 8. This is compared with the input liquid fraction. Using ~ q (7-91). s/d) 400 + = 614.72 f t l ~ p u = usr m = yIpl + (1 .0278 ft2 = (0.9 lbm/ft3) (8.0278 ft2.259/12)5(24.67 0.73 psi-ft3/lb-mol-"~)(6350~) L* = . 7-4 Multlphase Flow in Wells SO 161 Solution From Example 7-5.709)(800 psi) = 2. The in-situ average density is ~ .Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. gD 1= .6 1bm/ft3 (0.0 forlow-viscosity liquids.413 x 1010)(2.259/12)2 = 0. 400 s) = 4. we have /.42 N R = (2.198 psilft 0 and. (7-44). The mass flow m = m.35. us1 = (2000 bbUd)(5. 7-13.yl)pg = (0.000 lbm/d (2. Next.2 x 10-')(6. which in this case is 0. Finally. Note that $ will generally be 1. 7 Set.1) = 0.46)(49.46(0. = (4.67 ft/s)(49.935. = 0.6 lbm/ft3)1(86.(7-45). yl is set to 4.97)(0.54 F~~~~ i7-7 or ~ q(7-33. If y~is less than kl. from Fig. P = g (28. = -(24.013 ~ 1)0.9) + (0. (7-93).46. from Eq. The liquid holdup is thus 0.+ usgPg) L.41bm/ft3 (7-123) The mixture velocity is Finally. = 1.46.4) and the input fraction of gas is First. we check whether the flow regime is bubble flow.67 f 8. (7-105).935)(10. = 3161y3" (7-120) The gas density is calculated from Eq. .54)(2.615 ft3/bbl)(d/86. + u.0278 it2)[(4. . (7-121) The gas superficialvelocity can be calculated from the volumetric flow rate at standard conditions with Eq.39 ft/s (0.72 WW. f = 0.0131 cp and Z = 0. we calculate on the following parameters: and from Fig.4 1 144 + 4.000)2 (7. 5 urn + mg = A (uSIP.

and distributed flow regimes.01 and Nm < L2 (7-131) Segregated uphill Intermittent uphill Distributed uphill All regimes downhill f g Transition flow occurs when 359 . intermittent. = 1 4. f . Segregated flow exists if < 0.01 and NFR < LI or 11 Flow regime a b c Segregated Intermittent Distributed 09 . and g depend on the flow regime and are given in Table based on smooth pipe (€ID) = 0) and the Reynolds number. and distributed (see Chapter 10 for a discussion of horizontal flow regimes). ftp is then where .0173 0.845 105 . with the constraint that ylo 2 A1 and where c = (1 . These are where P = hh m Ylo +~ g A g a$ =- and 4 % . The flow regime transitions are given by the following.70 -0. C must be 0. intermittent.5351 0. C = 0.3 001 .AI) l n ( d l f ~ $ ~ : .1821n(x) . b. f . d.4473 No correction. for the segregated.0523 + 3.5824 0.0868 0. The no-slip friction factor. s= {-0. c.8725[ln(x)J2+ 0.3692 0.i 162 Wellbore Flow Performance Chap.1 -3. If the flow regime is transition flow. the average density.0978 -0. transition.5056 Intermittent flow exists when and Distributed flow occurs if The frictional pressure gradient is calculated from The same equations are used to calculate the liquid holdup.0. and hence.01853[ln(~)]~) [In(x)l (7-148) . 7-4 Multlphase Flow in Wells 163 Table 7-1 Beggs and Brill holdup constants The horizontal flow regimes used as correlating parameters in the Beggs-Brill method are segregated.0609 > 0.4846 0.96 035 . the liquid holdup is calculated using both the segregated and intermittent equations and interpolated using the following: where where Pm = fiih + PgAg The two-phase friction factor.0 -0.8 0.768 2.614 0.6 d e 0.1244 -1.1C. 7 Set. ) where a . e.

Solution First.2. Ap. + = 0.454)(1. (7-125) through (7-130) and the values of um(13.8(90)1 .05 = 0. For example.459)(2. = 230. (2) (7-154) (7-155) = c = (1 .0523 + 3.454 (29.4 and La < NFR L1 5 and therefore. .8(90)])= 1.709 cp The kinetic energy contribution to the pressure gradient is accounted for with a parameter Ek as follows: m e Reynolds number from Eq.66 (0.66) (7-163) = 0.39)(2.. from Eq. the horizontal flow regime is intermittent. using Eqs.35) calculated in Example 7-8. (7-136) and Table 7-1.. L2 = 0.709 (7-161) From the smooth pipe curve on the Moody diagram. From Eq.459)(49. other flow regimes may occur farther up the tubing. and over this distance the pressure gradient in gas-liquid flow may vary significantlyas the downhole flow properties change with temperatureand pressure.6)O.66) . the pressure drops below the bubble point and gas comes out.0. Yl.182ln(1. in the lower part of the tubing the pressure is above the bubble point and the flow is single-phase oil. using the Beggs and Brill method. However.66)I4) + ln(1.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. .6) = 24. YI 7-4.35)(2) + (0.39 ft/sec) and A.379 f = 0 .0. causing gas-liquid bubble flow. in a well such as that pictured in. for this interval.1 lbm/fi3 (7-159) (7-160) .0066 .( ~ P / ~ z ) P E( d p l d z ) ~ + (19.1)(13. our objective is often to calculate the overall pressure drop. x=-- 0'35 1.0.4 = (0. the no-slip friction factor.169 + 0. (7-143) and (7-146): Since S is unbounded in the interval 1 < x < 1.28)-0~4473(29. (7-142).Figure 7-15. f./ft3 (7-157) and the potential energy pressure gradient is We have examined several methods for calculating the pressure gradient. is 0.h pm = (0.459. (7-135). which can be applied at any location in a well. 0 0 4 5 e ~= 0.01 5 XI < 0. 7 Gc.29 lb. L.9) pm = (0. Checking the flow regime limits [Eqs.0124. we determine the flow regime that would exist if the flow were horizontal.35)0.0'73 and the overall pressure gradient is Then.~~~ From Eq.5351 = o. we first compute the input fraction weighted density and viscosity from Eqs.0045.259/12)(1488) = lol. and as the pressure continues to drop. Using Eqs. = dp .35)(49. At some point. (Z).. (7-131) through (7-134)].459 Pressure Traverse Calculations The in-situ average density is = YIPI + y8p8= (0. (7-145) is NR~.9)+ (1 .35) h[2. over a considerable distance.oOO 0. the frictional pressure gradient is = 0.1.0351 (z).219 psi/ft (7-166) 0 + = 1+0.66)]~ 0. S = ln(2.845(0.333sin3[1. 7-4 Multiphase low In Wells 165 To calculate the frictional pressure gradient. we find NFx = 29.0.6)0~078] = 0.65)(2.8725[l1k(1. (0. we see that 0. and L4 = 590.01) = 0. using Eqs. men.35)0~3M(10. {-0.65)(0. dpldz.2) + (0.of solution. (7-147) through (7-149).96(0.01853[1n(1.01 so that. L3 = 0.0351{sin[1.0131) = 0.6.459)2 (7-162) EXAMPLE 7-9 hessure gradient calculation using the Beggs and rill method Repeat Example 7-8. (7-137) and (7-138).6) = 19.

Calculate all necessary fluid properties at the average pressure. Thus.the flow properties. 2. 7-15. Ap. This can be done using the no-sfip density to . Pressure traverse calculations can be performed either by fixing the length increment and finding the pressure drop over this increment or by fixing the pressure drop and finding the depth interval over which this pressure drop would occur (Brill and Beggs. convergence should be rapid. Estimate the length increment. 4. Summing the Pressure drop in each increment. A typical value for flow in tubing is 200 ft.. The estimated Ap is then the potential energy pressure gradient times the depth increment. 5. 4. Starting with a k n o ~ n p r e ~ s u r e p1 at position LI (normally the surface or bottomhole conditions). This will generally underestimate the pressure drop. Estimate the length increment by + + (7-168) 6. h this procedure. it is most convenient to write computer programs for pressure traverse calculations. since temperature is changing more slowly in a well and the average pressure of the increment is fixed. Fixing the 3. 1978). his stepwise calculation procedure is generally referred to as a pressure traverse calculation. and hence. be less than 10% of the pressure pl and can be varied from one step to the next. Select a length increment. Obtain a new estimate of Ap from + + (7-167) . dpldz. A starting point is to calculate the no-slip average density and from this. Ti AT/2.. 3. Calculate the pressure gradient. pressure travehe with fixed length interval. Pressure traverse with fixed pressure increment. . as shown in Fig. 6. If AL. Calculate all fluid properties at the average pressure (pl Apl2) and average temperature (TI AT/2). using a two-phase flow correlation. Estimate the pressure drop. go back to step 3 and repeat the procedure. dpldz. we obtain the overall pressure drop. 2. we must divide the total distance into increments small enough that. 7 set. no iteration is required. If the well can be assumed to be isothermal. temperature. # &poldwithin a prescribed tolerance. the pressure gradient. the potential energy pressure gradient. and flow regime distribution in a well. The pressure drop in the increment should . If Ap. # ALoldwithin a prescribed tolerance. Ap. Starting with a known pressure pl at position L1 (normally the surface or bottomhole conditions). pi Ap12 and the estimated average temperature. Figure 7-15 Pressure.. go back to step 3 and repeat the procedure with the new estimate of Ap. 7-4 Multiphase Flow in Wells 167 1. Sinceboth the temperature and pressure will be varying. are almost constant in each increment. A L. The temperature profile is usually approximated as being linear between the surface temperature and the bottomhole temperature. with a two-phase flow correlation.Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. and the fluid properties and pressure gradient calculations are tedious. a pressure traverse calculation is usually iterative.the following procedure . : . the following procedure is followed: 1 Select a pressure drop increment. Calculate the estimated pressure gradient. 5. Since the pressure traverse calculations are iterative.

the results shown in Fig. (7-125) through (7-1301. we calculate From Eqs. Estimate the pressure profile along the horizontal production interval. the flow regime is distributed. yl. Plots such as this one are often called gradient curves. L2 = 1. yo = 35"API. 7-4 Multiphase Flow in Wells 169 EXAMPLE 7-10 Pressure traverse calculation for a vertical well Using the modified Hagedorn and Brown method. . Following the correlations in Sections 3-2 and 4-2. we find: Figure 7-1 6 Pressure gradient curves generated with the modified Hagedom and Bmwn correlation. L1 = 292. the potential energy pressure drop is zero.074.168 Wellbore Flow Performance Chap. 7-17.8. y. . from the surface to 10. p . = 100 psig. From a production log. = 1. y. LD. those presented by Brown (1977) were generated with the modified Hagedom and Brown method. for the frictional pressure gradient.147. Using the modified Hagedom and Brown method and calculating fluid properties with the correlations presented in Section 3-2. is producing 15. Beginning with the knownpressureat location 1. tubing size = 2. Since AI 2 0.000 STK bbVd and the temperature is 180°F (the temperature is assumed constant throughout the well and equal to the reservoir temperature. Using the constants for 1- iooon -1- 1000 n -1 5000 bld oil 6000 bld oil 4000 bld oil Figure 7-17 Horizontal well of Example 7-11. since this method is applicable to horizontal flow. and 4-4. This is best done with a simple computer program.5 in.4 and N F ~> L4. as illustrated here. we find NFR = 10.000bblld at a GOR of 1000 along a 3000-ft interval from the saturated reservoir described in Appendix B. LD. and Examples 3-3. However. Pressure [psi] Solution A series of pressure traverse calculations must be performed.4-2. one for each GOR. 7-16 were obtained. This may underestimate the overall pressure drop because there will be additional turbulence at the fluid entry locations that is not considered in our calculations. Since the well is horizontal.the total liquid rate at this point is 15.) First. 0 EXAMPLE 7-1 1 Pressure drop in a hizh-rate horizontal well A horizontal well with a 5-in. average T = 140°F.01.79 x L3 = 0. generate plots of pressure versus depth. Solution We can use the Beggs and Brill method to calculate the pressure drops between each fluid entry location. The pressure at the beginning of the horizontal section i s 3000 psia. and La = 3. = 0. WOR = 1. 7 set.000 ft. From the downhole volumetric flow rates and the well cross-sectional area. we calculate the downhole flow conditions.65. we still must calculate the holdup. for g a s 4 1 ratios ranging from 0 to 4000 for the following flow conditions in a vertical well: & = 400 bblld. the fluid entries were found to be distributed approximately as shown in Fig.

Assume that the surface pressure is known and the bottomhole pressure is the desired result. we can use the same downhole fluid properties as before. ~ p r i 1. the surface temperature is 150°F.7) = 38. = (0.. Since the pressure has changed so linle. H...0 in 2 718411. 8. is now 8. August 1961. = (0. 1979. the flow regime is also distributed flow between points 2 and 3 and the pressure drop is 11 psi. 12. H.I. "Two-Phase Slug Flow:'J. For a flow of 1000 bbVd of oil with a density of 0. H. calculate the pressure gradient for the REFERENCES 1. In the last 1000 ft of wellbore. Jr. 4. vertical tubing at (a) the surface. "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells:' Proc. and Fogarasi.234)(10. 1. T. = 717 psia). l 9. April. ASME.02) = 0.8) The mixture Reynolds number is [from Eq. NY.6-lb. Wellbore Flow Performance Chap..000 ft. Y. P. Sixth World petroleum Congress. Chem.. Beggs. Write a computer program to implement a two-phase pressure traverse calculation with fixed length increment incorporating both correlations presented in this chapter as user options. p.000 ft deep. from Eq. The gas is the same composition as that in Example 7-5 (y... P. H. 26 (6): 345-354. Repeat problem 7-6. 66. 475-484. 607617.70-lb.. g. G. where T = 100°F and p = 100 psig. R. and Dukler. C. so u. (b) the bottomhole. Finally. E.0032. Govier. J. Paper 22. slight changes in inclination would lead to some potential energy contributions to the pressure drop and may significantly change the pressure profile in a "horizontal" well. Hear Transfer. B. OK. In order to supply a pipeline. W.65./ft tubing. (7-145)l 6. using the Beggs and Brill correlation. (7-147) through (7-149).. 83./ft tubing. the oil flow rate at surface conditions is 10. What gas flow rate can be obtained with (a) p. Brown.. 1978. Ser. Drieger Publishing Co. 10.08 g/cm3 and a viscosity of 1. 7-7. 34.70. K.... the no-slip friction factor. E. 3. Vol./f? p. ed. and Brill. Petroleum Engineering Handbook.3 cp in an 8000-ft vertical well having a surface pressure of 200 psi and (a) 2-in. 1965.6-lb. J. The total pressure drop over the entire horizontal section is predicted to be only 39 psi.f = 2000 psia? and the pressure drop over the first 1000 ft of wellbore is The gas gravity is 0. (b) pWf = 1500 psia. Vol. 7-4.1963.4-lb.8.. May 1980. E. 7. "Experimental Study of PressureGradients Occurring During Continuous ?\uo-PhaseFlow in Small-Diameter Vertical Conduits:'JPT. Two-PhaseFlow in Pipes. = 0. and from the Moody diagram. G. The Flow o Complex Mixtures in Pipes. the well must be perfectly horizontal.1987. and Wallis. 7-8. Eng.307-320. we calculate the mixture density and viscosity from m s . Calculate the bottomhole flowing pressure for a gas well producing 10 MM SCF/d through 2 718-in. the two-phase friction factor.. Using the modified Hagedom and Brown method.. (c) p.G.766)(46. of 1. Thus the gas and liquid flow rates will be in the same proportion. Calculate the bonomhole pressure for the injection of 1500 bbl/d of brine with a density . "Modelling Flow PatternTransitions for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes:'AIChE J. "Friction Factors for Pipe Flow:' Trans. the oil flow rate at surface conditions is 4000 bbl/d.. tubing in a well deviated 50" from vertical and having a measured depth of 15.4. . University of Tulsa.1985. Using Eqs.D. and the only significant difference is that u. 1977. M. 1977.f = 1000 psia.234)(0. N.and Beggs. TX. Repeating the calculation procedure. Tulsa. 2 718-in. For these calculations to be computed to be 0. 11. Bradley. Fund.D. D. Richardson. For the next 1000 ft of wellbore. and Ros. Frankfurt. Since the well is horizontal.. and Brown. Taitel.766)(0. A..69) + (0. The flow regime in this section is predicted to be intermittent and the overall pressure drop is 1. The vertical well is 15. 18: 296. P . at what gas rate will the transition from region I to region 11 (Duns and Ros flow regime map) occur? 7-6. H.. . flow of 1200 STB/d of the oil in Appendix B with a GOR of 1000 and a WOR of 1. and Aziz.. fv. Robert E.7 psi.. A 2./ft tubing. L.671. The surface tubing pressure is 1000 psia. "Alternate to Standard FrictionFactor Equation:' Oil and Gas J.. 7 problems 171 dishbuted flow. 1944.000 bbVd. Hagedorn. Calculate the slip velocity for the flow of 5-@/set of oil and 10-ft3/sec of gas in a 6-in. chap. (c) 3 112-inch. .. 12. = 374"R. K.. (7-143) and (7-146): + (0. " Study of TWO-PhaseFlow in Inclined Pipes:'JPT. f = 0. Chen. ASME. N. May 1973.. Pennwell Books. D. Moody. 8.. OK. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 3.. Tulsa. E./ft tubing.-I.. 7-2. The Technology o Artificial Lifr Methods. B.8 g/cm3 and a surface tension of 30 dynes/cm in a 3-in. (7-136). f 5.. = 3. Gregory. Bamea. pipe when the liquid holdup is 0.4 Ib.0046. Griffith.. (b) 2 718-in. PROBLEMS 7-1. and the production is through new. A. Next. 7-3. "An Explicit Equation for Friction Factor in Pipe:'Ind. and the bottomhole temperature is 250°F. a particular gas well must maintain a wellhead pressure of 600 psia. J. Trans. $ = 1 and yl = yl. D.03 Wsec. Assume that an average temperature of 200°F can be used in all calculations. vertical pipe.21 ft/sec. 2. Duns... . C. Brill. 7-5. f Huntington. K. A. 120-127. where T = 180°F and p = 3000 psia. .533 cp p.

C H A P T E R 8 Well Deliverability .


100-.530.) develop VLP curves for p. 8-3 can be constructed readily. curves for q=500 STB/d and GLR values from 100 to 800 SCFISTB.D. EXAMPLE 8-2 Impact of the gas-liquid ratio (GLR) on vertical lift performance (VLP) Assume that the reservoir in Appendix A (Rs=150 SCFISTB) is completed with a well with 2 318-in. 1 Solution Table 8 contains the calculated flowing bottomhole pressures for a range of flow rates using the modified Hagedom and Brown correlation. The flowing bottomhole pressures with GLR values of 300 and 800 SCFISTB are 1900 and 1200 psi. This problem demonstrates the necessity for the appropriate design of wellhead and 0 surface equipment that are inherently related to the wellhead pressure.x2 in. reflecting the impact of the hydrostatic pressure component on the total pressure drop. Figure 8-3 Gradient curves for a range of GLR values (Example 8-2). An increase in the wellhead flowing pressure by 100 psi (from 0 to 100) results in an increase in the flowing bottomhole pressure by almost 500 psi when the flow rate is 100 STB/d..respectively. All GLRs larger than 150 must be supplied artificially.3 andExample71I). 6-2 Combination of IPR and VLP 177 Pressure [psi] 6000 5000 4000 2000 1000 0 200 400 600 q (STBId) 800 1000 1200 Figure 8-2 Well deliverability from a single-phase fluid (Example 8-1). and 500 psi.32 and 0. (I.17 psilft. and 390STB/dfortheO-. ~is 100psi. 8 Set.and500-psi wellheadpressures. 8-4 results in flow rates of 600. respectively? The average flowing temperature is 130°F. Fig.=2 in. respectively. The corresponding flowing gradients (between 5000 and 8000 ft) are 0.D. What would be the production rates with the steady-state IPR (used in Example 8-I)? . These results demonstrate the effect of phase change as the fluids in the well are pressurized. Solution Using the modifiedHagedom andBrown method (see Section7-4.) tubing.I =O. 100. p . The combination of the IPR with the three VLP curves shown in Fig. develop gradient . respectively. EXAMPLE 8-3 Increasing the flowing wellhead pressure For the well in Appendix A (GLR=l50 SCFISTB and tubing-size I. What would be the bottomhole flowing pressures and the flowing pressure gradients (between 5000 and 8000 ft) for GLRs equal to 300 and 800 SCFISTB.Well Deliverability Chap. If the wellhead flowing pressure.

. EXAMPLE 8-4 Changes in the IPR Well deIiverabiIity is affected both by the we11 lift performance and the reservoir inflow. 0 6000 0 0 200 400 600 800 q (STBId) 1000 1200 Figure 8-5 Skin effect and well deliverability (Example 8-4). The composite effect is that while the well producing rate will decline. 8-3 IPR and VLP of Two-Phase R ~ S ~ N O ~ ~ S .5000. a new IPR at the lower reservoir pressure will be in effect. In this example. The previous two examples examined the influence of GLR and the wellhead pressure on well performance and. respectively. (2-45). While the production rate would be 530 STBW with zero skin. will be presented in Chapter 9. The declining reservoir pressure and its impact on well deliverability is shown on Fig. taking into account the reservoir decline behavior. However. A comprehensive example of a forecast of well performance. Gas coming out of solution in the reservoir will enter a growing gas cap. The flowing wellhead pressure is constant. 8-7. Figure 8-4 Effectof flowing wellhead pressure on well deliverability(Example 8-3). it would be reduced to 270 and less than 90 STBM with skins equal to 10 and 50. either by lowering the wellhead pressure (usually not feasible)or. which will also contain an amount of solution gas. especially.] The flow rates for p=5651. As a result.470. well deliverability. 8 See.178 Table 8-1 Well Deliverability Chap. this process is shown in Fig. hence. respectively.usetheIPRcurvesof Example2-8 (different skin effects) andExample 29 (declining reservoir pressure) with the VLP curve for ptf =I00 p i developed in Example &3 \ to show the effects of skin and declining reservoir pressure on well deliverability. The reservoir hilow is affected by the near-well situation (damage or stimulation) and the evolution of the average reservoir pressure. This will be mixed in the well with the oil flow. it will do so at a lower pace than the producing rate of single-phase reservoirs. and 270 S W d . the VLP curve will change with time and will shift downward. through artificial lift. would shiftthe VLP curve downward. [The IPR curve using the pseudo-steady-state relationship is given by Eq. 1 8-3 lPR AND VLP OF TWO-PHASE RESERVOIRS The main difference between single-phase and two-phase reservoirs is that the producing GLR in the latter will vary with time as the reservoir pressure declines. resulting in the maintenance of the original production rate or retardation of its decline. and 4000 psi are 580. 86. Graphically. Reduction in the bottomhole pressure. 179 Flowing Bottomhole Pressures for Various Production Rates for Example 8-3 P W ~ (psi) ptf =I00 psi 2618 2639 2697 2750 ptf=500 psi 3383 3473 3547 3603 40(STBId) 100 300 500 700 ptf=Opsi 2150 2156 2305 2426 Solution Figure 8-5 is the graphical solution of the skin effect impact on the IPR and the resulting changes in well deliverability. causing a free-flowing gas.

Well Deliverability Chap. 8

set. &4 IPR and VLP in Gas Reservoirs




The behavior depicted in Fig. 8-7 will be observed under natural lift conditions. This process will be more pronounced at early time in reservoirs with high initial pressure and which contain fluids with high solution gas-oil ratios. At a later time, as the producing GLR increases with time, the gap between the correspondingVLP curves is reduced. Ultimately, they are likely to overlap.


EXAMPLE 8-5 Well deliverability from a two-phase reservoir
Using the well in Appendix B, a drainage radius equal to 1490 ft, and a skin effect equal to 2, develop an IPR curve for the (initial) average reservoir pressure of 4350 psi. Show the influenceof the wellhead flowing pressure by using p,,=100 and 300 psi, respectively.


Solution The IPR expressionfor a two-phase reservoir was given in Section 3-4 [Eq. (3-51)]. With the variables in Appendix B and the ones given in this example, it becomes





q (STBId)




Figure 8-6 Declining reservoir pressure and VLP (Example 8-4).

The IPR curve with average values of the formation volume factor, B,, is plotted in Fig. 8-8. Also on Fig. 8-8 are the two VLP curves for the two wellhead pressures (100 and 300 psi). The correspondingproduction rates are 995 and 925 STB/d, respectively. The flowing bottomhole pressuresare approximately 1535and 1835psi, adifferenceof 300psi, insteadof 200, reflecting 0 the more liquidlike phase distribution at the higher wellhead pressure.


Equations (4-54) and (4-60)in Chapter 4 describethe inflow performance of a gas well under pseudo-steady-state and transient conditions, respectively. Both of these expressions use the real-gas pseudo-pressure function m ( p ) , and they are the most appropriate forms of the gas IPR. Approximate expressions can be obtained by substituting for the real-gas pseudopressures with the pressure-squared difference divided by the product of the average values of the viscosity and the gas deviation factor. For example, the pseudo-steady-state IPR is given by Eq. (932). The same expression contains the non-Darcy coefficient, D, which accounts for turbulence effects evident in high-rate gas wells. The vertical lift performance of a gas well would consist of the hydrostatic and friction pressure drop components,just as for any other well. However, the friction pressure contribution is likely to be large, in contrast to largely liquid reservoirs. Hence, the tubing diameter and its selection become critical for gas wells. (This, of course, is true for all high-rate reservoirs.) Section 7-3 and Example 7-5 presented the methodology for the calculation of the flowing bottomhole pressure for a gas well. A graph of flowing bottomhole pressure versus the gas rate is the VLP curve for the well.

Flow Rate, q
Figure 8-7
IPR and VLP curves at two average reservoir pressures ( P 2 c


The flowing

wellhead pressure is constant.

Well Deliverability Chap. 8

Set. &4 IPR and VLP in Gas Reservoirs



The IPR curve is plotfkd in Fig. 8-9 (34613 psi). The absolute open-flow potential (at pWf=O) is 1900 MSCFId. For such a small D the non-Darcy effects are minimal. Ignoring the secondterm in Eq. (8-9) would result in an absolute open-flow potential equal to 1970MSCFId.







400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 q (STBId)

Figure 8-8
IPR and VLP for two flowing wellhead pressures in a two-phase reservoir (Example
Gas well deliverabilityfor Example 8-6.

EXAMPLE 8-6 Well deliverability for a gas reservoir
With the data for the gas well in Appendi C, re=1490 ft, Pd.022 cp, 2=0.93, c, = 1 . 5 ~ psi-', s d , and D = 1 . 5 ~ (MSCF1d)-', construct an IPR curve using Eqs. (432) and (4-33) (i.e., assume that the well is stabilized). What would be the well deliverability if the flowing wellhead pressure is 500 psi? The depth of the well is 10,000ft,the inside tubing diameter is 2 718 in., and the relative roughness is 0.0006. Assume that the wellhead temperature is 140°F.

Fromthe intersectionoftheVLP curve, developed as shown inExample7-5, theexpected 0 gas production rate would be 1860MSCFId.

EXAMPLE 8-7 High-rate gas well: Effect of tubing size
A gas well in a reservoir with p 4 6 1 3 psi has an IPR given by

j - P$ = 25.8q ?

+ 0.115q2


S0l~ti0n The coefficients a and b in Eq.(4-33) are
Assuming that all physical properties are as for the gas well in Appendix C, show with combinations of IPR and VLP the impact of the tubing size.


= o.21

leading to an IPR given by p2 - p i f = (1.08x104) q +0.21q2

Solution The absolute open-flow potential for this well is 1 3 . 6 ~ 1 0 ~ MSCFId. The IPR curve for this problem is Fig. 8-10, along with the VLP curves for four common tubing sizes (2 318, 2 718, 3 112, and 4 in. with corresponding 1.D.s of 2.2.44, 3, and 3.48 in.) As can be extracted readily from Fig. 8-10, production rates from the well would be 10.7, 12.3, 13, and 13.2 MMSCF/d for d e four tubing sizes, respectively. This exercise shows the relative benefits from the appropriate tubing size selection in a gas well. This is pdcularly important for gas wells that are likely candidates for hydraulic fracturing (such as the well in Appendix C with permeability kd.17 md). The anticipated benefits from the improved IPR, following a

Well Deliverability Chap. 8



successful fracturing treatment, may be reduced if the tubing size is not selected on the basis of the expected posttreatment rather than the pretreatment inflow.

8.5. The gas well in Appendix C is hydraulically fractured, and the treatment results in an equivalent skin effect equal to -6. Develop a gas well IPR with the data in Appendix C and Example 8-6. The flowing wellhead pressure is 500 psi. How does the performance compare with the results of Example 8-6 for the well in the pretreatment state and with a tubing LD. equal to 1 in.? What would be the performance with a tubing with 2-in. I.D.? 8-6. Assume that a horizontal well with L=2500 ft is drilled in the reservoir described in Appendix C and Example 8-6. If the horizontal well rp0.328 ft, what is the well deliverability? The vertical well has a 3-in. tubing 1.D. Calculate the pressure drop in the horizontal section.

Figure 8-10 Deliverability f o a high-rate gas well with a range of tubing diameters. rm

8-1. With the well in Appendix A, a depth of 8000 fi, and a flowing wellhead pressure of 100 psi, estimate the tubing diameter at which the friction pressure drop is 20% of the total. Assume single phase throughout the tubing flow.

8-2. Suppose that the IPR curve for a well is

with 8=5000 psi (and using an average B,). If GOR=300 SCFISTB, f = 150°F, prf=lOO psi and tubing LD.=3 in., calculate the well deliverability for depths of 4000, 6000, and 8000 ft. For all other properties use the well in Appendix B.

8-3. Is it possible for the tubing diameter in Problem 8-2 to be 2 in.? If so, what would be the well deliverability if the depth is 6000 ft?

8-4. Suppose that a horizontal well with L=2000 ft and I ~ = were to be drilled in the 3 reservoir described in Problem 8-2. What would be the well deliverability? (Assume that the well has an average trajectory of 45" and that there is negligible pressure drop in the horizontal portion of the well.)

Forecast of Well Production Chap. 9

Set. 9-3 ptoduction Forecast under Pseud~Steady-State Conditions


Chapter 2 for an oil well [Eq. (2-7)] and in Chapter 4 for a gas reservoir [Eq. (4-60)]. For a two-phase reservoir, Eq. (2-7) can be adjusted further, as shown in Section 3-5. These expressions would lead to transient IPR curves, one for each production time. Example 2-7 and associated Fig. 2-5 demonstrate the method of calculation and presentation for the transient IPR curves. Unless the wellhead pressure changes, there will be only one VLP curve for the well, q d its intersections with the IPR curves will be the well production rate. The cumulative pfoduction under any flow regime is simply

3090 3080

3060 3050 3040 3030 300


Forecast of well production with transient IPR Use the transient IPR curves for the well in Appendix A as developed in Example 2-7. Then, with the VLP curve of Example 8-1, calculate and plot the expected well flow rate and cumulative production versus time. Solution Equation (2-43) is the transient IPR curve relationship for this well. If t=l month (t must be converted into hours), Eq. (2-43) becomes
q = 0.208(5651 - pwf)


q (STBId)



Figure 9-1
Transient IPR and VLP curves for Example 9-1.

Figure 9-1 shows on an expanded scale (all IPR curves would merge at pwf=pi=5651 psi) the intersections between the IPR curves at 1, 6, and 12 months and the VLP curve. The correspondingproduction rates would be 537,484, and 465 STB/d, respectively. Figure 9-2 is a graph of the well production rate versus time. The associated cumulative production is also shown on the same figure.

The fluid recovery from an undersaturated oil reservoir depends entirely on the fluid expansion as a result of underground withdrawal and associated pressure reduction. This can be evaluated by starting with the expression for isothermal compressibility. The isothermal compressibilityis defined as

where V is the volume of the fluid. By separation of variables, assuming that c is small and largely constant for an oil reservoir,

t (months)

Figure 9-2
~l~~ and cumulative production forecast for Example 9-1. rate

190 and therefore

Forecast of Well Production Chap. g

set. 9-3 Production Forecast under Pseudo-Steady-State Conditions


c(P -pi) = InRearrangement of Eq. (9-5) results in



Figure 9-3 is the combination of IF'R curves at different reservoir pressures p and the single VLP for the well. At j5=5651, 5000, 4500, and 4000 psi, the corresponding well production rates would be approximately 610,455,340, and 225 STBId, respectively.

The volume V is equal to V, Vp, that is, the original plus that produced at the lower pressure. For the case of an undersaturated oil reservoir, the total compressibility is equal to c, = c, So c S , , cf,where c,, c, and cf are the compressibilities of oil, water, , and rock, respectively and So and S, are the oil and water saturations. Finally, the recovery ratio, r , is




If the original oil-in-place, N , is known, the cumulative recovery, N,, is simply r N . The general approach to the problem of forecasting the well performance under pseudo-steady-state conditions is as follows.


Assume an average reservoir pressure, 6. From Eq. (9-7), the recovery ratio (and the corresponding cumulative recovery) can be calculated. Within each average reservoir pressure interval, an incremental cumulative production A N p can be calculated. With the average reservoir pressure (a mean value within the pressure interval can be considered), the pseudo-steady state IPR relationship can be used. Equation (2-30) is for an undersaturated oil reservoir. The time is simply t = A N p / q , where q is the calculated average flow rate within the interval.

Figure 9-3
IPR and VLP curves for an oil well under pseudo-steady-stateconditions (Example 9-2).

The next step is to calculatethe cumulative production after each pressure interval. At first, the initial oil in place must be estimated. Using the variables in Appendix A, the initial oil in place within 40 acres is (7758)(40)(53)(0.19)(1 - 0.34) = 106 STB (9-9) 1.1 Then, following the approach described in Section 9-3, a sample calculation is presented below. If p=5000 psi, from Eq. (9-7) the recovery ratio can be obtained,
N =

Thus the well flow rate and the cumulative recovery are related to time.

EXAMPLE 9-2 Well production from an oil reservoir under pseudo-steady-state conditions
Assume that the well in Appendix A operates under pseudo-steady-state conditions draining a 40-acre spacing. Calculate the well production rate and cumulative production versus time. If rutificial lift is required when j=4000, calculatethe time of its onset. What is the maximum possible cumulative production from this drainage area at p=pb =I323 psi? Use the VLP curve of Example 8-1. Solution The pseudo-steady-state IF'R for an undersaturated oil reservoir is given by Eq. (2-30). With the variables in Appendix A, the 40-acre drainage area (r,=745 ft), s=O, and allowing for the average reservoir pressure to vary, Eq. (2-30) becomes

and therefore

If the average production rate in this interval (from Fig. 9-3) is 533 STBId, the time required

to produce the cumulative production of Eq. (9-11) would be (157701533) * 30 days. Table 9-1 gives the production rate, incremental, and total cumulative recovery for the well in this example. After 105 days the reservoir pressure would decline by 1650 psi, the rate would decline from 610 to 225 STBId, while the total recovery would be only 2% of the original oil-in-place.

Forecastof Well Production Chap. 9
This calculationshows the inefficient recovery from highly undersatwated oil reservoirs. Also, after 105 days is when artificial lift must start, since this time coincides with p=4000 psi. Finally, if j = p b , the maximum recovery ratio [Eq. (9-7)1would be = ,~.z~xIo-~~ssI-I~z~) = o,057 -

9-4 The Geileral Material Balance for Oil ReSe~oirs


Expansion of oil a6d originally dissolved gas: Eo = (Bo - Boil Expansion of gas cap:

+ (Rsi - Rs)Bg


Production Rate and Cumulative Recovery Forecast for a Well in Example 9-2
p (psi)
q (STBId)

Expansion of connate water and reduction of pore volume:

N, (STB)


A t (days)


EfVw (1 =

+ m)Boi



1.58 x 104 1.22 x 104 1.23 x 104

30 31

Finally, from Eqs. (9-13) through (9-17), F = N(Eo

+ mEg + EfSw)

(9- 18)


Calculation of Important Reservoir Variables

Havlena and Odeh (1963, 1964) introduced the application of material balance to oil reservoirs that have initial oil-in-place N and a ratio m relating the initial hydrocarbon volume in the gascap to the initial hydrocarbon volume in the oil zone.

As shown by Havlena and Odeh (1963), Eq. (9-18) can be used in the form of straight lines for the calculation of important reservoir variables, by observing the well performance and using the properties of the fluids produced.

Saturated reservoirs.

For saturated reservoirs, E~,w 0 (9- 19)

9-4.1 The Generalized Expression

since the compressibility terms can be ignored, and hence F = NE, With no original gas cap (m= 0), F=NEo (9-21)

The generalized expression as presented by Dake (1978) (and ignoring water influx and production) is Np[Bo

+ NmE,


+ (Rp - Rs)Bgl = NBoi

a plot of F versus E, would result in a straight line with slope N, the original oil-in-place. With an original gas cap (N and m are unknown), In Eq. (9-13), Np is the cumulative oil production, Rp is the producing gas-oil ratio, and , S is the interstitial water saturation. All other variables are the usual thermodynamic and physical properties of a two-phase system. Groups of variables, as defined below, correspond to important components of production. Underground withdrawal: F = NE,

+ NmE,



F = Np[Bo

+ (Rp - Rs)Bgl

Forecast of Well Production Chap. 9


Table 9-2 Undersaturatedreservoirs. Inundersaturatedreservoirs,sincem=OandRp=Rs, Eq. (9-13) becomes
.PI Equation (9-6) can be written in terms of the formation volume factors and simplified as a Taylor series dropping all terms with powers of 2 and larger: Bo = ~ , i e " Ap

Production and Fluid Data for Example 9-3 Date
5/1/89 1/1/91 1/1/92 1/1/93
Np (STB) G p (MSCF)



- Boi +


cw Swc

+ cf

- swc


492,500 1.015,700 1.322,500

751,300 2,409,600 3,901,600
BI at Po (res bbl/STB) Bs at Ps (res ft3/SCF)

= Boi (1 + co A p )
5/1/89 1/1/91 1/1/92 1/1/93

Po (psia)
4415 3875 3315 2845

p, (psia)
4245 4025 3505 2985

Multiplying and dividing by So results in

1.6291 1.6839 1.7835 1.9110

0.0043 1 0.00445 0.00490 0.00556

Since So=l

- Swc, then also
Bo -- Boi Boi coso -- AP 1 - swc

= 4290 psia

R,; = 975 SCFISTB
B , ~ 1.6330 res ~ ~ V S T B = B,; = 1.6291 res bbllSTB

and therefore Eq.(9-24) becomes

From the definition of the total compressibility,c,=c, So+c,,, Swc+cf,this is
NBOict AP NpBo = - -

for the simultaneouspressures in the two zones. Calculate the best value of the initial oil in place (STB) and the initial total gas in place (MM SCF). The oil zone thickness is 21 ft, the porosity is 0.17, and the water saturation is 0.31. Calculate the areal extent of the initial gas cap and the reservoir pore volume. Reservoirsimulation has shown that a good time for a waterflood start is when 16%of the original oil-in-place is produced. When will this happen if a constant flow rate is maintained? Since B, data are given in this example, the already-developedequations for F, E, and E8 are developed below in terms of B,. Because
B, = B,

A graph of NpBo versus Boicr A p / ( l - Swc) would result in a straight line with a slope
Equations (9-211, (9-23), and (9-30)describe straight lines, the slope and/or intercepts of which provide the original oil-in-place and, if present, the size of the gascap. The groups of variables to be plotted include production history, reservoir pressure, and associated fluid properties. Hence, well performance history can be used for the calculation of these important reservoir variables.

+ (R,; - %)B,
- (R,; - R,)B,


B, = B,


and therefore
F = Np[Bt

EXAMPLE 9-3 Material balance for saturated reservoirs'
An oil field produced as in the schedule in Table 9-2. Fluid properties are also given. The reservoirpressurein the oil and gas zones varied somewhat, therefore, fluid properties are given

+ (Rp- Rsi)Bgl

(9-33) (9-34) (9-35)

E, = B,

- B,:

'After an example f o Class Notes by M. B. Standing, 1978. rm

Forecast of Well Production Chap. 9

Set. 9-5 production ~oreca;t from a Two-Phase Reservoir: Solution Gas Drlve


Solution Table 9-3 contains the calculated R, (= Gp/Np)and the variables F, E,, and E, as given by Eqs. (9-33) through (9-35). Also, in the manner suggested by Eq. (9-23), the variables FIE, and Eg/E, are listed.

and the pore volume of the gas cap is Vpg = mVpo= (3.44)(1.47 x lo7) = 5.04 x lo7 res bbl The drainage area of the oil zone in acres is (9-37)

Calculated Variables for the Material Balance Straight Line of E x a m p l e 9-3

(9-38) and therefore FIEo EgIEo

1/1/91 1525 1/1/92 2372 1/1/93 2950

2.04 x lo6 5.48 x lo-' 8.77 x lo6 1.54 x lo-' 17.05 x lo6 2.82 x lo-'

5.29 x 2.22 x lo-' 4.72 x lo-'

3.72 x lo7 0.96 5.69 x lo7 1.44 6.0 x lo7 1.67

(1.47 x lo7) = 770 acres (7758) (0.17)(21)(1 - 0.31)


If 16% of initial oil-in-place is to be produced, then N, = (0.16)(9 x lo6) = 1.44 x

lo6 STB


Figure 9-4 is a plot of the results, providing an intercept of 9 x lo6 STB (= N, the initial oil-in-place) and a slope equal to 3.1 x lo7 (= Nm). This leads tom = 3.44. [If there were no initial gas cap, the slope would be equal to zero. In general, the use of Eq.(9-23) instead of Eq. (9-21) is recommended, since the latter is included in the former.]

From Table 9-2 the flow rate between 1/1/92 and 1/1/93 is approximately 840 STB/d. From 1/1/93 until the required date for water flooding, there will be a need for an additional 1.12 x 105 STB of production. With the same production rate it would require 140 days of 0 additional production. Thus water flooding should begin at about May 1993.

The general material balance of Eq. (9-13) can be simplified further if the reservoir is assumed to have no initial gascap but rapidly passes below the bubble-point pressure after production commences. These assumptions encompass a large number of reservoirs. This mode of recovery is known as solution gas drive, and the calculation method outlined below

With the assumption that m=O and with gas evolving out of solution immediately (i.e., Np[Bo

+ (Rp - Rs)B81 = N[(Bo - Boil + (Rsi - Rs)Bxl + GpB8 = N[(Bo - Boi) + (Rsi - Rs)Bgl
Np(Bo - RsBx) (Bo - Boi) (Rsi (9-42)

Since G, (gas produced) = NpRp, then Np(Bo - RsBg)

and therefore
N= Figure 9-4 Material balance calculation for a two-phase reservoir (Example 9-3). The pore volume of oil is then
V,, = NBoi = (9 x 106)(1.6291) = 1.47 x lo7 res bbl


+ GpBg
- Rs)Bg


Equation (9-43) has two distinct components, the oil cumulative production, N,, and the gas cumulative production, G,. Multiplying these components are groups of thermodynamic variables. With the following definitions,
@ = ,

Bo - RsBg (Bo - Boil (Rsi - Rs)B.g



Forecast of Well Production Chap. g


Production Forecast from a Two-Phase Reservoir: Solution Gas Drive


Calculate Ravfrom Rav = Rs kg~oBo +kowg Bg (9-52)

Eq. (9-43) becomes
N = N,@,

Compare calculated R,, in the interval with the assumed.

+ G,@,

Let R = GOR, the instantaneous,producing gas-oil ratio. Then

wth the average pressure within the interval, the Vogel correlation [Eq. (3-1I)] can be used for the calculation of the well IPR. Combination with VLP will lead to the well rate. Finally, with the material balance outlined above, rate and cuinulative production versus time can be established.

If N=l STB, Eq. (9-46) in terms of increments of production becomes
1 = (Np

EXAMPLE 9-4 Forecast of well performance in a two-phase reservoir
The well described in Appendix B is 8000 ft deep, completed with a 3-in.4.D. tubing and with 100 psi flowing wellhead pressure. I the drainage area is 40 acres, develop a forecast of oil f rate and oil and gas cumulative productions versus time until the average reservoir pressure declines to 3350 psi (i.e., AP=1000 psi).
Solution Since pi=pb=4350,the solution gas drive material balance and Tamer's method outlined in Section 9-5 are appropriate. With the propexties in Fig. B-1 in Appendix B, the variables CJ, and CJ, can be calculated for a range of reservoir pressures. The following is a sample calculation. Suppose a pressure interval between 4350 res bbVSCF, and 4150. The average B,, B,, and R, are 1.42 res bblISTB, 7.1 x and 820 SCFISTB, respectively. Noting that B,. and R,i (at pi) are 1.43 res bbVSTB and 840 SCFISTB, Eq. (9-44) yields

+ ANp)@, + (G, + AGP)QB
R AN,)@,

= (NP+ANp)@, +(G,+

The instantaneousvalue of R is the GOR within a production intervalwith incremental cumulative production AN,. Therefore, in a stepwise fashion between intervals j and i + 1, 1 = (Npi

+ ANpi+i+l)@n,av + (Gpi + Rav A N , ~ + ~ + I ) @ , , ~ ~

and solving for ANpi+i+l,


+ Rav(Qg)av

This is an important finding. It can predict incremental production for a decline in the reservoir pressure in the same manner as shown in Section 9-3 for an undersaturated reservoir. The following steps are needed: Define Ap for caalculation. Calculate @n and @ for the two different pressure values. Obtain averages for , the interval. Assume a value of Ravin the interval. Calculate ANpi,i+l from Eq. (9-50). Calculate Npi,i+l. Calculate GPi+l (AG,i,i+l = ANpi,i+lRav). Calculate the oil saturation from

" = (1.42 - 1.43) + (840 - 820)(7.1 x
From Eq. (9-45),
= (1.42 - 1.43)

1.42 - (820)(7.1 x

= 199


+ (840 - 820)(7.1 x



= 0.17


Similarly,these variables are calculated for four additional 200-psi intervals and are shown in

1 ANPi-+i+l 199 (845)(0.17) = 2.92 x =




which, for the first interval, is the same as Npi,i+, . The incrementalgas cumulative production is (845)(2.92 x 10-~)=2.48 SCF, which, for the first interval, also coincides with G,. From Eq. (9-51), Obtain the relative permeability ratio k,/k, from a plot versus So. Relative permeability curves are usually available.

so = (1 - 2.92 x


(1 - 0.3) = 0.693


0. With k0=13md. kg/ko = 8 x (extrapolated)/0. For a similar pressure drop. s=O.022 0.=1. h=115 ft.(3-5311. the initial oil-in-place (using the variables in Appendix B) is (7758)(40)(115)(0.044 0.~ 0 (1'42) (0.010 4. .48 = 1.7 x 1 0 . 199 49 22.5% (i.7 cp. demonsbatingthe far more efficient recovery in a solution-gas drive For A=40 acres.71 37. In the latter.6 13. = 820 + 1. 9 Set. the recovery ratio would be less than 1.01 ti (psi) B.007).7 x lo6 STB 1.7 cp and pg=0. rw=0.1 x = 845 SCFISTB which agrees with the assumed value.=1.014 0. r. 4 5 Production Forecast from a Two-Phase Reservoir: Solution Gas Drive 201 Table 9-4 Physical Properties for Tarrier's Calculations (Example 9-4) for Well in Appendix B Cumulative Productionwith Depleting Pressure for Well in Example 9-4 ( N 1 STB) 4.43 The IPR expression for this two-phase reservoir can be obtained from the Vogel correlation [Eq. (STB) R.42 Q~ 0. 9-5. the recovery ratio for the two-phase well in this example is more than three times higher. (SCF) and from therelativepermeabilitycurves inFig.(9-52). (3-53) becomes The IPR curves for six average reservoir pressures (from 4350 to 3350 in increments of 200 psi) are shown in expanded form in Fig.=1490 ft.21)(1 .e. (SCFISTB) p (psi) AN. (SCFISTB) AG. (res bbllSTB) Bg (res bbllSCF) R.17 0. after about 1000 psi reservoir pressure drop (from 5651 to 4500 psi). At q.66 x lo-' 1650 18.81 56. Eq. (SCF) G .7 x lo4. The calculation is repeated for all intervals and appears in summary form in Table 9-5.. 40 (STB/d) Figure 9-5 IPR and VLP curves for a solution-gas-drivereservoir (Example 9-4). From Eq.023 cp. (STB) N.. There is an interesting comparison between the results in Table 9-5 and those in Table 9-1 for the undersaturated case.2 21. each curve would intersect the pwf axis at the corresponding p. using fl.3) = 3.023) (7. 2.6 9. to vary with the pressure.Forecast of Well Production Chap.8 x 104/1. B-2 (notingthat Sg = 0.328ft.and allowing B.87 x lo6). R. p.=O.

= G i . 9 Set. [Eq. Estimate the time to pseudo-steady state using the approximation of Eq.g. Similar to Example 4-5. Ordinarily. Substitution in Eq. For any value of the reservoir pressure (and associated Z). All necessary variables are now available for the calculationof the time duration of each interval. is G p = G i .14)(0. and the gas deviation factor. then. p / Z = p i / Z i . and rearrangement results in (9-64) The results for all intervals are shown in Table 9-6.92 x x (3.71 x SCF (9-66) . The calculation of the initial gas-in-place with pi34613 psi was presented in Example 4-5 (for 1900 acres). c. The flowing bottomhole pressure is 1500 psi. each for the average producing gas-liquid ratio within the pressure interval.=745 ft (for A340 acres).. a well such as the one in Example 9-5 would be assigned a much larger drainage area. a forecast of well performance versus time can be developed readily.08 3.44 4. Usually.08 x lo4 STB ~fGi and G are the initial and current gas-in-place withiin a drainage area..11 4.73) = 3. For the solution to this problem.7 3. (2-35) and r. Solution From Eq. temperature. the cumulative production from a gas reservoir. Table 9-6 Production Rate and Oil and Gas Cumulative R e c o v e r y Forecast for Well in Example 9-4 G.66 4. Equation (4-13) in Chapter 4 provides B. in terms of pressure. Use five pressure intervals of 200 psi each.G i .G = G i .. The total compressibility. assume pseudo-steady-state conditions throughout and ignore the non-Darcy effects on the flow rate. AN. = 0. the variable P/Z is plotted on the ordinate and the cumulative production on the abscissa. there exists a corresponding G. = (2. At G .07 Assume that a well in the gas reservoir in Appendix C drains 40 acres. = (1. the initial gas-in-place within 40 acres (and using the calculated . e. and at $/Z=O. 9 4 Gas Material Balance and Forecast of Gas Well Performance AND OF 9 6 GAS MATERIAL BALANCE FORECAST GASWELL PERFORMANCE 203 Also plotted are five VLP curves for this well. Coupled with the gas well IPR expressions for pseudo-steady-state flow [ ~ q(4-24)] or accounting for non-Darcy flow IEq. G.Bgi 4 (9-63) AG. At t This expression suggests that if G.5 x 10-~)(745*) = 2007 hf 0. is 1. with N=l S'IB) in the interval between 4350 and 4150 psi is 2. 9-5. = 1200 (0. it should form a straight line. These values are listed in Table 9-5. (4-54)]..7 x lo6 STB.. the cumulative production. (2-35). (4-32)]. In such a case. and therefore when Bgi and Bg are the corresponding formation volume factors.Forecast of Well Production Chap. considering the expansion of the fluid. For example.) After about 84 days the well will "feel" the no-flow boundaries. the recovery ratio (=AN. EXAMPLE 9-5 Forecast of gas well performance 1346 1288 1234 1176 1120 1. Thus a drainage area of 40 acres was used for both cases. t.17 (9-65) (Note: This example was set up to illustrate both the recovery and time contrasts with the undersaturated reservoir of Example 9-2. while the production rate would not be affected markedly-being inversely proportional to the respective In re--the time values in Table 9-6 would be more than 16 times larger. (9-63).560)(40)(78)(0. The expected oil flow rates within each interval can be obtained from Fig.0244)(1.7 x lo6) = 1.5 x psi-'. 9-5).08 x 104)(845)= 9. assuming isothermal operation throughout. Develop a forecast of this well's performance versus time until the average reservoir pressure declines to 3600 psi.14)(0.. 640 acres. I - (43.1 x lo6 SCF The average production rate within the interval is 1346 STBJd (from Fig. is plotted against p / Z . or using the more exact form .92 x and since N = 3.

Suppose that the drainage area of the well in Appendix B is 640 acres.969 0. M. 205 3. .160.Weekly. 5. Assuming that h=31 ft.6 x cumulativeproduction compare with the cumulative production after 345 days obtained in Example 9-5 and listed in Table 9-7? '' REFERENCES m(j) . at any reservoir pressure 6. The values for m ( j ) are obtained from Table 4-5 at the average value within a pressure 1. Programs Affect Amount of Recoverable From Eq.. S.. 9-5. the gas cumulative production is 9-1.1.917 0. Elsevier.929 0. B. 2. Eq. (9-64). and Odeh.969 (from Table 4-5-This value is used for consistency. (Revised by Terry. and the gas gravity is 0.pi. Estimate the time during which the oil well in Appendix A would be infinite acting.Forecast of Well Productlon Chap. A well in a gas reservoir has been producing 3.75.. g With Zi=0. Theinitialreservoirpressure. The reservoir temperature is 624"R.1 x I d MSCF/d for the last 470 days. and 640 acres. Assuming that s=O. Craft.821 x 10' psi2/cp. NJ. AppiiedPetroleum Reservoir Engineering.). Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. 'The Material Balance as an Equation of a Snaight Lie:' JPT. 4. 3310 psi (336 days).. Amsterdam.80. 4400 4200 4000 3800 3600 9-6.7. Table 9-7 lists the average reservoir pressures. the calculated gas deviation factors (see Table 4-5). J. and Hawkins. 9-2. Calculate the average reservoir pressure of the well in Appendix A after 2 years. D. and 3185 psi (470 days). 'TheMaterial Balance as an Equation of a StraightLie. and the corresponding cumulative production. 1991.. it was obtained from correlations and is slightly different from the Zi listed in Appendix C). 1978. 9-3.954 0. The rate was held constant. Table 9-7 Production Rate and Cumulative Production Forecast for Gas Well in Example 9-5 (psi) 4613 (10' SCF) 0.1944.July . Perfom the calculations for drainage areas of 40. Plot production rate and cumulative production versus time. Assume that the production rate of the well in Problem 9-5 is reduced after 470 days from 3. P.1 x lo3 MSCFId. June Caps and PressureMaintenance oil. calculate the average reservoir pressure after 3 years. becomes 9-7. 896-900.. Use the data in Appendix A. rearranged.969 1964. (4-24). 144: 32-34. Graph the oil production rate and the oil and gas cumulative productions versus time. P r 11-Field Cases:' at J ~ T815-822. (4-24).e." Oil "How Different Size Gas 12. Use the VLP curve of Example 8-1. calculate the areal extent of the reservoir. and calculated with the average 3 within each pressure interval. E. Dake. Prentice Hall. What would be the average reservoir pressure after 600 days from the start of production? The production rate is obtained from Eq. and Odeh.907 (10' SCF) 0 (10' SCF) (lo3 MSCFId) (d) (d) 9-4. Englewood Cliffs. cast in real-gas pseudo-pressures. Tamer.D.21. S. and 4=0. Havlena. P' zi 4613 = -= 4761 psi 0.821 x 10' 4. Assuming that the flowing bottomhole pressure is held constant at 1500 psi.. R. L.A. Repeat the calculation of Example 9-5 but use the non-Darcy coefficient calculated in (MSCF1d)-'I. is 3650psi.8~105 where m(pWf)= 1.941 0. Successivepressure buildupanalysis reveals the following average reservoir pressures at the corresponding times from the start of production: 3424 psi (209 days). A. 2nd ed. Havlena. C. Develop a forecast of well performance using the VLP curve of Example 8-1 and a transient IPR for the 640-acre drainage area (i. ~ugust 1963.1 x 1 d MSCF/d to 2.. S.=0.. After how many days would the well Example 4-8 [D = 3. until boundaries are felt).

potential energy pressure drop is zero. 10-2 F O IN HORIZONTAL PIPES LW 10-2. We are not concerned here with pipeline transport over large distances. but with the simplification that the . this facility is typically a twoor three-phase separator. In addition to flow through pipes. flows through fittings and chokes are important considerations for surface transport. and the mechanical energy balance [Eq. for gas production. (7-15)] simplifies to 2 f f pu2L Ap=pP1-pz=gc D . a compressor station. the facility may be a gas plant. For oil production.C H A P T E R 10 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems This chapter is concerned with the transport of fluids from the wellhead to the facility where processing of the fluids begins. the surface transport of interest is from a water treatindpumping facility to the wells. and.pressure drop is also zero.1 Single-Phase Flow: Liquid Single-phase flow in horizontal pipes is described by the same equations as those for single-phase flow in wellbores presented in Chapter 7. If the fluid is incompressible and the pipe diameter is constant. or simply a transport pipeline. for injection wells. we are interested primarily in the pressure as a function of position as fluids move through the wellhead and surface flow lines. thus we will not consider the effect of hilly terrain or changes in fluid temperature in o w calculations. As in wellbore flow. the kinetic energy -.


In this case.05 and a viscosity of 1. gc D For a real gas. if In(pl/p2) is small compared with 24ffL/D. the change in kinetic energy may be significant. q is in MSCF/d. was given by Eqs.004. If the pressure at the wellhead is I00 psia. T is in O R . line ( 6 = 0. and hence the Reynolds number. (7-7).2 cp. The gas has a specific gravity of 0. (10-4). from Eq. where the inlet pressure must be at least 20 psia. 10 10-2 low in Horizontal Pipes 209 The friction factor is obtained as in Chapter 7 by the Chen equation [Eq.5/12) ft] = 20. (7-50) and (7-54). Then f (10-2) PI= Pz 145 psi = 100 psi + 145 psi = 245 psi (10-3). The differential form of the kinetic energy term is Checking the Reynolds number using Eq. flow line from a central pumping station. from the Chen equation [Eq. This is a significant pressure loss over 3000 ft. 1 1/2-in. The equation can be solved first by neglecting the kinetic energy term. We need the Reynolds number to find the friction factor.0076)(65. Equation (10-7) is an Implicit equation in p and must be solved iteratively. Substituting for p and u du in Eq.-LD. the mechanical energy balance is dp udu 2ffu2dL . .= 0 P gc + Assuming Z = 1 at these low pressures. Notice that even at this high flow rate and with a velocity five times higher at the pipe outlet than at the entrance. The relative roughness of the galvanized iron pipe is 0. which accounts for the kinetic energy pressure drop. since the frictional pressure drop depends approximately on the pipe diameter to the fifth power.001) to a compressor station. with the Reynolds number for field units given by Eq. we can begin by assuming that the flow rate. (10-I). 0 10-2. EXAMPLE 10-1 Pressure drop in a water injection supply line The 1000bblld of injection water described in Examples 7-2 and 7-4 is supplied to the wellhead through a 3000-ft-long. 7-7). T. what is the pressure at the pumping station. (7-55). we find the mean velocity to be 5.. What is the maximum flow rate possible through this gas line? Solution We can apply Eq. with theReynoldsnumberandthe friction factorcalculated as in Chapter 7. Equation (10-7) is identical to Eq. Solution Equation (10-1)applies. The friction factor is obtained from the Reynolds number and pipe roughness. the Reynolds number is calculated to be 53.+ -+ ----. Then.001. . is high enough that the flow is fully rough wall turbulent so that the friction factor depends only on the pipe roughness. (7-35)] or the Moody diagram (Fig. However. neglecting the kinetic energy pressure drop. low-pressure line. and pp are in psi. and integrating.3 ftlsec.-I. we find that j = 0.17 ft-lbm/lb j-S. solving for q. = (4. It can be reduced substantially by using a larger pipe for this water supply. Using Eq. 7-7). We find that we can transport over 10 MMSCF/d through this line.2 Single-Phase Flow: Gas The pressure drop for the horizontal flow of a compressible fluid (gas). we obtain so the friction factor based on fully rough wall turbulence is correct. From the Moody diagram (Fig.195 x 10-6) Y m q 2 : %(24F + in E ) P Z (10-7) where p . D is in in. respectively. the friction factor is 0.0076. (7-44) and (7-43. (2)(0. In a high-rate. and L is in ft. p and u are given by Eqs. neglecting any pressure drops through valves or other fittings? The water has a specific gravity of 1.z)[(l.208 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap.012 cp. and c(. (7-50) except for the additional In(pl/p2) term.3ft/~ec)~(3000 ft) AP=PI-PZ= (32. a temperature of 100°F and an average viscosity of 0. assuming average values of Z and T over the length of the pipeline. . (10-7).5 lbm/ft3)(5. (7-331. (7-55). the kinetic energy pressure drop is negligible. EXAMPLE 10-2 Flow capacity of a low-pressure gas line Gas production from a low-pressuregas well (wellhead pressure = 100psia) is to be transported through 1000ft of a 3-in. Dividing the volumetric flow rate by the pipe cross-sectional area.D. then.for the entire length of pipe being considered. This equation was based on using average values of Z. for a horizontal line.0049 for high Reynolds number and a relative roughness of 0.900.800 lbf/ft2 = 145 psi SO which for field units is p -p. the kinetic energy contribution to the overall pressure drop is still small relative to the frictional 0 pressure drop.7.

The intermittent flow regimes are slug flow and plug (also called elongated bubble) flow. Stratified Flow regimes. intermittent flows./hr-ft2) and the parameters A Annular INTERMITTENT F O LW Slug DlSTRlBUTlVE F O LW Bubble and 4 are where densities are in lbm/ft3. The shaded regions on this . later modified by Scott (1963). mist. The bubble flow regimes differ from those described for vertical flow in that the gas bubbles in a horizontal flow will be concentrated on the upper side of the pipe. "Froth flow" is used by some authors to describe the mist or annular mist flow regime. the interface becomes wavy. However. dispersed bubble. is that of Baker (1953). Figure 10-1 (Brill and Beggs. the flow regime is considered in some pressure drop correlations and can affect production operations in other ways. where G1and G . in which the two phases are for the most part separate. Slug flow consists of large liquid slugs alternating with high-velocity bubbles of gas that fill almost the entire pipe. and many flow regime maps use "annular mist" to denote both of these regimes. the possibility of slug flow. and froth flow. Most important. Particularly in offshore operations. 10 Sec. Segregated flow is further classifiedas being stratified smooth. in which one phase is dispersed in the other phase. we first consider flow regimes in horizontal gas-liquid flow. because there is no potential energy contribution to the pressure drop in horizontal flow. then a few commonly used pressure drop correlations. 10-2.3 Two-Phase Flow Two-phase flow in horizontal pipes differs markedly from that in vertical pipes. Mist flow occurs at high gas rates and low liquid rates and consists of gas with liquid droplets entrained. These can be classified as three types of regimes: segregated flows. Distributiveflow regimes described in the literature include bubble. with a smooth interface between the phases. The axes for this plot are G l / h and GlA@/G. 10-2 Flow in Horizontal Pipes SEGREGATED F O LW 21 1 10-2. Annular flow occurs at high gas rates and relatively high liquid rates and consists of an annulus of liquid coating the wall of the pipe and a central core of gas flow. 1978) depicts the commonly described flow regimes in horizontal gas-liquid flow. or annular. One of the first of these. shown in Fig. must be considered. are the mass fluxes of liquid and gas. In this section. 1973). At higher gas rates. and its consequences.. with liquid droplets entrained in the gas.210 Wellhead and SurfaceGathering Systems Chap. completely different correlationsare used for horizontal flow than for vertical flow. Flow regimes in horizontal flow are predicted with flow regime maps. stratified wavy (ripple flow). which is otherwise filled with liquid.p is in cp. and still one of the most popular. which can be applied for any flow direction. Stratified smooth flow consists of liquid flowing along the bottom of the pipe and gas flowing along the top of the pipe. Mist flow will often be indistinguishable from annular flow. The flow regime does not affect the pressure drop as significantly in horizontal flow as it does in vertical flow. respectively (lb. large gas bubbles flow along the top of the pipe. except for the Beggs and Brill correlation (Beggs and Brill. and stratified wavy flow results. This flow regime occurs at relatively low rates of both phases. and 01 is in dynes/cm. in which gas and liquid are alternating. the occurrence of slug flow necessitates designing separators or sometimes special pieces of equipment (slug catchers) to handle the large volume of liquid contained in a slug. where gas and liquid from subsea completions are transported significantdistances to a platform. In plug flow. and distributive flows.

1973. 1974.-1. M m d h a ~ Beggs and Brill flow regime maps.) ""Other Commonly used flow regime is that of Mandhane et a[. and urn= 10. Input Liquid Content.0001 0. model of the flow regime msitions in horizontd gas-liquid flow. Z = 0.Revised Boundaries 0. shown in F i g 10-4.92 lbm/ft3. 01 = 30 dynes/cm.130 ft3lSm I . this map uses the gas and liquid superficial velocities e as the coordinates. (From Baker.212 diagram indicate that the vansitions from one flow regime to another are not abmpt.81 ft/sec. intermittent and disvibuted.I j Solution Fmm Example 7-8. segregated.5-cm pipr : . qg = 0. h and . 1 . = 2 cp.935. we find the following propenies: Liquid: P = 49. (1974) 10-3).9 ft/sec. (FromBeggs andBriil.6 Ibm/ft3. 1 0 2 Flow in Horizontal Pipes 21 3 G . GI and G. (FromMandhane er al.) Gas: p = 2. Figua 10-5 shows a compadSon of h k flow xgime predictions with those of Mandhane et al. u = 7. dividing the volumetric flow rates by the cross-sectional area. = 0. and the parameters. 1. pipe has a cross-sectional area of 0. = 0. Like many verrical f l o w ~ g i m maps. P ~ o ~ s mixture Froude number defined as the Mandhane flow regime map.001 ' 0.0341 ft2.1 1 ftlsec. The fluids are the same as in Example 7-8. we find us.. set.. their model can be used to generate flow regime maps for Psnicular fluids and pipe size.01 0. 1 Figure 10-2 Baker flow regime map. 1953. but occur over these ranges of flow conditions. Figure 10-4 Beggs and Brill flow regime map. and Brill correlation is based on a horizontal flow regime map that divides Ihe three flow regime categories. map. d e t e h n e the flow regime and flow 2000 bbvd of oil a d 1 MM SCFId of gas at 8OOpsia md 175OFin 2 1/2-in.) Distributed The versus the input liquid fraction.~. we compute the mass fluxes. The 2 112-in. = 3.1 1 EXAMPLE 10-3 Predicting horizontal gas-liquid flow regime the Baker. for ak-water flow in a 2.. pipe. Tailel and Dukler (1976) developed a theoretic. .0131 cp. . & For the Baker map.242 ft3/sec p.

1976. 10-2. Over the years.35) + (2. The Beggs and Brill map plots the mixture Froude number. Using Eqs.145). These correlations all include a kinetic energy contribution to the pressure gradient. though the conditions are very near the boundaries with slug flow and annular mist flow. = u.p. To calculate the frictional gradient. = (7. Note that the dashed lines in Fig. For our values of u . (7-136).2 1bm/ft3 . Eaton et al. so G1 = sip. = (3.11 Wsec. numerous correlations have been developed to calculate the pressure gradient in horizontal gas-liquid flow.3.65 x lo4 lbm/hr-ft2 Then. 10-4. we have already found the flow regime to be intermittent by usine the flow regime map inExample 10-3. Beggs and Brill correlation. which predict slug flow.81 ft/sec) (49. These parameters are NF~ = (10. 0 . (10-24) pm = (49. (From TaitelandDukler. (7-131) through (7-134). Next.) Pressure gradient correlations. we calculate the. The mass flux is just the superficial velocity times density.6 lbm/ft3)(3600 sec/hr) = 6. Eqs. the holdup is used as a parameter in calculating the frictional pressure gradient. the flow regime is predicted to be dispersed bubble.5/12) ft] From Fig. (1967).6)(0. However. (7.8 (32. For horizontal flow. the flow regime is predicted to be slug flow. making the factor @ equal to 1. to E ~ S(7-131) through (7-134). and (7-146).9 fttsec)' = 17.92)(0.92 lbm/ft3)(3600 sechr) = 6. Flow (SS) Figure 10-5 Taitel-Dukler flow regime map. we first obtain the no-slip friction factor based on the mixture Reynolds number. 6. 10-3) is simply a plot of superficial liquid velocity versus superficial gas velocity. and slug flow is the likely flow regime.17 ft/sec2)[(2.81 ft/sec and us. the conditions were very near the flow regime transition on the Baker map. (7-125). The prediction of dispersed bubble flow with the Baker map disagrees with that of Mandhane and Beggs and Brill. The Beggs and Brill correlation presented in Chapter 7 can be applied to horizontal flow.65) = 19. 10-4correspond . 215 Dispersed Flow (AD) The Mandhane map (Fig. Solution The first step in using this correlation is to determine the flow regime using Eqs. The most commonly used in the oil and gas industry today are those of Beggs and Brill (1973). and Dukler (1969). from Eqs. The coordinates for the Baker map are Reading from Fig. Even though there is no potential energy conhibution to the pressure gradient in horizontal flow.1 1 ft/sec) (2. against the input fraction of liquid. 10 50 - ~ e c10-2 Flow in Horizontal Pipes . however.Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap. this can be considered negligible unless the gas rate is high and the pressure is low. defined by Eq. since the angle 0 is 0. This correlation is presented in Section 7-4. (7-143).84 x 1 6 lbm/hr-f8 (10-15) (10-16) G. From Example 10-3. ~= 3.holdup for horizontal flow with Eq. EXAMPLE 10-4 Pressure gradient calculation using the Beggs and Brill correlation Calculate the pressure gradient for the flow of 2000 bbVd oil and 1 MMSCFId of gas described in Example 10-3. = 7. the correlation is somewhat simplified. the flow regime is predicted to be intermittent. as well as flow in any other direction. (10-12) and (10-13). (7-125) through (7-152). however.

liquid. 7-7) or the Chen equation [Eq. The Eaton correlation is derived by applying mechanical energy balances to both the gas and liquid phases. For the constant given in this figure to compute the abscissa. f .0046.0131 cp)(6.. 1967) was developed empirically from a series of tests in 2-in.2 lbm/ft3)(10.. 10 Set. S. (From Eaton ef a/. and the total mass flow rate. (7-142).and 4-in. ur and u. using the same dimensionless groups as the Hagedom and Brown correlation (see Section 7-4. 10-6 as a function of the mass flow rate of the liquid. is 14.72x Ibm/ft-sec) = 91. (7-35)]. The gas viscosity is p. Ax. 10-6.379 0./ft-sec.0067 = Finally.. 10-2 Flow in Horizontal Pipes 217 N R ~= .1966. we compute the mass flow rates of gas. is obtained from the correlation shown in Fig.. then adding these together. In this equation. (19. Now. diameter is in ft.5/12) ft] ((0.f = 0. are the in-situ average velocities. . 1700-ft-longlines. The base pressure. from Eq.71)(6. If the kinetic energy term is neglected. 10-7.72 x Ibm/ft-sec-cp)= 8. m. Neglect the kinetic energy pressure drop. (7-148). mr. pb. Integrating this equation over a finite distance of pipe.216 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap. To compute the kinetic energy pressure drop. mass flow rates are in Ib. the liquid holdup is needed so that the in-situ average velocities of the phases can be calculated. Lp = (0. we calculate the parameters x . the equation can be applied at a point.respectively.600 (10-26) and from the Moody diagram (Fig. (7-149). the overbars indicate properties evaluated at the average.0046)e0. and the combined stream: The friction factor.pressure over the distance Ax and the velocities. yields Figure 10-6 Eaton friction factorcorrelation. and f.and (7-147). It consists primarily of correlations for liquid holdup and friction factor.-diameter.3).8 x loT6lbm/ft-sec (10-36) To find f with Fig. = (0. we calculate . calculate the pressure gradient using the Eaton correlation.) EXAMPLE 10-5 Pressure gradient calculation using the Eaton correlation For the same conditions as Examples 10-3and 10-4. but determine the liquid holdup./sec. or Solution First.92 ft/sec)[(2. and viscosity is in Ib. Liquid holdup is given by the correlation of Fig. The Eaton correlation (Eaton et a].. Eaton correlation.65 psi.. using Eqs.

The friction factor is obtained from the no-slip friction factor. The pressure gradient again consists of frictional and kinetic energy contributions: Figure 10-7 Eaton holdup correlation. 10-7. 10-7. f .) The frictional pressure drop is and reading from the correlation line for water in a 2-in. 10 set.defined as . pipe (we choose this line because the pipe is closest to this size). 1969). the Eaton correlation predicts a lower pressure gradient. N R= ~ CLm pku. y. The Dukler correlation (Dukler. (7-99) through (7-102).o Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap. where the Reynolds number is The liquid holdup is obtainedfrom the correlation given by Fig. The dimensionless numbers needed are given by Eqs. the pressure gradient is given by Eq.D The two-phase friction factor is given by the correlation . we have and from Fig. The liquid holdup predictions from the Beggs and Brill and Eaton correlations agree 0 very closely. like that of Eaton.. 1966. = 0.218 1. (From Eaton er al. (10-32). Dukler correlation. is based on empirical correlations of friction factor and liquid holdup.45. where Neglecting the kinetic energy term. 10-2 Flow in Horizontal Pipes 21 9 Calculating the abscissa value. Notice that the liquid holdup enters the frictional pressure drop through pk.

an estimate of pk and N R is then calculated. Ap is calculated with Eq. but the pressure e 0 gradient predictions differ. The overbars indicate that f . The correlations we have just examined provide a means of calculating the pressure gradient at a point along a pipeline. When L is fixed.and. we estimate yl to be 0.16 Ibm/ft3. using the Dukler correlation.we find the frictional pressure gradient to be 0.found previously to be 19. Since the overall pressure drop over the distance L is being calculated based on the mean properties over this distance. If the overall pressure drop.46. and Again reading yl from Fig. the pressure should not change too much over this + . In this case.220 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap. the pipe length.001 0. the kinetic energy term. from Eq. 10-2 Flow in Horizontal Pipes 221 The liquid holdup is given as a function of the input liquid fraction. to determine the overall pressure drop over a finite length of pipe.1 1 W see that all three correlations predict essentially the same liquid holdup. The simplest procedure is to evaluate fluid properties at the mean pressure over the distance of interest and then calculate a mean pressure gradient. if necessary. (From Dukler. In . pk. Solution An iterative procedure is required to findthe liquid holdup. yl is obtained ~ from Fig. pl . W begin by assuming e that y~ = A. 10-8. We can begin by assuming that yl = A[. A!. and u are evaluated at the mean pressure. p = pm. From Fig. Using this new value of liquid holdup. the A means the difference between conditions at point 1 and point 2.44..yl = 0. Since the holdup is needed to calculate NRek(pk depends on yl). the variation of the pressure gradient as the fluid properties change in response to the changing pressure must be considered. repeating this procedure until convergence is achieved. 10 7 set. 10-8. we have EXAMPLE 10-6 Pressure gradient calculation using the Dukler correlation Repeat Examples 10-4 and 10-5. Ap must be estimated to calculate the mean pressure. For example. with N R as a~ ~ parameter. 10-8.we find Finally. (10-59). integrating the Dukler correlation over a distance L of pipe. using this mean pressure. The no-slip friction factor from Eq. ( p l p 2 ) / 2 .600. k and which was 91. the procedure is repeated until convergence is reached. Figure 10-8 Dukler holdup correlation. This is the converged value. 10-8. is known.01 0. (10-47). 1 . NRek = NRc. We then compute new estimates of pk and NRq. (10-49) is From Eq. (10-51). in Fig. can be calculated directly with this equation. With these estimates.p z . L. determining the liquid holdup is an iterative procedure.. 1969.) The pressure gradient due to kinetic energy changes is given by Pressure traverse calculations.

The pressure drop over the distance L is then the sum of the pressure drops over the smaller increments.034 psilft. at 770 psi and 175"F. I set. and the mixture velocity (u.2 ftlsec by dividing the total volumetric flow rate by the pipe cross-sectional area. (10-49) and (10-51). Using Eqs. The gas volumetric flow rate is then 10-3 FLOW THROUGH CHOKES Since the liquid density is essentially the same at 770 psi as at the entrance condition. the fluid may be accelerated sufficiently to reach sonic velocity in the throat of the choke. . With this mean pressure. Z = 0. We begin by estimating the liquid holdup at mean conditions to be the same as that found at the entrance. etc. = 1. 0 10-2. We previously calculated the properties of the fluids at 800 psi. and pm= (2 cp)(0.) is found to be 11. the pressure drop over the 3000-ft pipe is 105 psi. The remaining section of the pipeline is 3000 . thus we can estimate the mean pressure over the second increment to be 740 . If these fluids are transported 3000 ft through this flow line to a separator. secondary flows and additional turbulence create pressure drops that must be included to determine the overall pressure drop in a piping network.) A variety of factors may make it desirable to restrict the production rate from a flowing well. 10-9. the only property that may differ significantly at 770 psi is the gas density. Figure 10-10 shows the dependence of flow rate through a choke on the ratio of the downstream to upstream pressure for a compressible fluid.13/0.4 Pressure Drop through Pipe Fittings When fluids pass through pipe fittings (tees. 10 distance. we find that dpldx is 0. or y. 10-3 Flow through Chokes 223 Checking Fig. including the prevention of coning or sand production. When this condition occurs. It is most convenient to fix the Ap for the first increment and solve for the length of the increment. f = 0. we will divide the pipe into two length increments and calculate a mean pressure gradient over each increment. The equivalent lengths of many standard valves and fittings have been determined experimentally (Crane. From Fig. Following Example 4-3 for this gas.Thus.019 and f/f.) or valves. If the pressure gradient over this section is also 0. the overall pressure drop would be (0. We will .034 psilft.70.1760 = 1240 ft long. The equivalent lengths are given in pipe diameters..035)(3000) = 105 psi. (Note: Critical flow is not related to the critical point of the fluid.036. When gas or gas-liquid mixtures flow through a choke.. to predict the flow rate-pressure drop relationship for compressible fluids flowing through a choke. 1957) and are given in Table 10-1. a device that places a restriction in the flow line (Fig. so f = 0. the distance L should be divided into smaller increments and the pressure drop over each increment calculated. satisfying production rate limits set by regulatory authorities.13 = 0.689 cp (10-63) . = Ap dpldx 60 psi . if the Ap over the distance L is greater than 10% of pl.382 = 0.? = 800 . and using Eq. Then The flow rate from almost all flowing wells is controlled with a wellhead choke.46." and changes in the pressure downstream of the choke do not affect the flow rate. = 0. pipeline at 800 psia and 175°F(the same fluids as in the previous four examples). so no iteration is required. From Eq.382 ft3/sec. for this section. 10-8. what is the discharge pressure at the separator? Use the Dukler correlation and neglect kinetic energy pressure losses. the pressure drop will be 42 psi. this value is multiplied by the pipe diameter to find the actual length of pipe to be added to account for the pressure drop through the valve or fitting.ql is 0. The remainder of the pipeline will then comprise the second section.46. because pressure disturbances cannot travel upstream faster than the sonic velocity.034 psi/ft EXAMPLE 10-7 Calculating the overall pressure drop Just downstream from the wellhead choke. illustrating that the pressure gradient is not varying significantiy at these relatively high pressures. we repeat the procedure to calculatethe mean pressure gradient using the Dukler correlation and find that dpldx = 0. with the rate being independent of the pressure ratio when the flow is critical.036 psilft.4212 x 720 psi. The effects of valves and fittings are included by adding the "equivalent length" of the valves and fittings to the actual length of straight pipe when calculating the pressure drop. (7-67). p.13 ft3/sec. Adding the two pressure drops. If this value holds over the entire line.0131 cp)(0. giving an overall pressure drop for the second segment of 45 psi.5-in. 2000 bbl/d of oil and 1 MM SCF/d of gas enters a 2.66) = 0.252 + 0. In general. we must determine whether or not the flow is critical. The input liquid fraction is 0. LI.07 and T. The length of the first increment is L .6012 = 770 psi. = 1. 4-1. and meeting limitations of rate or pressure imposed by surface equipment.935. (10-47).34) + (0.035 psi/ft.222 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap.) Thus. We can now use the Dukler correlation to calculate the pressure gradient at the mean pressure.1760 ft before. This happens to be exactly what we estimated using the pressure gradient at the pipe entrance conditions.34. and the total volumetric flow rate is 0. = 0. choose a Ap of 60 psi for the first increment. we find that y. Solution We found in Example 10-6 that the pressure gradient at the entrance conditions is 0.92. Since this pressure drop is slightly greater than 10%of the entrance condition. elbows. the flow is called "critical. = 1.

bevel. bevel. bevel.Table 10-1 Equivalent Lengths of Valves and Fittingsa Description of Fitting Globe valves Stem perpendicular to run Y-pattern With no obstruction in flat. disk Double disk or plug disk Pulp stock Conduit pipe line gate. and plug valves Check valves Conventional swing Clearway swing Globe life or stop. . or plug type seat With wing or pin guided disk (No obstruction in flat. ball. or plug type seat) -With stem 60" from run of pipe line -With step 45' from run of pipe line With no obstruction in flat. or plug type seat With wing or pin-guided disk Fully open Fully open Equivalent Length in Pipe Diameters 340 450 Fully open Fully open Fully open Fully open Fully open Three-quarters open One-half open One-quarter open Fully open Three-quarters open One-half open One-quarter open Fully open Fully open Fully open Fully open 175 145 145 200 13 35 160 900 17 Angle valves k? P Gate valves Wedge. stem perpendicular to Nn or Y-pattern Angle lift or stop Same as angle In-line ball 50 260 1200 3 135 50 Same as globe Fully open 150 Fully open Table 10-1 (Continued) Equivalent Lengths of Valves and Fittingsa Description of Fitting Foot valves with strainer Butterfly valves (8 in. and larger) Cocks Straight-through Rectangular plug port area equal to 100% of pipe area Rectangular plug port area equal to 80% of pipe area (fully open) With poppet lift-type disk With leather-hinged disk Fully open Fully open Fully open Fully open Flow straight through Flow through branch Equivalent Length in Pipe Diameters 420 75 40 18 44 140 30 16 20 50 26 57 Fittings 90" standard elbow 45" standard elbow 90" long radius elbow 90" street elbow 45" street elbow Square comer elbow Standard tee Close-pattern return bend With flow through run With flow through branch 50 'From Crane (1957).

2-cp oil through a 2. The flow coefficient for flow through nozzles is given in Fig. For 4 / 0 1 0..00. (10-66) becomes 10-3.? where C is the flow coefficient of the choke and A is the cross-sectional area of the choke.) for Figure 10-10 Dependenceof flow rate through a choke on the ratio of the upstream to the downstream pressure. In this section. Bean sizes are usually given in 6 4 t h ~ an inch.C - choke is equal to the kinetic energy pressure drop divided by the square of a drag coefficient. we assume that the Reynolds number is high enough that the flow coefficient is independentof Reynolds number. Eq.31. 10-3 Flow through Chokes 227 I Figure 10-9 Choke schematic. Equation (10-66) is derived by assuming that the pressure drop through the Solution Figure 10-11 gives the flow coefficient as a function of the diameter ratio and the Reynolds number through the choke. However. EXAMPLE 10-8 Liquid flow through a choke What will be the flow rate of a 0. the flow rate is related to the pressure drop across the choke by where q is in bblld. from = . we will examine the flow of liquid. 10-11 (Crane. when this does occur. 1957) as a function of the Reynolds number in the choke and the ratio of the choke diameter to the pipe diameter. (From Crane. Since we do not know the Reynolds number until we know the flow rate.0164-in. which will usually be the case for single-phase liquid flow. and gas-liquid mixtures through chokes. NRe Figure 10-11 Row coefficient liquid flow through a choke. 1957. This equation applies for subcritical flow.226 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap.1 Single-Phase Liquid Flow The flow through a wellhead choke will rarely consist of single-phase liquid. Then. I I t d2 . C is approximately 1. since the flowing tubing pressure is almost always below the bubble point. t I p2 2 810 2 4 6 l I O ' 2 8 6 8 1 V 2 Reynold's Number Based on D2. Ap is in psi. 10 Sec. For oilfield units. choke if the pressure drop across the choke is 20 psi and the line size in 1 in.8-specific gravity. gas. and p is in 1bm/ft3. D2 is the choke diameter in in.The choke diameter is often referred to as the "bean size:' because the device in the choke that of restricts the flow is called the bean.

10 set. (7-7)]. 12/64.(10-70). and pl and p2 are the pressures upstream and downstream of the choke. (10-70) used.. the flow rate will be the critical flow rate.56 for this gas. 10-12is constructed. For isentropic flow of an ideal gas through a choke. 16124. 10-3 Flow through Chokes 229 q = (22. the flow rate is 1400 bblld.800)(1. 0 which can be expressed in oilfield units as where q8 is in MSCF/d. that is. To determine the flow rate of two phases through a choke. by (Szilas. 10-3. For any value of the pressure ratio below the criticalvalue. For air and other diatomic gases. 1975) The maximum gas flow rate will occur when the flow is critical. it is commonly assumed that flow through a choke is critical whenever the downstream pressure is less than about half of the upstream pressure.56 to 1 for each choke size. Some of these correlations are claimed to be valid up to pressure ratios of 0. the expansion of the fluid is an important factor. 10-11. Gas flow performancefor different choke sizes.we find that the critical pressure ratio is 0. 1954). and DM = 16). DM is the choke diameter (bean size) in 6 4 t h ~ inches (e.g.and 24/64 of an inch. and the critical pressure ratio is 0.20164. empirical correlations for critical flow are generally used.4 0. p.00) (3& ' - = 1410 bb1/d (10-68) Solution From Eq. since the flow rate is insensitive to the downstream pressure whenever the flow is critical. (10-71). when (p2/p1)= 0./C. using 0 10-3. for a of choke diameter of 114 in. respectively. we find N R ~ 1. this value. Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap.56. D2 = 16/64 in.2 Single-Phase Gas Flow When a compressible fluid passes through a restriction.8 1 1. = From Fig. One means of estimating the conditions for critical two-phase flow through a choke is to compare the velocity in the choke with the two-phase sonic velocity. Assume that the choke flow coefficient is 0.6 PP dl 0. given by 0 0.2 0. p2/p1 should be set to (p2/pl)c and Eq.99 for this N R ~ . is the gas gravity. (10-67).. Fig.85. is standard pressure.4.. p2/pl. Equations (10-69) and (10-70) apply when the pressure ratio is equal to or greater than the critical pressure ratio.2 Figure 10-12 When the pressure ratio is less than the critical pressure ratio.. C = 0. C.228 Eq. given by Wallis (1969) for homogeneous mixtures as .67 x lo5. y is the heat capacity ratio.7 (Gilbert. TI is the temperature upstream of the choke in O R . cr is the flow coefficient of the choke. and the wellhead temperature and flowing pressure are 100°Fand 600 psia.25.53. Using Eq. EXAMPLE 10-9 The effect of choke size on eas flow rate Construct a chart of gas flow rate versus pressure ratio for choke diameters (bean sizes)of 8/64. in petroleum engineering operations. y is 1.3 Gas-Liquid Flow Two-phase flow through a choke has not been described well theoretically. y. Checking the Reynolds number through the choke [Eq.7. the rate is related to the pressure ratio.. y is approximately 1. Using values of pzlpl from 0. the gas gravity is 0.

Solving Eq. GLR is the producing gas-liquid ratio in SCFIbbl. given in Table 10-2.00 With the Omana correlation. requiring that qg/ql > 1. respectively. (10.40 B 0.35. and (10-80).230 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap.7 and. Based on dimensional analysis and a series of tests with natural gas and water. p. (10-78). ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (10-76) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ h with dimensionless groups defined as From Example 10-3. find the choke diameter (bean size) using the Gilbelt. Then For the constants given.= 30 dynes/cm..77). 4 t h ~ 6 of an inch. and an absolute pressure of 800 psi upstream of the choke. p. bbl/d. and Omana correlations.92 lbm/ft3. ql is the liquid rate in bbl/d. The upstream pressure.89 2. from the Ros correlation. (10-76) for ND: Another empirical correlation that may be preferable for certain ranges of conditions is that of Omana et al.00 17. lb. and C . differing only in the empirical constants A. = 2. u.546 0.0 and p 2 / p 1 i 0. and p l ./ft3. 2 6 3 ~ .6 Ibm/ft3. the correlation is Nql = 0 . = 49. The Omana correlation is restricted to critical flow. and From Eqs. p. ~ . B. Solution we have For the Gilbert and Ros correlations. of Table 10-2 For the given Row rate of 2000 bbVd. and y are the sonic velocities . I . 231 where v. 01. is the sonic velocity of the two-phase mixture and v. In these correlations. (1969). solving Eq. D M . = 0. Empirical Constants in Two-Phase Critical Flow Correlations Correlation Gilbert Ros 800 . Ros. The empirical correlations of Gilbert (1954) and Ros (1960) have the same form. psia. EXAMPLE 10-10 Finding the choke size for gas-liquid flow For the flow of 2000 bblld of oil and 1 MMSCFId of gas at a Rowing tubing pressure of 800 psia as described in Example 10-3. a GLR of 500 SCFbbl. the oilfield units are q . is in psig in the Gilbert correlation and psia in Ros's correlation. p l . of the gas and liquid. we solve Eq. namely. 10 ~ e c10-3 Flow through Chokes . It is best suited to low-viscosity liquids (near the viscosity of water) and choke diameters (bean sizes) of 14/64 in.546.500 C 1. The fluid properties are evaluated at the upstream conditions. = 33 64th~ an inch of (10-82) A 10. and Da is the choke diameter in 6 4 t h ~ an inch. we have . or less. dyneslcm.14. (10-75) for the choke diameter. from the Gilbert correlation. (10-79) for the choke diameter.

and the flow through the entire piping network may have to be treated as a system. (32164 in. Two common types of gathering systems were illustrated by Szilas (1975) (Fig. right.) When individual flow lines all join at a common point (Fig. The common point is typically a separator in an oil production system. Thus. and can be obtained from the two-phase choke correlations. Since the Omana correlation was based on liquid flow rates of 800bblld or less. chokes for a well with a GLR of 500. where ApLi is the pressure drop through the flow line. Solution The Gilbert correlation predicts that the flowing tubing pressure is a linear function of the liquid flow rate. The flowing tubing pressure of an individual well i is related to the separator pressure by In most oil and gas production installations. for each choke. 0 -- D64= Jm I GLR = 500 scflbbl When a well is being produced with critical flow through a choke.). (From Szilas. EXAMPLE 10-11 Choke performance curves Construct performance curves for 16164-. the relationship between the wellhead pressure and the flow rate is controlled by the choke. This region is indicated by the dashed portions of the choke performance curves-the predictions are not valid for these conditions. Apci is the pressure drop through the choke (if present).35 = 41 64th~ an inch of (10-90) (0. 0 Figure 10-14 Oil and gas production gathering systems. and Apfi is the pressure drop through fittings. When the individual well flow rates are controlled by critical flow through a choke.~ - 232 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap. the flow from several wells will be gathered at a central processing station or combined into a common pipeline. choke for 24164-in. Note that the choke correlation is valid only when the flow through the choke is critical. for 16164-in. with an intercept at the origin. the Gilbert and Ros correlations are probably the more accurate in this case. choke for 32164-in. assuming that the flow is critical.43q1 These relationships are plotted in Fig. 1975.. Using Eq. The choke performance curve is a plot of the flowing tubing pressure versus the liquid flow rate. while the Omana correlation predicts a larger choke size of 41/64 in. However. 10-14. 24164-. along with a well performance curve. so that the pipeline flow rate is the sum of the upstream well flow rates as in Fig. using the Gilbert correlation. and 32164-in. as determined by a combination of the well IPR and the vertical lift performance. 10-4 Surface Gathering Systems 233 8.1574) The Gilbert and Ros correlations predict a choke size of about 112 in. since downstream pressure disturbances (such as a change in separator pressure) do not affect the flow performance through the choke.73q1 Figure 10-13 Choke performance curves (Example 10-1 1). left). the attainable flow rate from a well for a given choke can be determined by matching the choke performance with the well performance. (10-75).' = 1. 10-14. we find p. choke (10-91) (10-92) (10-93) Ptf = 0. when flow is subcritical.f = 0. 10-14). each . there is little interaction among the wells. 10 Sec. there will be a flow rate below which flow through the choke is subcritical. the pressure at the common point is equal for all flow lines. The intersections of the choke performance curves with the well performance curve are the flow rates that would occur with these choke sizes. the downstream pressure can influence the performance of the wells.57qr p. 10-13. In a gathering system where individual wells are tied into a common pipeline.

the pressure drop foreachpipe segment can be calculated independently using Eq. Tulsa.. B.. J. (10-1).04 lb. " Flow Pattern Map for Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes:' Int. 7-7).16 168 psig 5%d 11 Well 2 800 b/d 1 weii 3 600 bid I \ 2 in. "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines:' American Gas Association. Liquid Holdup. if the IPRs and elevations are the same in all three wells. AIME. The pressure at each point in the pipe network is obtained by starting with the known separator pressure and adding the appropriate pressure drops. H.. E.001. Well 1 is tied into the gathering line with a standard 90" elbow. May 1969. 5.600 9.. 410. 10 References 235 well has a more direct effect o n its neighbors. 7. "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance:' API Drilling and Production Practice. University of Tulsa.. 607617. D. Mandhane. Brill. individual wellhead pressures can be calculated by starting at the separator and working upstream. I. 1954. Well I ptl 198 psig = I 1 100 psig ptl 181 psig = 1 in. Chicago. American Peuoleum Institute. 53: 185. Dukler. and the tee (with flow through a branch) 60 pipe diameters. the flow rates of the individual wells may depend o n the flowing tubing pressures. W E. 168 198 198 L (ft) 114 216./ft3).0082 185 psig u (Wsec) (LID)a. the check valve 135 pipe diameters. The pressure drops through the fittings and valves in the well flow lines are considered by adding their equivalent lengths from Table 10-1 to the well flow line lengths. "Flow of Fluids through Valves. I..850 12. One-inch flow lines connect each well to the gathering line.54 7. as shown in Fig..5 ft. K. Figure 10-16 Pressure distribution in gathering system (Example 10-12).. 10-16. OK.1953. P. G. J.. J. I. A.. Andrews. The resulting system pressures are shown in Fig. 1978. the IPRs and vertical lift performance characteristics of the wells and surface gathering system must all b e considered together to predict the performance of the well network.420 188 psig 5. Gregory. E. and each well line contains a ball valve and a conventional swing check valve.0077 0. Eaton. 'The Prediction of Flow Patterns.0086 0..234 Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap. 4. and Brill. 1: 537-553. line. and Aziz.. The differences in the flowing tubing pressures in these wells would result in different fluid levels in the annuli.. for well flow line 2. D. A. Beggs.5 AP (psi) 10 42 13 7. For example. Assuming the relative roughness of all lines to be 0.96 9. 3. E. D. 1974. C. In this type of system. "Design of Pipelines for the Simultaneous Flow of Oil and Gas:' Oil and Gas J. A summary of the calculated results are given in Table 10-3. p. Crane Co. and its viscosity is 5 cp. and Silberberg. P. Depending o n the lift mechanism of the wells. O.. D. A. lines from wells to gathering line Well 2 pt~ 227 Psig = Figure 10-15 Surface gathering system (Example 10-12). Baker. and Beggs. and Pressure Losses Occurring during Continuous Tho-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines. and Brown. Vol. Solution Since the flow rates are all known (and are assumed independent of the wellhead pressures for these rod-pumped wells). The oil density is 0.. 143. the ball valve adds 3 pipe diameters. 1. The equivalent length of flow line 2 is then (3 + 135 + 60)(1/12 ft) + 200 ft = 216..Research Results. Well Flow Lines Well No. D. E. while wells 2 and 3 are connected with standard tees. Trans. Multiphase Flow. A 8. In this case. 2.I. "A Study of Two-PhaseFlow in Inclined Pipes:'JPT. calculate the flowing tubing pressures of the three wells.85 g/cm3 (53. The friction factors are obtained from the Chen equation [Eq. H. Two-PhaseFlow in Pipes. 1 2 3 N R ~ f 0. 240: 815-828. K. Knowles.. H. 1957. 0 REFERENCES 1. . The separator pressure is 100 psig.i. This will b e treated in Chapter 21..5 116. and Pipe:' Technical Paper No. 1967. Fittings. (7-331 or the Moody diagram (Fig. . May 1973. Table 10-3 Pressure Drop Calculation Results Gathering Line Segment q (bbl/d) NR= f u (Wsec) ap (psi) EXAMPLE 10-12 Analysis of a surface gathering system The liquid production from three rod-pumped wells is gathered in a common 2-in. 6. Gilbert. 10-15. M.

Well A-3 300 bld PROBLEMS 10-1. The water has a specific gravity of 1..Iin. 10-3. p = 200 . Production and Transport o Oil and Gas. SPE Paper 2682. R. eds. E.. 1963..) that can be used to maintain a wellhead pressure of at least 300 psig if the pipe relative roughness is 0. K. f 13. 10-2. A. 9. Using the Beggs and Brill. The pipeline pressure is 200 psig and the gas temperature is 150°F.. Omana.. and a = 20 dynes/cm. 11.. Drew. Scott. E.02 and aviscosity of 1 cp. choke (a = 0. N.7 is connected to a pipeline with 4000 ft of 2-in. 10. JII ( 400 tt. 12.. Sci. 10-12. 10-14. What is the maximum possible length of this flow line? 10-10. Taitel. T. WellA-l 400 bld 800fi. B. C. Elsevier.. G. flow line.. the temperature is 120°F. find the wellhead pressures of the wells. and Duklercorrelations. Suppose that 2 MMSCFId of natural gas with specific gravity of 0. and Vermeulen. 1200tt. Repeat Problem 10-6 for 2000 bbl/d. p = 400 psia. "An Analysis of CriticalSimultaneous GasLiquidFlowthrough a RestrictionandIts Application to Flowmetering:' Appl.. 10-6. C. find the flow regime for the flow of 500 bbl/d oil and 1000 SCF/bbl of associated gas in a 2-in. . 10-5. in a 1 112-in. Res. Y. 374. R. flow line. "A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow. psia. Repeat the calculations of wellhead pressure. flow line. Construct choke performance curves for flowing tubing pressures up to 1000 psi for the well of Appendix A for choke sizes of 8/64. Ros. A 20164-in. E. 200-278. 1960. Brill. 10-11. (b) E = 0. where the pressure is 400 psig. P. T = 150°F.. J. 22 (1): 47-55. calculate the pressure gradient for the flow of 4000 bbl/d of oil and 500 SCF/bbl of associated gas (Appendix B oil and gas) flowing in a 3-in.Amsterdam. New York.*'Advancesin Chemical Engineering. J. 1 W...- - Wellhead and Surface Gathering Systems Chap. 10-8. pp. Eaton. I 200 11. January 1976. Using the Baker. Well A-2 700 bld 1 I I GC150 300 11. Suppose that 3000 bbVd of injection water is supplied to a well by a central pumping station located 2000 ft away.D. Volumel. assume that the pressure given is the wellhead pressure. GOR = 1000. and 16/64 in. Redesign the piping network of Problem 10-13 so that no wellhead pressure is greater than 225 psig by changing the pipe diameters of as few pipe segments as possible. Repeat Problem 10-6 for 1000 bbl/d oil.001. Determine the smallest diameter flow line (within the nearest 112 in. 10-17. For a separator pressure of 150 psig and assuming that the temperature is approximately 100°F throughout the system. The liquid production from several rod-pumped wells producing from the reservoir of Appendix A are connected to a separator with the piping network shown in Fig. "Multiphase Flow through Chokes". .. Jr. For the flow described in Problem 10-6.. 1 in. 12/64. 1 in. A. New York. 12/64. T. Szilas. B. and 16/64 in..9) is added to the flowline of Problem 10-2. flow line.1969.. o = 20 dyneslcm. "Properties of Cocurrent Gas-Liquid Flow.. 1975. JI 80011.001.D.lin.2in. and 16/64 in. One Dimensional Two-PhaseFlow. Calculate the wellhead pressure assuming: (a) smooth pipe.. The l oil and gas are those described in Appendix B.. Sec. p.. A. 10-7. but for a pressure of 100 psia. 10-9. and Beggs and Brill flow regime maps. The relative roughness of all pipes is 0.001. 1 in. Neglect the kinetic energy pressure gradient. Mandhane. McGraw-Hill. Wallis. 3 1 Well A-4 600 bld Figure 10-17 Surface gathering system (Problem 10-13). 14. p = 100 psia in a 2-in. JJ 200 a. Houssiere. S.."AICHE J. Hoopes. Construct choke performance curves for flowing tubing pressures up to 1000 psi for the gas well of Appendix C for choke sizes of 8/64. P. 2in. and Dukler.4. line with a relative roughness of 0. 12/64. I Problems 237 10-13... GOR = 1000.001. Construct choke performance curves for flowing tubing pressures up to 1000 psi for the well of Appendix B for choke sizes of 8/64. and the pressure is 1000 psia. 10 9. Repeat Problem 10-4.. Jr. Academic Press. 1969. 10-4. Brown.. and Thompson.

volume. like other measurements in a wellbore. However. This is because gas and liquid phases are not produced from the formation in the same proportions as they exist in a single phase above the bubble. safety and logistical considerationsoften severely constrain the choices for test duration and hardware. in turn. This can. collecting representative samples of the reservoir fluids is of primary importance. Once the field has been in production and the reservoir pressure drops below the bubble point (below which gas evolves from solution in oil) or the dew point of a gas condensate (below which retrograde liquids evolve). The testing timeline in Fig. When the test interpretationcan provide quantitativeinformation about a reservoir that cannot be learned otherwise and that is essential to decision making or to forecasting production. the test can be justified provided that its costs are not prohibitive and the chances for success are high. This chapter will describe how to design a test that can accomplish specific objectives in a cost-effective manner. it is no longer possible to acquire a fluid sample from which the hydrocarbon composition can be determined. should be justified and planned in advance. This is also the optimal time to obtain a reservoir fluid sample for PVT (pressure. limit what can be learned from these tests. temperature) analysis. tests performed before the onset of field production have the distinct advantage that flow in the reservoir may remain single phase throughout the test duration. In the first few wells drilled in a new formation. exploration. In wildcat. tests. In general.C H A P T E R 11 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Modem testing techniques are based on a methodology forreservoir test interpretation that can be applied to many types of tests in essentially the same way. 11-1 illustrates the opportunities for various types of tests during the productive life of a vertical or horizontal well.or 239 . and appraisal wells.

when the formation is tested and thoroughly understood in single-phase flow. This brief discussion has shown some key reasons for planning transient tests. formation tests L op'enhole DST . As discussed in Section 11-2. production data can yield quantitative information about reservoir permeability and hydraulic fracture or horizontal well characterization. dew-point pressure. one or more tests can be conducted in the pilot hole drilled before the horizontal segment. Well tests in developmentwells have the inherent cost of stalling production during the test period. production log test. production log surveys. continuous monitoring of surface pressure and flow rate can provide data that will be useful for completion and reservoir evaluation over long periods of time. accurate quantification of wellbore damage. and compressibility that are required for transient test interpretation. details are provided to help ensure reliable and useful results from tests. The laboratory measurements also provide values for the reservoir fluid formation volume factor. pressure buildup L Production log survey. the first priority should be the inclusion of wireline formation tests as part of the open-hole logging suite. The cased-hole drillstem test provides data for completion evaluation and (in long-duration tests) reservoir limits. 11-1 Introduction 241 Vertical Well r On On dedine Production log survey. The information derived from formation-test pressure profiles is essential for understanding flow communication from well to well and in the vertical direction. masking nearwellbore transients in early time and prolonging the time required to evaluate reservoir permeability. In development wells. Reservoir temperature must also be measured. the chance to interpret transient data influenced only by well and reservoir features and uncomplicated by multiphase flow is lost. pressure buildup Cased hole DST.' Formattontests. sometimes so long that nearby wells interfereor outer boundary effects appear before wellbore transients die out. subsequent tests may be dominated by wellbore storage effects for prohibitively long time periods. Horizontal wells are challenging for both testing and interpretation. production log test. when a representative sample of the undersaturated oil or gas is acquired. and average reservoir pressure may be impossible. Once the reservoir is put on production and the pressure drops below the fluid bubble or dew point. later tests can be designed to quantify multiphase-flow characteristics such as relative permeability. In wells with production tubing. installing a landing nipple at the base of the tubing at the time the well is completed can permit testing with downhole shutin thereafter and can make testing in gas-lift wells feasible. Production systems with accurate. production log tests. After drilling in a developedreservoir.- - 240 Just drilled Stimulated Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. Conversely. Since these wells are drilled for their economic importance to production.production log and transient measurements acquired from a horizontal well can be used to quantify additional reservoir and well parameters. and pressure buildup tests may be conducted periodically. Tests in the pilot hole should determine horizontal and vertical permeability in the formation and should verify vertical communication over the formation thickness. After completion. cpenhole DST. landing niDDle installationon tubing shoe [ Teaing while L . PVT sample Horizontal Well Pilot hole inside formation top Pilot hole through formation Drilled horizontal segment Completed horizontal segment Stimulated r On . These tests offer more information as successive wells are drilled over time and can be performed in every well except when unusual circumstances cause the results to be unreliable. production log test. laboratory PVT measurements can determine the hydrocarbon composition and the composition and quantity of each phase at pressures below the original saturation (bubble-pointor dew-point) pressure at reservoir temperature and under depletion conditions that resemble those occurring in the formation. pressure buildup Cased hole DST. Production log survey. In the sectionsthat follow. Without this provision. the main problem with horizontal well tests is that much of the information they provide is too late if the well would not have been drilled given this information in advance. To avoid this situation. Using interpretation techniques analogous to those designed for continuously acquired downhole flow rate and pressure data. However. Figure 11-1shows that after stimulation and in established wells indecline. viscosity. formation tests along the horizontal borehole can provide considerable information about lateral reservoir communication. testing strategiesfocus on minimizing time on the well site. buildup Figure 1 1 -1 Testing timelines. landing nipple installationon tubing shoe L Openhole log. Techniquesof testing while perforating offer an attractive means for evaluating the completion and reservoir permeability before a stimulationtreatment. pressure buildup Productionlog survey. However. Open-hole log and stress measurements in the pilot hole may show evidence of horizontalpermeability andlor stress anisotropy that indicates the direction in which the well should be drilled. formation permeability. formationtests ODenhole DST. production log test.- On decline b time production data 11 11 II. productionlog test Production log survey. production log test. pressure bu~ldup Production log survey. 11 Sec. . when the radial flow regime is not visible in the transient response. ownhole loa.

or the effective drainage radius. re is the drainage radius. and the wellbore radius are usually known values.. a. and hardware requirements.06 RBISTB. A~skin) ffpBp [ln(0. and where s is the wellbore skin factor. The units conversion factor. is J cu ~= at a kh 9 (f .. h is the formation thickness. Ja. Determine at what rate the well will flow for a surface pressure of 500 psi. depends on the system of units used for analysis. the productivity index is reduced. Extrapolating the line to zero flow rate provides a value Pwf = P - - 4 . The ratio of the actual productivity index to the ideal value is defined as the flow efficiency. is severely damaged. In terms of quantities that are either known or can be determined from a well test. the reservoir permeability. drainage radius. Once the well is in a stabilized flow condition. Jidealr defined by the following: is The productivity index can be determined from a series of measurements of flowing pressure at different surface flow rates. = 1. surface pressure and flow rate measurements are provided along with boaomhole pressure values computed using the techniques indicated in Chapter 7. Computed Downhole Ratea 1296 1945 2594 3241 3890 4539 5188 6484 Measured Surface Pressure 1594 1400 1203 1006 806 607 405 0 Computed Downhole Pressureb 4725 4587 4449 4312 4174 4037 3900 3624 where k is permeability. No single measurement of stabilized flow rate and pressure can provide values for permeability.Pwf $. and their values are typically not known. (11-2): (1 1-4) J For the data in Table 11-1. nor can this predict at what rate the well will flow at other bottomhole flowing pressure values. The productivity index is given by the well flow rate. When the skin effect is nonzero. sensor characteristics. and rw is the wellbore radius. computer programs for test design can provide considerable assistance. starting with the instant the well flow rate is changed (usually in a stepwise manner at the surface) and continuing for a few minutes to several hours or days. Data for transient tests are acquired over a range of time. viscosity. the way to improve production may be to fracture the well hydraulically. test duration. determine the well productivity index and the average reservoir pressure. q.aI. divided by the drop in pressure from the average reservoir pressure. the actual productivity index. However. skin factor. 11 Set.472re/rw) + s] . FE: Two basic categories of well tests are stabilized and transient tests. Rearranging Eq. Because all of these items are interrelated. P. Interpretation of stabilized test data yields the average reservoir pressure in the well drainage area and the well productivity or injectivity index. but if the reason for low productivity is low permeability. Data for stabilized tests are acquired when the well is flowing in a stabilized condition that results when either pressures in the well drainage area are unchanging (steady-state flow) or are changing linearly with respect to time (pseudosteady-state flow) while the well is being flowed at a constant rate. Often production engineers are asked to evaluate well productivity. Stabilized flow tests may acquire data for more than one stabilized rate. If a well Solution In Table 11-1. average pressure. p w f .' (1 1-2) b~eggs Brill (1973) Method. the ideal productivity index. Values for common units systems are provided in Table 11-4 later in this chapter. and the skin factor affect the productivity. fluid formation volume factor. this plot makes a line with a slope corresponding to the reciprocal of the productivity index for the well. p is the fluid viscosity. 11-2 Well Test Objectives 243 The main issues in designing a test are test objectives. Acid stimulation or other workover treatments may improve productivity when there is damage near the wellbore. Equation (1 1-1) applies in the ideal case when the skin effect for the well is negligible.242 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. Figure 11-2 shows a plot of flowing bottomhole pressure versus downhole flow rate. Both stabilized and transient tests can be conducted on either production or injection wells. as measured by a stabilized flow test. Table 11-1 Stabilized Flow Test Data Measured Surface Rate 1223 1835 2447 3058 3670 4282 4894 6117 ' B . the productivity index is also reduced when the formation permeability is low. to the flowing wellbore pressure. B is the fluid formation volume factor. single values for the flowing bottomhole pressure and the surface flow rate are recorded. EXAMPLE 11-1 Determination of the productivity index and average reservoir pressure from stabilized flow tests From the stabilized flow test data in Table 11-1. Although the formation thickness.

In addition to the change in the direction of variation (pressure dropping during the drawdown. 5000 psi. Distinguishing wellbore and reservoir response patterns can be difficult even for . knowing the productivity index does not provide any one of these values unless the others are known. 11-3. However. 11-2 Well Test Objectives 245 for the average reservoir pressure. each represents the same transient trend in late time. it is necessary to interpolate the data in the table to compute the bonomhole pressure. The duration of the wellbore storage effect is dependent on the depth of the well and the type of completion and is greatly prolonged when fluid phase changes occur. provided that the shape and extent of the well drainage area are known. the productivity index is The average pressure is given by the intercept. 11-4. If pressure is continuously monitored -following a change in the surface rate. Wellbore storage is caused by movement or expansion/compressionof wellbore fluids in response to a change in the wellbore pressure. skin factor.. 5000 4500 - -Inflow Relationship 0 Computed Downhole Rate and Pressure 0 / 0 I I I I I I I I I 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Flow Rate (bld) Figure 1 1-2 Infiow performance plot for Example 11-1. (1 1-2) shows. Most wells reauire from several hours to several days (or even months) to reach the . 0 using the formation volume factor. As Eq. stabilized flow behavior modeled by the productivity index in Eq. The surface flow rate and the resultant bottomhole pressure response for a simulated drawdown test are shown in Fig. both the drawdown and buildup data shown in Fig. A pressure transient test can provide values for permeability and the s k i factor. As the well flows. thus taking the guesswork out of deciding the best way to improve well productivity. Finally. the acquired data can be analyzed as a pressure transient test. On a log-log diagnostic plot like that shown in Fig. provided that the pressure drop due to skin is zero. Thus. 3964 psi. 11-3 are plotted in a way that shows that. and the behavior near the end of the responses also appears different. the pressure measured in the wellbore drops or is drawn down. a constant surface flow rate should be maintained.244 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. the surface flow rate is 4607 bblld. the actual productivity index is a function of permeability. Drawdown and injection tests are conducted with the well flowing at a constant rate. In Fig. and the effective drainage radius of the well. The simplest drawdown test is initiated by opening the well to flow from a shutin condition. Variable wellbore storage can exhibit trends that appear similar to patterns associatedwith a reservoir response. even the trends in the data appear to be distinct. although they are distinct in early time. average reservoir pressure. The fundamental modes for pressure transient testing in a production well are drawdown and buildup tests. the average reservoir pressure and the productivity index can also be determined from the transient test analysis of a pressure buildup or falloff test. To determine the well flow rate at 500 psi surface pressure. (1 1-1). In the simulation. thus minimizing wellbore storage during the buildup by reducing the wellbore volume in hydraulic communication with the downhole pressure gauge. Pressure buildup data are also shown in the figure. 11-3. 11-4. In an injection well. the analogs are injection and falloff tests. constant wellbore storage appears as a "hump" in the pressure derivative. A leastsquares line fit through these data points yields a slope of -0. the well was shut in downhole. In Fig. 11 Set. Buildup and falloff tests are conducted by measuring the pressure variations that result from shutting the well in after it has flowed at a constant rate. The different early-time behavior is due to wellbore storage. the drawdown and buildup pressure data do not appear to display the same behavior. This behavior can mask transient pressure trends due to near-wellbore geometry or reservoir heterogeneity. The pressure drop during the initial part of the drawdown response appears to be more gradual than in the buildup. that corresponds to this value of surface pressure. During that time. in fact. hence the name drawdown test.212 psibpd and an intercept of 5000 psi. Pressure transient data are obtained by measuring bottomhole pressures in the wellbore. The well flow rate for any flowing bonomhole pressure above the bubble-point pressure can be determined from this plot. There are several testing configurations that can be used to acquire the pressure transient data. rising during the buildup). Wellbore storage is not constant when phase redistribution occurs in the wellbore. Then the corresponding bonomhole flow rate is determined from the equation of the line through the data to be 4883 bblld. The pressure data can be plotted in other ways to assist in the computation of parameters concerning the well and the formation. These are addressed in the next section. as in most drillstem tests.

DSI I I e loo! lo4 .. and Ehlig-Economides et al. ' . Otherwise.. 11 1 ~ e c11-2 Well Test Objectives . 11-6. and t.1 lo2 lo0 Elapsed Time (hr) Figure 1 1-3 Simulated test data. In this plot. If this Daper is not available. experts.. 11-3. . the log of elapsed time. the logarithm of the Homer time function. Home (1990).246 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. is the shutin bottomhole pressure (SIBHP). . Figure 1 1-4 Log-log diagnostic plot for data in Fig. = .. p.. . and t each successive ~ o i nis dotted to the left of the previous point. - . The simulated drawdown data are plotted as shown in Fig. At. Figure 11-4 shows the pressure change for the drawdown (squares) and buildup (circles) data. . and successive data points are plotted from left to right. (t. psi1 Pressure B u ~ l d u ~ . the plot is drawn on special graph paper that has a logarithmic scale for the x axis. or the length of time the well was flowed before shutin. is the production time. .. and the shutin pressure. . is ploned on the ordinate. Computation of the superposition time function and the derivative of pressure change with respect to the superposition time function is explained in Bourdet et al. the points can be plotted directly on the semilog graph paper. Also shown in Fig. (1990a). B D ~ Pressure Drawdown.pwf(tp) for buildup data (11-7) where Ap is the pressure change. When plotted in this way.. the use of downhole shutin is recommended in pressure buildup tests to avoid loss of early-time data that may help to characterize damage and to avoid error in the test interpretation. is ploned on the abscissa... . A . pwf is the flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP). 11-5. p. + . Minimizing wellbore storage is an important consideration in test design. If the analyst is not using a computer for the analysis. the analyst must first compute the logarithm of each value of the Homer time function. the flowing pressure pwf(At) is plotted on the y axis. ' & 6000 5400 4I0 . . . The standard way of plotting pressure buildup data is the Homer plot shown for the simulated data in Fig.pwf(At) and Ap(At) = p. 11-4 is a plot of the derivative of the pressure change with respect to the superposition time function for the drawdown data (shaded circles) and the buildup data (shaded squares). 10' .. The pressure change is computed as follows: (11-6) for drawdown data &(At) = pi . the data acquired first are ploned on the right. is ploned on the x axis. In this case.. again on a semilog graph. At)/At.. At is the elapsed time since the instant the surface rate was initiated or stopped.(At) . . . 10-I . 247 : . pi is the initial reservoir pressure at the test datum level. Thus.. A 11- Surface Flow Rote.(At). (1983).

Identification of the correct straight line on a semilog plot is aided considerably with the use of the log-log diagnostic plot consisting of the pressure change and its derivative. skin factor. The purpose in plotting the buildup or drawdown data on a semilog plot is the determination of permeability. Sometimes. for buildup tests. 11 Sec. 11-5.plh for a drawdown test. the average reservoir pressure. 11-4. the slope. and average reservoir pressure. the data that can be correctly analyzed as a straight line on a 'Homer or semilog plot follow a constant or flat trend. skin factor. At (hr) Figure 11-6 Semilog plot of drawdown data in Fig. the data exhibit more than one apparent straight line on the semilog plot.f . are used to compute the skin: where A p l b = p. Apparent lines on a semilog plot that do not correspond to . can be used to compute permeability as follows: The computed value of k along with the pressure value on the semilog line at an elapsed time of 1 hr. and values that are used to quantify the effects of reservoir heterogeneities. such as a fault. Permeability. Often. If an incorrect line is used for computation of permeability. such as natural fractures. on this plot. and. From a semilog line. m.plb for a buildup test. Homer time function for a buildup). the values will be wrong. as in Fig. 11-3. and A p l h = pi .248 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. 11-3. no apparent line on the plot represents the response from which these values can be determined correctly. skin factor. p l h . if the analyst fails to identify the correct straight line. and average reservoir pressure are computed from slope and intercept values for a line that fits some portion of the data. Although the use of computers minimizes computational errors. the results will be in error. as in Fig. 11-2 Well Test Objectives 249 (tp + At) l At Figure 11-5 Homer plot of the buildup data in Fig. layering. Other reservoir parameters that can be determined from a semilog plot are the distance to a permeability barrier. or other phenomena classified as dual porosity effects. Because the derivative is computed with respect to the superposition time function (logarithm of time for a drawdown.

Since these data are in oilfield units. Data acquired this early in time would rarely represent a reservoir response. the permeability determined from the previous step." The reason for this term is that the flow regimes are associated with flow geometries like those shown in Fig.depends on the units of the data. 11-8. surface rate variation causes distortion in the drawdown pressure data that masks the meaningful response and renders the data essentially uninterpretable. skin factor. other parameters can be determined from other straight-line trends that appear in the derivative response. The well was flowing at a rate of 1000 bblld during the drawdown. skin factor. the value of a. p. Once the correct line has been identified on a Homer plot. The reason that buildup data are desirable is illustrated in the data plotted in Fig.. by consulting Fig.35 ft. On the specializedplot.c. skin factor. The drawdown duration cp. Derivative response patterns for the flow regimes diagrammed in this figure are shown in Fig. its slope. As shown in the figure. p = 4. 11-4. depends on the units of the data used for the computation. which does not appear as flat on the log-log diagnostic . and p* = 4194 psi. is 141. and the wellbore radius. and the formation thickness. 11 Set. In Fig. The data that lie on the third apparent semilog line appear on the crest of the hump in the derivative data. s = 32. and the extrapolated pressure from the Homer plot in Fig. thedata identified with thecharacteristic derivative response pattern lie on a straight line. s = -1. p*. Using the slope of the line. the permeability. 11-8 and 11-9. determined independently. 11-7. Use of the log-log diagnosticplot avoids mistaking this behavior for a reservoir response and provides a means to identify the correct line on the Homer plot. h = 100 ft. and the flowing pressure at the end of the drawdown was 2087 psi.06. The slope determined from the first apparent line (from the left of the plot) in Fig.151 that appears in Eq. From the third ' apparent line. often only the buildup data are analyzed. the points that provide a correct analysis must be on the flat portion of the derivative. however small. which appears in the late-time data. is determined as follows: As above. there are several apparent straight-line trends on the semilog plot. 0 Data for both drawdown and buildup tests in the same well are rarely collected. Using the second apparent line. For each flow regime there is a specialized plot of the portion of the data exhibiting the characteristic derivativeresponse pattern. In Fig. The factor 1. k = 123md. the buildup pressure change and derivative response are smooth.5. and the slope and intercepts of the line are used to compute well and/or reservoir parameters.. and extrapolated reservoir pressure. q5 = 0. Each change in surface flow rate.and the value on the line corresponding to a Homer time ratio of 1. and the average reservoir pressure. Determine permeability. Table 11-2 describes the observed derivative response patterns in simple terms. Although permeability and skin can be determined only from the portion of the data with a flat derivative. The value of a. 11-5. and the units conversion coefficients (avalues) are indicated in Table 11-4. and p = 8200 psi. Clearly. and values for the flow rate change. 11-9 and Tables 11-2 through 11-4 is illustrated in the following example. $. 11-5. k = 5 md. fluid viscosity. none of the buildup pressure derivative data follow a constant trend. 11-7. Frequently. = 0. If natural logarithms are used. The fourth apparent line on the Homer plot is not a likely choice for analysis because it corresponds to data acquired during the first few minutes of the buildup. This difficulty is revisited in Problem 11-9. Figure 11-9 shows the specialized plot associated with respective trends identified on the log-log diagnostic plot of pressure change and its derivative.2. this is an indication of reservoir limits. the answers are significantly different depending on which line is used for the analysis.35 psi-'. while the drawdown data contain high-frequency noise due primarily to small variations in the surface flow rate. the extrapolated pressure from the Homer line has no meaning. Using plk determined from the line. is computed as follows: plot. the most prominent line on a semilog buildup plot corresponds to the crest of the wellbore storage response on the log-log plot. This hump is an indication of wellbore storage. the value for p. the value of cu. h. results in a detectable jump in the pressure transient data that are particularly visible in the pressure derivative.1.h. Even when such data are acquired. In that case. However. 11-4.250 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. and average reservoir pressure are frequentlythe parameters sought from a pressure transient test. 11-7. Instead. However. When this occurs for a Homer line correctly identified as a flat trend on a log-log diagnostic plot. the value on the line corresponding to an elapsed time of 1 hr. 11-5 indicates an extrapolated pressure that is succeeded in value by data acquired in late time.6. In Fig. and values for porosity. three values must be determined from the line. c. Solution Permeability. These parameters are easily computed from the line that appears on a semilog plot of the data. EXAMPLE 11-2 Homer plot analysis Reservoir rock and fluid data for the simulated example are the following: B = 1. compressibility. = 6 x was 24 hr. r. s. m. Aq. Use of Fig. The following example illustrates the computation of permeability. is computed from a plot drawn with base 10 logarithms. the late-time pressure derivative data for both the drawdown and the buildup data are constant. The second apparent line on the Homer plot in Fig. The difficulty of maintaining a constant flow rate is avoided when the well is shut in. skin. Table 11-3 provides the equations that describe the flow regimes diagrammed in Figs. 11-9. the buildup data on the log-log plot follow a straight line that has a slope of 114. is 3954 psi. Plhr. as shown in Fig. Derivative responses that are commonly found and readily recognized in transient test data are termed "flow regimes. and r . and the value for p* is 5000 psi. (11-8) is used whenever the slope. 11-2 Well Test Objectives 251 a flat trend for the same data points on the log-log diagnostic plot cannot provide correct values for permeability. 11-5 is -748 psihog cycle. k. m. this factor is 0. the wellbore skin factor.

s 1 evident in drawdown pressure derivative. [1 I Drawdown P r e s w e C h g e Drawdown Pressure Derivative Bu~ldup Pressure Dertvattve Figure 11-7 Comparative diagnostic plot of drawdown and buildup date. . o L1 Surface rate adjustment ofter about 5 min. . I O Buila'up Pressure Chqnge. of flow 00 0 CI .252 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap.. In this plot the pressure change and its derivative for each transient are divided by the flowrate change that induced the transient. 11 1 i I .

22 E =. . 5 3 gE ~ ~ L > L a 3 m a . L m c'S .+2 3 8 0 3 +a 5s.S 2~ g ga tz 2 n QL E . . $zzg 3. 0 m= ggm 5j 5j .-am - % m 0..g.2 : a .2 --3 iigt -03 222 2 . 3 a . 5 3O .21 %?$ g.=a. 2 % 5U G ! 23 .g 3 .5r 2 e a . 9'5.a u r q 8 6q r . u 0 c a .

leveling off. duration is more than 1 log cycle Middle-time slope doubles Late-time slope doubles Wellbore storage (WBS) (fluid expansion/ compression) Finite-conductivity vertical fracture (FCW (bilinear flow) Infinite-conductivity vertical fracture (ICVF) (linear flow) Partial penetration (PPEN) (spherical flow) Infinite-acting radial flow (IARF) Dual porosity with pseudo-steady-state interporosity flow Dual porosity with transient interporosity flow Single sealing fault (pseudo-radial flow) Elongated reservoir (linear flow) 1 4 1 2 Leveling off 1 -2 Increasing 0 Increasing. 11 Pressure Derivative Trends for Common Flow Reaimes Flow Regime . 0 for buildup Constant-pressure boundary (steady state) 0 Late-time pressure changeandderivative are offset by factor of 2. upward trend.256 Table 11-2 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. 0. 0 Steepening I 2 0. 0 I 2 Pseudo-steady-state (fluid expansion1 compression) 1 for drawdown. Pressure Change Slope Pressure Derivative Slope 1 Additional Distinguishing Characteristic Early-time pressure change and derivative are overlain Early-time (after WBS) pressure change and derivative are offset by factor of 4 Early-time (after WBS andlor FCVF) pressure change and derivative are offset by factor of 2 Middle time (after WBS and before I A W Middle-time flat derivative Middle-time valley trend. slope of f occurs much earlier in the derivative 1 for drawdown. 0 increasing Steepening 0. steeply Late-time drawdown descending for buildup pressure change and derivative are overlain. upward trend. slope of 1 occurs much earlier in the derivative steeply descending Cannot be distinguished from pseudo-steady state in pressure buildup data . valley.

h permeability.h Wellbore storage. Lp Time. 4.1592 141.Sec. k / p Mobility-thickness product.c. xf Fracture width. C Skin.1592 ) 1 3. P Mobility.1592 1 / ( 2 ~ = 0. 11-2 Well Test Objectives 259 TABLE 11-4 Units Conversion Factors Preferred API Standard Units dm3/s m pmZ Pa-s pmZ/Pa-s pm2-m/Pa-s Wa kPa m Quantity . Porosity-compressibilitythickness product. pseudo-radial skin. Oilfield Units SI Units STBP ft md C P md/cp md-ft/cp psi psi ft m3/s m mz Pa-s m2/Pa-s m3/Pa-s Pa Pa m cgs Units cm3/s cm dmy C P darcylcp darcy-cdcp atm atm cm production rate. fraction Total system compressibility. b Effective horizontal well length. Ap pressure. @c. s Horizontal well early . s Horizontal well damage skin. q orm mat ion thickness. s. t Porosity.6 x .k Viscosity. ffp hr unitless psi-' ftlpsi bbllpsi unitless s unitless Pa-' m/Pa m3/Pa-s unitless hr unitless Ha-' mM'a dm3/kPa-s unitless s unitless atm-' cm/atm cm3/atm-s unitless a.0002637 1 1/(2n) = 0. k h l p pressure difference. p Radius. r Fracture half-length..2 0. 1/(2n) = 0. w Distance to sealing fault.. L Channel length.

The log-log diagnostic plot in Fig. fig = 0. B. p Pressure Derivativeq z z a z 0 flow rate of 10.260 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. This buildup follows an extended period of flow at 58. E. Since there are no data exhibiting a flat pressure derivative trend. Use of the real-gas pseudo-pressure described by Govier (1975) is recommended for gas well tests. skin. = 0. On the specialized plot in Fig. 11-2 Well Test Objectives 261 EXAMPLE 11-3 Hydraulically fractured well Data from a posttreatment test in a hydraulically fractured well are plotted in Fig.365 ft. An estimate determined for the last few data points provides a maximum value for permeability. the fracture half-length is computed as follows: . 11-10 shows that nearly all of the data lie on a line of slope 112. = 0. 11-10. the pressure dependence of the gas properties can affect the analysis. a successful hydraulic fracture treatment cannot be evaluated by a posttreatment pressure buildup test. At (hr) Figure 11-10 Flow regime identificationon log-log diagnostic plot of data for Example 11-3 Solution This example concerns posttreatment evaluation of a hydraulically fractured well.460 bbl/d is computed using a conversion factor of 5. 11-8 and. Using the equation in Table 11-3. then the posttreatment test provides values for the fracture length andlor the fracture conductivity. Required well and reservoir data are as follows: r . = E.014 cp. average values are used in the analysis for this example. The equivalent 1o0 10' lo2 1o3 lo4 lo5 (t. 11-12. In general.11-9 and in . Determine the hydraulic fracture half-length and conductivity. The Homer plot in Fig. This corresponds to the response labeled linear flow in Figs. which has a slope of m = 4.615 ft3/bbl. because the transient response is dominated by linear flow to the fracture. . an accurate value for permeability cannot be determined from these data. + At) / At Figure 11-11 Estimation of permeability.28 md is determined from the last data points. y. For simplicity. h = 46 ft. TR = 80°F. = 0. = 0. However.00304 psi-'. The pressure derivative in this case is parallel to pressure Change and offset by a factor of 2. 11-11 shows that a value of permeability equal to 0.57. Q = 0. Tables 11-2 and 11-3. and extrapolated pressure on specializedplot of data for Example 11-3.41.0523.135. The actual value may be considerably less. Since this is a gas well. 11 set. if a transient test performed before the treatment provides a value for the formation permeability.75 MSCFId. all but a few late-time data points fit on the same line.

Eq. From Table 11-3: *kf 22rWe-' = (2)(0. 11 Set.365)d4') = 80 ft = (11-14) Using the estimated maximum permeability value. Such fractures should produce a transient response dominated by bilinear and linear flow for several months. this value is a minimum. which serves as a minimum estimate. Figure 11-13 Estimation of vertical fracture conductivity on specializedplot of data for Example 11-3. xf = 121 ft. The value for Api.262 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. For fractures that have effectively infinite conductivity. Further. and the fracture halflength can be severely underestimated for finite-conductivity fractures using this approach. This example shows. although the buildup data were acquired for more than 600 hr. Figure 11-13 shows a bilinear flow specialized plot for the first few data points. k f w = 1930 md-ft. Since the permeability could be less. the pseudo-radial flow regime was still not developed in late time. In this case. Refening to Table 11-3. then fracture length and/or fracture conductivity can be computed 0 from the bilinear and/or linear flow regimes. this equation applies only for infinite-conductivity fractures. determined from Fig. (1 1-14) can rarely be used in practice. 11-2 Well Test Objectives 263 Using the maximum permeability value estimated from the Homer plot. 11-12 is approximately zero. Thus. however.. . a conventional technique for determining fracture half-length from the skin value determined from Homer analysis is discussed in Economides and Nolte (1989): Figure 11-12 Determination of vertical fracture half-length on specialized plot of data for Example 11-3. this indicates that the fracture conductivity is effectively infinite. Massive hydraulic fractures are designed to reach up to 2000-ft half-lengths. perhaps from a pretreatment transient test. that if the permeability has been determined.

the effective radius of investigation may be less if the late-time transient pressure response varies less than the gauge resolution or is distorted by superposition effects.1) and a 1-hr drawdown. 11-14 that can be conducted under open-hole conditions or after casing and perforating. The inclusion of an additional valve in the drillstem some length above the standard downhole shutin valve increases test safety. For the buildup.1 Closed Chamber Test The closed chamber test is a specialized form of a drillstem test shown in Fig. The next section describes techniques for acquiring well test data. the formation is subjected to the pressure in the drillstem. This configuration can thus be an improvement over the standard drillstem test. the type of hardware required.264 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap.during drawdown enhances the buildup interpretation. it is important to know what transient test data look like and how well and reservoir parameters are determined from these data. This will provide terminology that is useful for specifying test requirements. The closed chamber test is programmed as a typical drillstem test sequence lasting 4 to 5 hr. When pressure is recorded both at the sandface and inside the chamber while formation fluids flow into the closed chamber. The formation interval is perforated under mud hydrostatic pressure. (1 1-15)]. Because the pressure in the drillstem is much less than in the formation. 11-3 TEST TYPES The purpose of this section is to describe briefly the list of test types shown in Table 11-5. Each test type listed in Table 11-5 is described. this equation yields a radius of less than 10 ft. a 12-hr drawdown investigates a radius of 3600 ft. For a reservoir with moderate mobility (k/p = 100 md-ft). Additional information on test interpretation is found in Earlougher (1977) and Home (1990). Lee (1982) indicates that the radius of investigation can be computed for any test from the following equation: For a low-mobility reservoir (k/p < 0. The chamber pressure can be lowered before the second flow by opening the - - . including information on the condition at the time of testing. this results in a flow surge that helps to clean the perforations. which can be increased by partially filling the chamber with a water cushion [see Eq. it is possible to estimate ~roduction versus time during drawdown. The closed chamber test equipment may be lowered in a cased hole along with perforating guns. Ehlig-Economides (1992) has provided equations for the area investigated in nomadial geometries. the typical test duration and test radius of investigation. Stanislav and Kabir (1990) have shown that more accurate accounting for production. and objectives that may be addressed. 11 To appreciate the distinction among various testing strategies and what they can deliver. 11-3. When the test valve is opened.

Y = yes. inflow performance. Testing hardware and perforating guns on the same string Transient induced at one depth &d measured at another Design Considerations Flow rate/pressure sensitivity Pulse magnitude and duration Downhole pressure sensor versus surface acoustic device Time to reach stabilization Underbalance determination Test duration. flow-after-flow. (1990b). temperature. commonly. formation fluid sampling Testing hardware usually located in vertical segment Transients initiated by short-rate impulse Multirate test. requires long-duration test Trade-off between impulse duration and pressure sensitivity Flow ratelpressure sensitivity. pressure and rate measured at several depths Transient measurements for a succession of surface flow rates Transient induced in active well and measured in observation well(s) Uses surface pressure and rate as transient data for analysis Transient test in an established production or injection well Design Considerations Chamber and cushion lengths. measurenment depths Magnitude of test flow rates and duration of the flow periods Test duration. pressure sensitivity Computation of downhole rate and pressure from surface measurements Possibility of testing with downhole shutin to avoid excessive wellbore storage TABLE 11-5 (Continued) Types of Modern Reservoir Testsa Measurement conditionb F SI P Distinguishing Characteristics Downhole measurement of pressure and flow rate. production logs. etc. P = pulse. b~ = flow. C = under certain conditions . pressure sensitivity. pressure sensitivity Minimize wellbore storage effects. S = slug. SI = shutin.TABLE 11-5 Types of Modern Reservoir Testsa Measurement conditionb F SI P Distinguishing Characteristics Downhole shutin. test sequence. valve open/shut sequence Flow rate sensitivity Flow and shutin sequence/duration Test Type Closed chamber test Constant-pressure flow test Drillstem test Exploration well test Formation test Horizontal well test Impulse test Multilayer transient test Multirate test Multiwell interference test Production data analysis Production/injection well test S Y Y PVT fluid sample collection Tool module sizing/selection. open or cased hole Special provision for well control and disposal of produced fluids Test conducted on borehole wall. controllable wellbore condition Requires transient flow rate measurement Downhold shutin. checking packer seal Test Type Production log test Pulse test 0) N S Y Y Y Y J Pumped well test Stabilized flow test Testing while perforating Vertical interference test Y Y C Y Y C Y 'Adapted from Ehiig-Economideset al. and (usually) density Multiwell interference test sequence of flow and shutin pulses Downhole pressure measured or computed from liquid-level soundings Includes isochronal.

Reservoir limit tests desimed to sense reservoir boundaries may be of even longer duration. for safety reasons there can be no wireline lowered into the hole. Full-bore drillstem test equipment packages the test equipment in such a way that there is a clear path with the same radius as the drill pipe through the entire test string. 11-15. provided that the test is conducted according to the preprogrammed test sequence. The most common downhole flow rate measurement device is the spinner flow meter found on production logging tool strings. and surface readout of transient data during acquisition. the practical concem is whether the flow rate measurements have sufficient resolution for accurate interpretation. the rate is determined by measuring the volume of fluid in the drillstem as it is retrieved to the surface. well control can focus on known problems. The introduction of wireless telemetry has enabled surface readout during testing without a wireline. a second drawdown for 1 hr and a final buildup for 2 hr. reverse-circulation ports that permit the tool to bypass wellbore fluids while being lowered into or pulled out of the wellbore.but the low sampling rate provided by mechanical gauges limits what can be interpreted from the early-time data. 11-3 Test Types 269 upper chamber valve. With the exception of the closed chamber test. Test radius of investigation and objectives are the same as for any short-term drillstem test equipped with mechanical gauges. the first testing objective is to determine the well flow potential. ideally at the sandface. transient pressure data are recorded downhole and retrieved when the tool is pulled out of the hole. This enables completion operations such as perforation or acid injection to be conducted while the test equipment is in the hole. Downhole shutin minimizes wellbore storageeffects. The objective of the cushion may be to avoid two-phase flow in the formation (below the bubble. When the reservoir pressure is not high for pure water and for cushion pressure in psi and cushion length in ft. Special precautions are taken to see that sand production. - 11-3. In exploration wells. With surface readout. or other unexpected events will not create blowout conditions during the well test.) A back pressure can be applied to the formation at the start of the test by filling part of the drillstem or the chamber in a closed chamber test with water. Electronic pressure records can be programmed for variable sampling rates starting at 1. which is called a cushion. a temporary production facility is required for this kind of testing. the data can be examined on the loglog diagnostic plot described in Section 11-2 to determine when sufficient data have been acquired to satisfy test objectives. Since wells drilled for field development usually exhibit similar flow behavior as in neighboring wells. Required equipment include packers. preventive measures must be prepared for a wide range of potential problems. Mechanical pressure recording has a low maximum sampling rate and limits resolution to about 10 psi. corrosion-causing compounds in the hydrocarbons. along with special safety measures and a means for the disposal of fluids produced. Frequently. Liquid flow open to atmospheric pressure is termed slug flow. continuous measurement of flow rate. 11-3. in theory. the rate during drawdown is not known accurately.2 Constant-Pressure Flow Test The constant-pressuretest (Jacob and Lohman. The main safety concem is well control. Pressure may be recorded mechanically or in battery-powered electronic memory. If there are delays. reservoir pressure. permeability and the total skin factor can be determined. for fluids to flow to the surface. provided downhole flow rates can be computed. an initial shutin for 1 hr. high sampling rate in early time. When permitted. Produced gas is difficult to measure in tests that do not flow to the surface. Electronic pressure gauges and battery-powered memory can achieve much higher resolution than a mechanical gauge. . drillstem tests are conducted with atmospheric pressure in the drillstem. Higher sampling rates afforded by electronic gauges may permit quantification of the radius and permeability of near-well radial damage or partial penetration effects.3 Drillstern Test The drillstem test hardware diagrammed in Fig. Although.4 Exploration Well Test For wildcat and exploration wells drilled to find or delineate newly found reservoirs. Often. As shown in Fig. the flow rate is accurately determined by surface flow rate measurements. When fluids flow to the surface during the drillstem test. the memory may be filled before the actual test is finished. If radial flow occurs during the buildup. ~n some cases. 1952) is distinguished from standard flow tests because the test is initiated with a step change in pressure from one constantpressure value to another instead of the conventional step change in flow rate. a downhole shutin valve. A good test design may be particularly effective for these tests because they may combine the highest testing technologies: high-resolution gauges. The magnitude of the applied back pressure is computed from the length of the cushion: 11-3. 11-14 is lowered with drillpipe or tubing. devices on wirelines may be used to retrieve data from electronic memory during transient acquisition. (This is not the same as the two-phase slug flow described in Chapter 7. but the back pressure with a cushion is usually designed to be small enough to avoid killing the well during flow. The flow and shutin sequence is usually controlled mechanically from the surface. because in exploration the flow behavior and composition of the reservoir fluids is largely unknown. 11-14b.268 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. Drillstem tests in wells that flow to the surface mav have several initial short flows to clean up the perforations followed by an extended drawdown of 12 hr or more and a buildup of 24 hr or more. long duration.or dew-point pressure of the reservoir fluid). 11 Sec. The interpretation methods that have been developed for continuous wellbore flow rate measurement may be used for flow rates measured at the surface. A typical open-hole drillstem test is programmed with an initial flow for 30 min. and a pressure gauge. can provide the same interpretation results as the conventional continuous bottomhole pressure measurement.2-sec sampling at the beginning of each flow period and ending with a few samples per hour or less depending on the transient duration. Downhole flow rates are measured only in cased holes. as in Fig.

adverse and unknown conditions discourage transient testing in an exploration well.5 FormationTest The formation test (Moran and Finklea. 11-15. and limits are sought in the transient response. the wireline formation test is usually performed only in a mud-filled open hole. Such permeability estimates must be used with care. Because the test is usually conducted on a newly drilled well. the perturbation is spherical. Instead. Oil and gas rates are carefully metered during stabilized flow so that the two phases can be recombined later in the same proportions. Hydraulically operated arms press against one side of the borehole. the pressure builds up to the reservoir pressure in a short period of time. The test is terminated by the desired test radius of investigation or the detection of reservoir boundaries. The paths of gas. but unlike most well tests. which occupies much of the test radius of investigation. In some cases. Recent improvements in the wireline formation test tool include the addition of observation probes located opposite the active probe and offset at another depth. the objectives of the test usually focus more on reservoir characterization than on completion evaluation. a stabilized flow test is performed to determine the well flow rate at a measured wellhead pressure. 11-16a. The observation probes permit reliable determination of vertical and horizontal permeability between the source and sink locations and can also characterize partial . reservoir fluids flow into the tool. produced hydrocarbons are often burned. inside which a probe is forced into the formation. Hence. because two-phase flow occurs in the zone of mud fileate invasion from drilling. Frequently. A doughnut-shaped rubber packer provides a seal. and transporting produced fluids. 1962) is not a well test. not radial. 11-16b. and often a hydrocarbon fluid sample is acquired for PVT analysis. providing ameasure of reservoir pressure versus depth. As shown in Fig. When exposed to low pressure. and produced water must be purified for disposal. In some cases. When a valve is shut. reservoir pressure.Sec. real-time surface readout of acquired data is transmitted by satellite from the remote test location to corporate offices for diagnosis and interpretation during acquisition. the pressure measurements represent the static pressure profile with depth for the area in hydraulic communication with the well horizontally. instead of recombining the hydrocarbon samples collected at the surface. and water can be traced in Fig. flow stops and a buildup occurs. This area is independent of the test radius of investigation. separating. 11-3. If a transient test is performed. gathering systems are in place for collecting. 11-3 Test Types 271 Once a field has been put into production. Because the flow is for only a few seconds or minutes. The test radius of investigation is at most only a few feet. they can provide estimates for spherical permeability and sometimes even for horizontal and vertical permeability that are representative only within the test radius of investigation. oil. thus yielding a representative sample of the reservoir fluid. This test is repeated at successive locations. Fluid sampling is done by collecting pressurized hydrocarbon samples from the separator outlets. a special tool is lowered into the well to collect a bottomhole sample. if the transient pressures recorded during the drawdown and buildup are analyzed. However. permeability. In exploration wells. as shown in Fig. forcing the testing device against the opposing side. heterogeneity.

or at least have not been in communication in the recent geologic past.19866. .) . thus extending the test radius of investigation and enabling determinationof more representative permeability values. A device has been developed that senses the phase of fluids withdrawn from the reservoir so that representative samples of reservoir fluids can be obtained. as in Fig. (From Schlumberger.Set. Formation pressure measurements that exhibit an abrupt change with depth. indicate the existence of a barrier to vertical flow. 11-17. and multiple chambers are available that permit collection of fluid samples at more than one depth in one logging trip. Figure 11-17 Formation test measurements and reservoir description.Fluid samples and formation pressure measurements also help to locate barriers to flow. larger flow chambers permit longer flow periods. In addition. there is an indication of impaired or obstructed flow between wells. When pressures vary abruptly from well to well in zones that are correlated in the geological model of the reservoir. Gross changes in fluid composition from one depth to another or from one well to another may suggest that the hydrocarbon samples have different origins. Formation pressure measurements may show clearer indications of vertical andlor areal barriers in wells drilled after the field is put on production and differential depletion effects have become evident in the pressure data. also seen in Fig. 11-3 Test Types 273 barriers to vertical flow. 11-17.

and values for effective production length and standoff) may require several hours. and completion damage. For wells that flow at sufficientlyhighrates. In such a case. 1990. The high conductivity interval is produced with less pressure drop in the wellbore than in the other(s). For all of these reasons. a production log flow survey conducted with coiled tubing can determine what portion of the wellbore length is actually producing. days. Second. Hence.) 11-3. Formation test pressures measured along a horizontal borehole. often show significant pressure variation laterally in the formation. Thus conventional hardware can be used for horizontal well tests. as in Fig. since transient test measurements are acquired in most wells just above the productive interval. These measurements are often an eye opener. a buildup test conducted before the well has been on production may be dominated by wellbore crossflow. While wellbore storage inhibits determination of parameters associated with the earlytime transient behavior (vertical permeability. to enable production of the lower permeability reserves it may be necessary eventually to plug off the depleted zone(s). there may be seven or more parameters affecting the interpretation for a horizontal well in a homogeneous reservoir with no evidence of boundaries. and the standoff (distance of the well from the nearest reservoir bed boundary) may vary along the length of the well. but in addition. which remain at a much higher pressure. Whenever a well with differential depletion among commingled units is shut in. Since there are many factors that threaten the success of horizontal well tests. any point along the horizontal segment of a wellbore is part of the productive interval. drilling damage.274 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. 11 Sec. resulting in wellbore crossflow. an even better plan would be to put the well on production for some time before testing. 11-19. drilling and completion damage). First. as in Fig. 11-19. if .6 Horizontal Well Test Usually. (From Chauvel and Oost. a drawdown test would have a better chance for success. fluids flow from the higher-pressure intervals into the more depleted zones. Finally. For horizontal wells in developed reservoirs as in Fig. the middleand late-time response behaviors (yielding horizontal permeability anisotropy. continuous borehole pressure and flow rate measurements (see the production log test) can be acquired while flowing and used to interpretthe drawdown transient response. a good directional drilling survey can frequently provide an adequate estimate of the standoff. hoek. wells in developed reservoirs should be flowed for a sufficient length of time to equilibrate pressures along the wellbore. Figure 11-19 Horizontal well test configuration. 50 1 0 1000 I I 3000 4000 2000 Measured Depth Along Hole (fl) Figure 11-18 Formation test measurements along a horizontal borehole. 11-3 Test Types 275 Differential depletion occurs when two or more intervals of high permeability contrast are commingled in the well. wellbore storage is an inherent problem in testing horizontal wells. The list of parameters affecting the transient response includes horizontal permeability (normal and parallel to the well trajectory). as mentioned above. Since such a test would be dominated by backflow in the horizontal wellbore as reservoir fluids seek pressure equilibrium. Hence. horizontal well tests frequently provide inconclusive results. Additionally. they signal cause for caution in planning a pressure buildup test too early in the life of a horizontal well. or months to appear in the transient data. careful test design is a must. tests in the pilot hole drilled before kicking off to drill the horizontal borehole segment can yield horizontal and vertical permeability. thus indicating the effective production length. the measurements are usually conducted above the horizontal wellbore. Fourth. and in addition because the test string is frequently too rigid and too long to pass through a curved wellbore. Because of the longer borehole. even for buildup tests conducted with downhole shutin. vertical permeability. 11-18. Otherwise. Third. the producing interval may be effectively much less than the drilled length. counting the wellbore storage coefficient.

As such. as in Fig. Two common types of impulse tests are shown in Fig 11-21. Usually. when multiplied by elapsed time. In practice. the impulse test introduced by Ayoub et al. and its magnitude depends on many factors.the perforations . which.276 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. this type of test is of very short duration (less than 1 hr). 11-3. becomes the form of the pressure derivative used for test interpretation. Hence there is no need to differentiate the data for diagnosis. With all or several of these provisions. and the late-time response is valid only while the pressure variations measured by the gauge are larger than the gauge resolution. Figure 1131a shows a way to achieve the "me" impulse test configuration by running testing equipment along with tubing-conveyed perforatingguns. the rate impulse that can be achieved in a test is not of zero duration. 11 downhole flow rates are not measured.7 Impulse Test In theory. which cannot otherwise be quantified. The practical application of this test has proved to be in testing during underbalanced perforation. early-time information is lost. which is a rate impulse of zero duration and unit magnitude. (1988) replaces the step rate change used to initiate conventional tests. and has a consequently small radius of investigation. 11-20. the buildup test should be conducted with downhole shutin. With sufficientunderbalance. hrs Figure 11-20 Theoretical impulse test sequence. pressure I/( V 0 1 I Time. The resultant pressure response is the pressure derivative with respect to time. with its derivative with respect to time. the horizontal well test has a reasonable chance of providing values for horizontal permeability anisotropy and the damage skin.

11-3. Additionally. as in Fig. pressure measurements are acquired while flowing at a succession of surface rates. and for some reservoirs tests are conducted in all or a number of the wells as part of routine well ahd reservoir production monitoring. Usually flow and pressure are stabilized at each rate before proceeding to the next rate. 11-3. the downholetest valve is shut. 11-21b is not a true impulse test because flow is never actually shut in. the well stops flowing without shutting a downhole valve. the reason for acquiringtransient data at more than one surfacerate involves changingnear-wellbore conditions. 11-3. this test offers a means to determine permeability. Numerical simulation is the only choice when multiphase flow renders the analytical models used for transient test interpretation invalid. Another well condition that results in an apparent rate-dependent skin is in fractured injection wells. By analyzing transient pressure behavior at different production rates. These data are also used for numerical simulation of well flow behavior. The other test configurationin Fig. The duration of wellbore storage in production wells can be significant due to fluid phase redistribution in the wellbore. they help to determine these values. skin. and boundaries on a layer-by-layer basis for layers in a commingled completion. (1988) illustrates how the wellbore storage-dominated period in a production well test was reduced from more than 100 hr with surface shutin to about 2 hr with downhole shutin. Using data processing techniques like those applied in production log testing. it is possible to resolve the apparent skin into the actual damage skin and the rate-dependent part of the skin -due to non-Darcy flow. 11-3. In this case. static pressure. so that radial flow that would require 12 hr or more to overcome in a conventional buildup test appears in a few minutes. analysis of the falloff may not suggest that the well is fractured. Another strategy for determination of fracture parting pressure uses a multirate stabilized flow test. which is an effective means of perforation cleanup. In general.278 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap.. Since these are usually the main values sought in routine production tests. Here. 1987) is designed to evaluate the pressure at which the fracture opens (parts)by detectingfracture parting in the transient data. production log. this is an indication that there is no flow communication between it and the active well. a likelihood because both gas and oil flow in many . These features include late-time hydraulic fracture and horizontal well flow regimes and evidence of far drainage boundaries. the liquid-filled wellbore minimizes wellbore storage effects. the longer is the induced hydraulic fracture.1t Production Data Analysis Wellhead pressure and flow rate data can be used in some wells to estimate downhole transients. Depending on the distances between wells. After a few seconds or minutes. Typically. If the only data acquired are at stabilized conditions. As in Fig. Joseph et al. record transient pressures that result from changes in flow rate in the active well. 11-22. which is (are) shut in during the test.8 Multilayer Transient Test The multilayer transient test is described in Ehlig-Economides(1987). The technique of flowing the well for a very short time has been particularly attractive in wells that are likely to produce sand. and stabilized testing and analysis. such data can be used for permeability and skin determination and evaluation of changing skin over time. This technique has been particularly effective in overpressured gas wells for which underbalance is achieved by displacing drilling mud with diesel oil. 11-21a. Thus. these tests require at least a week and are conducted only with careful planning and design. 11 Set.12 Production! Injection Well Test A transient test can be conducted by lowering sensors into the cased well or through production tubing. the transient data must be acquired for long enough to detect this flow regime. The advent of reliable downhole shutin tools that can be lowered on a wireline or slick line has significantly improved the quality of the data that can be acquired in production wells by minimizing wellbore storage. and often the last part of the pressure variation is less than the gauge resolution. 11-3. the perforations are conveyed on a wireline perforating device equipped with a pressure gauge. This can be done at any time in many production or injection wells. In all but very-high-permeability reservoirs.9 Multirate Test In a multirate test. the time required for a measurable pressure interference response is significant. the higher the injection pressure (rate). The two-rate injection test (Singh et al. Once the air volume has been compressed to the maximum. Wellbore damage and the reservoir pressure in the well drainage volume are computed from the radial flow regime in the transient data. interference tests require sufficient duration for the radius of investigation of the disturbance caused by rate changes in the active well to be sensed by gauges in the observation well(s). dependingon the test design.particularly rate-dependent skin. particularly in high-permeability formations. This technique works only during periods of uneventful production and when the fluid content of the wellbore during flowing conditions permits s&ightfonvard estimation of the downhole pressure from surface pressure data. the multirate test is equivalent to a stabilized flow test. such data can provide characterization of features that require a transient test duration that exceeds the practical limit. the test is conducted while perforating underbalanced. as describedin Chapter 5. By combining techniques for multirate. A small pocket of air in the lubricator used for lowering the wireline tool is compressed when fluids flow into the wellbore immediately after perforating. If no response is observed in an observation well. The subsequent pressure transient lasts up to 1-2 hr. Gauges in the observation well(s). but sometimes radial flow is visible in the impulse diagnostic plot after about 15 min. Because such models may be sensitive to reservoir and well parameters.10 Multiwell Interference Test A multiwell interference test requires at least one active well and one or more observation wells. The active well is flowed and then shut in. 11-3 Test v p e s 279 begin flowing once the interval is shot. For gas wells. When such wells are shut in. the fracture due to injection may close partially or completely.

or vertical permeability for a partially penetrated formation. with each drawdown/buildup sequence lasting only a few hours. This technique is termed a production log test. The installation of a landing nipple in the tubing shoe. 11-22c. 11-22b. superpositioneffects may make the interpretationof the data somewhat more complex. Completion evaluation and characterization of heterogeneity or boundaries inside the test radius of investigation are possible test objectives. at the time the well is completed permits testing with downhole shutin later in the life of the well. even if the production at the sandface is single phase. since wells on production usually have multiphase flow near the wellbore. As shown in Fig. skin. permeability. and is feasible in wells that flow at sufficiently high rates. However. interpretation of the transient data may require advanced techniques. the transient data are acquired with a production logging tool that is positioned just above the sandface. If wellbore storage effects have not ended before the effects of interferingwells appear in the transient response. determination of skin and reservoir pressure is much more difficult. 1983)refers to amultiwell interferencetest in which the active well is repeatedly pulsed. . 11-3.Sec. and reservoir pressure frequently can be determined from a test lasting less than 10 hr. As described in Chapter 12. Otherwise. Kuchuk (1990) and Ehlig-Economides et al.13 Production Log Test The production log test combines a production log acquired while the well is flowing and/or shut in with a drawdown andlor buildup transient test for which both pressure and flow rate are measured continuously at the sandface. Another alternative is to measure continuously both pressure and flow rate at the sandface using a production logging tool. 11-3 Test Types 281 production wells. When downhole flow rates are acquired continuously during drawdown. 11-22c. the production log provides the velocity and phase of fluids entering the wellbore versus depth. as in Fig. the test configurations. and sensor requirements are l i e those of the conventional interference test. boundary effects that appear in the late-time response are less susceptible to superpositioneffects that can introduce errors in the transient data interpretation. With downhole shutin or continuous pressure and flow rate monitoring. (1990a) describe how the convolution or deconvolution derivative of the transient pressure and flow rate measurements provides an analog to the pressure derivative that resembles the signal that could be acquired from a buildup test with a downhole shutin valve at the same depth as the flow rate measurement. 11-3. Access to the early-time transient response enables determination of near-wellbore components of skin such as the radius and permeability of a radial damage zone around the well. as in Fig.14 Pulse Test The term "pulse test" (Kamal.objectives. Although the frequency of the pulses makes the response more easily identified in the observation well(s). Parts of a perforated interval that do not produce may indicate nonproductive sands or plugged perforations. This measurementhelps to determine the formation thickness and/or the penetration ratio that should be used in the transient interpretation.

11-23. Theoretically. 11 -3 Test Types 283 Testing in a sucker-rod pump is inhibited by the pump assembly in the tubing. In this way. will be approximately equal for each stabilized flow measurement.15 Pumped Well Test Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. if pressure is sensed at the sandface. and the productivity index for single-phase reservoir flow. Some wells are specially completed with a Y-tool for this purpose. In gas wells this procedure is called a "back-pressure test. the pressure at the sandface can be computed.17 Testing While Perforating When perforating guns are run along with drillstem. In the absence of a pressure gauge measurement. as shown in Section 11-2. Thus. As the liquid level rises in the annulus. The pulse reflected off the gasiliquid interface in the annulus returns to the acoustic receiver. or modified isochronal tests. and is readily distinguishedfrom reflections due to casing collars. For wells that flow at sufficiently high rates. As shown in Fig. Figure 1 1-23 Testing in a well equipped with a rod pump. but measures both stabilized pressure and the stabilized flow profile each time stabilized flow conditions are reached. An acoustic pulse is regularly transmitted in the annulus. formation fluids flow into the annulus. The strategy of making stabilized pressure measurements for flow periods of equal duration defines an "isochronal" deliverabilitytest. A Transient pressure data can be acquired with a downhole gauge in wells produced with an electric submersiblepump (ESP). isochronal. 11-3. When stabilized flow conditions are established." Such tests provide direct measurement of the inflow performance relationship. which prevents downhole shutin or the lowering of a gauge to the formation depth (except a slim gauge or a permanent gauge installed with the completion). Pressures are usually recorded after a few hours in flow-after-flow tests. (1990b).282 11-3. The presence of the pressure . This technique uses the same test sequence as for flow-after-flow. The "flow-after-flow test" consists of a series of flow tests at a succession of surface rates. With this strategy. This limitation can and should be remedied by taking care to record the pressures after the same length of time following the change of surface rate. and parting pressures in water injection wells. the same parameters that can be determined for a single layer using conventional stabilized flow analysis can be determined for each layer in a commingled completion. The acoustic measurements are frequently sufficiently accurate for monitoring reservoir pressure and well productivity and for permeability determination. In practice. Further. or wireline testing equipment. (1981). these tests cannot be used to quantify most of the well and reservoir parameters that can be determined from analysis of a transient test. In addition. the liquid flow rate *to the annulus can be computed." published by Stewart et al. 11 Sec. 11-3. the well can be tested just after perforating. the information learned from a stabilized test can be determined more efficiently from a transient test in which both pressure and flow rate are measured continuously in the wellbore. the initial response is a lengthy period of wellbore storage. these measurementsare frequentlyrecorded when the well is in radial flow. Interpretationof continuously measured sandface pressure and flow rate is described in Joseph et al. Stabilized test data acquisition requires considerable time. and the measurements are rarely made in the appropriate stabilized condition for rigorous analysis. The "step rate test" is used in water injection wells to determine the parting pressure for an unpropped hydraulic fracture induced during injection. (1988) and Ehlig-Economides et al. these measurements can be used to quantify turbulenceor non-Darcy flow coefficients in producing wells. Shot at surface Length x No. permits direct measurement of inflow performance on a layer-by-layer basis. when the well is shut in. the test area of investigation. although it is changing. its depth versus time is determined by the acoustic reflections. Stanislav and Kab'ir (1990) have described how even multiphase flow from the formation can be resolved. often lasting for several days. which means that the test area of investigation is still expandingat the time of the stabilized flow measurement. results of such tests apply in the fixed area inside the well drainage boundary. the flowing bottomhole pressure is recorded. Knowing the annular volume per unit depth. an acoustic technique can be used.16 Stabilized Flow Test A stabilized flow test measures the bottomhole flowing pressure at one or more surface flow rates. The "selective inflow performance test. tubing-conveyed. knowing the density of the liquid produced.

g. A gauge that senses and records pressure variation without any electrical power source is termed a mechanical gauge. it may be necessary to check the gauge calibration before and after the measurements. and thereby changes its resistance. The sapphiregauge 11-4. and is usually of short duration to minimize costs. or even from opening and shutting flow in the well. and additional errors are introduced in recording the data. or the gauge may be destroyed. 11-3. The advantage of this technology is that the distortion and relaxation in response to changes in pressure are less complex for the crystal than for metallic substances used in conventional strain gauge transducers. 1969) is designed to permit production at one depth in a well and observation at another depth. although trends measured by the gauges may be similar. Modem gauges rely on pressure transducers that convert a mechanical displacement induced by a change in pressure to an electrical signal. Similar measurements are possible with the multiprobe formation test shown in Fig. only the maximum wellbore pressure was measured using a Bourdon gauge or a device capable of recording the liquid level in the well.. The electrical signal can be stored in a downhole memory device or transmitted to acquisition computers at the surface via wireline telemetry. With current flowing through the strain gauge. Many types of transducers are used in electronic gauges. The vertical interference test conducted in the completed well can have an arbitrarily large radius of investigation dependent on the duration of the test. 11-16b. f psi) or as a relative error such a ratio of the error to the gauge output. The pressure gauge must be able to withstand the shock of the perforation shots. Often. the quartz transducer resonating frequency shifts in proportion to the stress on a crystal that is linked mechanically to a force-summingelement. This can provide a measure of the vertical permeability in a given layer or the vertical permeability of a low-permeability bed between two higher-permeabilitybeds. When a change in pressure alters the sapphire crystal. The Hewlett-Packard gauge. Just as a timepiece relies on the constant vibrational frequency of a resonating quartz crystal. after correcting all pressures to a common datum. the gauge reading may be in error. Table 11-6 compares various gauges on the basis of some of these characteristics. Gauge accuracy is apparent whenever more than one gauge is run at the same time. Pressure gauges do not exactly reproduce the wellbore pressure. The resistors found in strain gauges are composed of wire. As with multiwell interference testing. and completion skin. particularly when subject to pressure shocks that may be produced by perforating guns. At first.1 Range Pressure gauges are designed to perform up to a certain maximum pressure. Most gauges need frequent calibration to maintain accuracy. The test provides reservoir pressure. whether in a downhole memory device or at the surface via wireline telemetry. or bellows. Gauge accuracy may be specified 2 as a maximum absolute error (e. was recently introduced to improve on the strain gauge technology by depositing a strain gauge bridge circuit on a box-shaped sapphire crystal. the displacement of which changes the length of the resistor. 11-4 Pressure Gauge Characteristics 285 gauge can also provide information that can help to monitor completion operations. absolute values may be different. the circuit resistance is altered. one or more of the gauges may be out of calibration. The principle of a capacitance transducer is that the displacement in the force-summingelement in the gauge causes a change in capacitance instead of resistance as in the case of the strain gauge. except that the vertical interference test is conducted after completion. thus lengthening the tube. thin film. Gauges can lose calibration while downhole. For high accuracy. foil. permeability. The principle behind a strain gauge is an electrical resistor mounted to a force-summing device such as a Bourdon tube. This type of test is run primarily on development wells. Outside the specifiedrange. or semiconductormaterial. Temperature-compensated quartz gauges have been recently introduced that provide correction for temperature effects by sensing the temperature with the same crystal as that which senses the pressure. a diaphragm. Following is a list of pressure gauge characteristics and their potential effects on test results. This gauge uses a vibrating quartz crystal for $e transducer. The movement of the coil is recorded by a stylus that makes a fine scratch on a metal plate with a black coating. but leaks behind the casing are difficult to assess and can cause erroneous interpretation of the transient data. expressed as a percent. Impulse and closed chamber tests can both be conducted during perforating. . Gauges can be calibrated to provide a correct reading with a dead-weight tester.2 Accuracy Accuracy refers to how close the gauge reading is to the actual pressure to be sensed. Wellbore pressure measurements were introduced in the 1920s. introduced by Amerada. The disadvantageof the original HewleaPackard gauge was its sensitivity to temperature. Pressure gauge characteristics are important to both test design and interpretation. introduced in 1972. the resistance is calibrated to dead-weight pressure. This principle was used in the first continuously recording downhole gauges. One practical drawback with this test type is that the pressure differential between the active and observation depths can cause leaks behind the casing or across the packer used to separate the two points in the wellbore. some vertical interference tests are conducted using rate pulses instead of a lengthy drawdown/buildup sequence. offers much greater accuracy than any of the above gauges. When the differencesin the gauge readings are greater than reported gauge accuracy values. 11 Sec.18 Vertical Interference Test The vertical interference test configuration (Bums.284 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. A Bourdon gauge consists of a helical tube that uncoils as pressure is increased on the fluid in the tube. 11-4. whereas the multiprobe formation test is performed in an open hole. The test design should include provision to check for packer leaks. such as a float or a sonic echo. It is important not to attempt to use absolute pressure measurements for applications that require accuracy beyond what is practically feasible.

000 psi 175°C 175°C 15.50 psi 0.0 psi) reading + 0. 10 min est.A.A.2 psi in 7 days < 0.A. (1992) Mechanical Gauge Advantages Reliable Simple Rugged Metal Strain Gauge Improved resolution Fast p response Rugged and small Capacitance Gauge Sapphire Gauge Standard Quartz Gauge Best resolution Best stability Best accuracy Compensated Quartz Gauge Best resolution Best stability Best accuracy Best dynamics Higher pressure range More electronics Cost Greater stability Improved stability Lower power requirement Improved accuracy Fast p.5 psi) zk (0.Table 11-6 Pressure Gauge Comparison Chart.05 psi 0.003 psi 0. and Note 2: These figures are based on Schlumberger laboratory and field test data. from Villa et al.1 psilweek 10 min est.20 psi 0.000 psi 11.0 psi) Table 11-6 (Continued) Pressure Gauge Comparison Chart. .025% of reading + 2.000 psi 175°C 20. N. from Villa et al. f (0.15 psi 0. N.1 psilweek < 0. 0.A.000 psi 175°C Moderate temperature Poor dynamic sensitivity response High-temperature sensitivity Limited psi range Cost 20.001 psi - N.001 psi N. 10 min Low-medium Note 2 6 min 25 min High Note 2 Always within 1 psi Stable within 25 sec High Note 2 Note 1: These are estimated figures based on published l~terature manufacturers' commercial data.A. 12 psi 10 psi 6 psi 5 psi 4 psi N.2 psi in 18 days f 0. A. T response Good resolution Very rugged Disadvantages N % Maximum range Poor resolution Moderate stability Poor dynamic response Poor stability Moderate accuracy Slower sampling Poor accuracy Moderate T-response Temperature and Tedious to read time vibration sensitivity Pressure hysteresis 20.10 psi 18 psi 12 psi 10 psi 0.05 psi N.000 psi 175°C Resolution (full scale and sampling time): (analog chart) 20 kpsi and 1 sec 5 psi 15 kpsi and 1 sec 2 psi 10 kpsi and 10 sec 2 psi Accuracy 20 psi 20 kpsi 15 psi 15 kpsi 10 psi 10 kpsi - 0.A.2 psi f 0.000 psi 200°C 20. Low Note 1 30 sec 10 min Low Note 2 8 min 40 min Medium-high Note 1 20 sec est.10 psi 0.20 psi 0. (1992) Mechanical Gauge Drift (10 kpsi and 150°C): first day first 4 days Long term Stabilization time: After a 5-kpsi step After a 10°C step Relative cost Notes Metal Strain Gauge Capacitance Gauge Sapphire Gauge Standard Quartz Gauge Compensated Quartz Gauge - 5 psi 10 psi 5 psilweek < 2-10 psi < 3-12 psi < 2-4 psilweek < 3 psi < 5 psi f 1-7 psilweek < 3 psi < 1 psilweek < 5 psi < 2 psi < 0.01% of N. f (0. 0.01% of reading + 2.20 psi 0.

11-4 Pressure Gauge Characteristics I 289 Another characteristic. The limits of gauge resolution are more evident in data sampled at a high rate. such as that shown in Fig. an insufficient number of bits allotted for wireline telemeny or for downhole data storage can reduce the resolution below what the gauge can deliver. Sometimes. 11 I I Sec.44 0.3 predicts the expected pressure variation. This. Aq. B. in such wells. The stair-step appearance results as the gauge reports discrete values approximating the actual signal. Also related to accuracy and calibration is the gauge repeatability. may increase the pressure change. Alternatively. The latest technology has packaged both sensors in the same crystal. the effectiveness of the temperature com~ensation constrained by the differences in temperature between the locations of the pressure and temperature sensors. Since usually the electronic gauge response is digitized. where m is computed using the equation in Table 11-3a with the design values for Aq. If the gauge could somehow be isolated from the surrounding temperature.42 0. Errors in pressure measurement associated with temperature variation are most evident in gas well transient tests. Ap. its accuracy will decline for measured pressure values far from the calibration pressures. When the gauge response is not sufficiently linear. The response time for quartz gauges is lengthened due to temperature sensitivity. an increase in the flow rate change. 11-24. - 11-4. For a large step. the variation in pressure associated with the reservoir response is small due to the high mobility of gas. Some gauges exhibit hysteresis. sufficiently to exceed the gauge resolution. in reality. or its ability to reproduce the same reading when subjected to the same conditions. This is tested by running two successive calibration cycles. and h. the gauge linearity.41 0. The variation in the pressure transient response should be large compared to the gauge resolution. However. The quality of the data can be improved by filtering out the high-frequency variation in the data. low precision in pressure data is a result of how the data are acquired. is a measure of how close the gauge calibration is to a straight line.43 0. The test simulation described in Section 11-5. 11-4. Hence. the second source of temperature change can never be eliminated completely. as shown by the dotted line.4 0. some gauges register a pressure change when. The pressure variation between any two times during the radial flow regime can be predicted for a given test design with the following equation: A* = *m log I I I I I I I I I 1 (z) 0. not the resolution of the gauge itself. so that a gauge with sufficient precision can be selected that will avoid this kind of response. only temperature has changed while pressure remained constant. and the pressure response is compensated by correcting for the known behavior of the temperature-related was errors. and assumed values fork. There are two sources of gauge errors associated with temperatures.01 psi for high-resolution gauges to *2 psi for some mechanical gauges. the thermodynamic properties of the gauge imply a temperature change associated with any pressure change. First. the first source of temperature error could be eliminated.45 I Time (hr) Figure 11 -24 Transient data with pressure variation less than the gauge resolution. I*. that is. some gauges have built-in temperature sensors. even for reservoirs with moderately low permeability.288 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap.4 Response Time Response time refers to the length of time required for the gauge to indicate the pressure following a step change. Frequently. gauges may require from a few seconds to a few minutes.3 Resolution Resolution or precision refers to what minimum change in pressure can be sensed by the gauge and ranges from +0. the gauge response is different when calibrated with increasing pressures than with decreasing pressures. once wellbore storage has diminished. Second. eliminating a lag in the temperature compensation that previously degraded considerably the quartz gauge response time in variable temperature conditions. The gauge sensitivity is a ratio of the change in transducer output to a change in pressure. Highly linear response implies the need for only two calibration points to specify the gauge response completely. In quartz crystal gauges. .

Data recorded in a downhole memory device may be sampled at a lower rate in order to be able to record data over a long period of time without expending the memory capacity. or sbuctural interrelationships. the completion is a major factor in what is observed in the transient data. typically lasting only a few minutes. nonconfonnities. they should be tested separately to provide the most meaningful results. the hydrocarbon-bearing interval can be organized into flow units based on expected fluid flow behavior. boundaries. 11-26. Some downhole processors . and perhaps reservoir drive mechanisms. may enable the interpreter to quantify additional near-well features or to detect more distant heterogeneities. or even once a day. The obvious measure of gauge stability is whether it provides the same calibration from one time to another. Because early-time pressure variations are normally well in excess of gauge drift. and it controls which flow units are tested. Figure 11-25 suggests how to organize the main considerations in test design. and this is common in data acquired at the surface in real time. For well testing. The magnitude of gauge drift ranges from less than 0. bilinear. the success of this technique relies on execution of the test according to plan. while the data usually associated with radial. Accounting for known information about the completion enables more realistic expectations in the test design.7 Shock Resistance Testing while perforating or stimulating puts additional demands on a gauge.290 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. stratigraphic. linear. Seeking this information before testing helps one to develop realistic test objectives and ensures that it is available when the transient data are interpreted. and with known or hypothesized boundary shape and behavior. Flow unit boundaries can include barriers such as faults. 11-5. 11-4.6 Sampling Rate The highest data rate seen in most tests is one pressure sample per second. Since different flow units have different permeabilities. Having addressed many of the selections available to the test design. e. 11-4.. A borehole image derived from televiewer. A geologist may be able to estimate areal extent and continuity of various flow units based on the understanding of their likely depositional. or boundary-limit flow regimes are often sufficiently defined with data sampled once an hour. it is difficult to read the data at intervals of less than 1 min. 11 Sec. such as for reservoir limits. However. After an hour or so.5 psi/d for strain gauges to 2 psi/d for capacitance gauges. In reality. and it will help to avoid interpretation conclusions that are inconsistent with external data. and impermeable beds.g. Seismic data may suggest the location of the areal flow unit limits and the geometry of the bedding surface. communication with another flow unit such as a partially sealing fault or a leaking shale bed. Formation tests. For test design. quartz gauges favor long-term testing. Since the analog response from a mechanical gauge is digitized manually. the more ~ g g e gauges do not employ the most accurate transducer technology. This requires a look at external data about the formation. since the response patterns in pressure transient data are viewed as a function of the logarithm of elapsed time. Temperature errors affect the early-time response most detrimentally. derived mainly from openhole log data and completion information. if its magnitude is comparable to the pressure variation being measured. the interpreted response may be more representative of gauge characteristics than reservoir characteristics. 11-4. A problem associated with transducer stability is the phenomenon of gauge drift. 11-5 Test Design 291 coupled with the increase or decrease in temperature associated with gas compression or expansion. are capable of filtering the recorded response to include only those changes that exceed a certain rate of pressure variation or other related criteria. This problem is important for reservoir limit testing in high-mobility reservoirs. The pressure shock that may be associated with these operations may render a gauge inoperable d or may at least affect its calibration. temperature is normally stable during testing. Gauge calibration should be updated periodically to maintain high accuracy. water-oil. this section suggests ways to facilitate the decision-making process. or core photographs can be particularly helpful for defining a vertical flow unit partition and detecting a likelihood of permeability anisotropy due to natural fractures or laminations as in Fig. A flow unit is a rock volume with identifiable internal fluid flow characteristics (including heterogeneity or anisotropy) that can be modeled. in turn.1 psild for quartz gauges to 1. a logarithmic variation in sampling rate is implied.1 Defining the Test Interval The first step in test design is to determine what is being tested. Since the drift represents a continuous change in the gauge response. and fluid contacts (gas-oil. pseudo-radial. Modem downhole recording equipment can be programmed to achieve a variable sampling rate that enables accurate representation of the early-time response. This.5 Stability The stability of a transducer is its ability to retain its performance characteristics over time. results in temperature-caused errors that can dominate the pressure response. In general. near-wellbore characterization is not affected by this potential source of error. require a high sampling rate. the main issue is to ensure that the sampling rate is sufficiently high to provide adequate representation of the transient response sought in the test objective. The feasibility of near-wellbore characterization based on the early-time response is dependent on appropriate gauge selection. during testing. Thus. The net result is that most tests have a surplus of data. The calibration for mechanical gauges and strain gauge transducers is known to drift over time. gas-water). Completion and near-wellbore characterization require enough data in the first few minutes to define the transient trends. resistivity. Using the logs. mechanical properties.

11-5.2 Test Specification 2 gz. 11-5 Test Design 293 Figure 1 1 -26 Borehole image showing natural and drilling-inducedfracturesin a laminated carbonate formation. coupled systems and net present value economic analyses may demonstrate the cost effectiveness of testing for parameters required to optimize the completion.) The internal characteristicsof the flow unit to be tested. and reservoir drive mechanisms that may be visible in transient data. If no parameters are identified as economically essential test objectives. define a conceptual model for each test interval. the merits of performing measurements during the . I-n The essential considerationsin the test specification step are to define objectives and to select a test type or technique.i Sec. coupled with an anticipated or actual completion or stimulationgeometry. its expected vertical and areal delineations. 1986a. FQ El- i. or stimulation design can use the same model. The conceptual model for the test interval can help indicate what are the unquantified parameters that a transient test or a production log survey might provide. Further. (From Schlumberger.

Sometimes an alternative test design can greatly increase what can be expected from the . When a test is conducted without surface readout. the test can be terminated as soon as the required data have been acquired or can be extended if necessary. One purpose of test design simulation is to anticipate when a longer test is or may be needed. and the magnitude and direction of planned surface rate changes. V.17 ft/s2 lb. In this way. For example. On land.c ffw ffl bbllft bbl 32.A(t~a)~~/ff. the test can be simulated under various possible test sequences using modem computerized well test analysis tools. the necessity for downhole shutin or downhole flow rate measurement is readily justified with a test simulation. only about one-half a log cycle of radial flow will be developed. test initiation. 11 Sec. clear objectives. In such cases.) for C = Vwcw for single-phase fluid 50ff.3 Test Sequence With a conceptual model or models of what the transient test may encounter. Even with surface readout. it is not an unusual requirement that the entire test sequence must be completed during one day. V .. and same well and reservoir conditions as above End of linear flow to vertical fracture Change of slope for sealing boundary Start of pseudo-steady state aFromEariougher (1977). if determination of vertical permeability from a partially penetrated formation is sought from the test. When presented as a log-log diagnostic plot. Acceleration of gravity.$$e~.k $Jl. the simulated test data reveal whether patterns sensitive to parameters sought in the test objectives are present. such as during cleanup of the well. changes of rate or the onset of a buildup frequently must be planned during daylight hours. Further.g. Barring other constraints. the test is often programmed to follow certain standard procedures. a sufficient test length can be planned that ensures the establishment of the essential radial flow regime.294 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. When data required for the simulation can be retained in a database for subsequent interpretation of the test. Sometimes daylight is a factor in planning a test sequence. if radial flow begins after 4 hr. The three main factors to consider are flow period duration(s).~~~L~/afk d~c. if determination of horizontal permeability is also desired from the same transient test. where C = 1changing liquid level. If. the sensitivity to these values of the length of various flow regimes of interest can be evaluated. many or all of the steps in the test sequence must be planned in advance. 11-5 Test Design 295 completion and/or stimulation procedure should be explored as inexpensive means for acquiring additional data about the formation that may be useful for reservoir characterization or posttreatment productivity evaluation. and a selected test type.016$Jpc. In each of these cases.8 m/s2 kg/m3 Pa-' 1 1 1 dm3/m dm3 9. This discussion applies for any sort of test objective.g.a. such devices can even be programmed not to acquire any data during certain periods.17 9. so that data are sampled adequately in early time. test.5s) $$./cu. but often the program can be altered if necessary. Some downhole recorders can be programmed to increase the samplingrate at a predetermined elapsed time after the start of the test sequence.x. or when running the equipment in and out of the hole. it is recommended that one establish a plan before going to the well site and try to stick to the plan if possible. if determining the horizontal permeability within an acceptable transient duration is judged to be feasible. p Wellbore fluid compressibility. and (Pg. However. g Liquid density. it is important to remember that the flow regimes of interest are established with respect to the logarithm of elapsed time. the test must continue for two to three times this duration (e. Wellbore volume.869 x 105 1 . masked by wellbore storage or requiring a longer test duration. By varying unknown values. 10-12 hr) to provide a well-defined radial flow regime. One useful step is to simulate the test using whatever parameters are known and estimating the others.8 m/s2 kg/m3 kPa-' 113600 lo4 1 cm2 cm3 980 cm/s2 g/cm3 atm-' 1 gc 32.k Flow period duration@). Table 1 1-7b Units Conversion Factors (See Table 11-4) Preferred API Standard Units Quantity Oilfield Units SI Units cgs Units Wellbore volume per unit length. because of wellbore storage. Hence. Such constraints can greatly inhibit the feasibility of certain test objectives. Tests run with continuous surface readout of acquired transient data permit examination during testing of the transient data. 11-5. Table 11-7 provides equations that can be used to estimate the time required Table 11-7a Flow Regime Durations for Test Designa Time Mark Expression End of wellbore storage for drawdown or injection for well with no vertical fracture and homogeneous reservoir without natural fractures End of wellbore storage for buildup or falloff. this is a useful exercise that is not time consuming. radial flow is not visible for more than 10 hr. a family of simulations can be generated for the known total thickness and the known penetrationratio and for various values of vertical and horizontalpermeability values within an expected range./ft3 psi-' 3387 144 m2 m3 9. The test plan can optimized to achieve certain objectives when it has been laid out in advance. aw(60+ 3.'~~ 0. termed real-time test validation. Additionally. the test must be continued for 20 to 30 h. To conserve downhole memory.

because of a need to continue with other scheduled tasks. the main design concems are the magnitude of each change and its direction. EXAMPLE 11-4 Test design for a horizontal well pilot hole A horizontal well is planned in a fully developed field in which the vertical wells have reduced productivity due to water coning. that distortion due to superposition is absent in the buildup if the late-time flow regime is radial flow. it may be helpful to bring the well back on production as soon as possible at about the same rate and maintain the well in stabilized flow for a long enough period of time to render negligible the effects of the brief shutin. The selection will be among the test string and gauge options described in this chapter and new equipment yet to be introduced. Average values for porosity and horizontal permeability are 0.296 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. Having taken steps to carefully define the test objectives and to investigate their feasibility. The direction of the change refers to whether the planned change will increase or decrease flow. respectively. such problems may be avoided. testing hardware will be proposed by one or more service companies. The best way to determine the vertical permeability may be the multiprobe formation test. Since continuous pressure measurements are usuallv more accurate than flow rate measurements. the step rate change is preferred. Several of the test types described in this chapter can provide data that can be used to determine vertical permeability. 11-5. The same comments apply even for tests that may not flow to the surface. A large rate change results in a transient response least affected by superposition effects. because after the pilot hole log has been interpreted on the well . An explanation for the low vertical permeabilities in a well may be that it penetrates a shale lens that acts as a partial flow barrier. The oil (which is highly undersaturated with a solution gas-oil ratio. If so. In general. superpositioneffects are inversely related to the magnitude of the change in rate. whether the flow is increased or decreased. Using techniques in Chapter 7. the vertical permeability will probably be controlled by the sand properties.. 11-5 Test Design 297 for various flow regimes to develop that can be used in place of a complete test design simulation. For formation and drillstem tests. in that case. the well has not yet been flowed. Further. it is recommended to have the well shut in a day ahead of testing. including the well flow history in the computation of superposition time accounts for the superpositioneffects due to the well itself. the shutin condition is established before the beginning of the test.1 md.4 Hardware Selection Frequently. It is important to realize. Design a testing program to measure vertical and horizontal permeability in a 7 718-in. recent activity in the well to be tested and possibly in neighboring wells can cause superposition effects in the transient response. Solution Further investigation about the formation to be tested and attempts to simulate the coning behavior in nearby wells have provided values for vertical permeability as low as 0. because for a long horizontal well. informed decisions are ensured. A transient response can be initiated by either a step change in rate or a step change in pressure. If this is not practical. even with continuous surface readout.drawdown testing with continuous downhole pressure and flow rate measurement is advantageous. the test for vertical permeability should avoid the shale if possible. it is best to minimize these effects. R. the rate must be sufficiently high to produce a response that is well above the resolution of the pressure gauge selected. equal to 40 SCFISTB) is 20°API.-diameter pilot hole to be drilled vertically through the pay thickness before drilling the horizontal segment. Planning the rate sequence. it is also important to plan how to begin. but handling superpositionis less straightforward. At the same time. Computations assuming infinite-acting radial flow for nearby wells that interfere with the transient response permit further correction for areal superpositioneffects but these computations are somewhat complex and error prone. Since the test simulation indicates the expected variations in pressure with time. and reservoir temperature and pressure are 198°F and 4150 psi. but most wells show values near 5 md. This asuect concerns both the vertical lift characteristicsof the wellbore and the selection of sensors for transient acquisition. Superposition effects are inherently more significant when the flow rate is decreased.23 and 20 md. Besides anticipating how to end a test. the cushion is designed to avoid multiphase flow but to permit sufficient pressure variation to be detectable by an available pressure gauge. The test sequence design indicates at what flow rates the test should be conducted. in some cases this exercise may suggest selection of a higher-resolutiongauge. Test initiation. It is usually not possible. Data from surrounding wells indicate good correlation of the pay zone with some intermittent shales and an oil zone thickness of 80 ft underlain by a 40-ft water zone. respectively. If the need to test for an extended period is justified in advance. For reservoir limit characterization. but for production tests. 11 Sec. In general. In that case. Ehlig-Economidesand Ramey (1981) showed that analogous interpretationprocedures can be derived for constant-pressuretesting and for pressure buildup tests that follow constantpressure production. Optimum values for the horizontal well drilled length and standoff (above the oil-water contact) depend on the vertical permeability of the formation. however. If the well was flowingjust before preparing to lower the tool in a shutin condition. to extend a test planned for less than a day to several days. because this avoids the inherent distortion due to superposition that occurs in late-time buildup data whenever there are boundary effects leading to a departure from the radial flow regime in late time . In other cases. Whichever control mechanism is used. However. One procedure to consider concems lowering the tool into the hole. predictions of downhole pressure for various surface flow rates are used to select a rate that should avoid multiphase flow in the formation. superpositioneffects are less when the flow is stopped altogether than for a decrease from one nonzero rate to another. Flow tests conducted with continuous downhole pressure and flow rate measurement will be less affected by interference from nearby wells than pressure buildup or falloff tests. Often the well cannot be flowing while the tool enters the hole. large expected pressure variation may permit use of a lower-resolution gauge with little penalty in the final interpretation result.

This test will produce water and oil. 11-28b. the tool can be positioned to test the sand vertical permeability as in Fig. These measurements will also yield horizontal permeability near the pilot hole. Further. 11 site. Then the pilot hole is drilled the rest of the way through the interval. 11-27b. If no shales are indicated on the log in the pilot hole for some distance below the tested interval. Sand Formation Sink Probe L tion of: (a) sand vertical permeability. and the interpretation must . 11-28a. A second test should be conducted over the entire drilled hole as in Fig. the tool can be positioned with the observation and sink probes above and below the shale as in Fig. (b) permeability andlor extent of shale lens. A drillstem test can be conducted in the partially drilled formation as shown in Fig. 11-27a. the vertical permeability determined from the DST should be representative of the sand. if a shale is detected in the pilot hole.298 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. Invaded shde Zone Formation Sink Probe (b) Another possibility is to drill into the upper 10 ft of the interval. and it may be possible to determine the vertical permeability of the shale and/or its extent.

1. This implies that the buildup duration should exceed 1 day in order to establish radial flow in the transient response. the buildup pressure change from 1 to 2 hr is given by (162. respectively. Hence. an unlikely possibility. and compressibility determined from correlations psi-'. the simulation suggests that the test in Fig.) For this case. 11 Sec. the wellbore storage duration is computed from the equation in Table 11-7 as time to end of wellbore storage = 50(3387) ('O(8.300 Well Test Design and Data Acqulsition Chap.47q psi 20(120) From Table 11-6.65 from Fig. in the absence of an equation for estimating the end of spherical flow. but the transient duration is extended long enough to detect radial flow.14(W . Instead of testing the entire interval as in Fig. the time to the end of the partial penetration and wellbore effects is estimated as time to end of wellbore storage = 50(3387) (7)(8. from Eq. (The other conclusion consistent with this result is that there is a bed acting as a banier that separates the upper and lower interval into two isolated layers each with the same kh. and if both tests provide the same estimate for kh from the late-time radial flow response. A standard DST buildup of 2 hr should provide the required transient data for each of the two tests. = n(0'328)2(15) 5. 11-29 is not attractive for this reservoir. assuming the shutin valve is 5 ft above the top of the formation.9 bbl and C = (0. Oil viscosity. 3-2. Test 1 is conducted as in Fig. formation volume factor.6)(q)(l)(l) (1 1-19) Ap = (10g2) = o.4 (20)(15) e0.9)(9.14(0) (11-18) (20)(15) = 0. 11-5 Test Design 301 Test Radius of lnve~ligalion account for the segregated flow of the two phases. The time to the end of wellbore storage for the test of the total interval is the same. The other curves for different penetration values show that greater penetration does not reduce the time to the start of radial flow. the time to reach radial flow is more than 100 hr. For the pressure sensor. 11-28a. if the well is flowed at a rate of at least 100 STBId. An even more conclusive way of testing in the pilot hole is shown in Fig.05 res bbVSTB. From Table 11-7. packers are set 10 ft above the total well depth. (1 1-16). (1 1-19). which is much longer than that predicted by the computation . it is important to estimate the time required to reach the radial flow response. Then the pilot hole is drilled the rest of the way through the formation. Although the wellbore storage ends at the expected time.033 hr = 2 min where v. and 9.-. Figure 11-30 shows a test design simulation using the same parameters as the above computations.) For a DST.3 x = 8. From Chapter 5. If equal values for the vertical permeability are determined from each test. this suggests that the total interval flow behavior is homogenous.615 = 0. The open-hole log will indicate the position of the oil-water contact required for this interpretation. 11-29. again creating initial partial penetration conditions that will develop into radial flow in late time. in Eq.4 x bbllpsi assuming negligible damage. the skin due to partial penetration exceeds g (11-20) Figure 1 1-29 Testing in a pilot hole for a horizontal well: (a) in a partially drilled interval: (b) in fully drilled interval with packers isolating the deepest part of the hole. the pressure variation will be sufficient for even a low-cost gauge.4 X Rnru T& lnvesligalion loT6)e0.3 X is estimated as 0. 11-28b. (The gas gravity in Section 3-2 are 7 cp. in test 2.

5 md.12 and 2. Figure 11-30 also shows that the test duration required to identify the spherical flow regime exceeds 24 hr. we may guess that sand beds average about 3 ft and shales 1 ft. The treatment was designed to create a 500-ft fracture half-length. the test design simulation was highly instructive. the data must be interpreted by type curve matching.6.2)(1)(1) {In [(0. A recent reading from the permanent gauge gave a bottomhole flowing pressure of 1250 psi. in a 40-acre spacing. and then declined to an average rate of 90 STBW up to the present.7) = 2.302 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap.472)(745)/0. In general. The well produced at an average of 150 STB/d for 8 months. 1 7 m At (hr) Figure 1 1-31 Test design simulation showing sensitivity of transient test response in a partially penetrated formation to vertical permeability (Example 11-4). respectively. Design a test for this well. 11-30 and 11-31 are more reliable than computations based on the equations in Table 11-7. 11-5 Test Design 303 10' Told Thickness 120 It. The fluids produced are oil and water. and the net pay is about 75%. The computed productivity index for the well is J = (2. but knowing the total interval thickness is 63 ft. as shown in Fig. More information about this interval and the core analysis would be helpful. Hence. 11-31. The formation volume factor is assumed to be 1 res bbl/STB. if a short-term buildup is run according to the design in Fig. The core-derived formation porosity and permeability are 0. test design sensitivity studies like those in Figs. was hydraulically fractured 3 years ago. In this case.The net pay thickness is 47 ft in a laminated sand shale sequence of 63 ft. Fortunately. except for the simple case of a fully completed well in 0 an unbounded homogeneous reservoir. 11-28. respectively.5)(47) (141. and thus. EXAMPLE 11-5 Test design for a pumped well Well F. - 1 Test Design Sensitivity to Vertical Permeability I Tes Deslpn Sensitivity lo Penelralion Thickness End of Buildup At (hr) Figure 11-30 Test design simulation showing sensitivity of transient test response in a partially penetrated formation to penetration thickness Example 11-4). with a 60% water cut. The thickness of the sand and shale laminations is not indicated. and that the core permeability represented the permeability of the sand. A sucker-rod pump was installed with a permanent downhole mechanical gauge attached to the tubing annulus and wireline strapped to the tubing after the stimulation treatment. the transient response is highly sensitive to the vertical permeability. Solution The first step is to evaluate known information about the reservoir and the well completion. Oil viscosity and compressibility are 1 cp and psi-'.27 psi/STB/d (1 1-21) . type curve matching should provide an accurate estimate for vertical permeability with data from a 2 hr buildup. The productivity index is useful for evaluating known information about the well completion.3] . 11 Sec.

Ehlig-Economides. in this case no workover treatment or refracturing can substantially improve the productivity of the well. Reservoir Stimulation. In the above computation. and 2f -in. If this is the explanation for the observed behavior. AIME 293. Englewood Cliffs. the drainage radius is computed as In the above equation." SPE Paper 20550. J. A.D. To explain a 10-fold reduction in the productivity index. Moreover.. to see at least f log cycles of radial flow. Robert C.4)(90)(10) = 360 STB. The test should be a buildup. "Impulse Testing:'SPEFE. the questions concerning treatment fluid flow back and the nature of the sand shale sequence should be investigated. but far below the expected level. the bilinear flow duration will be longer. and the conceptual models can be used to predict the necessary test duration. June 1969.0002637k k 3hr (11-26) suggesting some stimulation. Earlougher. "Unsteady Spherical Flow in Petroleum Reservoin. 'RStudy of Two-PhaseFlow in Inclined Pipes:'JPT. This possibility should be taken into account in the interpretation. 9.. H. This computation is for a wellbore radius of 7... From Eq. R.5 md. K. P. the hydraulic fracture behavior should appear in the transient response instead of radial flow. Ayoub. 4. Another possibility is to examine wellhead pressure and flow rate data in the manner of Chapter 18 to see whether these data can be used to characterize the fracture. the wellbore volume per unit length is computed for the annulus. There are other plausible explanations for the observed well performance. and Joseph. the conceptual model for flow to the well is radial. SPE Paper 25020. then. the test must continue for approximately four times the time that radial flow begins.472)(745).. the conceptual model for the test design is a hydraulically fractured well. A. Hence a buildup of 10 to 12 days should suffice if the permeability is 2. presented at the 1992 SPE European Petroleum Conference.25 md.] Without the hydraulic fracture and with negligible damage. Y. At 90 STBM.. which will be from 37 to 370 psi. W. 8. June 1966. making this term approach zero in the denominator. well performance should pay for the test in a few days. Beggs. Advances in Well TestAnalysis. Bourdet. Further information may be available about the stimulation treatment. May 1973. Ambrose. and Chauvel. If k = 0. such as whether the flow back of the treatment fluids was adequate to clean up the fracture. June 1989. 1990a. Trans. 5. the ~ncreased Table 11-7 is used to estimate the required duration for the buildup. 2.Y-M.5)(47) where This is 7. the cost of the test is negligible compared to the cost of a workover.5 md and more than 73 hr if k = 0.. A logical objective for the well test. D. if the well is shut in for 10 days. formation fluids flow into the annulus between the tubing and the casing.... 10."SPW.12)(1)(10-5)(500)2 = 0.304 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. Even the initial flow rate after the treatment was not as large as would be expected.1990. Bourdet. which will suggest that the permeability is lower than 2. W. L. J.12 psi/STB/d. C. D. time to end of linear flow and the skin was computed using Eq. 743-752.Cames. Jr. A. Prentice Hall. 1989.. The assumption of an infinite-conductivity fracture provides an upper limit to the ideal productivity index.016)(0. . 293-302. 607417. the effective permeability may be only 0. France. Jr. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Ayoub. tubing. A. If it is not. is to distinguish between these possibilities. 102-114. and Brill. the drift of 10 psi per week may be sufficient to affect the analysis in late time.. and Nolte. A. The actual productivity index for the well is 2 (0. and Pirard. 3. J.. "Production Logging in Horizontal Wells: Applications and Experience to Date:' SPE Paper 21094. After wellbore storage and linear or bilinear flow have ended. and Oosthoek. Chauvel. 7. 1977. 6. Economides. G.25 md.25 md instead of 2. [The small change in skin has an enormous impact on the productivity index because the effective wellbore radius resulting from the vertical fracture is nearly as large as the product (0. In addition. a 10. "Pressure Desuperposition Technique for Improved Late-TimeDiagnosis. the cost of the test is (0. since there is a permanent gauge in the hole. The cost of the test is far outweighed by the opportunity cost of not improving the well productivity (if this can be done). between 5 and 10 days. however. the wellbore storage duration is estimated at 30 days. A. when the pump is shut off. J.3 hr if k = 2. C... September 1988. Bums. "New Single-WellTest for Determining Vertical Permeabi1ity:'JPT. 2nd ed. M.. The above computation assumes that the fracture has effectively infinite conductivity. the ideal productivity index for this well would be 0.5 md.. 0 REFERENCES 1. If not. (1 1-16). Chatas. 11 References 305 assuming that the hydraulic fracture has infinite conductivity. because either might resolve the stated objective without the need for a well test. (1 1-14). If the well is fractured.. First. Y.. Ehlig-Economides. From Table 12-d pressure buildup has been designed to determine whether low well productivity is explained by unsuccessful stimulation or lower-than-expected formation permeability. T. (1 1-24) . In summary. If the test determines that there is a problem with the stimulation treatment that can be corrected with a workover.-in. A second possibility is that the formation permeability for the laminated sand shale sequence is lower than that derived from a core measurement in the sand. These calculations imply that there is a likelihood that wellbore storage will obscure the linear or bilinear flow.. P. which may be avoided if the test shows that the performance problem cannot be corrected..Dallas. 1992. C.. A. Before conducting the test. A finite-conductivity fracture providing a negative skin effect of -6 results in a productivity index of 0. J. TX. One possibility is that the hydraulic fracture is plugged. P. wellbore storage duration is computed as (1)(0'044)e~-'4(~) 60 hr time to end of wellbore storage = 50(3387)-----(2. "Computation of Test Area of Investigation in Nonradial Geometries". As shown in Fig.78 psi/STB/d.NJ. 11-23. "Use of PressureDerivativein Well-Test 1nterpretation:'SPEFE. If the fracture is choked. 534546.5 md.

PROBLEMS 11-1. W. F. J. Govier.01 md. JPT.. and s = 10 for surface and downhole shutin. CA. Kuchuk. "Well Performance Analysis: A Synergetic Approach to Dynamic Reservoir Description:' SPE Paper 10209. c.. plot q versus pWl = for each of the following cases. AGU. E. M. December 1990.. compute the time of the end of linear flow for k = 0. Schlumberger Educational Services. estimate the wellbore storage duration and how long data can be acquired before the pressure variation decreases below the resolution of a strain gauge if the well is flowed for 5 min (assuming negligible skin).000-ft well with the following reservoir and fluid properties. M. and a in Table 11-3b for SI. Houston. Given q = 1000 bblld. 2257-2270.01 md. Theo~y Practice o the Testing o Gas Wells. J. 17. 1990.. 1981.306 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap. 12.. R. and Kabir. D. 11-6.. 11-5. D. 1988.1 md.. 20.. Canada.1951. A. Ehlig-Economides.. and the rathole is 20 ft below formation bottom. "Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester:'JPT. ~ 5000 psi. SMP-9070. preferred API standard.. G. J. 21. McEvoy.2 cp."A Modem Approach toReservoir Test 1nterpretation:'SPE Paper 19814. TX." SPEJ. Given the following reservoir and fluid properties and an estimated value forpermeabllity of 400 md. 1990. December 1985. 27... and Reiss.2. Englewood Cliffs. Wittmann.. E.. D. T." Proc. Repeat Formation Tester. = 1 2 cp. TX. J. S. Ambrose.. = 1. Modern Well Test Analysis: A Computer-Aided Approach. andRamey. 1987. pp. Data from an oil well flow-after-flow test are given in the following table: For p =1. F. 24. C. Inc. c. December 1990b. C.. C. Schlumberger Educational Services. and re = 1000 ft. S.. and k = 100 md for surface shutin: 4 = 0. = 0. "Systematic Design and Analysis of Step-Rate Tests to Determine Formation Paning Pressure:' SPE Paper 16798. A. for a 1200-ft fracture half-length. 11-2. C. r . For a 10. "Pressure Build-up in Wells..... Determine the missing values in the following table: re (ft) : . 19. Home. Ehlig-Economides. B. C. 23.. k (md) 100 s 1000 1200 200 -2 16 11-3. compare wellbore storage duration for k = 0.." SPW. 1975. J. A. A. A. and cgs 1 units. Stewart. SMP-9100. Moran. April 1992.. 11. h = 75 ft. and Lohman. . Jr. compare wellbore storage duration fork = 10 md and s = 0.. H. M. p .328 ft. December 1983.02 res bblISTEt. Homer. Ehlig-Economides. estimate at what rate the well will flow after the perforations are shot: 4 = 0. Singh. C. 375-384. 899-908. L. Prentice Hall. For the same well as inProblem 11-7. Petroway. = psi-'.. and k = 1 md. J. Calgary.3 ft. 839-847. and p = 2 cp. 25. P. s = 1. August 1952. = 0. "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer:' Trans. B0 ... 16. Houston. "Pressure Transient Analysis in an Elongated Linear Flow System. andNonvood. 11 Problems 307 11. r . Kamal. Joseph.. G. T. "The Role of Downhole Flow and Pressure Measurements in Reservoir Testing:' SPE Paper 18379. G. 13. Roland N. and Lefevre.1. K.1 res bblISTB. 11-7. 559-569. 26. A. A. August 1962. Venemso. = 0. An underbalance of 200 psi is planned for perforating well A. = 3 x psi-'. 1 6 2 7 ."Oi(freld Review. 503-523. LeFoll.1 md. Palo Alto. r .. For the same well as in Problem 11-4. and Kuchuk. deternine the productivity index. 105-1 14. Derive the values for a. Joseph.. Third World Petroleum Congress. J. R. and f f 14.J. and JPT. W. E. Aganval.26. M. NJ. Pressure Transient Analysis. po = 2 cp.. = 0. 22. For the same well as in Problem 11-4. = 7 x psi-'.. Albena. 1986b. B = 1. p. c. Jacob. 15561563. and Krase. Repeat for downhole shutin with the valve located 8 ft above the formation top and with 35 ft of rathole below the formation bottom. and Finklea. 15.. F. M. C.32% and h = 112 ft.. 18. 11-8. Vella. Ehlig-Economides. "Applications of Convolution and Deconvolution to Transient Well Tests:' SPEFE. Stanislav. H. W. 1986a. R. J. Energy Resources Conservation Board. Sec.3 ft. "Interference and Pulse Testing-A Review. "PressureBuildup for Wells Produced at aconstant Pressure. and Economides. Assume the shutin valve is 10 ft above the formation top. = 6 x psi-'. c. February 1981. h = 96 ft. k = 0.18. "The Nuts and Bolts of Well Testing. k = 0. Formation MicroScanner* Service. The Hague. P. 11-4.

286 7. it should be used as a supplement to the information gained from the well flow rate and pressure history and other well tests.003076 0.6730 0..059 4. rather. or premature breakthrough in a high-permeability zone. fig = 0.044 1.7758 0.097 8. if a well has begun to produce an excessive water cut compared with neighboring wells. = 0.01083 0.164 1. the increased water rate may be due to channeling from another zone behind pipe.887 2.063 1.702 1. Production engineers most commonly apply production logging as an aid in diagnosing the cause of poor well performance. For a thorough review of production logging practices and interpretation.308 1.fez&sive _ _ .001 3.793 5. properly plan a corrective workover.01375 0. such as a cement squeeze treatment. E = c.359 3.7635 0. The interpretationof production logs is not discussed here.608 6.709.751 4. followed by the evaluation of excessive gas an.- 308 Well Test Design and Data Acquisition Chap.6324 0.601 0.165 3.990 7.328 ft. yg = 0.308 6.61 1.7961 0.889 8.635 1.06229 0.506 1. Estimate the test radius of investigation.8808 1. h = 84 ft.1876 0. 4 = 0.549 7.543 1. and the test sequence was the following: . By running a suite of production logs that can locate channeling and measure the profile of water entry into the well.541 1.308 3.334 3. = 0.01680 0._ water production.-. For example. of production logs to diagnose the use low productivity-is presented. 11 j C H A P T E R 12 11-9.340 1. the reader is referred to Hill (1990). However.977 2. The application of production logging to well treatment planning and 4 - .007 1. Reservoir and fluid properties for a posttreatment gas well buildup test are r.08732 0.83 18.03426 0.013 cp.656 8. Bg = 0. rather.1.580 3. In this chapter we will illustrate how production logging results can build upon other knowledge of well behavior to diagnose problem performance and assist in planning remediation. for example) serve as the starting point for illustrations of the application of production logging to well diagnosis.2866 0.654 2.34 0 Well Diagnosis with Production Logging End of test Buildup data for this test are plotted in Fig.495 1.5151 1.6 Flow Rate (MSCFId) 0. The engineer using production logging should always be mindful of the uncertainty that sometimes exists in these interpreted log results.859 1.02968 0.1328 0.928 1.2110 0. Time (hr) 12.082 5.976 3.09566 0.306 4. the results obtained from production logs (a well's flow profile.542 2.1077 0.313 1.1555 0. more important.167. As such. the engineer may be able to distinguish among these causes and. production logs can often indicate remedial action to be taken to improve well productivity.473 If the formationpermeability determined from a prefracture test is 6 md. = 112 psi.9 0.5548 0.758 4.8293 1. water coning.851 2. TR = 175°F. 11-7 and listed below At Ap Ap' At At A Ap' At 0.000947 psi-'.1 14. and p.378 8.95 17.431 1.716 2.2499 0.889 2. production logging is not a well diagnosispanacea and should not be applied in a vacuum.162 2.902 1. The chapter is organized accordingto the initial indicator of poor well performance or the objective of applying production l o g g i n g ~ ~ ~ ~ s t .781 0. determine kf w and estimate the fracture length.8 20.

formation damage. EXAMPLE 12-1 Use of the flow profile to evaluate a damaged well The production rate from Well A-1 in Reservoir Alpha had rapidly declined to less than half of its initial rate in a 6-month period. or casing collapse are considered possibilities. and zone C is contributing about 25% of the production. Here. the production logging results can be used to optimize remedial action. If wellbore scale. To help design a matrix acidizing treatment to remove the damage. A pressure buildup test was run and the skin factor found to be 20. 12-2 ABNORMALLY LOW PRODUCTIVITY The cause of low productivity in a well can range from a fundamental reservoir problem to restrictions to flow in the near-wellbore vicinity or in the wellbore itself. Figure 12-1 Temperature and spimer flowmeter-derivedflow profile for Example 12-1. temperature and spinner flowmeter logs were run to measure the flow profile. we define a low-productivity well as one having an abnormally low productivity index (J ). in evaluating a low-productivity well is to measure the productivity index. the flow profile shows that good diversion is needed during the stimulation treatment to minimize injection into zone B. 12-2 Abnormally Low Productivity 31 1 evaluation is then discussed. Production Logging Strategy and Analysis From the rapid decline and the high skin factor. 12 Set. this is distinct from a well with a low production rare. poorly penetrating or plugged perforations (or other restrictions in the completion. This is best accomplished with a pressure transient test to measure the reservoir kh and skin factor as described in Chapter 11. fill in the wellbore. The temperature log qualitatively confirms the interpretation of the spinner flowmeter log. production logs can then be run to measure the flow profile to determine if parts of the formation are contributing little or no flow or if the productivity is uniformly low. then. The production log shows that the needed treatment for this well is the selective stimulation of zone A. 12-1. near-wellbore formation damage is the likely culprit causing the well's low productivity. Bamng any obstructions in the wellbore. If the reservoir itself has been ruled out as the cause of low productivity. perhaps by fines migration near the wellbore. such as a partially plugged gravel pack). zone B is producing almost 70% of the total rate. for example). low relative permeability to the hydrocarbon phase. The flow profileofthewell from the spinner flowmeter log shows thatzone A is producing less that 10% of the total flow. a caliper log should be run to locate wellbore restrictions. Apparently. it is then necessary to distinguish between low formation flow capacity and near-wellbore or completion restrictions to flow. production logging can now be used to define more clearly the location and vertical extent of productivity impairment. If it is found to be abnormally low (as compared with earlier in the well's life or with similar wells nearby.310 Well Diagnosis with Production Logging Chap. The interpreted results are shown in Fig. with perhaps a lesser amount of stimulation of zone C. and wellbore restrictions. Estimates of the reservoir pressure and a measurement of the flowing bottomhole pressure showed that the well's PI was 50%below those of surrounding wells. In this instance. . Potential causes include lower-than-expected reservoir kh. as a low rate of production may be due to insufficient drawdown caused by a faulty lift mechanism or excessive pressure drop in the tubulars. Zone B does not need treatment. The first step. zone A has been significantly damaged during the course of production. while the kh product was near the expected value. The chapter concludes with a discussion of injection well problem diagnosis. in fact.

Subsequent treatment volumes and rates should be selected based on treating only zones A and C. This could be due to channeling (as was actually the case) or high gas saturation in the upper part of the oil zone. In this example. the temperature log exhibits cool anomalies caused by Joule-Thomson cooling at gas expansion locations. and at the location of gas entry into the wellbore. 1956. Cement bond or ultrasonic pulse-echo logs can indicate the possibility of channeling by measuring the mechanical properties of the cement behind the casing.1 Channeling Channeling between the casing and the formation caused by poor cement conditions [Figs. don't fix it") and allowed for the design of a smaller treatment than would otherwise be planned. i Figure 12-3 Water channeling. or coning. at a restriction in the channel behind the casing. 1990). "If it isn't broken. Thus both logs respond to gas flow at the gas source. Both logs clearly indicate that gas is being produced from an upper gas sand and channeling down to the upper perforations in the oil zone. This can best be accomplished by perforating near the gas source and circulating cement through the channel (Nelson. (From Clark andSchultz. 1956)J is sometimes the cause of high water or gas production rates. To positively identify channeling. the location of the channel. a cement squeeze can be performed to block the flow in the channel. 1956. A flow profile would show gas production into the wellbore from the upper part of the oil zone. 0 oil reservoir 1 111 GAS 12-3 EXCESSIVE OR WATERPRODUCTION I Casing leak I IA Water channel along bad cernenl job Excessive gas or water production is a common problem encountered in oil wells and can be caused by casing leaks. 0 OIL ZONE Figure 12-2 Gas channeling.312 Well Diagnosis with Production Logging Chap. The remedial treatment usually applied to eliminate channeling is a cement squeeze. while the noise log measures increased noise amplitude at the same locations.) . Note that measuring the flow profile in this well would not be particularly helpful in locating the cause of high gas production or in planning corrective measures. preferably all the way to the source of the unwanted production. to design a cement squeeze treatment.) High water sand 12-3. 12 Sec. as can occur with secondary gas cap development. preferential flow through high-permeability zones in the reservoir. the information from the production logs showed that the highly productive zone B should not be contacted with stimulation fluids (in oilfield parlance. Among the logs that can serve this purpose are temperature. Both logs respond to gas expanding through restrictions. a production log that can respond to flow behind the casing is needed. radioactive tracer. (From Clark and Schultr. EXAMPLE 12-2 Locating a gas channel with temperature and noise logs The temperature and noise logs shown in Fig. 12-2 and 12-3 (Clark and Schultz. 12-3 Excessive Gas or Water Production 313 A matrix acidizing treatment to stimulate this well should begin with a diverter stage (ball sealers or particulate diverting agents) to prevent injection of acid into zone B. and noise logs. Only by applying logs that clearly identify channeling can the appropriate workover be planned. 12-4 were obtained in an oil well producing at an excessively high GOR. To eliminate the excessive gas production. channeling behind the casing. Production logging can be used to locate the source of the gas or water production and to help determine the underlying cause of the unwanted production. should be known.

) h Figure 12-4 Temperature and noise logs identifying gas channeling for Example 12-2 12-3. An accurate flow profile of the production well can identify the location of the high-permeability zone or zones contributing the high production rate. (From Clark and Schulrz. if the gas production is from the upper part of the oil zone. Additional logs or tests are needed to distinguish among these possibilities (see Section 12-3.2 Preferential Gas or Water Flow through High-Permeability Layers Preferential flow of water or gas through high-permeability layers (often referred to as thief zones). . 1956). water distribution in a reservoir is often monitored by measuring injection well profiles and assuming continuity of the reservoir layers between injectors and producers. 12-3 Excessive Gas or Water Production 315 Temperature Noise Amplitude -e- Well Bore Low permeabiliiy High permeability Intermediate permeability > 600 Hz Figure 12-5 Early water breakthrough in highpermeability layers. or the high-permeability zones causing high gas production can be inferred from profiles measured in gas injection wells when gas is being injected into the reservoir.Well Diagnosis with Production Logging Chap. However. it may be due to coning or channeling and further information beyond the flow profile is needed for complete diagnosis. 1956. the water source may be i channeling or coning from lower zones. is a common cause of high gas or water production in oil wells. ( ~ r Clark and Schulrz. as with bottomwater production. 12 Sec. Particularly if the water entry location is at the bottom of the completed interval. a flow profile measured in a production well will identify the offending entry locations. the location of the water entry is not generally sufficient information to identify the cause of water production as being flow through a thief zone. Again. in waterflood operations. Because the measurement and interpretation of logs in the multiphase flow in production wells are generally less accurate (and more expensive) than those in a single-phase flow.3). Excessive water production may result from injected water in a waterflood or from water encroaching from an aquifer. However.) Low permeability Gas-Oil Contact \ Figure 12-6 Early gas breakthrough in high-permeability layers. Unwanted gas or water entries of this nature can sometimes be located with production logs. 1956. Excessive gas production can similarly result from flow of injected gas or from a gas cap. 12-5 and 12-6 (Clark and Schultz. as illustrated in Figs.

Gas coning results when a well is completed near a gasloil contact and sufficient vertical permeability exists for gas to migrate downward to the wellbore as the pressure is drawn down around the well. . illustrated in Figs. From the cool anomaly on the temperature log and the decrease in fluid density. (From Clark and Srhulrz. in addition. The temperature log also gives no indication that channeling is occurring. is another possible source of excessive gas or water production. 0 12-3. the temperature log will help differentiate between production from a thief zone and gas production resulting from channeling.) Figure 12-7 Temperature and fluid density logs locating gas enuy for Example 12-3 Coning is a difficult phenomenon to identify conclusively with production logging.Gas or water coning. 1956. What production logs or other tests should be run to determine whether the gas is migrating from the gas cap through a thief zone? A prudent approach would be first to run temperature and fluid density logs. Since oil is being produced from zone A above this zone. water can cone up from an underlying aquifer if vertical permeability is high enough. Consider a well that is experiencing water coning. along with a lower oil rate. 12 EXAMPLE 12-3 Excessive gas ~roduction from a thief zone Sec. (From Clark and Schultz. 12-8 and 12-9 (Clark and Schultz. Similarly. zone B is identified as the thief zone. as shown by the slight increase in fluid density across zone A.) W! ?ore e Figure 12-9 Gas coning. compared with similar wells in the field.3 Gas or Water Coning . 1956. Discussions of the reservoir engineering aspects of coning are given by Frick and Taylor (1962) and Timmerman (1982). Both of these logs should locate the gas entry or entries qualitatively. A flow profile will indicate water production from the lowest part of the producing interval. the gas production from zone B is not channeling or coning down to this level. Well Bore I I Temperature ( O F ) . 1956). Figure 12-7 shows temperature and Gradiomanometer (fluid density) logs that clearly indicate gas production from a thief zone in such a well.31 6 Well Diagnosis with Production Logging Chap. 12-3 Excessive Gas or Water Production 317 - A well in Reservoir Beta is producing an unusually high gas rate. c ------ I i Fluid Density (glcc) X Figure 12-8 Water coning.

800 10.000 - Thermal e 5 I n a 0 $ 9. 12 Sec.320 Well Diagnosis with Production Logging Chap. 12-10. The temperature logs run in Well D-2 after circulation of cool fluid before fracturing and after a short shut-in period after fracturing are shown in Fig. Comparing with the temperature log results. Figure 12-11 is the postfracture y-ray survey from Well D-2 after injection of 10.400 1 175 80°C I I 200 93°C 225 250 121°C (3170 275 135% Temperature ( O F ) 108OC Figure 12-10 Pre.000 1 1 \1 ----%J ---.and postfracture temperature profiles for Example 12-5. this method fails if the fracture plane is not coincident with the wellbore for the entire height of the fracture. 12-5 Injection Well Diagnosis 321 fluid movement in the fracture after shut-in or derivation of the fracture from intersection with the wellbore. there is a good 0 chance that the proppant detected below 10.340 ft. The wam-anomaly region would then be included as part of the interpreted fractured zone.1981. Proppant was also detected extending about 40 ft below the bottom of the fracture located by the temperature log. However.--$ F Separate I 3050 10. (From Dobkins. 9. showing the fracture being located in this case from about 10. then running a postfracture y-ray log to locate the tagged proppant.600 - 9. temperature log.300 ft. The vertical extent of the fracture is indicated by the region where the two logs diverge. Temperature anomalies farther up the well on the postfracturing log are apparently due to variations in the thermal diffusivity of the formation. Among . the top of the propped fracture is about 30 ft below the top of the created fracture. Production logs are used in injection wells to monitor reservoir behavior and to evaluate problems observed with the individual injection well o r the reservoir.200 3110 10.000 Ib of tagged proppant.130 ft to about 10.100 to about 10. The fracture height interpreted in this manner can be misleading if the tagged proppant is not completely displaced from the wellbore or if the tagged proppant is displaced too far from the wellbore (the radiation from the tagged proppant can only be detected within about a foot from the wellbore). The log shows tagged proppant detected from about 10.) Measuring Fracture Height with Radioactively Tagged Proppant A measure of propped fracture height can be obtained by radioactively tagging the final portion of the proppant.300 ft is residual proppant in the wellbore. As with the Figure 12-11 y-Ray log after fracturing for Example 12-5.

322 Well Diagnosis with Production Logging Chap. The flow profile shows where fluids leave the wellbore. What is the cause of the abnormally high injection rate in this well. but there is no guarantee that fluids are entering the formation at these same locations. EXAMPLE 12-6 Abnormally high injection rate In a waterflood operation in Reservoir A. abnormal pressure or fluid level in the annulus. To eliminate the unwanted injection. This would plug any casing leak below this depth and would probably eliminate flow into a channel from the lowest perforations. Without knowledge of this gradual change. The sum of the kh products for all of the injection wells were approximately the same. 0 EXAMPLE 12-7 Abnormally high injection rate The temperature and noise logs shown in Fig. indicating that injection water is moving downward at least to 9150 ft. 12 Sec. plugged perforations. A combination of a temperature and a noise log would be a good choice to attempt to locate the suspected leak or channel. 0 . If such a sharp break does not occur. water is supplied to all the wells at approximatelythe same wellhead pressure. The temperature logs in Fig. Thus the excessive water injection is exiting the wellbore through a casing leak below the lowest perforations or is channeling down from the lowest perforations. Production logs are used to evaluate such problems in injection wells in a manner similar to that already described for production wells. but possible. 12-12 were obtained in the injection well described in Example 12-6. Abnormally low injectivity or a marked drop in injection rate can result from formation damage around the wellbore. 12-5 Injection Well Diagnosis 323 the problems that may arise are abnormally low or high injectivity. a profile obtained several years after the start of injection might appear sufficiently different from the initial profile to lead to an erroneous conclusion that channeling had developed or that some other drastic change had taken place. the lowest point of water injection should be indicated clearly on the temperature log as the depth where the temperature (on both the flowing and shut-in logs) increases sharply toward the geothermal temperature. A log measuring the flow profile (a spinner flowmeter or radioactive tracer log) would distinguish between these two possibilities. because the similarly completed surrounding injectors have the same wellhead pressure. or packer. selective inflow performance. and noise logs. or scaling. and low productivity or high water production in offset producers. and what corrective actions might be taken? In a water injection well. water is moving downward past the lowest depth logged. the well could be plugged back to about 9120 ft. because they may move through channels behind the casing and enter zones other than those intended. The cause of a rate change in a well is often easier to diagnose if production logs have been run periodically throughout the life of the well. production logs that can detect leaks or channeling should be run on the high-rate injection well. by locating high-permeability zones. Fracturing is not a likely cause. What are the possible causes of the abnormally high injection rate in this well. To identify channeling positively. by channeling to other zones. by measuring the amount of flow to each reservoir interval. Routine measurement of the individual well injection rates showed that one well was receiving approximately 40% more water than its neighbors. Another unlikely. that is. a production log that can respond to flow behind the casing is needed. radioactive tracer. while the spinner flowmeter or radioactive tracer logs more precisely define the distribution of flow exiting the wellbore. or channeling to another zone. casing. the flow profile in a water injection well may change gradually throughout the life of the well as the saturation distribution changes in the reservoir. The noise log is not very diagnostic in this well. A temperature log will yield a qualitative indication of the formation injection intervals. The capability of the well completion to isolate the injection zones from other formations is crucial to proper reservoir management and is thus an important property to be evaluated with production logs. radioactive tracer. and by finding leaks in the well equipment. casing. resuictions in the casing or tubing. water is being distributed to several injection wells from a common injection system. such as the production log test. For this scenario. Among the logs that will serve this purpose are temperature. or by fracturing of the reservoir. orpacker. and they were all completed at approximately the same depth. For example. and spinner flowmeter logs. that is. Logs obtained occasionally through the life of the well would show this as being a natural progression in a waterflood. while the high-rate well is relatively undamaged. 12-12 show no sudden increase in the lower part of the well. An unusually high injection rate may be caused by leaks in the tubing. by checking for interval isolation. and the multilayer transient test provide the most complete information about abnormally high or low injectivity. Techniques that combine production logging with transient testing. cause is that all the surrounding injection wells are damaged to similar extents. Flow profiles are measured in injection wells with temperature. The small increase in noise amplitude at about 9140 ft could be due to flow through a reshiction in a channel or flow through a casing leak. The fundamental information sought with a production log in an injection well is the flow profile. the amount of fluid being injected into each interval. and what production logs or other tests might be run to diagnose the problem and plan remedial action? Themost likely causes of the high injection rate are leaks in the tubing. yet do not exhibit abnormally high rate. A change in rate and/or wellhead pressure often indicates a serious well or reservoir problem.

12-13) were obtained. Then. B. A production well in Reservoir A is producing an excessive amount of water (50% water cut). Dohkins. To locate the source of the excessive water production. the injection rate into the well was 4500 bblld at 250 psi surface tubing presure.05 g/cm3. list the possible causes of the apparent low injectivity into zone A. PennWell Books. Production Logging: Theoretical and Interpretive Elemenrs.. It is important to know why perforating the new zone did not increase the total injection rate by the desired amount. . and Taylor. B. A. and fluid density logs you would expect to obtain in this well.3. 1990.85 g/cm3 and p. OK.. and fluid density logs shown (Fig. basket flowmeter. T. A new zone (zone A) was perforated in a water injection well in Reservoir B. pp. Volume 11. 49-60. describe the production logs or other tests that you would recommend to diagnose this problem. D. Tulsa. Clark. 1956)28: B3bB38. p. An oil well is producing an excessive gas rate because of gas coning down from a gas cap. eds. Amsterdam. REFERENCES 1. 1962. Volume 11--Reservoir Engineering. noise."JPT. Figure 12-12 Noise and temperature logs for Example 12-6. after perforating. Prior to perforating the new zone. H. Richardson. I. 7. the temperature. An injection well in a waterffood has abnormally high injectivity. The old zone (zone B) in the well is located 20 ft below the new zone and has been on injection for 8 years. 719-726. = 1.0. and Schultz. 5.. 1982. = 1.. can the cause of the high water production be determined? Explain your answers. Moms. Which zone appears to be producing most of the water? From these logs. pp. TX. Physical Principles of Oil Production. 1990. ed. Nelson. Describe the production logs or other tests you would propose to diagnose the cause of the high injectivity. 12-3. A. Society of Petroleum Engineers. TX..Problems 325 PROBLEMS 12-1. "The Analysis of Problem Wells:' The Perroleum Engineer (Sept.. Well Cementing. and at bottomhole conditions. E. April 1981. Society of Petroleum Engineers Richardson. Timmetman. C. Perroleum Production Handbook. pp. sketch the temperature. 2. The well produces no water.. Frick. B. It had been expected that the new zone would take at least 2000 bblld of injection water at this pressure. W. For this well. "Improved Methods to Determine Hydraulic Fracture Height. Muskat. McGraw-Hill. giving a priority ranking to the logs or tests recommended. W. the rate was 4700 bblld at 250 psi.. 12-2. Hill. Practical Reservoir Engineering. = 1.. 12-4. 1949. N. = 0. P. E. R.. September 1956. 4. Elsevier. Assuming that there are two perforated zones. T. New York. 3. 43-46. First. 6.

Matrix acidizing is a well stimulation technique in which an acid solution is injected into the formation in order to dissolve some of the minerals present.8 1. is intended to create a path of high conductivity by dissolving the walls of the fracture in a nonuniform way. carbonate reservoirs of relatively low permeability may also be candidates for acid fracturing. Acid fracturing. the candidate reservoirs are often very different. and temperature logs for Problem 12-2. rather than affect a large portion of the reservoir. Therefore. so that fractures are not created. their purpose of application and. flowmeter. for attacking silicate minerals such as clays and feldspars. used primarily to dissolve carbonate minerals. a comparison with propped . and hence. Other acids. Acid fracturing is sometimes used to overcome formation damage in relatively high-permeability formations.o 120 Figure 12-13 Fluid density. acid fracturing has more in common with proppant fracturing than with matrix acidizing. resulting from the injection of fluids at pressures above the fracturing pressure of the formation. While both types of stimulation treatments can be applied to carbonate formations and both use acids. The objective is to greatly enhance or recover the permeability very near the wellbore. with all of the acid reacting within about a foot of the wellbore in sandstone formations.326 Well Diagnosis with Production Logging Chap.. recover or increase the permeability in the near-wellbore vicinity. and mixtures of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids (HF/HCl). 12 C H A P T E R 13 Fluid density (glcc) Temperature (OF) . For such reservoirs. Matrix acidizing should not be confused with acid fracturing. for the petroleum production engineer. and within a few to perhaps as much as 10 ft of the wellbore in carbonates. ------ Matrix Acidizing: AcidIRock Interactions 0. Matrix acidizing is a near-wellbore treatment. consequently. are used in special applications. However.. An acidizing treatment is called a "matrix" treatment because the acid is injected at pressures below the parting pressure of the formation. particularly some of the weak organic acids. The most common acids used are hydrochloric acid (HCI).

With a damaged permeability of 20% of the original (a typical amount of damage from drilling). 13 Sec. the ratio of the stimulated well productivity index to the original is - 1. Calculate the ratio of the productivity index after removing this damage with acidizing to the productivity index of the damaged well for a permeability in the damaged region ranging from 5% to 100% of the undamaged reservoir permeability. Substituting for s in Eq.o I 0 10 20 30 k.05 to 1. noting that s = 0 when the damage has been removed.33 I The skin effect is related to the permeability and radius of the damaged region by Hawkins' formula [Eq. where Xi is the ratio of the stimulated permeability to the original permeability. assume that the well is originally undamaged and acid is used to increase the permeability in a 1-ft region around the wellbore up to 20 times the original reservoir permeability. Solution The productivity index of a well in an undersaturated reservoir is given by Eq. yields 0 0 0. Matrix acidizing can significantly enhance the productivity of a well when nearwellbore formation damage is present. (219). For the case of stimulating an undamaged well.2 - 3 1. 5 EXAMPLE 13-1 The potential benefits of acidizing in damaged and undamaged wells Assume that the well described in Appendix A has a damaged region extending 1 ft beyond the wellbore ( r . perforation efficiency. -1. 13-1 are obtained.1 0. For the case of severe damage.328 ft. the skin effect of the damaged well is 26 and removal of the damage with acidizing increases the productivity index of the well by a factor of 4. assume steady-state flow and no mechanical skin effects.3 0 +. . o r other mechanical aspects of the completion. In fact.6 0. (13-2) for Xd ranging from 0. / k in Eq. and. conversely. the original skin effect is 5. the results shown in Fig. Taking the ratio of the stimulated productivity index to the damaged productivity index. (5-4)l. Skin Effect 1.26 I -1.9 0 329 fracturing must be done. increasing the permeability by a factor of 20 in a I-ft radius around the well increases the productivity index by only 21%.2 0.8 1 k. = 0. Acid fracturing is discussed in Chapter 15. if the permeability in this 1-ft region were infinite (no resistance to flow). matrix acidizing should generally be applied only when a well has a high skin effect that cannot be attributed to partial penetration. (13-3) for Xi ranging from 1 to 20. 13-1 Introduction Skin Effect 26 5.4 0.6 and complete removal of the damage increases the productivity index by about 70%. In both cases. is of little benefit in an undamaged well. Calculate the ratio of the stimulated productivity index to the productivity index of the undamaged well.1 where Xd is the ratio of the damaged permeability to that of the undamaged reservoir [ k .6 2. the productivity increase would be only 22%.328 Matrix Acidizing: AcidlRock Interactions Chap. Figure 13-2 is obtained by applying Eq. For this undamaged well. (5-4)].5.) The well is on a 40-acre spacing (re = 745 ft). Next. where the permeability of the damaged region is 5% of the original permeability. taking into account the expected posttreatment production rate versus costs. Applying Eq. (13-1) gives -J 1. Thus./k Figure 13-2 Potential productivity improvement from acidizing an undamaged well./k Figure 13-1 Potential productivity improvement from removing damage with acidizing.

and diffusion rates. In this chapter. the primary reactions predict that 14 moles of HF are needed to consume 1 mole of feldspar. the gravimetric dissolving power. is defined as If this secondary reaction goes to completion. when HF reacts with quartz (SiOl). 6 moles of HF. For lower-permeability reservoirs. the reaction kinetics. Among the design considerations important to matrix acidizing success are the type and concentration of acid to be used. so that the total amount of HF required to dissolve a given amount of quartz depends on the solution concentration. With knowledge of these basic properties.5) (1)(100. the primary reaction is Quartz: 4HF SiO2 uSiF4(silicontetrafluoride) + 2H20 SiF4 2HF t . For the reactions between HF and feldspars. 0 Sec. The dissolvingpower expressesthe amount of mineral that can be consumed by a given amount of acid on a mass or volume basis. for example. significant stimulation of undamaged wells is generally possible only with hydraulic fracturing. B. for the reaction between 100% HCl and CaC03. the optimal injection rate. The stoichiometry of this reaction shows that 4 moles of HF are needed to consume one mole of SO2.. respectively. v ~ c l and vc. Blm = -----. for HC1 and CaC03. which control how rapidly acid is transported to the rock surfaces. introduced by Williams et al. Table 13-1 Primary Chemical Reactions in Acidizing HCI Calcite: 2HCI + CaC03 + CaCh + C02+ H20 Dolomite: 4HCl+ CaMg(CO& + CaC12 + MgClz + 2C02 + 2H20 Siderite: 2HC1+ FeC03 --+ FeC12+ C02+ H20 HFIHCI The amount of acid needed to dissolve a given amount of mineral is determined by the stoichiometry of the chemical reaction. However. rather than 4. Thus. However.H2SiF6(fluosilicicacid) Albite (sodium feldspar): NaAlSisOs + 14HF + 2H' uNa+ + AF + 3SiF4 + 8Hz0 l: Orthoclase (potassium feldspar): KAISi308 + 14HF+ 2H+ uK+ + AF + 3SiF4 + 8H20 I: Kaolinite: AI~S~~OIO(OH)~ 4H+ u4AIF: + 4SiF4 + 18H20 + 24HF Montmorillonite: AI~S~~OZO(OH)~+ 4H+ u4AIF: + 8SiF4+ 24H20 + 40HF + + + producing silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4) and water. The numbers 2 and 1 multiplying the species HCl and CaCO3 are the stoichiometric coefficients.330 Matrix Acidizing: AcidIRock Interactions Chap. thus changing the stoichiometry. Acidizing beyond the amount required to remove the damage is of little benefit. CaCO 3 lb.1) lb. For example. Schechter (1992) suggests that about 20 moles of HF are consumed for every mole of feldspar under typical acidizing conditions. HC1 .= This includes the stoichoimetry of the acid-rock reactions. A complication is that the fluosilicates may exist in various forms (Bryant. design methods for sandstone and carbonate acidizing are developed in Chapters 14 and 15. the basic mechanisms by which acids and formation minerals interact are described. secondary reactions will consume more HF per mole of mineral. The most common reactions involved in acidizing are summarized in Table 13-1. the rates at which acids react with various minerals.37 (2)(36. the SiF4 produced may also react with HF to form fluosilicic acid (H2SiFs) according to Amore convenient way to expressreaction stoichiometryis with the dissolvingpower. numerous secondary reactions may occur that influence the overall stoichiometry of the reaction. (1979). 13 This example illustrates that matrix acidizingis primarily beneficialin removing damage. the mass of mineral consumed by a given mass of acid. First. only the primary reactions are listed. 13-2 Acid-Mineral Reaction Stoichiometry 331 The goal of a matrix acidizing treatment is to reduce the nonmechanical skin effect to near zero. which describes the number of moles of each species involved in the reaction. will be consumed to dissolve 1 mole of quartz. For example. the amount of acid needed to dissolve sufficient mineral around the wellbore. the simple reaction between hydrochloric acid (HCl) and calcite (CaC03) can be written as which shows that 2 moles of HCl are required to dissolve 1 mole of CaC03. For the reactions between HF and silicate minerals. the amount of rock dissolved for a given amount of acid expended. respectively. and the placement of the acid solution. When hydrofluoric acid reacts with silicate minerals. 1991).

053 0.016 Hydrochloric 1.020 Acetic (CH3COOH) 0. C Oxygen. CaMg(CO3)z Siderite. 13-2 Acid-Mineral Reaction Stoichiometry 333 where the subscript 100denotes 100%HCl. HCl. while the molecular weights of the most common species are listed in Table 13-2. F Sodium.3 27 28.014 0.1 35.87g/cm3 = aFrom Schechter.082 0. Table 13-2 A 15 wt% HCl solution has a specific gravity of about 1.026 Fomic(HC0OH) 1.018 Acetic 0.09 0. similarly defined as the volume of mineral dissolved by a given volume of acid.129 0.4)(1bm 15% ~ ~ l ) / ( 15% HCI) ft~ 169(lbm~a~03)/(ft3ca~03) (13-10) = 0.047 0. the volumetric dissolving power is XIS = 0.8 Molecular Weight (mass/mole) The dissolving powers of various acids with limestone and dolomite and for HF with quartz and albite are given in Tables 13-3 and 13-4 (Schechter.For the reaction of these species.082 ft3 15% HCI Molecular Weights of Species in Acidizing Species Elements Hydrogen.4 115.1 184.37 0.054 0.1 55.071 0.041 30% 0. CaC03 Dolomite. X = Volume of rock dissolved/ volume of acid reacted.4 516.096 0. bg = Mass of rock dissolved/mass of acid reacted.15(Bloo) = 0.036 0. and CaC03 has a density of 169 lbm/ft3. AbSi8020(OHk 36. .4 720.041 0. 13 Set.083 - Hydrochloric(HC1) 1. X. Ca Iron.77 0.27 0.112 0. 1992).21 lb.5 20 100. Si Chlorine.031 0. CaC03/lb.5 39.1 262.046 0. K Calcium. SiO2 Albite (sodium feldspar).027 Table 13-4 Dissolving Power for Hydrofluoric Acid Quartz(Sio2) Acid concentration (wtO/o) b Albite (NaAISi308) B X B X The volumetric dissolving power.1 40. 15% HCI ft3cac03 )( (1.915 = 0.152 0.07)(62. A Silicon.83 0. H Carbon. A14Si4010(OH)8 Montmorillonite.07.023 Fomic 1. HF Calcite.KAlSi308 Kaolinite. For the commonly of acid is the ploo used 15 wt% HCl. 0 Fluorine.3 278.332 Matrix Acidizing: AcidlRock Interactions Chap.062 0. NaAISi308 Orthoclase (potassium feldspar). is related to the gravimetric dissolving power by aFrorn Schechter. 1992. C1 Potassium.8 60.00 0. Table 13-3 Dissolving Power of Various Acidsa X Formulation Limestone: CaC03 pCaCO3 = 2. Na Magnesium. The stoichiometric coefficients for common acidizing reactions are found from the reaction equations in Table 13-1.8 1 12 16 19 23 24. Mg 1 Aluminum. The dissolving power of any other concentration times the weight fraction of acid in the acid solution. FeC03 Quartz. .21 ( lbm CaC03 lb. HC1 Hydrofluoric acid. 1992 Acid BIW 5% 10% - 15% 0. Fe Molecules Hydrochloric acid.175 0.71 g/cm3 Dolomite: CaMg(CO3)-2 ~CaMg(C03)~ 2.

Eq. Often. once the reacting species have been brought into contact. the reaction rates. in the reaction between an aqueous species and a solid. the concentration of the solid can be.) is to be acidized.1 Acid-mineral reactions are termed "heterogeneous" reactions because they are reactions between species occuning at the interface between different phases. A sandstone with a porosity of 0. Incorporating the concentration dependence into the rate expression yields . so that the acid mass transfer rate is high relative to the surface reaction rate. Solution The minimum volume is determined by assuming that the HC1-carbonate reaction is very fast so that the HC1 reaction front is sharp (this is discussed in Chapter 14). the aqueous phase acid and the solid mineral. reaction is extremely high. since it will remain constant. Surface reaction rates (reaction kinetics) are discussed in this section. 13 Sec. The reaction between an acid and a mineral occurs when acid reaches the surface of the mineral by diffusion or convection from the bulk solution. A reaction rate is generally defined as the rate of appearance in the solution of the species of interest in units of moles per second. what minimum preflush volume is required (gallonsof acid solution per foot of formation thickness)? The wellbore radius is 0. However. . and to ensure that the rate of acid transport to the mineral surface is fast relative to the reaction rate. 0 13-3. A surface reaction rate depends on the amount of surface exposed to reaction. regardless of reactions that may be occurring on the surface of the grain. by placing a minus sign ahead of RA. the surface reaction rate of an aqueous species A reacting with mineral B is RA = r A s B (13-15) where RA is the rate of appearance of A (moles/sec).RA = E f C i S ~ (13-16) where Ef is a reaction rate constant with units of moles ~/[m~-sec-(moles A/m3)O]. r ~ will generally depend on the concentrations of the reacting .334 Matrix Acidizing: AcidlRock Interactions Chap. species. C A is the concentration of species A at the reactive surface. In general. The volume of pore space within 1 ft of the wellbore after removal of the carbonate is so the total volume of HCl preflush is This is a typical volume of HC1 preflush used in sandstone acidizing. This approach has been common with sandstones and is discussed in Chapter 14. and cu is the order of the reaction. a preflush of HCl is usually injected ahead of the HF/HCI mixture to dissolve the carbonate minerals and establish a low-pH environment. The kinetics of a reaction is a description of the rate at which the chemical reaction takes place. The disk is rotated rapidly. 13-3 Acid-Mineral Reaction Kinetics 335 EXAMPLE 13-2 Calculating the HC1 preflush volume In sandstone acidizing treatments. it is necessary to maintain a constant mineral surface area or measure its change during reaction. while acid transport is detailed in Section 13-4. a measure of how strongly the reaction rate depends on the concentration of A.) In the rotating-disk apparatus. The overall rate of acid consumption or mineral dissolution will depend on two distinct phenomena: the rate of transport of acid to the mineral surface by diffusion or convection.2 containing 10% (volume) calcite (CaCO. For example. so the overall rate ofthis reaction is usually controlled by the rate of acid transport to the surface. 1976. a disk of the mineral is placed in a large container holding the acid solution. a grain of quartz has a fixed number of moles of quartz per unit volume of quartz. The two most common methods of obtaining these conditions are with a well-stirred slurry of mineral particles suspended in an acid solution (a stirred reactor) and with a rotating-disk apparatus (Fogler et al.328 ft plus the volume of acid solution that will be left in the pore space in this region. The reaction rate. Finally. the reaction rate for the HCI-CaCO. and SBis the surface area of mineral B. rA is the surface area-specific reaction rate ofA (moleslsec-m2). and the actual reaction rate on the mineral surface. ignored. A third. so these reactions are expressed on a per-unit surface area manner. and the overall rate of acid consumption or mineral dissolution is reaction rate controlled. are negative. On the other hand. rA and RA. If the HCI preflush is to remove all carbonates to a distance of 1 ft from the wellbore before the HF/HCI stage enters the formation. In this case. When A is being consumed.. one of these processes will be much slower than the other. (13-16) is written in the conventional manner for a species that is being consumed from solution. SO that Ef is a positive number. more indirect method is by matching the core flood response to acidizing with a model of the process of flow with reaction. the fast process can be ignored. For example. the surface reaction rates for many HF-mineral reactions are very slow compared with the acid transport rate. the slower of the two processes. The required preflush volume is then the volume of acid solution needed to dissolve all of the calcite to a radius of 1. The volume of acid needed to consume the calcite is the volume of calcite present divided by the volumetric dissolving power: time compared with the slow process. since it can be thought to occur in an insignificant amount of Laboratory Measurement of Reaction Kinetics In order to measure the surface reaction rate of acid-mineral reactions.328 ft. The reaction rate constant depends on temperature and sometimes on the concentration of chemical species other than A.

1975) . and AE/R are given in Table 13-5. H+. such as acetic or formic acid. Because H+ is the reactive species. (13-20) and (13-21). Mr. For the feldspar reactions. thus limiting the supply of H+ available for reaction. the reaction rate increases with increasing HCI concentration.r w d acid = Ef Kd Cweak u/2 012 (13-19) ( 0. so CHClhas units of kg-mole/m3 and T is in K.. Lund et al. the acid molecules almost completely dissociate to form hydrogen ions. EfO. even though HC1 is not consumed in the reaction.075 g/cm3 and the density of the feldspar is 2.61 kg-mole HF/m3 solution 13-3. E ~ O . which is about two orders of magnitude slower than the others. [m2-s-(kg-moles HCl/m3 acld solution Calcite (CaCO. and chloride ions. These expressions show that the dependence on HF concentration is approximately first order (a = 1). respectively.) These kinetic expressions can all be represented by Then = (-) 0. 1975) measured the kinetics of the HC1-calcite and HC1-dolomite reactions. .314 x 10' I 7.24 x 10-'exp (2750) . (13-22) is readily integrated to yield The kinetics of a weak acid-carbonate mineral reaction can be obtained from the HCl reaction kinetics by (Schechter. If the acid concentration remains approximately constant during the exposure period. SI units are used in these expressions. 12 wt% HCI solution I The constants n. with the added complication that the acid is not completely dissociated. 1981.) 0.HF-feldspar reactions.53kg-mole HCl/m3 solution K = 6. 1963. the kinetics for the HCI reaction can also be used for weak acids by considering the acid dissociation equilibrium.6.. except for the illite reaction. I Example 13-3 Dissolution rate of a rotating disk of feldspar A 2-cm. using the data in Table 13-6. The reaction between HCI and carbonate minerals is actually a reaction of the H+ with the mineral.3 Reactions of HF with Sandstone Minerals Hydrofluoric acid reacts with virtually all of the many mineral constituents of sandstone. the reaction rates between clay minerals and HF are very similar in magnitude. and A E / R are given in Table 13-6.sincethe acid concentrationis approximatelyconstant.63 7.5 Hcl ? (13-25) = 3. feldspars (Fogler et al. and. neglecting the reaction at the edge of the disk and any effects of surface roughness. 1981). The density of the acid solution is 1. The specific reaction rate is obtained from Eqs.12 kg HC1 ( 1075 kg solution m3 solution )( ( 1 kg-mole HCI 36.347 kg moles HCI m3 solution )-' (13-26) . meaning that when HCI is dissolved in water. C1-. = 1.63 g/cm3.2 Reactions of HCI and Weak Acids with Carbonates Hydrochloric acid is a strong acid. 1992) The surface area of the disk is a cm2 or a x lo4 mZ.03kg HF )( 1075 kg solution m3 solution )( 1 kg-mole HF 20 kg HF ) (13-24) where Kd is the dissociation constant of the weak acid and Ef is the reaction rate constant for the HC1-mineral reaction. Reaction kinetics have been reported for the reactions of HF with quartz (Bergman. Hill et al. Their results were summarized by Schechter (1992) as follows: and the constants or. the acidconcennations must be expressed in kg-moles/m3of solution: cHF = . (1973. what thickness of the disk will be dissolved and what mass of HF will be consumed? Solution Rf.-diameter disk of albite (Na-feldspar) is immersed in a 3 wt% HF. Thus. constant.55 6) lo3 The specificreaction rate. I at 50°C and rotated rapidly for 1 hr.336 Matrix Acidizing: AcidlRock Interactions Chap. 13 1 Sec.or The change in the number of moles of feldspar. equal to the reaction rate. r f . First. is Table 13-5 Constants in HCI-Mineral Reaction Kinetics Models kg moles HCI Mineral (Y E. and clays (Kline and Fogler. Thus. the surface area of the disk is constant. With weak acids. HCl catalyzes the. Eq. 13-3 Acid-Mineral Reaction Kinetics 337 13-3. the reaction is also between H+ and the mineral.= 0.

10% Na-feldspar.(kg-mole HFI / m3 solution) rl = -4. 1992)l.08 20 kg-moles HF) kg-mole feldspar ( 20 kg HF kg-mole HF ) HF (13-31) Only 0.94 x 10-8 kg-mole feldspar m2-sec.347(3. Assuming that 20 moles of HF is consumed per mole of feldspar. the specific surface area of each mineral is its specific surface area times the mass fraction of the mineral present in the sandstone. The specific surface areas of the minerals are approximately 20 m2/kg for the quartz and feldspar and 8000 m2/kgfor the clay [the reactive surface areaof clays is less than the total surface area (Schechter. the amount of acid consumed is A WHF = (2 x = 8x kg moles feldspar) kg HF = 0. this indicates that the reaction rates in sandstone acidizing are quite small. the specific surface areas of the grains (the surface area per unit volume) are much larger. the specific .3 x m = -0. making the overall reaction rate much larger. what proportion of the HF will inttially be consumed by each of the three minerals? Solution Per unit mass of rock. and 5% kaolinite by mass. The mass of acid consumed is related to the mass of feldspar dissolved through the stoichiometry.Set. However. in this example.(-2 x loW7 kg-mole feldspar)(262 kg feldsparkg-mole feldspar)(m3 feldsparf2630 kg feldspar) rr x = -6.77 x lo-' kg-mole feldspar/m2 sec and the number of moles of feldspar dissolved in 1 hr is AMl = (-1.94 x 10-8[1 + 0. 12 wt% HCl solution at 50°C. 13-3 Acid-Mineral Reaction Kinetics 339 El = 9.063 m2 (13-30) mm The minus sign indicates that the surface is receding.5 x 10-3exp )0 -:2 5: - ( = 4. For example. In sandstones composed of small grains of minerals.063 mm of the feldspar surface is dissolved in 1 hr. If this rock is contacted with a 3 wt% HF. Since feldspar is one of the fasterreacting constituents of sandstone.77 x 1 0 . making the available surface for reaction small. 0 EXAMPLE 13-4 The relative reaction rates of sandstone minerals A sandstone contains 85% quartz.7 ) ( ~ 10-~)(3600)= 2 x 10-'kg-moles feldspar x (13-29) The change in thickness of the disk is the volume dissolved divided by the surface area: Ah .53)](1.61) (13-28) = .1. it was assumed that the feldspar surface was smooth.

. the amount of damage they cause to the well productivity depends on the amount and location of the precipitates.4 x 10-'cHF (13-35) The fraction of HF expended in a particular reaction is the overall reaction rate for that mineral divided by the sum of the reaction rates. ITT x 2 2.6 1 8 .RHF. Convective transport of acid to the reactive surface is more simply treated using the concept of fluid loss from a fracture or channel. transport of acid to the mineral surfaces is likely due to both diffusion and convection. is (20m2/kg)(0. 13 Sec. but is possible with other reactions in acidizing. . . D A is the acid diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec). Bryant (1991) and da Motta et al. The diffusional flux of acid is given by Fick's law. The overall rate of reaction of HF with each mineral is where J. However. These conclusions have not been confirmed by more direct experimentation. These factors can be controlled somewhat with proper job design. The quartz reaction becomes important in regions where most of the clay and feldspar have already been dissolved. and y denotes the direction of diffusion. where y. is the ratio of the stoichiometric coefficient of HF to that of mineral i Obtaining the specific reaction rates with Eqs. Because the clay and feldspar reaction rates are relatively high and they generally comprise a small portion of the total rock mass.. as applied in hydraulic fracturing models. Similarly. particularly acidizing of sandstones. 0 Figure 13-3 The effective diffusion coefficient of HCI. Acid is transported to the mineral surface by diffusion and by convection. (1992) conclude that the reaction between fluosilicic acid and clays and feldspars is slow at room temperature. but that it is of the same order of magnitude as the HF reactions with these minerals at temperatures above 50°C. illustrating that the reaction rates of HF with clays and feldspars are approximately two orders of magnitude higher than that between HF and quartz.340 Matrix Acidizing: AcidIRock Interactions Chap. 20 moles HFImole feldspar. and the data in Table 13-6. and 24 moles HFImole kaolinite. and53% is reacting with kaolinite. Modeling this process requires a hydrodynamic model of the flow through the pore structure. TO THE MINERAL SURFACE 13-4 ACID TRANSPORT lo3 ("R") In a porous medium composed of grains of rock and irregularly shaped. a model that is currently intractable except for a few idealized cases. interconnected pore spaces. fluosilicic acid. the overall rate of consumption of acid and dissolution of mineral will be controlled by the rate of acid transport to the mineral surfaces. The effective diffusion coefficient for HCl has been determined by Roberts and Guin (1975) and is shown in Fig. H2SiF6. the formation of some precipitates is probably unavoidable.4 13-3. and using for y . When the surface reaction rate is high. This occurs most commonly with thereaction of HC1 with carbonate minerals. ac~ ay (13-38) .' is the acid flux [moles or mass/(cm2-sec)]. and the fluosilicic acid itself may then react with aluminosilicates. = the specific surface areas of feldspar and kaolinite are 2 and 400 m2/kgrock. In acidizing of sandstone with HF. Equation (13-38) shows that acid diffusion to the reactive surface is driven by the concentration gradient between the bulk solution and the surface. i).2 2. 1975. particularly at elevated temperatures. 46% is reacting with feldspar. From models of core flood experiments. showing that 1% of the HF is reacting with quartz. This application is presented in Chapter 15. 13-3. they will be consumed first in sandstone acidizing. 6 moles HFImole quartz. as reservoir rocks typically are. = 9. (FromRoberts and Guin.85) 17 m2/kgrock. 13-5 Precipitation of Acid Reaction Products 341 surfaceareaof quartz permass of sandstone. This is a typical result. (13-21). is produced when HF dissolves silicate minerals. S.) 1 1 1 2 1 4 1.4 R e a c t i o n s o f Fluosilicic A c i d with Sandstone Minerals As discussed in Section 13-2. J~~ = DA- 13-5 PRECIPITATIONACID REACTION OF PRODUCTS A major concern in acidizing. respectively. (13-20). is damage caused by the precipitation of acid-mineral reaction products.

displacingthe precipitate to beyond 2 ft from the wellbore restores the PI to more than 80% of the undamaged case. where the permeability is 10%of the original permeability. and the region beyond the precipitate zone. However. (1982) show that there will virtually always be regions where the spent acid solution has the tendency to precipitate colloidal silica. 0 0 0. and k is the original reservoirpermeability.) where rl is the inner radius of the precipitate zone.15. to 2. Inclusion of an adequate HC1 preflush ahead of the HF/HCI stage prevents the formation of CaF2. so precipitation of CaF2 is likely if any calcite is available to react with the HF.328 ft in a 745-ft drainage radius has been treated with acid and all 0. Determine how the productivity of the well is influenced by the location of this zone of precipitate. the productivity index of the well is less than 40% of its potential. Fe(OH)3. CaF2. the results in Fig. kp is the permeability in the precipitate zone.342 Matrix Acidizing: Acid/Rock Interactions Chap. However.5 ft. 0 EXAMPLE 13-5 The effect of a precipitate zone on well productivity A well with a radius of 0. Dividing this equation by the equation describing the productivity index of the undamaged well and defining X p as k p / k yields Finally. Smith et al. Finally. as they may cause more damage through their own precipitation than would have been caused by the iron. Femc ions may result from the dissolution of iron-bearing minerals in an oxidative environment or may derive from the dissolution of rust in the tubing by the acid solution. (fi) Figure 13-4 Effectof a zone of spent acid precipitate on well productivity. However. laboratory core floods suggest that the precipitation is not instantaneous and in fact may occur at a fairly slow rate (Shaughnessy and Kunze. When a high level of fenic irons is likely in the spent acid solution. Production of some colloidal silica precipitate is probably unavoidable in sandstone acidizing. When the precipitate is surrounding the wellbore. By the design of the overflush. where it can be assumed that the permeability is equal to the original reservoir permeability (the acid removed all damage). 1965. . the precipitate zone. colloidal silica. it is probably advantageous to inject at relatively high rates. The equilibrium calculations of Walsh et al. (1969) suggest that these sequestrants be used with caution. When sludge formation is a problem. Calcium fluoride is usually the result of the reaction of calcite with HF. there will be three zones around the well: the region between the well and the precipitate zone. 13 Sec.2 1 2 3 r. The rock porosity is 0. according to Solution When the precipitatezone is displaced away from the wellbore. since the volume of spent acid creating the precipitate zone is fixed. sludges. sequestering agents can be added to the acid solution to prevent the precipitation of Fe(OH)3. Simple bottle tests in which a sample of crude oil is mixed with the acid can indicate whether the crude has a tendency for sludge formation when contacted by acid. contact of the crude oil by acid can cause the formation of asphaltenic sludges. For steady-stateradial flow with three regions in series. this spent acid may be left next to the wellbore or displaced farther into the formation. 1ft3/ftof reservoir thickness of spent acid will form a precipitate that reduces the permeability to 10%of the original permeability. (13-42) Using values of r. r2 is the outer radius of the precipitate zone. since shutting in the well for even a relatively short time may allow significant silica precipitation to occur in the near-well vicinity. and asphaltene calcium fluoride. in some reservoirs.) To minimize the damage caused by colloidal silica. Also. emulsions of acid in aromatic solvents or surface-active additives have been used to prevent asphaltene precipitation (Moore et al. ranging from r . 13-4 are obtained.. where the permeability is the original permeability of the reservoir. 1981. the productivity index is Calcium fluoride is very insoluble.2 damage removed. When femc ions (Fe3+) are present. spent acid should be produced back immediately after the completion of injection.. 13-5 Precipitation of Acid Reaction Products 343 The most common damaging precipitates that may occur in sandstone acidizing are femc hydroxide. they can precipitate from spent acid solutions as Fe(OH)3 when the pH is greater than about 2. so that the potential precipitation zone is rapidly displaced away from the wellbore.

September 1982.. K. and Nolan. Sci. 13 Problems 345 REFERENCES 1. Calculate the specific reaction rate of 3 wt% HF with orthoclase feldspar at 120°F. McCune. 2097-21 12. S... B. "Theoretical and Experimental Studies of SandstoneAcidizing. I. adamagedzone where the permeability is 10% oftheoriginal permeability extends 9 in.. "Dissolution Kinetics: The Nature of the Particle Attack of Layered Silicates in HF:' Chem. R. AIME. C. 3. 3: 356-361. C. Oil Well Stimularion. and Schechter. Trans.. calculate the gravimeujc and volumetric dissolving powers of 3 wt% H F reacting with: (a) orthoclase feldspar. 1975.. "Silica Powders of Respirable Sizes IV. C. Lund. J. and McCune. and the skin effect before and after damage removal. S.A. August 1975.. W. 1973. AcidizingFundamentals. 1196-1202. B. In addition. M.. "Formation. February 1981. and Fogler.. Hill.1979. L. Eng. M.Society of Petroleum Engineers. R. M. 2. Walsh. and Schechter. H. D. Richardson."JPT.. "A New Method for Predicting Acid Penetration Distance. Lund. Appl. A well with a wellbore radius of 0. C. pp. R..328 ft and a drainage radius of 745 ft has a perforation skin effect of 3. "Predicting the Flow and Reaction of HCI/HFMixtures in Porous SandstoneCores:' SPEJ. Bryant. Silberberg.. Lund. pp. and McCune. and Ault. I. Calculate the productivity improvement that can be obtained by removing the damage. A. and Schechter. Fogler. Kline. andHil1.. Crowe. pp. W. J.. and Guin. Lindsay. Lund. W.. Eng. 13-3.. S. "An Improved Model of Mud AcidISandstone Chemistry:' SPE Paper 22855. 28: 691. S. K.. F. and McCune.. 12. 111. 234. H. "A Description of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms and Their Role in Formation Damage during Stimulationby Hydrofluoric Acid:'JPT. If half of the H F is consumed in reaction with CaC03 to form CaF2. S. Crowe.5 g/cm3. W. September 1965. and Kunze. K. T. E. "TheRelationship betweenReservoirMineralogy and Optimum Sandstone Acid Treatment:' SPE Paper 23802. Schechter. S. 15. 13-4.. R. C. R. Determine which overall reaction rate is higher at 100°F: the reaction between 3 wt% H F and illite with a specific surface area of 4000 m2/kg or the reaction between 3 wt% H F and albite with a specific surface area of 20 m2kg.. and Prevention of Asphaltene Sludges during Stimulation Treatments:'JPT.. 10. K. Dilute Hydrofluoric Acid: An Anisotropic Mechanism of Dissolution for the Courser Quanz Powders:' J. 11. 16.. Fogler. S... 13. 1992. (b) kaolinite. "Understanding Sandstone Acidizing Leads to Improved Field Practices.. "Acidization I: The Dissolution of Dolomite in Hydrochloric Acid:' Chem. 248-260. C. TX.. C.. The Kinetics of the Dissolution of Sodium and Potassium Feldspar in HF/HCI Acid Mixtures:' Chem. October 1976. W.. 6. Effect. what will be the net porosity change.. 30: 825. August 1963. (c) montmorillonite. 1992. 8. 1975. D.344 Matrix Acidizing: AcidlRock Interactions Chap. Gidley. NJ. D. Lake. pp... Fogler. S. 30 (11): 1325-1332... Williams.. 13-2. 5. daMotta. "Acidization. P.1981. pp. Schechter. PROBLEMS 13-1. A. 1991..." Chem. Fogler. Sci. C.. 1121-29. 277-286. 14. dissolution and C& precipitation? Assume that all CaC03 is dissolved in the region contacted by acid. July 1981. Smith. J. C. A 3 wt% HF112 wt% HCI treatment is injected without an HCI preflush into a sandstone reservoir containing 10% CaCO. L. and Hendrickson. D. Englewood Cliffs. The density of C f i is 2. Prentice Hall. Roberts. 36: 871-884. H. C. Shaughnessy. Sci.. "Secondary Deposition of Iron Compounds Following Acidizing Treatments. H. L. 7. P. 9. H. A. Eng. J. Chem... Part 3. Plavnik.. L... from the wellbore. S. 4.." SPEJ. B. S. . September 1969." JPT. "Acidization 11-The Dissolution of Calcite in Hydrochloric Acid. considering both CaCO. R.. C. Moore. Sci. 1023-1028." SPEJ. E. S. R. K. H. Based on the primary reactions in Table 13-1. Bergman. C. Eng. W. E. 21: 3 M 2 .... The Long-Tern Dissolution of Silica Powders in 13-5.

the spent acid should be immediately produced back to minimize damage by the precipitation of reaction products. and postflush required. the first step in the planning of any matrix acidizingtreatment should be a careful analysis of the cause(s) of impaired well performance. A sandstone acidizing treatment design begins with the selection of the type and concentration of acid to be used. HFMCI mixture. etc. This analysis should begin with the measurement of the well skin effect. damage due to drilling mud invasion or fines migration can be successfully treated with acid. A slightly positive or even zero skin effect that is obtained from a well test should be investigated. are considered next. In virtually all acid treat- . The volume of preflush. or HCI then displaces the HF/HCI from the tubing or wellbore.) should be investigated as described in Chapter 5. A typical acid treatment in sandstones consists of the injection of an HCI preflush. with 50 gallft of formation being a common preflush volume. followed by the injection of 50 to 200 gallft of HF/HCl mixture.C H A P T E R 14 Sandstone Acidizing Design As described in Chapter 13. perforation skin. When a large positive skin effect is present. matrix acidizing is a stimulation technique that is beneficial only when near-wellbore damage exists that can be removed with acid. in general. For highly deviated wells. Potential recovery of a negative skin effect could greatly enhance well productivity. If mechanical effects do not explain the flow impairment. and the desired injection rate(s). sources of mechanical skin (partial penetration. formation damage is indicated. there is a negative skin effect contribution from the extra exposure to the reservoir. brine. Once the treatment is completed. The well history should then be studied to determine if the damage present is amenable to removal with acid. A postflush of diesel. acidizing treatment design can begin. Once acid-treatable formation damage has been identified as the cause of poor well productivity. Therefore.

348 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. the formation. 14-2 Acid Selection 349 merits. in diameter by 3 in. "hflush with 7.5 H P 6. the trend has been toward the use of lower-strength HF solutions (Brannon et al. 1987. Table 14-1 Sandstone Acidizing HCI solubility > 20% High permeability (100 md plus) High quartz (80%). bF'reflushwith sequestered 5% HCI. laboratory tests of the responses of cores to different acid strengths are worthwhile. for sandstones. McLeod (1984) presented guidelines for acid selection based on extensive field experience. however.low clay (15%) High feldspar (>20%) High clay (> 10%) High iron chlorite clay Low permeability (10 md or less) Low clay (15%) High chlorite aPreflush with 15%HCI. the placement of the acid is an important issue-a strategy to ensure that sufficient volumes of acid contact all productive parts of the formation should be carefully planned. but instead should be used as a guideline for field treatments or to provide input to a comprehensive acidizing model. such experiments are expensive and difficult to perform..5% H F 3% HC1-0. 12 wt% HCI mixture. Finally. (From Smirh and Hendrickson. dPreflushwith 5% acetic acid.) . In fact. long) while monitoring the permeability response of the core by measuring the pressure drop across the core. Figure 14-1 Acid response curves. Use HC1 only 10%HC1-3% HFa 13.5% HCI-1% HFb 3% HC1-0. Such tests usually consist of flowing the acid through a small core (typically 1 in. His recommendations for sandstone reservoirs are shown in Table 14-1." In recent years. 1965) shows acid response curves for three different HF concentrations in Berea sandstone. 14 Sec. All of these design factors are considered in this chapter. For years. The results of a test in a short core cannot be expected to predict the response in a well accurately.5% HFb 6% HC1-1. These guidelines should not be taken as hard-and-fast rules. however. A plot of the permeability of the core as a function of acid throughput in pore volumes is termed an "acid response curve" and is a common means of comparing different acidizing conditions. Proper execution of the treatment is critical to acidizing success.) The benefits of lower-concentration HF solutions are the reduction in damaging precipitates from the spent acid and lessened risk of unconsolidation of the formation around the wellbore. 1965. and the reservoir fluids. preceded by a 15 wt% HCl preflush. should be planned in detail. Figure 14-1 (Smith and Hendrickson. the 3/12 HF/HCI mixture has been so common that it is referred to generically as "mud acid. a conservative treatment design would select this low concentration as the best choice of those tested. particularly when many wells may be treated in a particular formation. the standard treatments consisted of 15 wt% HCl for carbonate formations and a 3 wt% HF. so the conduct of the treatment.5% HCI or 10% acetic acid. more accurately reflect field conditions. but rather as starting points in a treatment design. such as those reported by Cheung and Van Arsdale (1992). Experiments in long cores.5%HC1-1. including the mechanical arrangements for introducing the acid to the formation and the methods of treatment monitoring.5% H P The type and strength (concentration) of acid used in sandstones or carbonates is selected based primarily on field experience with particular formations. The types and amounts of additives to be used in the treatment must be determined based on the completion. For a more careful selection of optimal acid formulations. numerous additives are incorporated with acid solutions for various purposes. These curves show that a lower-strength HF solution yields less damage in the early stages of injection.

14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 14-3. or less of damaged region). x is distance. For example. To ensure that an adequate amount of acid contacts most of the formation. The selectionof an optimalacid volume is similarlycomplicatedby competingeffects. A less obvious but equally importantgoal is to minimize the damage caused by the acidizing process itself.and slow-reacting minerals. 14 Set.) For a core flood.- 350 AND 14-3 ACID VOLUME INJECTION RATE Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. S. a larger amount of acid may be necessary. L is the core length.. two dimensionlessgroups appear for each mineral. if a shallow damaged zone exists around perforations (e. 1989). First. while detrital clay particles and quartz grains are the primary slow-reacting minerals. In Eqs. which for linear flow. E is dimensionlessdistance. what may be an optimal rate based only on the dissolution of minerals in the damaged zone may be less than optimum when the overall acidizing process is considered. and NAc. The approach recommended here will be to select a target acid volume based on a model of the acidizing process. 2 in. V F and V s are the volume fractions. and 3 are the specific surface areas. such as 25 gal per perforation or 50 gal/ft of formation thickness.the Damkohler number. can bewritten as so that @ is the dimensionless HF concentration. reducing the overall effectiveness of the acid.The model consists of material balances applied to the HF acid and the reactive minerals. and amorphous silica as fast-reacting. these equations become: where the dimensionless variables are defined as 14-3.s are the reaction rate constants (based on the rate of consumption of HF). Schechter (1992) categorizesfeldspars. However.2 Sandstone Acidizing Models The two-mineral model. design of a sandstone acidizing treatment will be imprecise. the volume of acid that is needed depends strongly on the depth of the damaged zone. the damage can be removed with the least amount of acid by injecting at a slow rate so that most of the acid is reacted within the 2-in. However. 1981.the acid capacity number. Numerous efforts have been made over the years to develop a comprehensive model of the sandstone acidizingprocess that can then be used as a design aid. 1982. which for the fast-reacting mineral is The acid capacity number is the ratio of the amount of mineral dissolved by the acid occupying a unit volume of rock pore space to the amount of mineral present in the unit .. CHFis the concentration of HF in solution. With an assumption being made about the depth of the damaged zone. Taha et al. and 0 is dimensionlesstime (pore volumes. These two groups describe the kinetics and the stoichiometry of the HF-mineral reactions. damaged region. assuming that porosity remains constant. These two goals may at times be at odds. the acid will not in general be distributed equally to all parts of the formation. The treatment should then be conducted in such as way that acidizing can be optimized "on the fly" for a particular well.g.1 Competing Factors Influencing Treatment Design The obvious goal of a sandstone acidizing treatment is to remove near-wellbore formation damage. (14-4)-through(14-6)... Thus. such as in a core flood. The most common model in use today is the two-mineral model (Hill et al. authogenic clays. The Damkohler number is the ratio of the rate of acid consumption to the rate of acid convection. BF and Bs are the dissolving powers of 100% HE and p~ and ps are the densities of the fast. such a slow rate may allow precipitates to form from the spent acid very near to the perforation. respectively. which lumps all minerals into one of two categories: et fast-reacting and slow-reacting species. In these equations. depending mainly on the techniques used for proper acid placement. NDa. A is dimensionless mineral composition. u is the acid flux. an optimal volume for a particular location in the well may be selected based on a laboratory acid response curve or an acidizing model. ~ e k i m al. M W F and M W s are the molecular weights. ELF and Ef. Such an analysis can yield a minimum recommended acid volume. Thus. When made dimensionless. and this depth is seldom known with any accuracy.

As acid is injected into a sandstone. The proper dimensionless variables and groups for these three flow fields are given in Table 14-2. if the slow that appear in this solution. the reader is referred to Schechter (1992) for methods for calculating the complete acid penetration profile in this geometry. 14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 353 volume of rock. 14-3. and ellipsoidal flow fields with appropriate definition of dimensionless variables and groups. cf.. The ellipsoidal flow geometry approximates the flow around a perforation and is illustrated in Fig. This solution approximates the HF-fast) reacting mineral front as a sharp front. (From Schechter. shows typical concentration profiles for high and low values of N D a . The location of the front is given by The Damkohler and acid capacity numbers for the slow-reacting minerals are similarly defined. which relates dimensionless time (or. Conversely. no dissolution has occurred. the reaction front is relatively sharp because the reaction rate is high compared with the convection rate. NDaSs .) Equations (14-4) through (14-6) can only be solved numerically in their general form. Figure 14-2 (da Motta et al. 1992. With a high Damkohler number.defined as the position of the front divided by the core length for linear flow. which for the fast-reacting mineral is the HF concentration reaching the front. However. For the perforation geometry. equivalently. The shape of this front depends on NDa.352 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. expressions are given for the front position of the acid extending directly from the tip of the perforation and for the acid penetration along the wellbore wall. ~ .) It is interesting to note that the Damkohler number for the slow-reacting mineral and the acid capacity number for the fast-reacting mineral are the only dimensionless groups regulates how much live HF reaches the front.. 1992a). (From da Motfa ef al.. 1992a. Schechter (1992) presented an approximate solution that is valid for relatively high Damkohler number ( D ! ~ > 10) and is useful for design purposes.2 Acid and fast-reacting mineral concentration profiles. The dimensionless acid concentration behind the front is A particularly convenient feature of this approximation is that it is applicable to linear. In this expression for the acid capacity number. analytical solutions are possible for certain simplified situations. the convection rate is high relative to the reaction rate and the front will be diffuse. acid volume) to the dimensionless position of the front. The reaction between slow-reacting minerals and HF behind the front serves to diminish Figure 14-3 Ellipsoidal flow around a perforation. not moles/volume. depends on position along the perforation. For low Damkohler numbers. 14 Sec. a reaction front is established by the reaction between the HF and the fast-reacting minerals. In Table 14-2. Radial flow represents the flow of acid from an open-hole completion and may also be a reasonable approximation to the flow from a perforated well with sufficientperforation density. radial.. the position of the front. These two positions should be sufficient for design purposes. ef. so that behind the front all of the fast-reacting minerals have been removed. ahead of the front. Fast-readingminerals Reaction Fast-readingminerals removed Figure 1 4 . the acid concentration is in weight fraction.

and N D . N D . 1992a.s = 0.0071 exp 0.4 / EXAMPLE 14-1 Determining N A ~ .A.46 . from Eq. The acid capacity number for the fast-reacting minerals can be estimated from the breakthrough time of the reaction front. little acid will be available to propagate the fast-mineral front. and N A ~ are the same for all geometries J mineral reacts fast relative to the convection rate.65 during the last 50 pore-volumes of the flood (the slight increase is due either to the removal of small amounts of fast-reacting mineral or decreasing surface area of the slow-reacting mineral).s~. (14-15).63 as the dimensionless concentration supplied to the front.1 acid .. the dimensionless effluent acid concentration.Ffrom L --1 r2 6 Penetration from the tip of the perforation 1 f 3 .5 wt% HCl by da Motta et al.5 0. the F slower the front will 4 1 " d m 2n(l-$)l&s. This solution can be used to estimate the volume of acid needed to remove the fast-reacting minerals from a given region around a wellbore or perforation. 14-4.s (I-~)V. = 1 gives pore volumes. N D ~ . .87 in.v~~~. N A ~ . Solution In a typical acidizing core flood.f (I-#)~.0 0 100 .346 cmlmin (0. 14-4. 14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 355 Dimensionless Groups in Sandstone Acidizing Model Flow Geometry Linear Radial Ellipsoidal E e r mL nr:h+ N h . (From da Motto er al.006 determined by = 0 da Motta et al. diameter by 1. 14 Sec. does not appear because the front was assumed to be F sharp. after all fast-reacting minerals have been dissolved. ~can be calculated with Eq. (14-14).43 and N A ~ . implying that N D ~ .1)(0.57-in.. Solving for NAc. F .315.46.i + 2 . qe.~ from the data. The acid capacity number for the slow-reacting mineral is not important. = -In(@<) ~ (14-16) From Fig. and N D .s 4F-i Penetration adjacent to the wellbore m. the acid concentration will 0. (14-13) and Table 14-2 based on the rock mineralogy or can be obtained from experiments. as will be illustrated in the following example.0114 ft/min). s = 0.63 in Eq. then gradually increase as the fast-reacting minerals are removed from the core. is infinite.Simulation Experimental I 200 300 400 Figure 14-4 Effluent concentration from a core flood.SS. The dimensionless groups. the more rapid will be this rise in effluent concentration. . This occurs at about 180 (14-14) when E.gradually increases from 0. Using the average value of 0. the effluent acid concentration will start at a low value. When virtually all the fast-reacting minerals have been dissolved.- - 354 Table 14-2 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. ~ = ~ 3 ip.E~.46) = 0. Therefore. The acid flux was 0.L level off to a plateau value that reflects the consumption of HF by the remaining quartz and other slow-reacting minerals in the core. The sharper the fast-reacting mineral front. F 0. . from laboratory data F ~ The effluent acid concentration measured in a core flood of a 0. 13. The location of the front can be approximated as that position where the acid concentration is half the value supplied to the front.3 - 1:: :/ 0. The effluent concentration is the concentration at E = 1 as a function of time.61 to 0. because the supply of slow-reacting mineral is almost constant behind the front. NAcSF affects the frontal propagation rate directly: The more fast-reacting mineral is present. NAc'F = (180 .E~. Note: Y.5 wt% HF. (1992a) with a more complex numerical model. (14-16).1 These results compare well with the values of ND.-long Devonian sandstone core with 1. the front emerges from the core when the effluent concentration is 0. F . Using the value of 0. 0. using Eq. N D . (1992a) is shown in Fig. Determine N D ~and N A ~ .

.=) a relatively high slow-mineral reaction rate (high ND. A higher acid concentration would be needed for deeper penetration with the same volume of acid. particularly at elevated is qi/4.1 bbllmin-ft of thickness. these studies suggest that the reaction of fluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) with aluminosilicate (fast-reacting) minerals may be quite significant. z = . around the base of the perforation adjacent to the wellbore.024) The volume injected per perforation is qFfit. The result is a penetration distance of 4. 6.1 bbllmin-ft of thickness.1)] . The acid injection rate is 0. The dimensionless acid penetration distance. and 6 in. from the wellbore is 5. the radial flow Damkohler number is related to that for linear Since there are 4 shotslft.. Using the expression from Table 14-2 relating the dimensionless frontal position to the acid penetration from the tip of the perforation. 0 The dimensionlessfront position for a penetration of 6 in. = -11.292 for 6.=z = 1.5 + . an unreasonably large volume.O24)(2. and the injection The two-acid.1. and noting that z is measured from the wellbore (the start of the perforation).37. Bryant (1991) and d a Motta et al.5)~.. 3 in. assuming that the acid flows radially into the formation. so.~). 14 Sec. (1992b) presented evidence that the sandstone acidizing process is not described adequately by the two-mineral model. is the same at any location around the perforation. Solution flow by From Table 14-2. 0 EXAMPLE 14-3 Acid volume design for ellipsoidal flow from a perforation Calculate the acid volume needed (gallft) to remove all fast-reacting minerals a distance of 3 in.356 EXAMPLE 14-2 Acid volume design for radial flow Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap..t/ h is simply the volume injected per unit thickness. the ellipsoidal flow Damkohlernumber is related to that for linear Using the acid capacity and Damkohler numbers from Example 14-1. from a wellbore of radius 0.3 in.292 3 3 + 0= exp[(O. from the tip of the perforations for a well completed with 4 shotslft. The perforation length is 6 in. q. The dimensionless position of the front for radial flow is related to the radial penetration as shown in Table 14-2: Then Using Eq. 6 in. the total acid volume per foot is 204 gal/ft. 1 2 6. From the definition of 0 for radial flow in Table 14-2 and recognizing that q. and the porosity is 0. making it difficult to propagate HF far into the formation. Repeating the calculations yields an acid volume of 420 gallft. Solution flow bv From Table 14-2. Thus.2.= 0.5 1. Recently.1 = 310 (0. such as would occur in an open-hole completion. In particular. The acid penetration at the wellbore is found from the second expression in Table 14-2.. from Table 14-2. Also calculate the position of the acid front immediately adjacent to the wellbore for this volume of acid injection.2. This adds the following reaction to the two-mineral model: + fast-reacting mineral --+ v Si(OH). and solving for x by trial and error. determine the acid volume (gal/ft) needed to remove all fast-reacting minerals to distances of 3 in. using the value of 0.328 ft. based on the laboratow data in Example 14-1.007)(0. (14-14). the porosity is 0. three-mineral model. 14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 357 rate is 0. Since there are 4 shotslft. + Al fluorides (14-32) The practical implications of this reaction being significant are that less H F will be needed to consume the fast-reacting minerals with a given volume of acid because the fluosilicic .fi 6 in..1 + 2. This parand ticular formation has a high concentrationof fast-reacting minerals (low NA~.

0 Dlmenslonless Dlstance Dlrnenslonless ~ l s t a n c i $ 0. The permeability change as a result of acidizing is an extremely complicated process. empirical correlations relating the permeability increase to the porosity change during acidizing are used. Fig. For example.0 Yip 1 0 2 4 6 8 1 Pore Volumes Injected 0 Recently. Sevougian et al. three-mineral model has not been tested extensively.) 1 $ Time-distance diagram showing regions of possible precipitation. A typical result from this model is shown in Fig. At the same time. (FromSchechrer. 14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 359 I acid will also be reacting with these minerals. To predict the response of a formation to acidizing. I .4 0. a time-distance diagram for the injection of 4 wt%HF/11 wt%HCl into a formation containing calcite.8 1.0 0.e. The most common correlations used are those of Labrid (1975). i. This reaction allows live HF to penetrate further into the formation. The most common type of geochemical model used to study sandstone acidizing is the local equilibrium model. and quartz. '0. The tendency for reaction product precipitation has been studied with comprehensive geochemicalmodels that consider a large number of possible reactions that may take place in sandstone acidizing. all reaction rates are infinitely fast. the price is the risk of the formation of possible damaging precipitates. the permeability eventually will increase to values considerably higher than the original permeability. 14 Sec.) - I 0. small particles are released as cementingmaterial is dissolved. reducing the permeability. Lund and Fogler (1976). (From Sevougian er 01. though some success has been achieved for more ideal systems such as sintered disks (Guin et al. since it is affected by several different. As the reaction rate decreased. This model shows that precipitation damage will be lessened if the either the dissolution or the precipitation reactions are not instantaneous.2 0.0 0. The two-acid. The complex nature of the permeability response has made its theoretical prediction for real sandstones impractical. kaolinite. The two-acid. sometimes competing phenomena in the porous media.4 : : I I --0.. three-mineral model considers the precipitation of silica gel in its description of the acidizing process. Permeability models. This plot shows regions where amorphous silica and aluminum fluoride will tend to precipitate. (1982).. the amount of damaging precipitate formed decreased. This type of model assumes that all reactions are in local equilibrium. However. A vertical line on this plot represents the mineral species present as a function of distance if all reactions are in local equilibrium. However. and the reaction product. Any precipitates formed will also tend to decrease the permeability. 0. Si(OH)4(silica gel) will precipitate. it suggests that using the two-mineral model for predicting required acid volumes will be a conservative approach. there are numerous other reaction products that may precipitate.0 0.]. (1992) presented a geochemical model that includes kinetics for both dissolution and precipitation reactions.6 0. The formation of CO2 as carbonate minerals are dissolved may also cause a temporary reduction in the relative permeability to liquids. such as that described by Walsh et al. and .. The result of these competing effects is that the permeability in core floods usually decreasesinitially. 14-6 shows predicted regions and concentrations of precipitates for four differentprecipitation reaction rates (mineralsAC and DB are precipitates).0 0.6 0. 14-5. 1992.and some of these particles will lodge (perhapstemporarily) in pore throats.2 1.o.0 Dlrnenslonless Dlstance Figure 14-6 Effect of precipitation kinetics on regions of precipitate formation. 1971).8 DB(s) Precipitation models.4 0. it is necessary to predict the change in permeability as acid dissolves some of the formation minerals and as other minerals precipitate. As a result. particularly for high-temperature applications. 1992. The permeability increases as pores and pore throats are enlarged by mineral dissolution. with continued acid injection.358 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap.4 "0.

with deeper damage. Effect of depth of damage (2 acid.02 0. (1988) and Paccaloni and Tambini (1990) reported . 2 =M k Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. = 45. the manner in which the pore structures of these formations responded 0 to acid differed markedly. . Figure 14-7 (da Motta. then Lund and Fogler's. 2 = e~p[45. courtesy o f The predicted permeabilities with the three correlations differ by orders of magnitude. recent results with the two-acid. McLeod (1984) recommends relatively low iniection rates.08)] = 770 md [ ] 0. Labrid's equation will yield the most conservative design. On the other hand. P da Motta. In fact. an optimal injection rate can be derived using the two-mineral model. followed by Lambed's.) However. Field experience has also been contradictory regarding the optimal injection rate for sandstone acidizing. The best approach in using these correlationsis to select the empirical constants based on core flood responses. based on . Each of these correlations is based on experiments with particular sandstones and.5 and A@. 1993) shows that with shallow damage. 143 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 361 ($)I where k and @ are the initial permeability and porosity and ki and $i are the permeability and porosity after acidizing.6 x lo4 md (14-37) 0. The Optimal Rate Schedule Selecting an optimal injectionrate for sandstone acidizing is a difficult process because of uncertainties about the damaged zone and the competing effects of mineral dissolution and reaction product precipitation.00 (7. These correlations are: Labrid: k. (1992a.08 best fit data for Phacoides sandstone. Labrid: Lund and Fogler: Lambert: ki = (20 md) ki = (20 md) exp ----. the higher the injection rate.5)(0. Lacking data for a particular formation. Lund and Fogler: where M = 7. so the porosity after acidizing is 0.360 Lambert (1981).. 3 mineral model) 1\ EXAMPLE 14-4 Predicting the permeability response to acidizing A sandstone with an initial porosity of 0. the depth of the damage is seldom known with any certainty. Paccaloni et al. injection rate has little effect on the skin effect after 100 gallft of acid injection. Based on mineral dissolution alone. 14 Sec. Labrid's correlationpredicts the smallest permeability increase. the lower the skin effect achieved by acidizing.. Lambert: k.= 3. clearly. with the optimal rate being the rate that maximizes the spending of the HF in the damaged zone. and that the highest rate possible yields the best results. three-mineral model have shown that acidizing efficiency is relatively insensitive to injection rate.7)(0. the observation that acid contact times with the formation of 2 to 4 hr appear to give good results. Such an approach has been presented by da Motta et al. reported to be 1 and 3 for Fontainbleau sandstone. (From da Mona. Calculate the permeability after removing all of these minerals using each of the permeability correlations. .= exp ki k = 0. M and n are empirical constants.7.3 Monitoring the Acidizing Process. The predicted permeabilities after acidizing are as follows. illustrating the great uncertainty involved in hying to predict the permeability response to acidizing in sandstones.06 0.4) multiplied by the fraction of solid dissolved.04 0.7(@~@)] k - (14-35) Lambert's expression is identical to Lund and Fogler's when MIA@.08 ki = (20 md) exp[(45. if such are available. 1993. Acid volume-100 gal/ft I Solution The change in porosity due to acidizing is the initial fraction of the bulk volume that is solid (1 . and given the depth of the damaged zone. Effect on injection rate on skin evolution. Using the values of the constants suggested.10 (14-38) (14-39) E.) . and the detrimental effects of reaction product precipitates may be lessened by using rates higher than the optimum based on mineral dissolution alone.28.08) 0.08 Injection rate (bpmlft) Figure 14-7 0. 14-3.2 and initial permeability of 20 md contains a total of 10 vol% of carbonate and fast-reacting minerals in the damaged region.

Paccaloni's maximum Ap. ? Solution The breakdown pressure from Eq. or The maximum tubing injection pressure is given by Eq. maximum rate" procedure is due to improved acid coverage (discussed in the next section) and the minimizationof precipitation damage. the injection rate must be kept below the rate that will cause hydraulic fracture formation. at a depth of 9822 ft.) Assuming pseudosteady-stateflow. As injection rate is increased.5 to 10bpm are given in Table 14-3 and plotted in Fig.4. FG. by monitoring annulus pressure). If the skin effect in the well is initially 10.(psi) ~ . (7-3I). or pumping should occasionally be stopped for a brief period to determinethe frictionalpressure drop. There is always an upper bound on injection rate since. Maximum tub~ng lnjectlon pressure (Example 14-5). for q. the relationship between the maximum rate and tubing pressure should be calculated so that the breakdown pressure is never exceeded.07)(9822ft) = 4551 psi E (14-44) (See Chapter 16 for a thorough discussion of the breakdown pressure. Before a matrix acidizing treatment is begun. times depth. ~ where the potential energy and frictional pressure drops are both positive quantities. to ensure a matrix treatment. When foams or other non-Newtonian fluids are used. 7-7. the surface tubing pressure to maintain a constant bottomhole pressure increases because of the increased frictional pressure drop. which for injection is pbd-ij= The frictional pressure drop is given by Eq.? L APF = (14-45) D5 The friction factor is obtained from the Reynolds number and the relative roughness using Eq. (2-30). The results for flow rates ranging from 0. This should be done for a wide range of injection rates.525pq.. 14 Set. these can be computed using the methods described in Chapter 7. Using Eq.g. maximum rate procedure is recommended and will be described here.362 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. (7-22). iS: to be acidized with an acid solution having a specific gravity of 1. what is the maximum allowable rate at the start of the treatment? Assume that re = 1000 ft and j = 4500 psi. .07 and a viscosity of 0. EXAMPLE 14-5 Maximum injection rate and pressure A well in Reservoir A. the breakdown pressure is related to the injection rate by Eq. It is likely that the success of Paccaloni's "maximum Ap. The formation fracture gradient is 0. (7-35)or Fig.7 psi/ft)(9822 ft) = 6875 psi b Figure 14-8 (14-43) .433 psi/ft)(1. Plot the maximum tubing injection pressure versus acid injection rate. The bottomhole pressure that will initiate a fracture (the breakdown pressure) is simply the fracture gradient. so it is necessary to relate the surface pressure to the bottomhole pressure by NR< f APF (psi) P ~ . coiled tubing with a relative roughness of 0. the bottomholepressure should be monitored continuously (e.7 cp down 2-in. is f 1. only the surface rate and tubing pressure are monitored during an acid job. which. Table 14-3 Example 14-5 Results kh qi (bpm) Most commonly.7 psi/ft.001.D. is A ~ P= (0. in bpm and all other quantities in the usual oilfield units. 14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 363 high success rates in numerous field treatments using the highest injection rates possible. which is independent of flow rate. since the injection rate that the formation can accommodate without fracturing will increase as the skin effect is reduced by the acid. If the fluid is Newtonian. 14-8. (14-42). (14-40) is p d = (0. Unless experience in a particular area suggests otherwise.the potential energy pressure drop.

(14-47). however. it suggests that the inverse of the injectivitywill decrease as the skin effect is reduced by acidizing. (2-6)] for injection with a skin effect yields P W --~. but should be held below 10%of the pressure shown in Fig. even though an aqueous fluid is being injected. but this procedure may require the use of a simulator that will often not be available for real-time monitoring. This technique is more applicable to a careful posttreatment analysis. a higher injection rate is possible without fracturing the formation. rh is the radius .In (14-47) Pqi r. ( p s l / H ) = 0. it is not a serious problem because the error will be relatively constant and the evolutionin skin effect is more important than its absolute value.. a prudent design would begin with an injection rate of 0. 14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate Kw (md) = 75 h ( f t ) = 154 pw ( c p ) = 1 365 rw (fI) = 0. it is usually recommended that the surface tubing pressure be maintained about 10%below the pressure that would initiate fracturing. (14-41). significant stimulation is occuning.. the inverse injectivity can be plotted against the log of time. the wellhead pressure is plotted against injection rate and the evolving skin effect can be read from the graph. 1. yields (6875 .472)(1000)/0.2 bprn and the surface tubing pressure should be less than 2330 psi.) This error can be severe when abrupt rate changes occur. (From Poccoloni ond Tombini. Solving for qi. and (2) the treatment should be monitored in real time to ensure that the maximum rate objective is being met and to determine when sufficient acid has been injected into the formation.364 Sandstone Acldizing Design Chap.(in) = 4. For this well. 1990. . maximum pwf possible without fracturing the formation. the inverse injectivity will increase proportional to the log of time because of the transient nature of the flow. maximum rate procedure has two major components: (1) The acid should be injected at the maximum rate and hence. (14-42). To monitor the progress of a stimulationtreatment. 14-8 for any particular rate. little stimulation is occumng. If the rate became higher than about 1 bprn.v where all of the variables are in standard oilfield units.23 + s) @Pctr$ (14-48) Though this equation does not strictly apply during a matrix stimulation treatment (it assumes constant rate after the start of injection. where p.74 Oeplh(H)= 7490 TBG I. or a different fluid used. Maximum Rate Procedure. is related to pwf by Eq.D. when no stimulation is occuning. 9 ~ ~ ~ . in most treatments. Applying the approximation to the transient flow equation [Eq. The fracture pressure versus injection rate is also plotted on this graph. Begin injection at a rate such that pwf = 0 . versus q.. when the injection rate schedule from the treatment is known.1 bpm. 14 The maximum injection rate at the start of the treatment can be obtained from Eq. develop the relationship between pwf and pti. Plot (pwf . A drawback to Paccaloni's method is that it will tend to overestimate the skin effect because it neglects transient flow effects. As the skin effect decreases during acidizing. affected by acid injection and Paccaloni suggests that a value of 4 ft be used. The viscosity of the reservoir oil was used in this calculation since almost all of the pressure drop in the reservoir occurs where oil is flowing. Paccaloni's maximum Ap.. so that the rate can be held at the highest possible value without fracturing the formation. 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Injection Rate (bpm) Figure 14-9 Paccalonidesign chart for monitoring acidizing. indicating that injection of the treatment fluid should be discontinued. To monitor a stimulation treatment.P m 6 qi kh ( ~ log r k + log -.. The reservoir pressure (p) . according to 0.7)(In [(0. Prouvost and Economides presented a procedure to calculate more accurately the changing skin effect during matrix acidizing. Paccaloni calculates a steady-state skin effect. pwf (through Ap).92 Gfr. 2. Paccaloni constructs a graph of p. As the treatment proceeds. and s. When it levels off or begins to increase. as in Example 14-5.) Paccaloni's Maximum Ap.p)/qi versus log(r) during the treatment. As long as the inverse injectivity is decreasing. the tubing pressure could increase above 2000 psi.4500)(8.17 bprn Sec. A summary of the procedure is as follows.3. To ensure that fracturing does not occur. the initial injection rate should be less than 0. An alternative real-time monitoring procedure that draws on both Paccaloni's and Prouvost and Economides' approaches is as follows. which could be increasedwhile keeping the surfacepressure below 2000 psi.2)(1. with s as a parameter.35 Pe(psi) = 3020 d(lb1gal) = 8.mar= (141. To monitor a stimulation treatment.328]+ 10) = 250 bblld = 0.00708kh Ap rb s= .. as pointed out by Prouvost and Economides (1988) and confirmed by Paccaloni and Tarnbini (1990. Equation (14-47) relates q.2)(53) 4i. Prior to the start of the treatment.56 2000 (14-46) Thus. Rgure 14-9 shows such a design chart for a matrix stimulation treatment. 3. Conversely. for example). In Ea.

56 in. (14-40).2. 1990. the bottomhole pressure should be restricted to less than about 5000 psi. However. Ap. to prevent fracturing. and water was injected to displace the acid from the wellbore. j 4. As stimulation proceeds. using the method just presented. the breakdown pressure is 5540 psi. which gives a better picture of the progress of the second half of the treatment. along with ~ W Ap.Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. The treatment was terminated after the third leveling off of inverse injectivity.f = 0 .35 ft = 4.) Other information about the treatment is given in Table 14-4. using the value of p. indicating nearly complete removal of damage..) Solution From Eq. J . (From Paccaloni and Tambini. (14-45). given. 5. p.72 Ib. in a well with pressure maintenance at the boundary. which shows that ~ W was held just under the maximum safe level of about 5000 psi throughJ out most of the treatment. The inverse injectivity appears to level off three different times in this portion of the treatment. 14-10 are tabulated in Table 14-5. Analyze the response of this well to acidizing.74 psi/ft Well H = 7490 ft rw = 0. the scale of this plot is so large that little detail is seen. First. Stop injection when Ap/qi versus log(t) levels off or increases for a significant amount of injection (25-50 gallft). 14 to use in the calculation is pi in a n e w well. and using Eq. Replotting the data starting after the first 56 min of injection yields Fig. 14-12. The analysis illustrated here should be applied during the course of a matrix stimulation treatment. and j in a confined reservoir. the bottomhole pressure versus time during the treatment is plotted in Fig. increase the rate to maintain p. 9 ~ ~ ~ . EXAMPLE 14-6 Real-time treatment monitorine Figure 14-10 shows the injection rate and surface tubing pressure for the matrix acidizing treatment of Well GW-1 presented by Paccaloni and Tambini (1990./ft3 fi = lcp Formation k = 75 md h = 154 ft p. such an analysis can also be applied after the treatment to diagnose the success or failure of the stimulation. 14-13. Paccaloni and Tambini attributed this behavior to successive portions of the formation receiving significant stimulation as the injection rate is boosted to maintain pwf near the target value. 14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 367 Table 14-4 Matrix Acidizing Design Data Acid 3%HF/12%HCl Volume injected = 45 gal/ft p = 66. For the acid injected Values of injection rate and tubing pressure versus time from Fig. 0 .. 14-11. the frictional pressure drop is approximately ISPLACING warn- 6 20 is so that p . Thus. the potential energy pressure drop in the tubing is 3470 psi. The diagnostic plot of inverse injectivity versus log(t) is shown in Fig. and A p / q i . ~ The pressure drop. Because the initial injectivity was so low (the initial skin effect was reported to be 340). is 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (min) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (min) Figure 14-10 Injection rate and surface tubing pressure for acidizing treatment of Well GW-I(Example 14-6). MUD ACID ENTERING THE FORMATION I and this depth. between the well and the reservoir. The acid treatment shown here was a very successful one-the skin effect measured with a pressure transient test after treatment was 1. injection of acid should be stopped. = 3020 psi FG = 0. Sec. An oil or gas well should not b e treated as an acid disposal well-when stimulation is n o longer proceeding. The injectivity of this water was apparently lower than that of the acid.

14-3 Acid Volume and Injection Rate 369 Table 1 4 . 14 Sec. Well GW-I (Example 14-6). (psi) EA) AP (psi) Ap/qi (psi/bpm) 3000 0 20 40 60 t (min) 80 100 120 Figure 14-1 1 Bottomhole pressure record.368 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap.5 Example 14-6 Results time (min) qi (bpm) PI. Figure 14-1 2 Inverse injectivity diagnostic plot (Example 14-6) .

5 to 5 gal/1000 gal 1lbm/ft perforations of 0. 14 Set. the damage may not be distributed uniformly.5 to 2 lbm/ft not use with HF acid) (do The surest method for obtaining uniform acid placement is to isolate individual zones mechanically and treat all zones successively. a 50% excess of ball sealers is recommended. Erbstoesser (1980) showed that ball sealers that are slightly buoyant in the carrying fluid seat more efficiently than dense ball sealers. To ensure cleanup. particularly in horizontal wells. Buoyant ball sealers will be produced back to the surface after completion of the treatment. ball sealers are more dense than the treating fluid. and/or water are chosen. diverting acid to other stages. A general guideline for ball sealer use is to use twice as many dense ball sealers as perforations.3 Particulate Diverting Agents Perhaps the most common method of improving placement in matrix acidizing treatments is through the use of particulate diverting agents. Particulate diverting agents are fine particles that form a relatively low-permeability filter cake on the formation face. 1984). or in batches between stages of acid. materials that are soluble in oil. Commonly used particulate diverting agents and their recommended concentrations are given in Table 14-6 (McLeod. or with gels or foams. without the use of techniques to improve the acid placement.1 Mechanical Acid Placement Summary of Particulate Diverters with Recommended Concentrations Diverting Agent Oil-soluble resin or polymer Benzoic acid Rock salt Unibeads (wax beads) Naphthalene flakes or moth balls Concentration 0. the acid should be diverted by mechanical means. Mechanical isolation can be accomplished with an opposed cup packer (perforation wash tool). the acid will tend to flow primarily into the highest-permeability zones.1 Figure 14-13 Inverse injectivity diagnostic plot afterthe first56 min of injection (Example 14-6). 14-4. Diverting agents are either added to the treating fluid continuously. with particulate diverting agents.) Mechanical placement techniques require the removal of tubulars from the well. leaving lower-permeability zones virtually untreated. Most commonly.8 1. so a ball trap must be added to the flow line. gas. this cost may often be justified by the improved placement.lft (do not use in water-injection wells) The presence of divertingagents complicatesthe diagnosis of acid treatments because the diverting agent is continuously adding a pressure drop at the wellbore. These methods are described by McLeod (1984. Thus the distribution of the acid into the formation is a very important consideration in matrix acidizing. adding significant cost to treatment.25 to 1 Ib. divertingthe acid to other parts of the formation where less diverting agent has been deposited. the combination of a squeeze packer and a retrievable bridge plug. the ball sealers will fall into the rathole. 14-4 Fluid Placement and Diversion 371 14-4. with ball sealers.370 1000 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. 14-4. Ball sealers are added to the treating fluid in stages so that after a number of perforations have received acid. they are blocked. When it is determined that sufficient acid coverage cannot be obtained by allowing the acid to choose its own path. 1 to 2 Ib. The seating efficiency of ball sealers will increase as injection rate increases and are generally not recommended for low rate (< 1 bpm) treatments. Ball sealers are not effective in deviated or horizontal wells. If there are significant variations in reservoir permeability. 0 1. However.2 Ball Sealers Ball sealers are rubber-coated balls that are designed to seat in the perforations in the casing.Q log(t) 2 2. Simultaneously. much of the damage may be left untreated. or inflatable straddle packers. thereby diverting injected fluid to other perforations. . small particles and a wide range of particle sizes are needed. However. To form a low-permeability filter cake. Table 14-6 14-4 FLUID PLACEMENT DIVERSION AND A critical factor to the success of a matrix acidizing treatment is proper placement of the acid so that all of the productive intervals are contacted by sufficient volumes of acid. and a treatment design should include plans for acid placement. A particulate diverting agent must form a low-permeability filter cake and must be easily removed after treatment. Even in relatively homogeneous formations./ft 0. with buoyant ball sealers. The pressure drop through this filtercake increases the flow resistance. so that after treatment.7 1.

is the cake permeability../ft3. and Schechter (1992). I is the thickness of the filter cake. V is the cumulative volume of solution injected. 372 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. 1987): 2xkh =Apcake 4P Substituting for Ap. so that Tahaet al. Eqs. Equations of this type and solutions for a few cases. 14 Sec. and r. pda is in lb. Recognizing that (qi/h)j is the change in specific cumulative volume with time and incorporating the expression for scake. reported values of from the slope of a Apcake a for oil-soluble resin-diverting agents ranging from about 1013to about 10" ft/lbm. These two effects can be properly accounted for only with a comprehensive acidizing model.) To model the effects of diverting agents during acidizing more correctly. (1989. A simpler model can be obtained by assuming a relationship for the evolution of the damage skin effect and incorporating this relationship into Eqs. as in the maximum Ap. This expression contains the intrinsic cake properties. ~ . (14-52) yields To calculate the effect of diverting agents during an acid treatment. such an approach results in a complex numerical model. and kcake. the pressure drop through the filter cake can be expressed as a skin effect (Doerler and Prouvost. /L is the viscosity of the fluid carrying the diverting agent. sj. decreasing the flow resistance near the wellbore. a. is the density of the diverting agent particles. such as that presented by Taha et al. and thus are applicable to any diverting agent that exhibits this behavior. maximum rate method. is the wellbore radius (ft). (14-58) and (14-59) can be solved directly to give the injection rate and cumulative volume injected into each layer as a function of time if the changing damage skin effect. Instead. and kc*.Eq. k is the permeability of the formation in md. Incorporatingthis relationship into Eq. neglecting the changing damage skin effect. For example. assuming steady-state flow in the reservoir yields v where (qi/ h)j is in bpmlft and all other quantities are in standard with Eq. The thickness of the filter cake increases continuously as diverting agent is deposited and is related directly to the cumulative volume of diverting agent solution that has been injected. (1989). Eq. Eqs. This expression for s . However. is not considered. and @cakeis the porosity of the filter cake. a system of J coupled ordinary differentialequations result. if the total injection rate is held constant. were presented by Doerler and Prouvost (1987. If pwf . which are constant for an incompressiblefilter cake. defined as a= 1 ~ d a ( 1 4cake)kcake - where where pd. (14-55) and reconciling all units gives Scake (14-56) where a is in ft~lb. Cda is ft3 of diverting agent particles per cubic foot of solution. The volume of acid needed to reduce the skin effect v . @&. As acidizing proceeds. Taha et al.. However. as presented by Taha et al. Of the commonly used diverting agents. 14-4 Fluid Placement and Diversion 373 the acid is removing damage. Taha et al.) However. Hill and Galloway (1984) presented a model of oil-soluble resin diverting agent performance that has been improved and extended by Doerler and Prouvost (1987). Alternatively. (1989) showed that a can be readily obtained from avariety of common laboratory tests. the skin effect will decrease until the damage has been almost entirely removed. if a diverting agent solution is injected into a core at constant rate and the pressure drop across the filter cake measured. (1989). These models all assume that the diverting agent forms an incompressible filter cake. The pressure drop across an incompressible filter cake can be expressed by Darcy's law as CLul (14-52) Apcake = gckcake where u is the flux through the filter cake (q/A). After this point has been reached.p. A is the cross-sectional area of the filter cake. Equation (14-59) is an ordinary differential equation in and t. (1458) and (14-59) can be coupled with a comprehensive model of the acidizing process.j. approximate models of the overall process can be helpful in designing diversion and interpreting the effect of diversion on the real-time ratelpressure behavior during an acid treatment. the pressure drop through the filter cake can be expressed in terms of the specific cake resistance. For example. is the specific cumulative volume injected (gallft). (14-58) becomes where Cdais the concentration of diverting agent particles in the carrying solution (volume of particles/volume of solution).can now be incorporated into an equation describing the flow into a particular reservoir zone j . (14-55) shows that a can be obtained versus cumulative volume curve. the skin effect will change very slowly and can be approximatedas being zero. only Uni-Beads might be expected to deviate significantly from incompressiblebehavior. these properties are difficult to measure independently. remains constant. (14-58) and (14-59).

(14-61) to Eqs. First..374 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. and that it then remains constant. Bringing Eq. Two reservoir zones of equal thickness and permeabilities of 100 and 10 md are to be acidized with an acid solution containing an oil-soluble resin diverting agent. (14-70) by setting V j I. The highest-permeability layer.j is the rate of change of the skin effect as acid is injected. (14-7 1) or Eq. Finally. V j is greater than V . (14-65) and (14-75) for V 1greater than V c V lNext. (14-62) and (14-70) for VI less than V c . these can be written as where When it is integrated. j . the total injection rate and total injected volume are For convenience. j . volume injected into any other layer j at the same time as when a known cumulative volume has been injected into the highesf permeability layer is calculat_edwith Eq. The diverting agent is continuouslyadded to the acid solution so that the concentrationof diverting agent is 0.j = 50. at which V j is equal to Vc. EXAMPLE 14-7 Flow distribution during acidizing with diverting agents is less than V . from laboratory results. depending on whether V j is less than or greater than V. . and Eq.. (14-65) through (14-78) as follows. c2. (14-76).j is the volume of acid needed to reduce the skin effect to zero. Thus. and Vc.j = 0. and Vc. . 14-4 Fluid Placement and Diversion equal to S c ..1 ~01%. The simplest approach is to assume that the skin effect will decrease linearly with cumulative acid injected until it reaches zero. or from field experience.. = 10. the total injection rate and cumulative volume injected for the time of interest are calculated by summing the contributions from all the layers. if the initial skin effect is 10 and 50 gal/ft of acid are needed to reduce the skin effect to zero. the injection rate and injection time as functions of the cumulative volume injected into the highest permeability layer are calculated-with Eqs.2.j is the initial damage skin effect in layer j . denoted as layer 1.and with Eqs. The Equations (14-63) through (I!-71) apply to any layer for which injection time. 14 Sec. (14-65) applies both before and after V j is equal to V.j is indep_endentof the injected volume.. c2. For example. l . according to Eqs. as long as the appropriate constants are used. r . (14-66) yields The flow rate and cumulative volume injected for each layer as functions of injection time or total cumulative volume can be obtained from Eqs. j . so. sj where so. . serves as a convenient reference layer because the cumulative volume of acid will be highest for this layer at any given time. (14-58) and (14-59) gives The constant a3. . . the cumulative . (14-65). (14-77) and (14-78). j . The injection rate for that layer is then calculated with Eq. For any layer in which equations hold: 375 = 0 and the following to zero can be estimated based on an acidizing model.j is obtained from Eq. At any time during injection. Eq.

p. while the acid solution has a viscosity of 0.8 5.043 Vl (gallft) v2 (gallft) 0.j. The total rate increases as the high-permeability layer responds to acid.0 20. = 0.0 5. (14-75). 1 4 4 Fluid Placement and Diversion Table 14-8 377 Example 14-7 Results Time (min) 0.j a2.043 0. Labeling the high-permeability layer as layer 1. at 50 gallft (which is v c .046 0. (14-72) through (14-74) for Vj greater than The results of these calculations are given in Table 14-7. From the given acidizing response.079 0.0075 0.j a3. This behavior results in a diagnostic plot much different from those for treatments without diverting agents. The rate into layer 1 increases until 50 gaWft have been injected.(0.376 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. I ) . The diverting agent was not very effective in this treatment. The positive slope on the diagnostic plot is the result of the increasing 0 diverting agent pressure drop at the high-permeability layer. Either a higher diverting agent concentration or a diverter with a higher specific cake resistance would result in better acid placement.l ..5 21.042 0. after which it declines. The constants aiSj then calculated with Eqs.328 ft. For example.045 0. Also. (bpmlft) 0.0076 0.j Now. The constants ~ 4 were not needed . Calculate the injection rate and cumulative volume injected for each layer versus time up to a total injected volume of at least 100 gallft.-- Vj Less than VLj Layer j a1.0 10. the rate is again calculated with Eq.j a2. and 50 gallft of acid will remove all of the damage. 14-14 and 14-15.j a3.0 30. the injection rate declines as diverting agent continues to build up on the sandface. for all injection times calculated previously. = 2000 psi. while the low-permeabilitylayer did not receive enough acid to remove all damage.. because the volume injected into the lower-permeabilitylayer never exceeds 50 gayft.00 3.4 32. This behavior is due to the damage skin effect decreasing faster than the diverting agent skin increases until all damage is removed from the layer.j. 1416 and 14-17.043)(50)) and h. Sec. The total injection rate and inverse injectivity diagnostic plot are shown in Figs. 1 59. (14-65) and (14-70) for volumes up to 50 gallft.0078 0.0157.0 16.19 12.13 6.085 bpmlft 42(18.0077 0.081 0.0 For larger injection volumes. but with the constants for cj greater than and the time corresponding to each volume is calculated with Eq.0077 0. and with Eqs.0 2.077 0. the drainage radius of the reservoir is 1980 ft. . (14-65) through (14-78) are calculated.. Solution First.0 1.0 60. The damage skin effect in both layers is initially 10.9 27. (14-65) and (14-71). 14 The diverting agent has a specific gravity of 1. then declines.94 18.0 0.0079 0.044 0. Finally.2 for both layers. V. calculate and plot the total injection rate and the inverse injectivity as functions of time. from Eq. and the injection rate will be adjusted throughout the treatment to maintain p. (gallft) 0.15 q1 (bpmlft) 0..1 = (18.9 and similarly.083 0. ~ in this example.9 min 59. The injection rate and cumulative volume into each layer are shown in Figs.0 50. a1..9 3.0080 0. v.2 and a specific cake resistance of loi3 ft/lb.0 2.0 40. . = 50 gallft and czej= 0.9 4.7)(50) (14-81) = 14. as the high-permeabilitylayer received considerably more acid than necessary. (14-60). The results are given in Table 14-8.043/2)(5@) Constants for Example 14-7 .j VJ Greater than V . Next the injection rate into layer 1 and the time that a given volume has been injected are calculated using Eqs. The well radius is 0.9 V. the total injection rate and cumulative volume are calculated for each time with Eqs. After this time. Table 14-7 + (-0.041 0.085 0. the relevant cpnstants for Eqs.7 cp at downhole conditions.7 . (14-65).5 11.077 q2 (bpmlft) q.0 = 0.075 0. (14-67) through are (14-69) for Vj less than V.20 9. (14-77) and (14-78).10 14. the flow rate and cumulative volume injected for layer 2 are calculated with Eqs.

The results are shown in Figs. obtaining a4. Solution The solutions for no diverting agent and a cake resistance of l o 4f b are obtained just as in Example 14-7. so all of the same equations can . the injection rate into the lowest-permeability layer after 100 gallft of acid injection is highest when no diverting agent is used (Fig.= be used. Figure 14-16 Total injection rate history (Example 14-7).? from Eq..02 Low permeability layer 0. 14 Sec. but for the case of no diverting agent and for a diverting agent with a specific cake resistance of loi4Mb. the volume injected into the low-permeability layer will exceed 50 galfft before a total of 100 gallft are injected. Perhaps surprisingly. The effectiveness of diverting agent in decreasing injection to the highest-permeability layer is seen clearly in Fig. Low permeability layer 0 1 los(t) Figure 14-17 Inverse injectivity diagnostic plot (Example 14-7). 14-4 Fluid Placement and Diversion 379 0. (14-76).(14-60) for both layers.j = 0 in Eq. with cl. (14-74). 14-18. but paradoxically.. 2 Figure 14-15 Cumulative volumes into two layers (Example 14-7).02 2 0 20 40 t (min) 60 1 80 Figure 14-14 Injection rates into two layers (Example 14-7). the smallest cumulative amount of acid is injected into the low-permeability layer in this case. 14-19). 14-18 through 14-21. With no diverting agent. For the case of a = lOI4. This is because the total injection rate is much higher with no diverting agent (recall that . EXAMPLE 14-8 The effect of the specific cake resistance on acid placement Repeat the calculations of Example 14-7.378 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. Compare the results for the three cases. When v z is greater than 50 gal/ft.. s* = 0. v 2 is calculated with Eq.

. the time of injection is small. (14-57) and (14-60) is d . I . 0 0.dl. 0.5 a = 1014 log(t) Figure 14-21 Inverse injectivity diagnostic plots (Example 14-8). 14-4 Fluid Placement and Diversion 0. l C l . . Lea et al. I . r.2 Sec. .5 2.1 II u - Figure 14-20 Total injection rate history (Example 14-8). 14-20.0 I . When planning a treatment using diverting agents.5 1. For a cased.380 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. I . With a high total injection rate. replaced by (SPF)r. The diagnostic plots of inverse injectivity show much different characters for the three cases. and r. . (1991) . . 0. l .0 0 I .d and 1 in ft.10 381 1 N diverting agent o N diverting agent o a = loi4 P E 0. for example.01 6 No diverting agent 0 0. However. 0. . so that the cross-sectional area for diverting agent deposition is The method presented here is based on particular assumptions about the effect of acid on damage removal. (galfi) Figure 14-18 Injection rate into the high-permeability layer (Example 14-8).~ with SPF in shotslft. . I I I I 20 40 60 80 100 120 Vtota. .0. 14 the bottomhole pressure is being held constant). information is available for a particular formation. . I . resulting in a small cumulative volume placed in the low-permeabilitylayer. it assumes that the damage skin effect decrease linearly with the cumulative acid injected.0 2. as shown in Fig. (gallft) Figure 14-19 Injection rate into the low-permeability(Example 14-8). it is helpful to prepare graphs such as these to assist in evaluating the diverting agent effectiveness during the treatment.0 1. in Eqs. perforated completion. . I . The method presented is also based on the use of the wellbore cross-sectionalarea to represent the area on which diverting agent is deposited. the same approach taken here can be applied with other relationshipsbetween damage skin effect and the amount of acid injected if better Using this relationship for a perforated completion.00 0 l . l ~ 20 40 60 80 100 120 V. Doerler and Prouvost (1987) suggest approximating the perforations as cylinders.o. 0. . .02 N diverting agent o e E n .

the mechanism of diversion is viscous diversion. 0 .382 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. The radius of gel penetration is related to the injected volume as done previously for acid solutions containing diverting agents. (14-85).HCI 1.07 g/cm3. the position of the HCI front is A 383 have shown that diversion within a perforation is not important to acidizing effectiveness. perforation. EXAMPLE 14-9 F'reflush volume design for a perforated completion Calculate the volume of 15 wt% HCI preflush needed to dissolve all carbonates to a distance of 1 ft beyond the tip of a 6-in.-diameter perforation if there are 4 shotslft. most commonly a 15 wt% solution.5 ft = 3.37 and p~.71) . Behind the front.0. Solving Eq.HCI = (1 .2. 14-4.cos= 2. Equations (14-84) and (14-85) can be used to calculate the amount of HCl needed to remove all carbonates from a given region for radial flow around a wellbore or ellipsoidal flow around a perforation. 14 Sec. but to remove enough damage to establish communication with the formation for testing purposes. BIOO.2)(0. 14-5 Preflush and Postflush Design movement of the HF front in Table 14-2. Ahead of the front. Equation (14-83) is exactly analogous to Hawkins' formula. The HCI preflush accomplishes this by dissolving the carbonate minerals. and lowering the pH around the wellbore. In this instance. all carbonate minerals have been dissolved and the HC1 concentration is equal to the injected concentration. the reaction rates between HCI and carbonate minerals are high. In situations where injectivity cannot be established with HCl.2)(1.25-in. . the HF/HCl mixture can be injected without a preflush. and r.406 NA~. and the acid capacity number for HCl is defined similarly to that for HF. A common procedure is to design the preflush to remove carbonates to a distance of 1 ft.37)(0. 0. vZo3is the initial volume fraction of the rock that is carbonate mineral. Using the same dimensionless variables as defined for the and substituting the known values yields From Table 14-2. a preflush of hydrochloric acid. as where pgel is the viscosity of the gelled acid.5 fw. The formation contains 5 vol% CaC03and no other HCI-soluble minerals and has an initial porosity of 0. The primary purpose of the preflush is to prevent the precipitation of species such as calcium fluoride when the HF solution contacts the formation. Then CHC~= 4(3)3-3+2 ..71 g/cm3. When the HCI solution enters the formation. It is likely that these wells had perforations clogged with drilling mud or other debris that was not HCI soluble. it dissolves carbonate minerals rapidly but does not react to a significant extent with other minerals. so this approach should give a reasonable model of diversion from one set of perforations to another. and is not well understood at present. the acid = capacity number is (0.05)(2. (14-84) for the dimensionless acid volume gives 14-5.62 33 (14-86) From Table 13-3. displacing ions such as calcium and sodium from the near-wellbore vicinity.07) = o. so that the movement of the HCI into the formation can be approximated as a shock front.15)(1. is usually injected. . the volume of acid per perforation is With 4 shotslperf. Solution The definitionof the dimensionlesspenetration distancefrom the tip of aperforation is given in Table 14-2. p is the viscosity of the formation fluid being displaced. Using Eq. Paccaloni and Tambini (1990) reported several successful well responses without an HCI preflush in wells with very high skin effects that did not respond to conventional treatments using a preflush. With gels. The density of the acid solution is 1. with viscosity instead of permeability being altered in the region near the well. as live HF is not likely to penetrate this far. This can be modeled in a similar manner to that just shown for particulate diverting agents by defining a viscous skin effect as where 4 is the initial porosity in the region contacted by HCl. f = 1. the objective is not to obtain an optimal stimulation treatment. Diversion by foams is a more complex phenomenon than viscous diversion.l is the radius penetrated by the gel. As seen in Chapter 13.. no reactions have occurred and a bank of spent HCI solution gradually builds up. 120 gallft of HCI preflush are needed. the increase in flow resistance in higher-permeability regions due to the presence of a bank of viscous fluid. . The preflush volume is selected by assuming a distance to which all carbonates should be removed by the preflush and then calculating the acid volume required.-long. For penetration of 1 ft from the tip of a 6-in.1 The HCl Preflush Before the HF/HCI mixture is injected in a sandstone acidizing treatment.4 Gels and Foams Gelled and foamed acid solutionsare being used increasinglyas a means of improving acid placement.

so it is the responsibility of the service company supplying the acid to recommend the type and concentration of corrosion inhibitor to be used in a particular acid treatment. and the sequesteringagents themselves are potentially damaging to the formation (see Chapter 13). Gdanski and Peavy (1986) pointed out that some HCI will be consumed by ion exchange with clays. it is displaced from the tubing and the wellbore with a postflush. samples of the acid solutions should be taken. Brannon et al. Corrosion of steel by HC1 can be very severe without inhibition. Paccaloni and Tambini (1988). . (1991) showed that preflushes as small as 25 gallft ensured that live HF would not contact regions of high pH. and numerous others have clearly shown the importance of these guidelines. and mutual solvents. Alternatively. During the treatment. surfactants may have deleterious effects on the formation and should be used only after careful testing with the formation fluids and core samples. at least this much postflush is needed to displace all acid from the wellbore. 14-7 Acidizing Treatment Operations 385 Designing the HC1 preflush to remove all carbonates from 1 ft of formation before the injection of HF/HCI will be a conservative design because the HCI in the mud acid will continue to dissolve carbonates ahead of the live HE Hill et al. only those that provide a clear benefit should be included in the treating fluids. A posttreatment pressure transient test run shortly after a stabilized rate has been obtained is the most positive means of assessing the effect of the acid treatment. and to prevent sludge formation.) A mutual solvent is added to the postflush-it improves productivity apparently by removing corrosion inhibitor that has absorbed on formation surfaces (Crowe and Minor. An additive that has shown clear benefits in some sandstone acidizing applications is a mutual solvent. numerous other chemicals are frequently added to acid solutions. Three guiding principles should be followed when conductingan acidizing treatment: (1) All solutions to be injected should be tested to ensure that they conform to the design formulations. Because of gravity segregation effects (Hong and Millhone. Surfactants are added to acid solutions to prevent the formation of emulsions. However. Before conducting the treatment. Acid additives should be tested carefully to ensure compatibility with other chemicals in the acid solution and with the formation fluids. 1977). Some companies have developed acid quality control kits (Watkins and Roberts. to acid-soluble formation damage. surface flow lines. When acid injection has been completed. As mentioned previously. usually ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGMBE) (Gidley. and an assessment of the source of formation damage. Corrosion inhibitorsare needed in virtually all acid treatmentsto prevent damage to the tubulars and casing during acidizing. and as a minimum. The real-time monitoring discussed in this chapter can then be applied to optimize the treatment. Hydrochloric acid will partially dissolve and loosen rust. In general. the HCI concentrations should be checked on site with simple titrations. clean coiled tubing can be employed for acid injection. is sometimesadded to acid solutions + when it is thought that fenic ions ( ~ e ~are)present in the near-wellbore region in order to prevent the precipitation of Fe(OH)3 in the spent acid solution. 1971. The corrosion inhibitors used are organic compounds containing polar groups that are attracted to the metal surface. This situation should be rare. The postflush displacesthe spent acid farther from the wellbore so that any precipitatesthat may form will be less damaging. (2) all necessary steps should be taken to minimize the damage caused by the acidizing process itself. if any problems occur in the course of the treatment. usually EDTA. Avery important step in an acidizing treatment is cleaning of all surface tanks. at least in part. including diesel. the well should be flowed back immediately to minimize damage by reaction product precipitation. Surface equipment can be cleaned prior to being brought to the location or on site with the acid solution itself. Occasional samples of the injected solutions should also be taken. (1987). the most common i f these being corrosion inhibitors.2 The Postflush After a sufficient volume of HF/HCl solution has been injected. 14 Sec. A production log will also be helpful in diagnosing the treatment outcome in some wells. This can be determined through a pretreatment pressure transient test to measure the skin effect. so any source of such material should be cleaned before acid is introduced to the formation. the injection rate and surface or bottomhole pressure should be monitored. Corrosion inhibitors are usually proprietary formulations. and the tubing used to inject the acid. 14-5. As a minimum. If the production tubing is to be used for acid injection. McLeod (1984). surfactants. An iron-sequesteringcompound. particularly at high temperatures. and HCl. as shown in Chapter 5. pipe dope. 1985) and by restoring water-wet conditions. and other contaminants from pipe walls. to speed cleanup of spent acid. and (3) the acidizing process should be monitored by measuring the rate and pressure (surface andlor bottomhole). A variety of fluids have been used for the postflush. so an excess above that needed for carbonate dissolution may be appropriate. 1983) that can be used to check acid concentrationsrapidly. these materials should be used only when there is a clear indication of Fe(OH)3 precipitation during acidizing. an HCI solution should be circulated down the tubing and back up the annulus before injection into the formation begins. samples of the injected solutions may be an important diagnostic aid. 14-6 ACID ADDITIVES Besides diverting agents. A prestimulation production log is also helpful in some cases in planning the treatment and as a baseline for posttreatmentanalysis. iron-sequestering compounds. the postflush volume should be the volume of the tubing plus twice the volume of the wellbore below the tubing. Like sequestering agents. before an acidizing treatment is undertaken.there should be a clear indication that low well productivity is due. an analysis of other possible sources of skin.384 Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. even in heterogeneous formations. ammonium chloride (N-CI) solutions.


Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. 14



Horizontal wells present a distinct challenge f o r m a h i x acidizing, if for no other reason than simply because of the extent of the region t o be acidized. To attempt to obtain the same acid coverage in a horizontal well with a length of, for example, 2000 ft, would require an acid volume and treating t i m e much greater than that typically needed for vertical wells. Besides the much greater cost, corrosion inhibition during long periods of acid injection may limit the extent of matrix acidizing that is feasible in a horizontal well. However, the possible benefits of mahix acidizing in horizontal wells are clear. A s seen in Chapter 5, a damaged z o n e around a horizontal well can greatly reduce the productivity. Economides et al. (1989) have shown that removal of such damage with acid i s possible and very beneficial. The primary challenges for matrix acidizing in horizontal wells are t o reduce the volume of acid needed and t o find ways t o properly place the acid. It is likely that m u c h of the productivity of a d a m a g e d horizontal well can be restored b y acidizing o n l y selected intervals, rather than the entire horizontal section. The result would be s i m i l a r t o t h e limited completion that Goode and Wilkinson (1989) demonstrated t o be almost a s productive a s a fully completed horizontal well. This can best be accomplished with mechanical placement of the acid solution in selected locations along the horizontal section, using perforation w a s h tools or inflatable packers. REFERENCES
I. Brannon, D. H., Netters, C. K., and Grimmer, P. J., "Matrix Acidizing Design and Quality-Control Techniques Prove Successfulin Main Pass Area Sandstone:'JPT, pp. 931-942, August 1987. 2. Bryant, S. L., "An Improved Model of Mud AcidISandstone Chemistry:' SPE Paper 22855,1991. 3. Cheung, S. K., and Van Arsdale, H., "Matrix Acid Stimulation Studies Yield New Results Using a Multi-Tap, Long-Core Permeameter," JPT, 98-102, January 1992. 4. Crowe, C. W., and Minor, S. S., "Effect of Corrosion Inhibitors on Matrix Stimulation Results:' JPT, pp. 1853-1860, October 1985. 5. da Motta, E. P., "Matrix Acidizing of Horizontal Wells," Ph. D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1993. 6. da Motta, E. P., Plavnik, B., and Schechter, R. S., "Optimizing Sandstone Acidizing:'SPERE, pp. 149-153, February 1992a. 7. daMona, E. P., Plavnik, B., Schechter,R. S.. and Hill, A. D., "TheRelationshipbetweenReservoir Mineralogy and Optimum Sandstone Acid Treatment," SPE Paper 23802, 1992b. 8. Doerler, N., and Prouvost, L. P., "Diverting Agents: Laboratory Study and Modeling of Resultant Zone 1njectivities:'SPE Paper 16250, 1987. 9. Economides, M. J., Ben-Naceur, K., and Klem, R. C., "Matrix Stimulation Method for Horizontal Wells:' SPE Paper 19719,1989. 10. Erbstoesser, S. R., "Improved Ball Sealer Diversion:'JPT, pp. 1903-1910, November 1980. 11. Gdanski, R. D., and Peavy, M. A., "Well Return Analysis Causes Re-evaluation of HCI Theories," SPEPaper 14825,1986. 12. Gidley, J. L., "Stimulation of Sandstone Formations with the Acid-Mutual Solvent Method:'JPT, pp. 551558, May 1971. 13. Gwde, P. A., and Wilkinson, D. J., "Inflow Performance of Partially Open Horizontal Wells," SPE Paper 19341,1989. 14. Guin, J. A., Schechter, R. S., and Silberberg, I. H., "Chemically Induced Changes in Porous Media," Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund.. 10 (1): 50-54, February 1971. 15. Hekim, Y., Fogler, H. S., and McCune, C. C., "The Radial Movement of Permeability Fronts and Multiple Reaction Zones in Porous Media:'SPEJ. pp. 99-107. Febmary 1982.



16. Hill, A. D., and Galloway, P. J., "Laboratory and Theortical Modeling of Diverting Agent Behavior:'JPT, 1157-1163, July 1984. 17. Hill, A. D., Lindsay, D. M., Silberberg, I. H., and Schechter, R. S., "Theoretical and Experimental Studies of Sandstone Acidizing," SPEJ, pp. 3 M 2 , February 1981. 18. Hill, A. D., Sepehmoori,K., and Wu, P. Y ,"Design of the HCI Preflush in Sandstone Acidizing:' SPE Paper . 21720,1991. 19. Hong, K. C., and Millhone, R. S., "Injection ProfileEffects Caused by Gravity Segregation in the Wellbore:' JPT, pp. 1657-1663, December 1977. 20. Labrid, J. C., "Thermodynamic and Kinetic Aspects of Argillaceous SandstoneAcidizing:' SPEJ, pp. 117128, April 1975. 21. Lambert, M. E., "A Statistical Study of Reservoir Heterogeneity:' MS thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, 1981. 22. Lea, C. M., Hill, A. D., and Sepehmoori, K., "The Effect of Fluid Diversion on the Acid Stimulation of a Perforation:' SPE Paper 22853,1991. 23. Lund, K., and Fogler, H. S., "Acidization V The Prediction of the Movement of Acid and Permeability Fronts . in Sandstone," Chem. Eng. Sci., 31 (5): 381-392, 1976. 24. McLeod, H. O., Jr., "Matrix Acidizing:'JPT, 36: 2055-2069, 1984. 25. Paccaloni, G., and Tambini, M., "Advances in Matrix Stimulation Technology:' SPE Paper 20623, 1990. 26. Paccaloni, G., Tambini, M., and Galoppini, M., "Key Factors for Enhanced Results of Matrix Stimulation Treatments:' SPE Paper 17154.1988. 27. Prouvost, L. P., and Economides, M. J., "Applications of Real-Time Matrix Acidizing Evaluation Method:' SPE Paoer 17156.1988. 28. Schechter, R. S., Oil Well Stimulation, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992. 29. Sevougian, S. D., Lake, L. W., and, Schechter, R. S., "A New GeochemicalSimulator to Design MoreEffective SandstoneAcidizing Treatments:' SPE Paper 24780, 1992. 30. Smith, C. F., and Hendrickson, A. R.,"Hydrofluoric Acid Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs:' JPT, pp. 215-222, February 1965; Trans. AIME, 234. 31. Taha, R., Hill, A. D., and Sepehmoori, K., "Sandstone Acidizing Design with a Generalized Model:'SPEPE, pp. 49-55, February 1989. 32. Walsh, M. P., Lake, L. W., and Schechter, R. S., "A Description of Chemical Precipitation Mechanisms and Their Role in Formation Damage during Stimulationby Hydrofluoric Acid:'JPT, pp. 2097-21 12, September 1982. 33. Watkins, D. R., and Roberts, G. E., "On-Site Acidizing Fluid Analysis Shows HCI and HF Contents Often Vary Substantially from Specified Amounts," JPT, pp. 865-871, May 1983.


14-1. Select the acid formulation or formulations to be used in the following formations:

(a) k = 200 md, 4 = 0.2, 5% carbonate, 5% feldspar, 10% kaolinite, 80% quartz (b) k = 5 md, 4 = 0.15, 10% carbonate, 5% feldspar, 5% kaolinite, 80% quartz (c) k = 30 md, 4 = 0.25,20% carbonate, 5% chlorite, 75% quartz 14-2. In a core flood, A!F) = 0.024 and Dis = 0.6. How many pore volumes of acid must
be injected for the fast-reacting front to break through at the end of the core?

14-3. In a core flood in a 12-in.-long core, the dimensionless acid concentration at the fastreacting mineral front is 0.7 when the front has moved 3 in. into the core. What is the dimensionless acid concentration at the front when the front has progressed 6 in.? 9 in.?

14-4. In a core flood in a 6-in.-long core, the fast-reacting mineral front breaks through at
the end of the core after 5 0 pore volumes have been injected. The dimensionless acid concentration after breakthrough is 0.8. Calculate A!F) and DLs.

Sandstone Acidizing Design Chap. 14
14-5. In a core flood of a 1-in.-diameter by 6-in.-long core, the acid flux is 0.04 ft/min. From this experiment, it was found that DLn = 0.9 and A!F) = 0.02. For this fonnation and acid concentration and an injection rate of 0.1 bpmlft, calculate and plot the acid volume as a function of the distance from the wellbore that the fast-reacting minerals have all been removed, out to a distance of 6 in. from the wellbore. Assume radial flow. 14-6. Repeat Problem 14-5, but for penetration of the front from the tip of a perforation. 14-7. For a particular sandstone, after all carbonates have been dissolved, the permeability is 10 md and the porosity is 0.15. The remaining minerals are 5 vol% clay, which reacts rapidly with HE Calculate the permeability of this sandstone after all clays have been removed using the Labrid, Lund and Fogler, and Lambert correlations. 14-8. Calculate and plot the maximum tubing injection pressure and initial injection rate for matrix acidizing conditions if all parameters are the same as in Example 14-5, except instead of 2-in. tubing with a relative roughness of 0.001, injection is through:
(a) 1-in.4.D. tubing, 6 = 0.001 (b) 3-in.-LD. tubing, E = 0.001 (c) 2-in.-I.D. tubing, 6 = 0.0001


agent particles have a density of 1.2 g/cm3, the specificcake resistance is 5 x 1013Wb,, and the viscosity of the acid solution at downhole conditions is 0.6 cp. For either layer, 50 gallft of acid will remove all damage. The wellbore radius is 0.328 ft, the drainage radius is 1490 ft, and the acid is injected at a pressure difference, pwf - p,, of 3000 psi. Layer 1 has a permeability of 75 md and an initial skin effect of 20, while layer 2 has a permeability of 25 md and an initial skin effect of 10. Plot (q/h)j and for each layer as functions of the total cumulative volume per foot injected.


14-11. Repeat Problem 14-10, but for the case of no diverting agent in the acid. 14-12. Derive an equation for (q/h), [analogous to Eq. (14-63)] for viscous diversion with a gel. Leave the expression in terns of p,,, p, v j , and other constants. 14-13. Calculate the HCI preflush volume needed to remove all carbonates to a distance of 6 in. from the wellbore in radial flow. The acid is a 10 wt% solution with a specific gravity of 1.05. The formation contains 7 vol% CaC03 and has a porosity of 0.19.

14-9. For the data given below for a matrix acidizing treatment, construct a diagnostic plot. What do you conclude about this treatment?

Fluid at Perfs.

Time (hr)

qi (bpm)

pwf (psi)

Aromatic solvent Aromatic solvent Aromatic solvent Aromatic solvent

0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05

3%HF/l2%HC1 3%HF/12%HCl 3%HF/l2%HCl 3%HF/12%HC1 3%HF/12%HC1 3%HF/12%HC1 3%HF/12%HCI 3%HF/12%HCl 3%HF/12%HC1 3%HF/12%HCI

1.65 1.80 1.95 2.10 2.25 2.40 2.55 2.70 2.85

14-10. An acid solution containing an oil-soluble resin diverting agent is injected into a twolayer reservoir. The diverting agent concentration in the acid is 0.1 vol%, the diverting









Carbonate Acidizing Design

Carbonate acidizing is a more difficult process to predict than sandstone acidizing because, despite the chemistry of the process being much simpler than that of sandstone acidizing, the physics is decidedly more complex. In sandstones, the surface reaction rates are slow and a relatively uniform acid front moves through the porous medium. In carbonates, surface reaction rates are very high, so mass transfer often limits the overall reaction rate, leading to highly nonuniform dissolution patterns. Often, a few large channels, called wormholes, are created, such as shown in Fig. 15-1, caused by the nonuniform dissolution of limestone by HCI in a linear core flood (Hoefner and Fogler, 1988.) The smcture of these wormhole patterns will depend on many factors, including (but not limited to) flow geometry, injection rate, reaction kinetics, and mass transfer rates. For example, Fig. 15-2 shows a casting of wormholes created by radial flow of water through plaster (Daccord and Lenormand, 1987); this wormhole pattern is much more branched than that shown in Fig. 15-1 and, clearly, the amounts of acid needed to propagate wormholes in these two systems would differ significantly. Since wormholes aremuchlarger than the pores in nonvugularcarbonates,the pressure drop through the region penetrated by wormholes will be insignificant. Thus, in matrix acidizing, knowledge of the depth of penetration of wormholes allows a prediction of the effect of acidizing on the skin effect. Wormholing is also very significant in acid fracturing, as it will increase fluid loss rates, limiting the penetration of acid down the fracture. Thus, to predict acidizing results in carbonates, the physics of wormhole growth must be described. This inherently unstable process is not understood completely, but considerable progress has been made in recent years.


Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. 15

SeC. 15-2 Wormhole Formation and Growth


Figure 15-1
Wormholes created by acid dissolution of limestone. (FromHoefner and Fogler, 1988;

courtesy of AICHE.)

Wormholes form in a dissolution process when the large pores grow at a rate substantially higher than the rate at which smaller pores grow, so that a large pore receives an increasingly larger proportion of the dissolving fluid, eventually becoming a wormhole. This will occur when the reactions are mass transfer limited or mixed kinetics prevail, that is, the mass transfer and surface reaction rate are similar in size. For flow with reaction in a circular pore, the relative effects of mass transfer and surface reaction rates can be expressed by a kinetic parameter, P, the inverse of the Thiele modulus, defined as the ratio of the diffusive flux to the flux of molecules consumed by surface reaction (Daccord, 1989),
Molding of wormholes created by water dissolution of plaster. (From Daccord and Lenormand, 1987; courtesy of Schlumberger.)

Figure 15-2


Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. 15

Sec. 15-2 Wormhole Formation and Growth


where D is the molecular diffusion coefficient, Ef is the surface reaction rate constant, r is the pore radius, and C is the acid concentration. Since the overall reaction kinetics are controlled by the slowest step, P --+ 0 corresponds to mass transfer-limited reactions and P 4 c indicates surface reaction rate-limited reactions. When P is near 1, the kinetics o are mixed, and both surface reaction rate and mass transfer rate are important. The natural tendency for wormholes to form when reaction is mass transfer limited has been demonstrated theoretically by Schechter and Gidley (1969), using a model of pore growth and collision. In this model, the change in the cross-sectional area of a pore can be expressed as dA - - **I-" (15-3) dt where A is the pore cross-sectional area, t is time, and \I! is a pore growth function that does depend on time. Examination of Eq. (15-3) shows that if n > 0 smaller pores grow faster , than larger pores and wormholes cannot form; when n < 0,larger pores grow faster than smaller pores, and wormholes will develop. From an analysis of flow with diffusion and surface reaction in single pores, Schechter and Gidley found that n = 112 when surface reaction rate controls the overall reaction rate, and n = -1 when diffusion controls the overall reaction rate. Models of flow with reaction in collections of cylindrical pores can predict the tendency for wormhole formation, but do not give a complete picture of the wormholingprocess because they do not include the effects of fluid loss from the pores. As acid moves through a large pore or channel, acid moves to the reactive surface by molecular diffusion, but also by convective transport as acid flows to the smaller pores connected with the large pore. As the large pore grows, the fluid loss flux is a larger and larger portion of the flow of acid to the wormhole wall and is ultimately the limiting factor for wormhole growth. The fluid loss through the walls of the wormhole leads to the branches seen in Figs. 15-1 and 15-2. Thus, whether or not wormholes will form, and the smcture of the wormholes that do form, depend on the relative rates of surface reaction, diffusion, and fluid loss, all of which depend on the overall convection rate of the acid. A progression of dissolution pattems will occur as injection rate is increased. For a system with very high surface reaction rates, such as the HC1-limestone system, the modes of acid attack can be described as compact dissolution, diffusion-limited wormholing, fluid loss-limited wormholing, and uniform dissolution. These dissolution pattems are shown in Fig. 15-3, as predicted by the network model of Hoefner and Fogler (1988.) At a very low injection rate, the inlet face of the rock will be slowly consumed as acid diffuses to the surface, yielding compact dissolution of the rock face. This type of dissolution will not occur in a practical acidizing situation in limestone because the injection rate must be so low. However, it is of interest as the limiting case as flow rate approaches zero. With increasing flow rate, a dominant wormhole (or a few dominant wormholes) forms and propagates into the porous medium. At relatively low injection rates there will be little branching, and only one or a few large wormholes will be formed. A characteristic of this mode of acid attack, called diffusion-limited wormholing, is that the volume of acid needed to propagate the wormhole a given distance decreases as injection rate increases.


Decreasing Damkohler number v


Figure 15-3
Network model simulations of wormhole pattems. (From Hoefner and Fogler, 1988; courtesy of AICHE.)

At even higher flow rates, more and more branches form, consuming significant amounts of acid and thus slowing the wormhole propagation rate. In this mode of attack, called fluid loss-limited wormholing, the branched wormhole structure may be fractal, as demonstrated by Daccord and Lenormand (1987.) Interestingly, the acidizing efficiency decreases as injection rate increases when fluid loss-limited wormholing occurs. This means that an optimal injection rate for efficient wormhole propagation will exist corresponding to the transition from diffusion limited to fluid loss-limited wormholing. At sufficiently high injection rates, the mass transfer of acid is so rapid that the overall reaction rate becomes surface reaction rate limited, and uniform dissolution occurs,


Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. 15

Set. 15-2 Wormhole Formation and Growth


analogous to that in sandstones. Since the injection rate is limited to avoid fracturing, uniform dissolution may never occur in a matrix treatment in highly reactive carbonates. The progression presented here depends on the relative size of the diffusion and surface reaction rates and also on the flow geometry because of the role of fluid loss. Thus, wormholing behavior is much different in dolomites compared with limestones because of the different reaction rates. Also, predictions based on linear flow, such as standard core floods, may not be valid for other flow geometries, such as radial flow or flow from a perforation. The transition from diffusion limited to fluid loss-limited wormholing has been demonstrated in linear core floods with HCl and limestone. Figure 15-4 shows the volumes of acid needed to propagate wormholes through Indiana limestone cores from the experiments of Wang (1993) and Hoefner and Fogler (1988.) A distinct minimum in the amount of acid required to propagate a wormhole through the core exists, showing the transition from diffusion-limitedto fluid loss-limited wormholing. Notice that in the diffusion-limited regime, the volume of acid needed to propagate a wormhole a certain distance decreases rapidly as the injection rate increases, but when the wormhole propagation is fluid losslimited, the volume of acid required increases only gradually with increasing injection rate. This means that it is better to inject at a rate above the optimum than at too low a rate.

Acid flux (mllbrlcm2)
Figure 15-5 Acid volumes needed to propagate wormholes through linear dolomite cores. (From Wang,1993.)
Three types of models of the wormholing process have been presented in the literature: mechanistic models of a single wormhole or a collection of wormholes (Hung et a]., 1989; Schechter, 1992); network models (Hoefner and Fogler, 1988; Daccord et al., 1989); and fractal or stochastic models (Daccord et al., 1989; Pichler et al., 1992). Of these, the network models appear to give the best representation of wormhole behavior over a wide range of conditions. However, their application for treatment design is cumbersome. In addition to these models, a simple empirical model (the volumetric model) is also presented here. A mechanistic model of wormhole propagation is illustrated in Fig. 15-6. If the reaction rate is high, all of the acid transported to the end of the wormhole will be spent dissolving rock at the wormhole tip, thus extending the wormhole. A mass balance gives the wormhole velocity (dL/dt) as

ndiana limestone with 3.4 wt% (IN) HCI



Hwfner and Fogler Wang (1"dia.x 6"length)

Acid flux (mllhrlcm2) Figure 15-4
Acid volumes needed to propagate wormholes through linear limestone cores. (From Wang,1993.)

where uend and Cendare the flux and acid concentration (mass fraction) at the end of the wormhole. This can also be written in terms of the acid capacity number as

The HC1-dolomitereaction rate is significantly lower than that for HCI and limestone. With a lower reaction rate, fluid loss-limited wormhole behavior occurs at lower rates and more acid is,needed to propagate a wormhole a given distance, as shown in Fig. 15-5.

Equation (15-5) shows the role of diffusion and fluid loss in wormhole propagation. The more acid diffuses to the wormhole wall, the lower is the concentration at the end of the

Since V is just qt. This predicts that the wormhole velocity in radial flow increases with injection rate to the 0. Daccord et al. Network models predict the types of wormhole patterns observed experimentally. 15-2 Wormhole Formation and Growth 399 wormhole. the greater the fluid loss along the wormhole. but are difficult to generalize for treatment design.5 x in SI units for their experiments in small radial core floods with water and plaster. Eq. Using a complex model of acid transport in a wormhole. 15-3 are obtained. Solution The radius of wormhole penetration for Daccord's model is calculated with Eq. V is the cumulative volume of acid injected. and A is the cross-sectional area of flow. which is the main limitation to wormhole growth in many cases. b is a constant. report the constant b to be 1. The molecular diffusion coefficient is m2/sec.2-porosity limestone is showing that the wormhole velocity increases with the injection rate to the 213 power. This equation shows that. Fluid loss In a network model. To model wormhole behavior. found rwh= 0-'13 (E) -113 ] lid1 where r. it is simplest to convert the units of injection rate and volume to SI units.6.2 using Daccord's fractal model. Daccord et al. For the fractal wormhole patterns observed in radial flow with water and plaster. the acid concentration in each capillary is calculated and the radii of the capillaries are increased as dissolution occurs. the application of this model is illustrated here so that it can be compared with other models.and these may not properly representthe patterns that occur in acid dissolution of carbonates. D is the molecular diffusion coefficient. Thus. Daccord et al. It is also based on the wormhole network geometry observed in water-plaster experiments. It is likely that b is smaller for field systems. implying that the volume of acid needed to propagate a wormhole a given distance is independent of injection rate. and df is the fractal dimension. With this type of model. Hung et al.1 bpmlft into a limestone formation with a porosity of 0.398 Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. (1989) found that the wormhole velocity increases linearly with the injection rate into the wormhole. Again substituting qt for V and differentiating with respect to time yields 1 Figure 15-6 Idealization of a wormhole. (1989) presented a model of wormhole propagation based on the nature of wormhole structures observed when fluid loss-limited behavior occurs. (15-6) can also be written as The acid capacity number for the injection of 15 wt% HC1 into a 0. This model also predicts that the wormhole velocity will be constantly decreasing because the acid flux to the end of the wormhole is decreasing as the wormhole grows. Daccord's model will likely overestimate the distance of wormhole penetration in carbonate acidizing and should be used with caution.h is the radius of wormhole penetration. Daccord et al. a longer wormhole will be obtained at a lower injection rate. these are where a is an experimentally determined constant. for linear flow. found that. (15-8). EXAMPLE 15-1 Radius of wormhole penetration with Daccord's model Calculate the radius of penetration of wormholes after the injection of 50 gaVft of 15 wt% HCl at a rate of 0. the porous medium is approximated as a collection of interconnected capillaries. Based urimarilv on experiments with plaster and water. Thus. Using conversion factors from Table 1-1.4 power and decreases with time. the lower is the flux to the end of the wormhole. To complete the model of wormhole propagation. found to be equal to about 1. Since the constant b is given in SI units and its units are complex. the diffusional and fluid loss fluxes to the wormhole wall must be calculated. . for a fixed volume of acid injected. Daccord's model is based on diffusionbeing the limiting mechanism for acid transport to the rock surface and does not consider the role of fluid loss. results like those shown in Fig. as is observed in fluid loss-limitedwormhole propagation. 15 Sec. Nevertheless. Likewise. diffusion and fluid loss tend to decrease the velocity of a wormhole.

) . 15-7. 15-7a) to a more dominant wormhole structure (Fig. With further development.a nomeacting tracer would penetrate only 1. ft) after 50 gallft of injection 43 into a 20% porosity formation. 15-7b. With a large diffusion rate (Fig. because it is based on small-scale experiments where the wormhole velocities are high. for radial flow it can be shown that The wormholing efficiency. This approach is equivalent to assuming that a fixed number of pore volumes of acid is needed to propagate wormholes a given distance. If linear core floods are used to measure q. Pichler et al. 1992.) This difference illustrates the transition in wormhole patterns from a pattern near to compact dissolution (Fig. 15-7a) the wormhole branches are thick. Defining q as the fraction of the rock dissolved in the region penetrated by acid. 1 Figure 15-7 Wormhole patterns generated by a stochastic model. Another approach to predicting the volume of acid required to propagate wormholes a given distance is to assume that the acid will dissolve a constant fraction of the rock penetrated. and natural fractures in their model and illustrated how these factors bias the wormhole patterns created. based on diffusion-limited kinetics and incorporating the randomness of diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA) models. a small fraction of the rock is dissolved. it should accurately predict wormhole propagation in a well treatment where the flow is radial. The deep penetration is a result of the wormholing-acid is spent on (and flows through) only a fraction of the porous medium. while lower diffusion rates lead to predictions of thinner wormhole branches (Fig..This is very deep penetrationof acid.) Pichler et al. (From Pichler er al. more branched wormhole structures dissolve larger fractions of the matrix. The radius of penetration predicted here is probably significantlydeeper than would occur in practice. When only a few wormholes are formed. q. If the wormholing efficiency is obtained from radial core floods. at least for wormhole propagation to the same distance as that tested in the core flood. also included permeability anisotropy. as shown in Fig. This model predicts the branched wormhole structures found in carbonate acidizing. 15-7b. (1992) presented a stochastic model of wormhole growth. the wormhole propagation in radial flow will probably be somewhat overestimated.3 m ( . The model presented here (the volumetric model) is an empirical one. can be estimated from linear core flood data as being where P Vbr is the number of pore volumes of acid injected at the time of wormhole breakthrough at the end of the core.particularly compared with sandstoneacidizing. 0 Recently. By comparison. permeability heterogeneity. stochastic models such as this one show great promise for predicting wormhole propagation quantitatively.

Also.48 ga1)(4. 15-3 Matrix Acidizing Design for Carbonates 403 The data in Fig.8 x 10-))(25) = 9.6 x lo-)) (9. In dolomites. in carbonates. the acid capacity numbers are calculated. Table 15-1 shows the acids suggested by McLeod (1984) for various acid treatments of An approach similar to that used in sandstone acidizing can be applied to determine the acid volume and injection rate schedule for carbonate acidizing. The acid volume is calculated with a model of wormhole propagation (Daccord's model or the volumetric model) for a desired penetration of wormholes. Thus. the radial penetration distance of wormholes is Limestone: rwh = Dolomite: rwh = = 0.328 ft)2 + (50 gal/ft)(l ft3/7. almost 10% of the rock is dissolved. the value obtained in Example 15-1 for 15 wt% HCI can be multiplied by the ratio of the concentrations: carbonate formations. there are no precipitation reactions to limit the acid concentrations used. 15-5 shows about 25 pore volumes of the same acid are needed for breakthrough in dolomite.1 Acid Type a n d Concentration Hydrochloric acid is by far the most common acid used in carbonate matrix acidizing. a slower injection rate may be preferable.2 and the wellbore radius is 0. Weak acids are suggested for perforation cleanup and perforating fluid. However. the temperature of the acid entering the formation increases. Table 15-1 Acid U s e Guidelines: C a r b o n a t e Acidizinga For dolomite. For a matrix treatment.2 x 10-~)(~)(0. a penetration of 0. In general. will overpredict the wormhole penetration for large acid volumes. 1984. while in dolomite. Calculate the wormhole penetration after the injection of 50 gallft of 3. (15-13).6 x lO-')(2) = 9. as is the case in sandstones.402 EXAMPLE 15-2 Volumetric model of wormhole propagation Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. 15-4 show that about 2 pore volumes of 1 N (3.4 wt% HC1 into limestone and dolomite.5 x 10-2)(~)(0.2 x (15-17) = (3. so ahigh concentration of HCI is preferable.48 ga1)(3. as neither considers the slowing of the wormhole 0 because of increasing fluid loss. This model. Applying Eq.33 ft.8 x (9.73 ft. if HCl is being used) so that injection at the maximum rate is recommended for limestone formations. the acid capacity number is Perforating fluid: 5% acetic acid Damaged perforations: 9% formic acid 10%acetic acid 15% NCI Deep wellbore damage: 15%HCI 28% HCl Emulsified HC1 'From McLeod. 15 Sec.) All models of wormhole propagation predict deeper penetration for higher acid concentrations. this approach may not use the minimum amount of acid: If the acid volume is constrained.2) 15-3. sufficient acid volumes are available (and not at great expense. Current models of wormhole propagation predict that wormhole velocity increases with injection rate to the power of 1/2 to 1.2) + (50 gal/ft)(l ft3/7. while Fig. As injection rate decreases. In both cases. but otherwise. the maximum injection rate is preferable.5 x lo-' (15-18) Dolomite: These efficiencies show that in limestone. to propagate wormholes a given distance most rapidly. a lower injection rate may be preferable. strong solutions of HCI are recommended. For limestone. less than 1% of the rock is dissolved in the region penetrated by wormholes. (15-11): Limestone: q = (4. that being to determine the maximum volume needed based on a model of the acidizing process and then adjusting the injection rate and volume actually pumped based on real-time monitoring of the treatment. The wornholing efficiencies are calculated from Eq.73 ft The wormhole penetration for limestone is 2. HCl should be used unless corrosion considerations require a weaker acid (this would occur only in deep. thereby increasing the reaction . hot wells. the porosity is 0. while for dolomite it is only 0.4 wt%) HCI are required for wormholes to break through in a linear core flood in limestone.2 Acid Volume a n d Injection Rate (0.4 ft into the formation.328 ft)2 (15-20) 15-3 MATRIX ACIDIZING DESIGN FOR CARBONATES 15-3. like Daccord's. Solution First. d d (0. assuming that a constant fraction of the rock is dissolved.328 ft.

the diffusion coefficient is m2/sec. EXAMPLE 15-3 Required acid volume A significantly larger volume is predicted by the volumetric model than by Daccord's model.404 Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. At a sufficiently high temperature. Then t Using Eqs. acid will penetrate farther into the formation. by increasing the reaction rate. the dolomite-HC1reaction may become diffusion limited.3 Monitoring the Acidizing Process A matrix acidizing treatment in a carbonate reservoir should be monitored by measuring the injection rate and pressure during injection. Thus. paradoxically. leading to much faster wormhole propagation.$. or 1.1 bpmlft.14 g/cm3.01 m.O. the skin effect during acidizing as a function of the radius of wormhole penetration is Calculate the volume (gallft)of 28% HCl needed to propagate wormholes 3 ft from a 0. 15 Set.and the density of 28% HCI is 1. Volumetric model: First.15 porosity limestone is Equation (15-27) applies until the radius of wormhole penetration exceeds the radius of damage. so that the effect of the wormholes on the well skin effect is the same as enlarging the wellbore. (15-21). if the injection rate is held constant throughout the treatment. Using the volumetric model. The desired wormhole radius is 3 f + 0. . 0 15-3. it is generally assumed that the pressure drop through the wormholed region is negligible. (15-27). just as a sandstone acidizing treatment is monitored (see Section 14-3. Field experience suggests that the larger volume predicted by the volumetric model is more realistic than the small volume predicted by Daccord's model. using both Daccord's model and the volumemc model. the skin effect during acidizing is obtained from Hawkins' formula assuming that ks is infinite [or from Eq. fromExample 15-1.328 ft. Solution Daccord's model: Solving Eq. with no damage or the wormholes penetrating beyond the damaged region. .328-ftradius wellbore in a limestone formation with a porosity of 0. setting ks = co and rs = rwh which gives J. that is.328 fi = 3. dolomite will behave more and more like limestone. The model predicts that only 8. the skin effect during injection is with a damaged zone. For the case given. (15-13) gives and. and solving for IT/h yields (15-25) h which shows that the acid volume needed is just the volume of the pore space in the region penetrated by wormholes multiplied by the number of pore volumes required to propagate wormholes through a given volume of rock. This behavior is opposite that which occurs in uniform dissolution.) Because the wormholes created in carbonates are such large channels. 6 9 ~ m3/sec-m. (15-27) and (15-28).= K@(T. the skin evolution in a carbonate matrix acidizing treatment can be predicted with the models of wormhole propagation. . If the well is originally undamaged or the wormhole radius is greater than the original damage radius.6 gallft are needed to propagate wormholes 3 ft from the wellbore. the skin effect predicted by Daccord's model is with a damaged zone. substituting for q from Eq. 15-3 Matrix Acidizing Design for Carbonates 405 rate. With this assumption. 1.l bpmlftis 8 . at an elevated temperature. (15-8) for the volume of acid per unit thickness of formation yields The acid capacity number for 28% HCl reacting with a 0.15. (15-14) into Eq..5 pore volumes are needed for wormhole breakthrough at the end of the core. Itismoreconvenienttouse SI units inEq.r:)pvbl v These equations do not apply if the injection rate is varying during the treatment because of the dependence of the wormhole velocity on injection rate in Daccord's model. In linear core floods. The injection rate is 0. and results from the fact that the reaction and diffusion rates are of similar size in dolomite. In a well with a damaged region having a permeability ks extending to a radius r. such as in sandstones.

up to this cumulative volume of injection. (15-3). 15 and. 15-3 Matrix Acidizing Design for Carbonates 30 407 Since the radius of wormhole penetration depends only on the volume of acid injected and not injection rate. diverting agents such as Unibeads or benzoic acid flakes are recommended. (15-29) through (15-32)l. After the wormholes penetrate through the damaged region. However.j are the same as defined in Chapter 14 [Eqs.3. Thekow rate into a layer j when particulate diverting agents are being used is given by Eq.j and c1. with no damage or the wormholes penetrating beyond the damaged region. The volume of acid that will be placed in differentreservoirzones can also be predicted in a manner similar to that presented in Chapter 14 for sandstone acidizing. (15-32). (15-31) into Eq. Daccord's model is not easily applied in Eq. Eq. leading to simple solutions for the flow rate and cumulative volume of acid injected into each layer. from Eq. having a permeability of 10 md. 15-3. however. These are covered in Section 14-4. For a vuggy or fractured carbonate. and the same fluid placement techniques are applicable. Solution In Example 15-3. Eq. Using Eq. Sec. EXAMPLE 15-4 Skin evolution during carbonate matrix acidizing Using the volumetric model. (14-59). for carbonates. (14-59). recognizing that 7 is NAcPVb. In these types of formations. (15-31) and (15-32) apply for any injection rate schedule. Since the flow rate will be changing into each zone when diverting agents are. (15-32) should be used. 15-8. a solution can be obtained for the volumetric model. Eqs. it was assumed that sl decreased linearly with the volume of acid injected. One exception is in carbonate formations that are vugular or contain large natural fractures. significantly lower skin effects are possible with matrix 0 acidizing in carbonates. For sandstone acidizing. When V/h is greater than 58 gallft. plot the skin effect as a function of volume of acid injected (up to 100 gallft) for the conditions described in Example 15-3. Compared with sandstone acidizing.Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. (14-60) and (14-69)] and the other constants are . for volumes above 58 was found that 58 gaVft of acid were needed for wormholes to penetrate a distance of 3 ft into the formation. Thus. very little further change in skin effect is obtained-the skin effect after penetration through the damaged region is -2. (14-59) yields Applying these equationsfor values of cumulativeacid volumeup to 100galIftyields the results shown in Fig.6 after another 42 gal/ft of acid injection. where a3. 1 I i I I i Figure 15-8 Skin evolution (Example 15-4). used. and it decreases to -2. For a layer in which the wormholes have not penetrated beyond the damaged region. because of the relatively deep penetration of wormholes.4 Fluid Diversion Adequate placement of acid into all zones to be stimulatedis as important in acidizing :arbonates as it is in sandstones. (15-31)applies. larger particle divertingagents are needed than would be necessary in sandstones. the models of wormhole propagation predict that the skin effect will depend logarithmically on the volume of acid injected [as shown in Eqs. substituting for sl from Eq.. assuming an initial reservoir permeability of 100 md and a damaged region extending 3 ft from the wellbore. However.

408 Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. Complex numerical solutions of these equations that consider further complications such as the temperature distribution along the fracture. the conductivity created by the acid (and its distribution along the fracture). that is. a viscous pad fluid is injected ahead of the acid to initiate the fracture. The primary issues to be addressed in designing an acid fracturing treatment are the penetration distance of live acid down the fracture.) . is the transverse flux due to fluid loss. The fracturing process itself is identical to that employed with proppant fracturing. (15-43). and 4 is porosity. Ef is thereaction rate constant. so that a hydraulic fracture is created. in turn. gelled acid. the effect of the acid on leakoff behavior. Usually. and the resulting productivity of an acidfractured well. 1988. u. the fractureprops itself open. where C is the acid concentration. then plain acid. requires a prediction of acid concentration along the fracture. (From Ben-Naceur andEconoih mides. a comparison with propped fracturing should generally be made when planning a possible acid fracturing treatment. acid fracturing is an alternative to the use of proppants to create fracture conductivity after closure. u. Other than this difference. and Seaari (1991. the acid reacts nonuniformly withthe fracturewalls so that. viscous fingering of low-viscosity acid through a viscous pad. the distribution of rock dissolution along the fracture is needed. or an emulsion containing acid is injected.-fracturing in general. For linear flow down a fracture. Dee is an effective diffusion coefficient. and various fracture geometries have been presented by Ben-Naceur and Economides (1988). foamed acid. Figure 15-9 Acid uanspon in a fracturew t diffusion and fluid loss. To solve Eq. Fracture conductivity is created by the acid differentially etching the walls of the fracture. Thus. &. after closure. Since acid fracturing should be viewed as an alternative means of creating fractureconductivity in a carbonate formation. n is the order of thereaction. with fluid leakoff and acid diffusion to the fracture walls (Fig. 15-4 Acid Fracturing 409 15-4. The reader is referred to Chapter 16 for information about hydraulic . 15-9). with the relatively undissolved regions acting as pillars that leave more dissolved regions as open channels. these are When it is integrated. This. this equation yields so an iterative method must be used to This equation cannot be solved explicitly for solve for V j as a function of injection time. Ciis the injected acid concentration. is the flux along the fracture. continuity and transport equations are needed as well as a model of the fluid loss behavior. Lo and Dean (1989).) Acid fracturing is a stimulation technique in which acid is injected at pressures above the parting pressure of the formation. The acid distribution along the fractureis obtained from an acid balance equation and appropriate boundary conditions.1 Acid Penetration in Fractures To predict the distance to which fracture conductivity is created by acid and the final distribution of conductivity. 15 Set. the same procedures presented in Chapter 14 can be used to predict acid placement using particulate diverting agents in carbonate acidizing.

. fluid loss is the controlling factor. injected concentration? Assume an effective diffusion coefficient of low4 Solution To answer this question. 1974. The effective diffusion coefficient.I . Similarly. !.1992.. . defined as 1000 % * .15 in. At low Peclet numbers. De8. S C /. the fluid loss Peclet number is neided.. laminar flow of a Newtonian fluid between parallel plates with constant fluid loss flux along the fracture. . When the unlts are convened to ft2/min. diffusion controls acid propagation. or at (0. The solution for the concentration profile is presented in Fig. . (0. at what distance from the wellbore will the acid Reading from Fig. (15-47).01269 ft). 1000 10. courtesy o SPE ) f concentration be 50% of the injected concentration after 15 min of injection? 10% of the 105 Reynolds Number NRe Figure 15-11 Effectwe dlffus~on acld coeficlents (From Roberts and Gum. .615 ft3/bbl) = 2. is generally higher than the molecular diffusion coefficient because of additional mixing caused by density gradients. Uy= - (40 b~m)(5. Effective diffusion coefficients reported by Roberts and Guin (1974) are shown in Fig. ~ h e n ' q 0. . 15-10 as a function of the leakoff Peclet number.69. assuming that the fracturing fluid is a gelled acid. ". after 15 min of injection. 5 U " ? 0 where ti. .the effective diffusion coefficient is From Eq.46 x For the fracturing conditions described in Examples 16-5 and 16-7 with q --t 0. To complete the prediction of acid penetration.the fluid loss Peclet number is 6. high acid concentrationsreach the end of the fracture.03 (4)(100 ft)(277 ft) fi. for a fracture length of 277 ft. 3 P O 1 loo . 0" . 15-4 Acid Fracturing 41 1 By assuming steady-state. 15-10 for a Peclet number of 2. . it is apparent that at low Peclet numbers. .min (15-49) Following Example 16-5. . . .4 lo. (From Schechter. Nierode and Williams (1972) presented a solution for the acid balance equation for flow in a fracture. xf = 277 ft. . 15-11. is average leakoff flux and w is the fracture width.41 0 Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. .69)(277) = 191 ft. 15 Sec.) From Fig. /' '2 A 0 a -3 .Roberts 8 G u m 71 "F Roberts 8 G u m 190°F Roberts 8 G u ~ n 290°F *Wlll~ams Nlerode 180°F 8 I . a . the average fracture width is 0. the fluid loss rate is equal to the injection rate and the average fluid loss flux is the injection rate divided by the fracture surface area: Figure 15-10 Mean acid concentration profiles along a fracture. 15-10.a model of fracture propagation is necessary. EXAMPLE 15-5 Acid penetration distance - From Example 16-7. as the actual distance of acid propagation depends on the fracture length. adapted from the solution presented by Tenill (1965) for heat transfer between parallel plates. the acid concentration will be 50% of the injected value at a dimensionless distance of 0. Thus. the acid concentration becomes very low before reaching the end of the fracture. at high Peclet numbers.loo7-C -I---- d I a. based on the Reynolds number in the fracture ( w u + P / ~ ) . while at high Peclet numbers.

The original publication has the constant 19. If all the acid injected into a fracture dissolves rock on the fracture face (i. Laboratory-measured values of embedment . are in psi. By measuring the effective conductivity of acid fractures in the field using pressure transient testing. h is the fracture height.98. For lower Peclet numbers. the amount of rock dissolved as a function of position along the fracture is calculated.. some averaging procedure is used to obtain an average conductivity for the entire fracture.) This correlation is based on extensive laboratory measurements of acid fracture conductivity and correlates conductivity with the ideal . and xf is the fracture half-length. and sock.9 . and the actual ideal width is approximately equal to the mean ideal width. Nierode and Kmk's width. w. 15-4 Acid Fracturing 413 15-4. From the ideal fracture width. since the conductivity usually varies significantly along the fracture. or an actual distance of 271 ft. the value of 13. and a and Lk .~ ~ " ~ (15-52) Figure 15-12 Ideal fracture width profile along a fracture. x l L for &k < 20.000 psi. no live acid penetrates into the matrix or foxms wormholes in the fracture walls). 15-12) based on the concentrationprofiles of Fig.2 Acid Fracture Conductivity The conductivity (kf w) of an acid fracture is difficult to predict because it depends inherently on a stochasticprocess: If the walls of the fracture arenot etched heterogeneously. the average ideal width is simply the total volume of rock dissolved divided by the fracture area. 15-10.41 2 Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. [Note: In the original publication. defined as the fracture width created bv acid dissolution before fracture closure. and the rock embedment strength.31n Sock)x for kk 20. where C1= 1.e. the acid concentration is almost equal to the injected concentration along most of the fracture length." The amount of rock dissolved in an acid fracture is represented by a parameter called the ideal width.9 given here is the correct one. very little fracture conductivity will result after closure. (15-54). The methods for predicting fracture conductivity of an acid fracture should not be expected to be very accurate. (From Schechter. 1992. these techniques can be "field calibrated.kf w is in md-ft. based on the acid distribution in the fracture. 0 Sec.47 x 10~w:~' and C2 = (13. The rock embedmentstrength is the force required to push a metal sphere a certain distance into the surface of a rock sample.000 psi. Schechter (1992) presented one such solution (Fig. Then an empirical correlation is used to calculate fracture conductivity based on the amount of rock dissolved.9 in this equation. a. 15 concentration of 10% of the injected concentration penetrates to a dimensionless distance of 0. the conductivity of an acid fracture is obtained from the correlation of Nierode and Kruk (1973. V is the total volume of acid injected.1 For the constants given in these equations. First. Thus the approach taken to predict acid fracture conductivity is an empirical one. wi is in in.) Fractional position. there was a typographical error > in the equation presented here as Eq. or where X is the volumetric dissolvingpower of the acid.1. Finally. For Peclet numbers greater than about 5. correlation is kf w = ~ l e .. and the concentration distribution must be considered to calculate the ideal width distribution. more acid is spent near the wellbore than farther along the fracture.. the closure stress.

C2 is given by Eq. Acid is injected for a total of 15 min. the average conductivity is 2300 md-fi. 15-4.3 x 4. average ideal width is The fluid loss Peclet number was found to be 2 in Example 15-5. for example.0 x 2.2 x 1.2 x 2. (15-55).8 x 3. by increasing diffusion or reaction rates as the acid warms up) (Elbel.5 x 2.9 x 1.2 x 3. Bennett (1982) has shown that a simple average of the conductivity predicts the well productivity after early production. T i value is probably high because of the high conductivity near the well.3 Productivity of an Acid-Fractured Well The productivity of an acid-fractured well can be predicted in the same manner as for a well with a propped fracture (see Chapter 18 for details on propped fracture performance) .3 x 3. a harmonic mean better approximates the behavior of the fractured well (Ben-Naceur and Economides.41 4 Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. the average ideal width is calculated with Eq.4 x 4.9 x 3. hs Using the simple average. 15-12. 15 Sec. =FromNierode and Kruk. 1989). If the variation in conductivity is not too great. Solution First. Calculate the average fracture conductivity after fracturing. Table 15-2 This average is Effective Fracture Conductivity for Well-known Reservoirs as a Function of Rock Embedment Strength and Closure Stressa Conductivity (md-in. 1989): EXAMPLE 15-6 Average acid fracture conductivity The fracturing treatment described in Example 15-5 is conducted using 15 wt% HCI in a 15% porosity limestone formation. this average will overestimate the well productivity because it is too strongly influenced by the high conductivity near the well. For this type of distribution.1 x 3.6 x 3.0 x 2.3 x 8. and combining Eqs.7 x 5.4 x 3. (15-52) and (15-53). an average conductivity for the entire fracture can be calculated in order to estimate the productivity of the acidfractured well. and the closure stress is 4000 psi. The formation has an embedment strength of 60. In contrast.6 x 2. For a total of 600 bbl of injection [(40 bpm)(l5 min)] into a 100-ft-high. (15-51).8 x 3. 0 Once the conductivity variation along the fracture is obtained. The fracture conductivity for 10 equal increments along the fracture are shown in Table 15-3. It is possible in some acid fractures that the conductivity is a maximum at some distance from the wellbore (caused. Using the Nierode-Kruk correlation.) versus Closure Stress (psi) Reservoir San Andres dolomite San Andres dolomite San Andres dolomite Canyon limestone Canyon limestone Canyon limestone Cisco limestone Cisco limestone Cisco limestone Capps limestone Capps limestone Indiana limestone Indiana limestone Indiana limestone Austin chalk Austin chalk Austin chalk Clearfork dolomite Clearfork dolomite Greyburg dolomite Greyburg dolomite Greyburg dolomite San Andres dolomite San Andres dolomite San Andres dolomite Maximum Conductivity 2. values for G)wi are read. 15-4 Acid Fracturing 415 strength and acid fracture conductivity for several common carbonate formations from Nierode and Kruk (1973) are given in Table 15-2.4 x lo6 10' 10' 10' lo7 10' lo5 105 lo6 105 105 lo6 107 10' lo6 lo6 lo5 lo4 lo4 lo6 lo6 lo6 lo6 lo6 lo6 This average should be adequate when the fluid loss Peclet number is greater than 3.0 x 3.7 x 1. These are shown in Table 15-3.000 psi.1 x 1. Interpolating between the curves for Npe = 1 and Npe = 3 in Fig.9 x 2. 1973. using the harmonic average gives a value of 95 md-ft for the average conductivity.277-ft-long fracture. For lower values of Peclet number.9 x 4.

These curves are best used for Peclet numbers above 5.65 0. and all other variables and units are as defined in Chapter 18.35 0. 1988. are the cumulativeproductions of oil (STB) and gas (MSCF). (Fmm Ben-Naceur and Economides. the dimensionless cumulative production.109 0. and the closure stress will be increasing as the bottomhole flowing pressure decreases during the life of the well.) 0..) .) Figure 15-14 where N. The first three are for average ideal widths of 0.046 0. Performance curves for a 60. as they are based on uniform conductivity along the fracture. t ~ fare defined as Figure 15-13 Performance cuwes for a 30.85 0. 15 Sec. 1988.060 0.011 k.55 0.0 0.15 1.032 0. wilt& 2.85 0.45 0. respectively.w (md-ft) 12. In these curves.081 0. Ben-Naceur and Economides (1989) presented a series of performance type curves for acid-fractured wells producing at a constant pwf of 500 psi. Four of these curves are reproduced in Figs. Q D . and G .053 0.15 wi (in. and hence. 15-4 Acid Fracturing 417 Table 15-3 Example 15-6 Results X/X. One complicating factor is that the conductivity of an acid fracture depends strongly on the closure stress.000-psi embedment strength formation as a function of closure stress. (From Ben-Naceur and Economides.6 1.and the dimensionless .12 in.000 psi.75 0. while the last curve is for an embedment strength of 60.- 416 Carbonate Acidiring Design Chap. 15-13 through 15-16. time.25 0. an iterative procedure is required to determine the productivity of an acid fractured well.092 0.95 kfG = 2300 md-ft if an average fracture conductivity adequately describes the well flow behavior.500 3500 2300 1700 1200 800 600 400 200 10 0.65 0.f for a given flow rate depends on fracture conductivity and the fracture conductivity depends on closure stress.000-psi embedment strength formation as a function of closure stress.3 1. Since p.05 0.45 0.15 0.75 0.070 0. p w f .183 0.55 1.

. Rentice Hall. Nierode. I. (From Ben-Noceur and Economides. 12. J. which can be much longer. (From Ben-Naceur and Economides. Pichler.. thesis... 18. may be impossible to place in the (frequently) naturally fractured carbonate formations. and Lenormand.'' SPE Paper 4549. 2 Ben-Naceur. D. NJ.. Englewood Cliffs. J. Jr. J. 1982. University of Tulsa. and Production Data:' SPE Paper 19773. Oil Well Stimulation. K. T. andEconomides. Roberts." SPEPE. NJ.. Prentice Hall.and propped-fractured wells." SPE Paper 25004. andEconomides. "Modeling of Acid Fracturing:'SPEPE.1989.Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. OK. K. pp. NJ. Lo. "The Change in Pore Size Distribution from Surface Reactions in Porous Media:' AICHE J. 36: 2055-2069. On the other hand. R. 15-4 Acid Fracturing 419 15-4. "Matrix Acidizing:'JPT. L.4 Comparison of Propped and Acid Fracture Performance The decision to place a propped instead of an acid fracture in a carbonate formation should be taken based on the expected posttreatment performance and the costs of the treatments. M. "AcidFractureRopagationand Roduction"inReservoirStimulation. Hill.. M. AIME. "Field Evaluation of Acid Fracturing Treatments Using Geometly Simulation. G. M.. 1988. they will be favored in higher-permeability formations. R. 1973.. pp. 4. 14. REFERENCES Figure 15-15 Performance curves for a 100. 9.1969. H. since acid fractures result in relatively short fractures... Frick.K. Schechter. T. D. as described in Chapter 18. 1988. 1987. eds. I.. L. and Dean. The fact that acid fracturing is intended specifically for carbonate formations should not preclude the use of a propped fracture if it can be placed and has economic advantages."SPW.M. 11. because of screenouts. 3.. G. H. and Kruk. For both acid.. propped fractures become more and more favorable as fracture length becomes more important. 13. L. "Fractal Patterns from Chemical Dissolution. O..) 1.Buildup. Economides and K. Daccord.) . Prentice Hall. G. and Gidley. particularly at high closure stress. Economides. "An Evaluation of Acid Fluid Loss Additives. Bennett. 'hlsa. 306-314. eds. A. R. as is true for low-permeability formations.. Daccord. P. pp.. and Lenormand. 10. 1984. 385-396. Acid fractures will be relatively short and and are by no means of infinite conductivity. J. Schechter. To select between an acid and a propped fracture. Nierode. H. 8. 6. G. "Pore Evolution and Channel Formation during Flow and Reaction in Porous Media:'AICHE J. 34: 45-54."JPT. M. K. F.000-psi embedment strength formation as a function of closure stress. 15: 339-350. D. "Carbonate Acidizing: Toward a Quantitative Model of the Wormholing Phenomenon.. Figure 15-16 Performance curves for a 60. Hung.. Ben-Nacenr." SPE Paper 18536. R..000-psi embedment strength formation and 7000-psi closure stress for different ideal widths. "Characteristics of Acid Reactions in Limestone Formations. D. R. propped fractures."Noture.. Economides andK. 41 (1): 59-66. an optimal fracture length (and hence an optimal treatment design) will exist. "The Effect of Surface Kinetics in Fracture Acidizing. 1992. Elbel..." SPW. McLeod. B. S. J.... In general. 15. 257. "Analysis of Fractured Wel1s:'Ph. and Nittmann. E. "Stochastic Modeling of Wormhole Growth with Biased Randomness... J. the NPVs of the optimal treatments should be compared.1992. . J. 63-68..1988. G. 1989. 15 Sec. M. This optimum is determined based on the NPV of the fracturing treatment. pp. Trans. B.. E . S. 16. Englewood Cliffs. D.. E.M. and Fogler. 194200. and Acidized Fracture Conductivity.. 0. May 1989. Chap. C.1972. and Sepehmoori.. February 1989. .. 7. K. Englewood Cliffs. Touboul. Nolte. Retarded Acids. January 1988. 325: 41-43. 17. Hoefner. K..and Williams. August 1974. 1989. 13. and Guin. Nolte. "The Effectivenessof Acid Fractures and Their Production Behavior. "A Mechanistic Model of Wormhole Growth in Carbonate Matrix Acidizing and Acid Fracturing. Daccord.. A. S. Chap."AcidizingPhysics:'in Reservoir Stimulation. January 1989. 5. K.

.and poststimulation (s=O) conditions. 15-6.328 ft). 1991. the steady-state flow rate would be 375 STB/d and 1260 STBM for the pre. J. A two-layer limestone reservoir (kl = 100 md. where damage removal would not be sufficient for an attractive well flow rate. Both layers have damaged region. For atreatmentconducted at a constant pressure difference ( p w f . "The Optimum Injection Rate for Wormhole Propagation in Carbonate Acidizing:' Ph. p = 1 cp.000 psi? - . = 0. Repeat Problem 15-1. = 1 15-8.2 g/cm3. 15-4.328-ft-radius wellbore. tation. a three-fold increase over the pretreatment rate. Data: Cda = 0. Thus. A. 4 = 0. Settari.328-ft-radius wellbore into a 12% porosity limestone formation if the injection rate is 0. 15 18. Calculate (the volume of 15 wt% HCl needed to propagate wormholes 2 ft beyond a 0..1965. Z>hould be noted here that a hydraul~cfracture bypasses the near-wellbore damage . pacid = 0.t concentration? Dew = cm2/sec. adjusts the skin effect (or the related effective wellbore radius).05 bpm/ft. B = 1 res bbl/STB. hydraulic fracturing is i --F o i ~ : ~ f & e t m e n tbe beneficial in low. and 1. the corresponding flow rates would A be 19 and 63 STB/d. Calculate the radius of wormhole penetration using Daccord's and the volumetric model Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation for the injection of 100 gal/ft of 28% HCl at 0.15. A well has a skin effect of 10 due to damage extending 2 ft beyond a 0. where the permeability is 20% of the undamaged permeability extending 3 ft from the 0. respectively. Suppose that a well in a 20-md reservoir had a prestimulation skin effect due to damage equal to 20. M. 20. (15-31) and (15-32). Use both Daccord's and the volumetric model. PROBLEMS 15-1. The molecular diffusion coefficient is low9m2/sec. 15-2. Derive Eqs. a 10-fold i n i i aTwo conclusionsa shouldrate. < hydraulic fracture that could result in an e m t . The undamaged reservoir permeability is 200 md. 15-7. Repeat Problem 15-5. 15-3." Int. calculate and plot the skin evolution up to 100 gallft using Daccord's model. 15-5. at what distance from the wellbore will the acid concentration be half of the injected Wells in low to moderate-permeability reservoirs are candidates for hydraulic fracturing as a means of stimulating their performance.10. & = 0.~. but using the volumetric model. respectively. For typical reservoir and well variables (h = 75 ft. . k2 = 20 md) is to be acidized with a 15% HCl solution containing an organic resin diverting agent. Tenill. at what time after the start of injection will 50 gal/ft of acid have been injected into the high-permeability layer? = 1.. for a l-mdpermeability reservoir and with the3ame skin effects. but the rationale for the treatment is not based solely on the magnitude of the rate increase.1 ~01%. drawn from the above. R. "Modelling of Acid Fracturing Treatment:' SPE Paper 21870. An acid fracture in a 10% porosity dolomite formation is 100 ft high and 400 ft long after the injection of 400 bbl of 15% HCI solution. This would mean an increase of 885 STBId.05 bpmlft into a 10% porosity limestone formation.328-ft-radiuswellbore. If the fracturingefficiency q -+ 0.. A fracture resulting in an equivalent skin effect of -6 is a massive undertaking as will be shown later in this and the next chapters. Ap = 1000 psi. re = 1500 ft. like any other method of well stimulation. Y.-zone. Wang. a hydraulic fracture cannot circumvent the reservoir's natural capacity to produce. 8: 1491-1497.. In such a case the well flow rate from a 1-md reservoir cannot compare with simple damage removal from a 20-md reservoir.f i i C t u f e e_q i i V a E n i s % ~ e c th a G r d l i i i o i t o the pretreatment ~ A c e . However..) of 2000 psi. - 15-9.f_o_~a~o~. 1993. -. but for dolomite in which 10 pore volumes of acid are needed for breakthrough. "Heat Transfer in Laminar Flow between Parallel Porous Plates. Two pore volumes of acid are required for breakthrough in a core flood.Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. A hydraulic fracture.7 Cp. negative skin effect of -6 would lead to a poststimulation rate equal to 220 STB/d. Second. For the fracturing treatment described in Problem 15-8. Hear Mass Transfer. and r.p. a n ~ . P Vbt 2. Other data are given moderate-permeabil~i+. assume that the rock is dissolved uniformly along the entire fracture. For the acidizing conditions described in Example 15-3. What is the resulting fracture conductivity if S-t = 40. University of Texas at Austin.5 pore volumes of acid are required for wormhole breakthrough in a core flood. First. D.. disser. 19.(Y = 1013 ftflb..

l-his mean an increase 885 STB/d. ahy&aulic fracture circumvent the natural capacity to produce. hydraulic fracturing is beneficial in low. 1. For the aciduing conditions described in ~~~~l~ 15-3. 1993. a = 1013 Mb. The moleculardiffusioncoefficientis acid are required for wormhole breakthrough in a core flood. A well has a skin effect of 10 due to damage extending 2 ft beyond a 0. but the rationale for the treatment is not based solely on the magnitude of the rate increase.10. the steady-state flow rate would be 375 STB/d and 1260 S m / d for the pre. Hear MassTransfer* 8: 1491-1497.. Y.328-fi-radiuswellbore into a 12% porosity limestone formation if the injection rate is 0.1965. Repeat problem 15-1.. @2 = 0. at what time after the startOf injection will 50 gal/ft acid have been injected into the high-Permeabilitylayer? = 0. but using the volumetric model. A fracture.2 !Z/cm3. = 100 md.5 Pore formation. respectively.05 bpm/ft.PC)of 2000 psi. 15-9. An acid fracture a 10% porosity dolomite formation is 100 ft high and 400 ft long after the injectionof 400 bbl of 15% H C ~ solution.05 bpmlft into a 10% Porosity limestone ~ Of mz/sec. In such a case the well flow rate from a I-md reservoir cannot compare with simple damage from a 2@md reservoir. useboth Daccord's and the volumetric model. ration. Wang... . AP = 1000 psi. a'HeatTransfer in Laminar mow between Parallel ~orous Plates? Int. -Mo. . %o pore volumes of acid are required for breakthrough in a core flood. Repeat problem 15-5. respectively.D.R. z dt . H ~ for a I-md. where damage removal would not be sufficient for an attractive well flow rate. ~ . like any other method of well stimulation. PROBLEMS penetration using Daccord's and the Calculatethe radiusof for the injection of 100 g d f t of 28% H C at 0.. 15-3. Suppose that a well in a 2 0 .Carbonate Acidizing Design Chap. J . If the fracturing efficiency "O1 at what distance from the wellbore will the acid concentration be half of the injected concentration? Dee = cm2/sec. A Mo-layer limestone reservoir (k. Other data are givenbelow. = 1500 ft.32g-ft-radiuswellbore. adjusts the skin effect the effective wellbore radius). _.15. Tenill.7 Data: cda 0. calculate and plot the skin evolution U to lo0 gallft using P Daccord's model. I . the corresponding flow rates would . and rw = 0. A. (15-31) and (15-32).~ d reservoir had a prestimulation skin effect due to damage equal to 20.328-ft-radius wellbore. For typical reservoir and (h = 75 ft. Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation 15-4. disser20. a three-fold increase over the pretreatment rate. pacid = 1. io *crease over @EJ-treatment rate. 42 1 . 56 with a 15-7. and 1. fist.University of Texas at Austin.. = PVbt= 2.. kz = 20 md) is to be H ~solutioncontainingan organicresindiverting agent.~ ~ permeability reservoir and with the same skin effects. ~ ~ 6 conclusions should be drawn from the above. 15 C H A P T E R 16 19._----.000 psi? 16-1 ~NTRODUCTION in low moderate-permeability reservoirs are candidates for hydraulic kact"rin!2 as a means of stimulating their performance. Calculate !he volume of 15 wt% HC1 needed to propagate wormholes ft beyond a 0.. Senari. F~~ fracturingtreatmentdescribed in Problem 15-8. hydraulic fracture that could result in an $&effectof-6 would lead to a p ~ ~ t ~ t i m u l a tratenequal to 220 S T B / d . Both layers have damaged l where the permeability is 20% of the undamaged permeability extending ft from the 0. r. but for dolomite in which 10 pore volumes Of acid 'Ie needed for breakthrough. Second. $= 0. assume that the rock is the uniformlyalong the entire moderate-permeability f o r m a s .1 vol%. Derive Eqs. M.jellingof Acid Fracnrring Treatment:' ~p~Pa~er218701199~. What is the resulting fracture conductivityif Lk = 40. be l9 and 63 STB/d. Optimum Injection Rate for Wormhole propagation in Carbonate Acidizing: Ph. ~h~ undamagedresewoirpermeabilityis 200 md.328 ft). For atreatmentconducted at a constant pressure difference (pwf . A fracture resulting in an equivalent skin effect of -6 is a massive as will be shown later in this and fie next chapters. B = 1 res b b v ~ ~ = 1 cp.and PoststimuIation (s=O) conditions.

is simply (16-1) A hydraulic fracture will be normal to the smallest of the three stresses because it will open and displace the rock against the least resistance. . S~C. OH.effective vertical stress. which corresponds to the weight of the overburden. The most readily understood stress is the vertical stress. As additional fluids are injected.up : (16-3) where ff is Biot's (1956) poroelastic constant. For sandstones it is approximately equal to 0.422 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. The absolute horizontal stress. a.A_i. 16-2 IN-SITU STRESSES Formations at depth are subjected to a stress field that can be decomposed i its conn stituent vectors. a conceptual analogy is pH %=a (16-2) with in psi. For a formation at depth H. described in the next chapter. which for most hydrocarbon reservoirs is approximately equal to 0. For p = 165 lb/ft3. the geometry of the fracture is affected by the state of stress and the rock properties.. a = a.7..25. This chapter describes the important processes during hydraulic fractures. 16-2 In-Situ Stresses 423 create the optimum stimulation treatment. The stress given by Eq.ptal stress and ~ ~ S ~ ~ a rock property. whereas the of maximum horizontal stress is simply _r_iI_. e m m m h o r i z o n t a l _ ~ p g s ~ ~ ~ to vertical d i n e x i u a ~ l ~ ~ ~ hydraulic fract_ures(Hubbert and Willis. culminating in the fracture design. (16-3). 16 Execution of a hydraulic fracture involves the injection of fluids at a pressure sufficient]y high to cause "tensile failure" of the rock. the I . Fracture design for petroleum engineers must then take into account the natural state of the reservoir and rock and influence the fracture execution in an attempt to where oh is the effective horizo. 1957). At the fracture initiation pressure. What length or fracture permeability is desirable in a hydraulic fracture? While this issue will be dealt with extensively in later sections of this chapter. However.-"l ~ . (16-4) is not the same in all directions in the horizontal plane. implying that the effective s e h is approximately one-Gird *. as in the case of posttreatment incremental production and the influence of reservoir permeability. The absolute horizontal stress decreases with fluid production. ~ e c a u s e tectonic components. v -H-l-vau I (16-4) ~ ~ must be addressed. often known as the breakdo do^@^&^^^^^ the rock opens. a is defined : . this stress is the minimum horizontal stress. would then be equal to the effe_&y_e_s-@gss the same manner as the relationship in Eq. the vertical stress gradient is approximately 165/144 of the overburden will be carried by both the grains and the fluid within the pore space. The direction of the hydraulic fracture will b6 analyzed in a subsequent section of this chapter. In the majority of reservoirs to be hydraulically fractured. an effective stress. the vertical stress.

and the reservoir pressure. ~ 2000). (Overpressure 1s the pressure difference above hydrostatic. oH. and the absolute horizontal stresses would be withln 29 and 43 PSI. since there will be a nonvanishing shear stress component. (16-6). fractures would have largely uncontrolled height. From the above. respectively. p b d r is Figure 16-1 1s a plot of all stresses: u. 8.27 and 0. a~ a~.61 H. Plot the maximum stress also. Use first a Poisson ratio for the shales equal to 0. = 0.29H .. The slngle most important reason for fracture helght contrunment is this natural stress contrast resulting from the differences in the Poisson ratlos. and then repeat for v = 0. as in the case of deviated or horizontal wells..000ft as functions of the reservoir pressure from hydrostatic to an overpressureof 4000 psi. What observations can be made? Solution 10000 F~gure 16-1 Absolute (a.and UH. from Eq. 0: (16-9) = 0. and the Poisson ratio is 0. Calculate and plot the absolute and effective vertical and minimum horizontal stresses...88H . When the two 50-ft shale layers are considered. suggesting that at any depth (under the assumptions of thls problem). For any other than the perfectly vertical direction. 16-2 In-Situ Stresses 425 where u. the breakdown pressure will be different than the one given by Eq. From Eq. The maximum horizontal stress is 2000 psi larger than the minimum horizontal stress. EXAMPLE 16-1 Calculation of stresses versus depth I 8000 Assume that a 75-ft sandstone formation is 10. This new breakdown pressure may be less. 16 Sec.~ and UH(.700 PSI. 2.800.000 ft deep.. UL .900. Finally. the absolute vertlcal stresses at the top and bottom of the shale/sandstone and sandstone/shale sequence would be wlthrn 58 and 86 psi. = . u. and therefore U H . u. UH mm is a strong funchon of this overpressure. (16-2) and p = 165 lb/ft3. (16-3). ~ ~= 0. (16-4). For v = 0. Use hydrostatic reservoir pressure (po = 55 lb/ft3). but usually it will be more than the breakdown pressure for a vertical well (McLennan et al. if v = 0.respechvely ( ~ v = 0. The fracture direction will be normal to the smallest of formation.- Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap.25..25 (as in the sandstone layer). u.. ).72)(55)H = 0..3.0. The magnitude of the breakdown pressure is characteristic of the values and the respective differences of the principal stresses... 1s the smallest.72 Ap (16-10) . and effechve (ui...27 for the shales. Fracture helght migration and calculations wlll be presented later in tlus chapter.. is a tectonic stress contribution.-. Wlthout thls dlfference. + (0.57 AH) 43 PSI. At 10. = 1..... 1989).. Of the three pnnclpal absolute stresses. whch at 10.72.000 ft results in an add~honal contrast of approx~mately 400 psi..... (16-4).700. UH. UH mm. A plot of the stress profiles in an expanded scale is shown in Rg. are the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses.15H. plot the absolute vertical and minimum horizontal stresses at 10. 0 0 2000 4000 Stresses (PSI) 6000 8000 10000 12000 + 2000 where C T H . coinciding with the direction of the vertical principal stress) this pressure.. Ap.57 H 144 If a depth of 10. ~ ~ ~ To is the tensile stress of the rock. the dlfference between the honzontal stresses at the top and bottom of the formation would be only (0.respechvely. U H . but plot the stress profile of the target interval and overlaying and underlaying shale layers.500..a. The density is 165 Ib/ft3.3 this stress contrast 1s approxlmately 900 PSI. of Example 16-1 Reservoir pressure 1 hydrpstahc s stresses for the fonnahon From Eq. the three. it is then obvious that three principal stresses can be identified in a and OH.. each 50 ft thick. From Eq. the tensile stress. respectively. whlle the f to horizontal stress In the sandstone remains the same. while uv is not affected by the reservoir pressure (a: IS). and sim~larly Eq..a~.. 5. . the poroelastic constant is 0. and p is the reservoir pressure. 16-2.) For this problem.25 1s used for all three layers). and 7..e. An expression for the breakdown pressure has been given by Terzaghi (1923) and for a vertical well (i.000ft 1s the mldpolnt of the 75-ft formation. finally. a hydraulic fracture would be vemcal and normal to the m~n~mum horizontal stress dlrectlon. (169). Repeat the calculation. However.000 ft these stresses are 11.

........ UL.... .. the role of the overpressure was addressed.. if..... . /.... More important.....~. ptr... follows the geologic history (erosion.... The tensile stress is 1000 psi.24 Ap = 0.......: 2. . .... :....... Eqs... the vertical stress at depth is pg ( H .. (16-6). . and the resulting horizontal stresses.......3800 $: .... $ 6 Sec.... In the previous section......i." The vertical stress.... 0 EXAMPLE 16-2 Calculation of fracture initiation pressure Estimate the fractureinitiationpressure for a well in the reservoir described in the first paragraph of Example 16-1......500 . contained within stiff boundaries.... This is represented by the absolute minimum stress....... a contained fracture leads to an additional net pressure....... There are exceptions... (16-4)] is valid during deposition.. 3(5700) .. While the difference at Ap = 0 psi is (11. Therefore the conclusion would be that all hydraulic fractures should be vertical and normal to the minimum stress direction.. Figure 16-3 is a plot of the vertical versus horizontal stresses at 10.... :.48 Ap + (16-14) 0 where APPEand APF are the hydrostatic and friction pressure drops. Furthermore........ In Example 16-1.would be P~I PM ....... Figure 16-3 Vertical and minimum horizontal stresses fora overpressuredformation (Example n 16-1)..7700 + 1000...APPE APF = and ~...5.000ft...... As more and more wells are produced. then the fracture may start vertical and then turn horizontal...... pbd $: . In the next section the issue of fracture direction will be dealt with in detail. respectively. 12000 . 16-1) suggest that the minimum horizontal stress is by definition smaller than the maximum horizontal stress and smaller than the vertical stress.29H .... 6600 psi (16-13) Fracture direction is normal to the minimum resistance.... Solution From Eq. is the magnitude of the vertical stress itself... :...... 16-3 Fracture Direction 427 ..y. are "locked in place.. = 0. decline in reservoir pressure will cause hydraulic fractures to be increasingly vertical. .0 .. Shale Reservoir Shale 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Overpressure.. (16-1) and (16-4) and results of Example 16-1 (see Fig...AH).... It is then obvious that the fracture direction in shallower overpressured formations may not necessarily be vertical...... it is 3800 psi when Ap = 4000 psi.......... if AH is removed. where H is measured from the original ground surface. The wellhead "treating" pressure. during fracturing..0. overlaying and underlaying shales (Example 16-1)...426 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap.. The Poisson relationship [Eq.. though... v 10000 j .... : .. .700) 5800 psi. being directly proportional to the weight of the overburden... glaciation) of the top layers... ... Ap (psi) 5000 Figure 16-2 Idealized horizontal stress profilesand stress contrast between target.. ..... Therefore..... + 0.57H (16-11) (16-12) This breakdown pressure is bottomhole...

= 1. and "screenouts. coupled with largely constant values of the minimum horizontal stress. which must be the I FCD= 5 2 kxf and is related to Prats's a by (16-17) .. A line parallel to the original vertical stress is drawn from the new zero depth. Therefore. (1979) and Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1981) introduced the fracture conductivity. An algebraic solution is to set equal the stress values of the (new) vertical and minimum . since the width of the horizontal branch is very small. the removal of a portion of the overburden. 2000 ft below the original. but the curve is shifted to the left (of the curve in Fig. horizontal in their respective expressions and solve for H. result in a new curve intersection. conductivity and related equivalent skin effect. Solution Agraphical solution to the problem is shown inFig. is marked. is assumed to consist of two equal half-lengths." denoted by xf. resulting in substantialfluid loss during propped fracture propagation. Thenew ground surface.15H .15H . Instead. 16 Sec. o.2300. conductive length and not the created hydraulic length. FcD. Prats provided pressure profiles in a fractured reservoir as functions of the fracture half-length and the relative capacity. The horizontal stress is given by Eq. Above this depth the original minimum horizontal stress is no longer the smallest of the three stresses. In almost all calculations. lifting the overburden. Every hydraulic fracture can be characterized by its length.57H = 1. a. kf is the fracture permeability. 16-4 Length. (16-9) (OH. and w is the propped fracture width.428 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. (In the following definitions and in the remainder of this chapter and the following two chapters. Complex fracture geometries are likely to be encountered at depths below this level.) Similar phenomena may occur during vertical fracture propagation if the values of the two horizontal stresses are nearly equal. the fracture length. at depths less than H % 4000 ft from the original ground surface or 2000 ft from the current surface. A T-shape geometry is invariably undesirable.and EquivalentSkin Effect 429 12000 Stresses (psi) The slope of the vertical stress versus depth curve remains constant. calculate the critical depth for a horizontal fracture." (These terms will be expounded upon in Section 16-7. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Original Ground New Ground Surface EXAMPLE 16-3 Calculation of critical depth for a horizontal fracture Suppose that the formation described in the first paragraph of Example 16-1 lost 2000 ft of overburden. If the original a = 1. Small values of a imply large fracture permeability-widthproduct or small reservoir permeability-fracture length product.57 H ). and it intersects the original minimum horizontal stess at H=4000 ft from the original surface or 2000 ft from the current ground surface. AND EQUIVALENT SKIN EFFECT 16-4 LENGTH. fractures will initiate horizontally. 16-4. xf. based on the original ground surface.. which marks a critical depth. while the intersection of the original vertical and minimum horizontal stresses was at the original ground surface. after 2000 ft of overburden are removed. thus a large conductivity fracture. 16-1). Assuming that the horizontal stresses are the original and the reservoir pressure is hydrostatic. = 0. Conductivity. which he defined as where k is the reservoir permeability. Small widths will 0 accept fluid but not proppant and increase the likelihood of a screenout.which is exactly CONDUCTIVITY. Setting the two stresses equal results in 0. The pressure in the fracture during execution may exceed the seating pressure of normal-to-the-trajectory natural fissures. Argawal et al. the term "fracture length. Therefore.) In each side of the well. the vertical stress is the smallest and a hydraulic fracture would be horizontal. Fractures may be iniliated vertically but may turn horizontal (T-shape fractures) when (and if) the minimum stress plus the fracture net pressure exceed the overburden stress. sluny dehydration. will always refer to the conductive fracture half-length.15H.2300 (16-15) % (current) Figure 16-4 Critical depth for a horizontal fracture because of overburden removal (Example 16-2). In subsequent work.

leading to high-conductivity fractures. would benefit greatly from length. Therefore. 16 Sec. require good-fracturepermeability (good-qualityproppant and nondarnagingfracturing fluids) and width. and r. A third important observation from Fig. (From Prats. a . and the dimensionless effective wellbore radius. or high conductivity fractures. increasing the fracture permeability would not. re = 1490 ft (160 acres) and no wellbore damage. Since the effective wellbore must be as large as possible.6.) which suggests that for these large-conductivityfractures the reservoir drains to a well with an effective wellbore equal to half of the fracture half-length. Moderate. (16-5) is that for large values of a . the increase in rh does not depend on fracture length but instead on the fracture permeability-widthproduct. calculate the equivalent skin effect and the folds of well productivity increase (at steady-state flow) for a reservoir with drainage radius. 1981). Conductivity. For example. 16-5. k = 1 md. what should be the kfw to deliver the same folds of increase as for k = 1 md and kf w = 1000 md-ft? Solution From Eq. the slope of the curve is equal to 1. (16-24) for lowconductivity fractures reinforce the analogy made in the introduction of this chapter. These guidelines must influence the fracture treatment design. relating FcD and sf directly.1 md and k = lOmd? If the fracture length remains 1000 ft and k=10 md.328 ft. 16-5 is Fig. From Fig. Lowpermeability reservoirs. behavior was addressed in Chapter 11 and will be used extensively in Chapter 18. 16-5 for small values of a . increasing the fracture length would result in additional benefits. (16-17). . a Figure 16-5 Similarly. xf = 1000 ft. fracture-related. Transient. naturally leading to low-conductivity fractures. the steady-state equation for an oil well would be Relative Capacity Parameter. where rh is The equivalent skin effect. (16-22) for high-conductivityfractures and Eq. the rhD is equal to 0. which must be maximized. leading to The concept of effective wellbore radius. values of a larger than unity must be avoided because the effective wellbore radius decreases rapidly. 16-5. Prats (1961) correlated the relative capacity parameter. sf. implying a linear relationship between rhDand a that is approximately Equation (16-24) suggests that for low-conductivityfractures. = 0.430 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. 16-4 Length.and Equivalent Skin Effect 431 Rats (1961) also introduced the concept of dimensionless effective wellbore radius in a hydraulically fractured well. this skin effect can be added to all other "pseudo-radial" equations such as for the pseudo-steady-state and transient conditions after they have been established in the reservoir. (16-IS)] FcD > 1. Furthermore. hydraulic fractures should be designed for a < 1 or [from Eq.5. is the result of a hydraulic fracture of a certain length and conductivity and can be added to the well inflow equations in the usual manner. A second conclusion can be drawn from Fig. This is Fig. A useful alternativegraph of Fig. 1961. EXAMPLE 16-4 Calculation of the equivalent skin effect from hydraulic fractures Assuming that kfw = 2000 md-ft. What would be the folds of increase for the same fracture lengths and kfw if k = 0. for these largeconductivity high-permeability reservoirs. 16-6 (Cinco-Ley and Samaniego. The results from Eq. where the performance of hydraulically fractured wells is analyzed.

Both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fracturing fluids will be considered. The p-3-D models allow vertical fracture migration along the fracture path.2. Fork = 0. i. sf = -5. and energy distribution. . "far-field" stress (Economides et al.3 and D J/Jo= 17. For xf <i h the appropriate model has been presented by Khristianovic(h) and Zheltov (1955) and Geertsma and de Klerk (1969). For petroleum engineering applications. The folds of increase under steady state. For a fracture length much larger than the fracture height (xf >> hf). Since xf = 1000 ft and r. and are outside the scope of this textbook. additional fluid injection would result in fracture propagation. where h = 2xf. 16-5 Modeling of Fracture Geometry 432 433 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. Such fully 3-D models require significant amounts of data to justify their use. The latter allow full three-dimensional fracture propagation with full two-dimensional fluid flow. the conditions with which the fluid is injected (rate. and energy.. depending on the local stress distribution and rock properties. are extremely calculation intensive. then sf = -6.7. FCD is equal to 2.7-fold increase in productivity results from the treatment.2 and J / Jo = 2. This is frequently known as the KGD model. The fracture is discretized.1 md. what causes the tip of the fracture to advance. fluid. 16 into account the mechanical properties of the rock. and change plane of original direction. kf = lo6rnd-see Chapter 17) indicates the need to maximize the kfw product for a higher-permeability formation. 1989). would require a highly unrealistic value for the fracture permeability.8. [They are also outside the scope of applications of the vast majority of hydraulic fracture treatments. is the radial or "penny-shape" model. if k = 10 md. F~~ Fracture skin effect varying Samaniego. used here is the dynamic value.8. sf + ln(xf/rw)= 1. pressure). Therefore. from Fig. two sets of laws are required: Fundamental principles such as the laws of conservation of momentum. sf = -7. then kfw = 20. which is a particularly complex phenomenon. Therefore. fully three-dimensional (3-D) models. pseudo-threedimensional (p-3-D) and. 0 Following the fracture initiation. The fracture is allowed to propagate laterally and vertically. and the stresses and stress distribution in the porous medium. For the purposes of this textbook the elegant 2-D models will be used for approximate calculations of the fracture width and the fracture propagation pressure. can be calculated: That is. then F ~ = 20 and sf + In(xf/r. the Perkins and Kern (1961) and Nordgren (1972) or PKN model is an appropriate approximation. = 0.328.e.000 md-ft. For k = 10 md. Recently.2 and sf + h(xf/rw) = 2. abnormally high treating pressures. FCD = 0. and Criteria for propagation. where J and Jo are the productivity indexes before and after stimulation. However. the fracture height at the time that the fracture length is equal to xf. two mutually exclusive models have been used.] Three general families of models are available: two-dimensional (2-D). A limiting case. a fracture height migration model will be described. and within each block calculations are done based on the fundamental laws and criteria for propagation.2 to be constant. and this migration depends on the stress contrast between the target and adjoining intervals. denoted as J/Jo. mass.respectively.5. The fracture height. In describing fracture propagation.25 in. (16-61. Finally. which must be normal to the minimum.) = 0. Valk6 and Economides (1993) have introduced the concept of "continuum damage mechanics" (CDM) as a means to describe the additional phenomena of retarded fracture propagation and frequently observed.6. usually aligned with the well trajectory. [See Ben-Naceur (1989) for an extensive treatment of the subject. a 6.) Figure 16-6 with fracture conductivity. for sf + In (xf/rv) = 1. is likely to be different from the direction of fracture propagation. This result (although such a kfw product with w = 0. -. In Section 16-6. fractures in horizontal and highly deviated wells may require full 3-D modeling because the fracture initiation. The geometry of the created fracture can be approximatedby models that take . that is. These results denote the impact of long fracture lengths in low-permeability reservoirs.] Two-dimensional models are closed-form analytical approximations assuming constant and known fracture height.. (From Cinco-Ley and and therefore. the properties of the fracturing fluid. hf.Sec. 1981. These include interactions of rock.

Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. Doubling the viscosity with all the potentially associated permanent damage to the proppant pack would result in a 19% increase of the fracture width. (16-27) and (16-28). treatment variables have only moderate impact on the fracture width. The elliptical geometry of thePKNmode1 leads to an expressionfor the average width by the introduction of a geometric factor. The difference in the fracture widths among these extremes will be more than 2. Increasing the rate and/or viscosity will &SOresult in an increase in the net pressure with potentially undesirable fracture height growth. and soft chalks. the injectionrate is 40 bpm? Assume = lo6 psi. I I I I I hf Figure 16-7 The PKN model geometry. Conversely. qi is in . E ~(16-29) becomes . It has an elliptical shape at the wellbore. where ti3 is calculated in in. the viscosity of the fluid is 100 cp.75.xf is in ft..5 times.59.O = ' The factor y is approximately equal to 0. in low-~oung'smodulus formations. although there are several cases where this is true. Rock properties have a much larger impact on the fracture given (in coherent units) by Set. This is one of those phenomena where the natural state helps the success of fracture stimulation. Equation (16-27) is particularly useful to understand the relationship among fracture width. and rock properties. and therefore the term in the second set of parentheses is equal to 0. What fracture length would in a chalk with = lo5 psi for the same volume? Assume that hf and are the same.coals. For a Newtonian fluid the maximum width. from lo7 psi in tight and deep sandstones to 2 x lo5 psi in diatomites. This is neither feasible nor desirable. The corollary is not always true. the same volume of fluid injected would result in wide but short fractures. by In Eqs. q iis the injection rate. 16 16-5.1 Hydraulic Fracture Width with the PKN Model The pKN Model is depicted in Fig. The quarter-root relationship implies that to double the width. 16-7. Thus. and G is in psi. p is the apparent viscosity. when the fracture-half length is equal to xf. the resulting fracture will be narrow but long. What would be the average width whenxf=2000 ft? the volume of the created fracture if hf=lOO ft when xf=lOOO ft for the described above. the viscosity of the fracturing fluid (or the injection rate) must be increased by a factor of 16. 'pm> is in CP. Thus. The maximum width is at the centerline of this ellipse. since low-permeabilityreservoirs that require long fractures usually have large Young's modulus values. The Young's modulus of common reservoir rocks may vary by almost two orders of magnitude. and v is the Poisson ratio. E . with zero width at the top and bottom. Low Young's moduli are not necessarily associated with higher-permeabilityformations. 16-5 Modeling of Fracture Geometry 435 where G is the elastic shear modulus and is related to Young's modulus. EXAMPLE 16-5 of the PKN fracture width with a ~~~~~~i~ fluid What wouldbe the maximum and average fracture widths when fie fracturehalf-lengthis looO ft. treatment variables. where the Young's modulus is large for a given volume of fluid injected. In typical oilfield units. The implication is that in stiff rocks. that ''.

by The volume of the 1000-ft (half-length)fracture 1s and therefore tZ. = 4 x 106 I '''' (16-36) In Eq (16-32).56)(3.5 ft2. 0 16-5.Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap.56.59) = 0 21 in [40°06(8 x 10-3~(1000~(100~0~U 0. (16-28). and from Eq (16-30).must also be 17. G= 4 x lo6 = 1 6 x lo6 psi 2(1 0 25) EXAMPLE 16-6 Fracture width with a non-Newtonian fluid + Use the treatment and rock variables in Example 16-5 to calculate the fracture width at xf = 1000 ft for a fracturing fluid with K' = 8 x lo-' lbf . product xf tZ. (16-28). = 0. (16-35).33 m 16-5. it should not be used in cases where long fracture lengths are generated. and 0. 1s ln m.25 m..21 1s the average w~dth When XJ = 2000 ft. = 12 [(13.. = (0 35)(0. the term 0.~~68)(~.3 in. by n y /4.respect~vely(s~mply the prevlous results mult~plled 2lI4). The average width can be calculated by multiplying the w. 16-5 Modeling of Fracture Geometry 437 Solut~on From Eq. 16 Sec. Area of highest \ V = 2 xfh. = 640 ft The correspond~ngaverage width is 0. Figure 16-8 The KGD model geometry.35 IS the maximum fracture wldth (at the wellbore). 16-8.~935)0~56]0~32 ..tZ.3 Fracture Width with the KGD Model The KGD model.79)0~56(~. w. . The quantities n and K' are the power-law rheological properties of the fracturing fluid. Thus... (16-30) for the Newtonian fluid. and 5 are 0 42 and 0. ' All other variables are as in Eq.18 in. since h j is constant From the Eq. G = 1 6 x lo5 psi and rearrangement of Eq (16-30) results in and therefore x. = (2)(1000)(100) flov In the chalk format~on. Solution From Eq.59)(1. when xf = 1000 ft. depicted in Fig. is a 90" turn of the PKN model and is particularly applicable to approximate the geomeby of fractures where hf > > xf.2 Fracture Width with a Non-Newtonian Fluid The expression for the maximum fracture width with a non-Newtonian fluid is (in oilfield unlts) where w. the w.secn'/ft2and n' = 0.

. .1 and using all multipliers of tll(2"'+3)as c2. 2xf. + A~~ = ~ ~ ~ 1 / ( % ' + 3 ) Similarly.:) ---t 1. Eq. Vf. tip to tip. where CL is the leakoff coefficient and r. hf. and therefore $Af = qit where Af is the fracture area and equal to 2xf hf . for g 0. (16-47) becomes simply h. with one dimensionof largely infiniteextent h e other of finite extent. in contrast to the elliptical shape (at the wellbore) of the PKN model. Nolte and Economides (1989) have shown that for a fracturing operation with efficiency ti (= vf /I/. In Eq.). 16-5 Modeling of Fracture Geometry 439 As can be seen from Fig. and thus Xf = 5. the shape of the KGD fracture implles equal width along the wellbore.. -Newtonian fluid is 0. (16-48) For the pKN model the characteristic dimension d is the fracture height. Equations (16-46) and (16-47) for penetration and Eqs.615qiJ 2nhCL i (16-47) [The hfrp product that would be in the denominator of Eq. respectively. Therefore. Eq.] From the Sneddon crack relationship [Eq. (16-42) leads to From Eq. For g --+ 1. (16-41) for the average as width.438 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. (16-46) for ti . must be equal to the volume of fluid injected. from Eqs. (16-47) and (16-48). - (16-49) = ~~~1/4(n'+l) (16-50) where C3 is the Constant resulting from the combination of the equations. (16-49) and (16-50) for net Pressure represent the two extreme limits for g --+ 1 and ---. 16-8. the value y is 0. while for the KGD model it is equal to the fracture length. me maximum width of the crack. d . (16-35) (maximum width of the PKN model) and Eq. is the ratio of the permeable height to the fracture height. 16 Sec. and using all multipliers of x)/(~"'+~) a constant C1 (without the factoi 12 to convert width in in.omin) and inversely proportional to the plane strain The maximum width is given by 2(pf . is C1 E Apf = pf . the net fracturing pressure is given by The average width. which is proportional to this characteristic dimension.amin= . G. The nvprape hvdraulic fracture width for the KGD model in coherent units and a -.. (16-411. (16-39) with d = hf for the PKN model]. has been described by Sneddon and Elliot (1946).v2)hf With Eq. Vi. is also proportional to the net pressure (pf .I For g --+ 0.---. (16-44) becomes i:/ I 165.1/(2n1+2) (ny/41Xf 2 0 . h. the volume of the fracture.. This width profile results in larger fracture volumes when using the KGD model instead of the PKN model for a given fracture length. In a single-layer formation the permeable height is the net reservoir thickness. (16-46) For g + 0. 0.4 Net Fracturing Pressure mecreation of a two-dimensional crack.umidd I where qi is in bpm and t is in minutes. (16-43). Xf versus t can be obtained directly from Eq.75 for the PKN model and 1 for the KGD model.

who also presented analogous expressions for the KGD and Radial models. control of fluid leakoff should be of paramount importance for an effective hydraulic fracture treatment. According to CDM. This Observation was first from Eqs.439)(6. q + 1 and q + 0). and CL = 5 x 10-3 ft/&. K' = 8 x 10-3 1bJ-secnr/ft2. Use n = 0. (16-57)1. that for the PKN model [Eq. v = 0.5. as x f grows. Eq. Of particular interest are the calculated fracture Penetrations showing the enormous impact of the efficiency on fracture propagation. starting from . ~n formasuch tion&using traditional design procedures would lead to unreliable results. XJ t-3n'/g(d+l) = 71. contained fracture. are useful in monitoring the Progress Of a Since n1 is usually approximately equal to 0. (16-49) (16-50) made by Nolte and smith (19811. Small cracks may form. this expression is the In both Eqs. Palmer and Veatch (I9891 give several examples of such abnormally high treating pressures.8 x = 1. approximated by the Radial model.60).25. first introduced by Kachanov (1966). ~ i ~ d l ~are also approximate and easy-to-use expressions for the net fracturing there . (16-46) for q --+ 1.76 x lo-' a a Radial: t-n'l(n'+2) for q for q --+ 1 t-d/2(n'+l) --+ (16-58) 0 From Eq. . in particular. in Eq.. E = 2 x lo6 psi. The damage growth rate can be described by a power-law-t~~~e constitutive relation. Apf = 87. Thus.59)(0. hf = 150 ft. Xf a hpf a t-n'/(n'+2) for q for q --+ 1 ---+ 0 = 457t3I4 For q --+ 0. net treating pressures observed during hydraulic fracturing are eral greater than those predicted by simple propagation models. Finally. positive suggest a extending. 16 S~C. A P declines [Eq. This technique is currently in wide use. ~ In certain cases. ' qi h = 100 ft. as should be expected from the PKN model.e. approach to understand and describe the phenomena is based on a fracture propagation criterion derived cOnthuum damage mechanics (CDM).5.Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap.9tlf6 (16-62) (16-61) Figure 16-9 is the plot of the results of this exercise. 16-5 Modeling of Fracture Geometry EXAMPLE 16-7 Fracture penetration and net pressure versus time with the PKN model 441 The pressure expressions. ~ concluded ~ i so does A P ~For the KGD model. (16-49)for q ---t 1 becomes Apj = 163t'I4 and for q -+ O. (16-35)and (16-41) and the given variables. (1646) can be calculated: Ci = (0. F~~ PKN model. In a plot of Apf versus time. approximated by the PKN Negative slopes would imply either much larger fracture height than length growth. the Powers Of time fracturing fall between 114 and 116. and s ~ & weakens the Inaterial and lowers its load-camying capacity. Solution From Eqs.~ q (16-50) becomes . (16-47).5 Cont~Il~um Damage Mechanics in Hydraulic Fracturing For the KGD model the analogous expression is ~ ~ it readily. (16-56)1. These are as foll~ws: Calculate the fracturepenetration and the correspondingnet pressure for the two extreme cases (i. Plot the results of this calculation for the first 15 minutes. under stress the matedeterioration rial structure may begin to disintegrate. by the KGD model. (16-59) and (16. the constant C . The deterioration is characterized the quantifiable damage variable. from Eq. in coherent units. 0 which in oilfield units becomes 16-5.5t112 These results suggest that log-log plots during fracture execution can identify readily the morphology ofthe propagating fracture. = 40 bpm. for the PKN and KGD models using a Newtonian fracturing fluid. the time is in minutes. as xf grows. These net pressures increase with time. or radial fracture extension.

2947 1.7815 -1. C~ = 7.5000 -0.14 m.3038 2.7950 -2. u .7193 1. Table 16-1 Logarithm Base 10 of Dimensionless Length (LD) .= 0. . K[ pa-ml/2) is the stress intensity factor. Applying the above equation as a boundary a modified version of the Nordgren (1972) model can be introduced. Figure 16-9 penenation and net fracturingpressure using the PKN model for efficiency approaching -3.8048 fhc mpture crite"on of continuum damage mechaniw and assuming a stress dismbution ahead ofa moving crack.3 GPa.000154 = 0.0004 .8 of fracture dimensions and net treating pressure usingthe c D h 4 . The tables give the dimensionless length.4006 0.3025 2.2757 1.4270 -1. A small value of the Kachanov parameter and/or the (pa) is the average distance of the microcrackslead to retarded fracture propagation with treating pressures several times larger than usual. 0 and 1 (Example 16-7). (16-66): First the Parameter CD~. the value determined for a given formation applying a given injection rate.8045 -2. The so-called CDMin a dimensionless form using the following dimensionless variables: PKN model is x=clxD t=cztD W=C~WD EXAMPLE 1 6 .the net treating Pressure.51 11 -1. i(m) is the average distance microcracks.7372 -2. Acalibration test with awaterinjWtionrate (qi)t = 0 . and the fluidefficiency for a treatment with water(w = 1 mpa-sec)if the injection rate is qi = 0.0001 The Pn=C4WD L = c l L ~ (16-64) where the constants cl through C4 are given by (16-67) .2747 -0. wellbore width or net pressure.9788 -2. using Eq.8011 2.3038 2.9745 -0.. Calculate the fracture length..8010 2. is calculated CD~.2960 2. is known.4779 -0.0731 -0.3339 0. c (l/Pa-sec) is the Kachanov parameter.7757 2.)' = 0.2760 2. preferably from step rate tests.1.2937 1.5686 0. 16-5 Modeling of Fracture Geometry 443 The solution of the model is presented in Tables 16-1 through 16-3. Valk6 and Economides (1993) derived the following equation for the propagation rate of the fracture.7744 -0.1029 1.6787 -0.1028 0.2744 0.8022 -2.Chap. the model can be used to predict the size of the fracture and the treating pressure for any specified injection rate and pumping time.corresponding to the new injection rate. L is the fracture length. can be easily recalculated to another injection rate using the formula Therefore.7729 1.6029 1.43 15 1.2435 0.7958 2.2194 I .7193 2.8048 -2. The combined parameter can be obtained from calibration treatments.005 m3/secand the pumpingtirneis t=60 min.p model ~~ formation parameters are known: h = 9.000154. 0 0 2 6 2 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ in the combinedParameter (CD~. where is in rn/sec. 16 Sec. cDi.87x10-5m/sw1'2. and fluid efficiency for a given dimensionless pumping time if the combined parameter.2163 0.06847 0.min principal stress.65 x 0.33. = 0.7793 1. and gH.2240 -2. G = 1.9999 -0. Though the dimensionless value of the combined parameter is not independent of the injection rate.2363 -1.

03765 -0.3202 1 0 g l ~ f L ~ o.41 c2 = 23.2906 -2.19 ) (~D (16-69) Knowingthe logarithms from Tables 16-1. the distribution of horizontal stresses along the vertical column was discussed Wassuggested that because different lifhologies have different poisson ratios.6986 0. .0439 -2.2131 -0.. and 16-3. the ve*ical Stress (weight of the overburden) is translated hokonta]ly unevenly.width.3886 -0. (CDiZ.5056 -2. An approximation for the fracture height at the wellbore (where it would have the maurnurn is presented below. respectively.06739 -0. 16-6 Height Migration 445 Now the base logarithm of the combined parameter and the base 10 logarithm of the dimensionless time can be calculated: ~o~.4 c3 = 9.establishing the relations between the dimensioned variables. Additiondy. the fracture length can be computed usingE ~(16-64): .6762 -2. l6 Sec. the coefficients.Hydraulic ~ ~ a ~ t u rfor Well stimulation ing Chap. ~f this height were used e~ with either the PKN or KGD model.04238 o.the dimensionlesslength. is c. it would lead to an overestimation of the required -4 -o.06526 182 -0'2135 -0'6663 dl.5315 -o. A simple model by Simonson (1978) relates this stress contrast.01083 -0.70 and x lo-' m c4 = 205 lo' Pa The latter was done by Newbeny et a].2994 -0.03807 -0. 16-2. Finally. and fluid efficiency.57 (16-73) 0 Table 16-3 ~ ~ ~ ~Basei10 ofh m Efficiency (7) ~ t Fluid log.) = -4 t~ = 60 x 60 -= 153 c2 ~ O ~ I O= 2.4576 0.o532 -0'1828 -2.o(cD~.1987 o. L = c l L D = 31 m (16-71) from the dimensionless wellbore width or pressure.. the effects of fie interlayer KIC(fracme toughness) and gravity have been incomorated.~3774 -0. In Section 16-2. (1985) Figure 16-10 is a sohemah of the The honzontal stress value in the target layer of thickness.- . The height prediction is based on log-denved mechanical ~ r o ~ e * iand the wellbore net fracturing pressure.021 15 -0.3128 -2'6867 " From Eq. mdfracmeheightmigration at the wellbore.4326 o. = 8.0 i@ m ? a (16-72) This Pressure is considerably higher than what the traditional PKN model would calculate. net h c t u ~ n g pres. The overlaykg layer has a stress cu* and the underlaying layer has a stress mi.560 =) k " 3 1 0 ( ~= ) ~ 1. are c.39 log.06731 -0. h.06738 -0. or Pressure. can be obtained: 0..1206 -0. the efficiencyis calculated from its logarithm: q = 0.6538 0. resulkg contrasts between layers Example 16-1 showed several hundred psi differences the hOrizOntd stress of a tXget sandstone and overlaying or underlaying shales.02123 -0.3884 -0.242 (16-70) the dimensionless length.l2O7 -0.6776 -0.(q) = -0.9326 -0.2168 -0.06606 -0. the net treating pressure can be computed: P = C4wD = 5.) ---+ 16-6 HEIGHT MIGRATION An P-3-D model would allow simultaneous lateral and vertical fracture height migration. Upward fiacmre hu is """ volume to execute the treatment. (16-65). Note that in B e 2-D models he fracture height is considered to be constant dong the fracture.

c ( = h. the contribution from the interlayer stxesSconoast (second lhat term on the nght-hmd side) for almost all reservoirs is the largest. -C3p(hd . while in downward migration they are hd in f t 7 in c I . ~ l ~ () g] (16-76) . ~ . has a minimum horizontal stress equal to 7100 psi. and p=55 lbIft3 Cai~ulate fracture height migration for net hactufing pressures equal to the 7-00 and 500 psi. the net fracturing pressure required for a downward height +gration hd Figure 16-1 1 Pressuresfor 'pward and downward fracture height migration ( E 16-9).515)(7700.c in f r a c t u ~ pressures would be in psi. c3 oilfield units (o.. respectively~The 1b. ..Set. +C3p(hu .h ) versus Ap. c2. ga.~ f (0. 16-6 Height Migration 447 EXAMPLE 16-9 Estimation of fracture height migration thick.5h) -C(o. then h.7 1 0 o ) J i ? 5 ~ ~ ~ .itv eftects an retardlog..0.(0.5h) Similarly.cosines must be evaluated in degrees.515. = -0. md for The net .9 This is the + 433 + 52 = 484 psi net fracturingpressure that must not be exceeded during the treament. If the Overlaying layer is 100 ft thick.0217.0069.. respectively. Overlaying and have stressesequal to7700 and 8100psi. 75 ft Solution Figure 16-11 is a plot of ~ h .. what would be the critical net fracturing pressure above which an undesirable breakthrough into another formation may occur? A sandstone. hu.ft3. from E ~(16-74).. y = 1 0 0 0 p s i .0.5)(75)] . and 0.0.0. o d in p s i h.0069)(55)[175 In the expressions above.o.=175 ft and. contributes only a small amour.. An example calculation is presented below for the 100-ft migration above the target. K.j . Fmallyl migation. g ~ i ~ thelinverse. The fir" in of the entical sRess intensity factor. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Since = 100.

the net pressure will be smaller and hence the fracture width will be smaller). The volume of fluid leaking off is proportional to the square root of the residence time within the fracture.7 (i. (16-79). (1677). such as natural fissures. ~ ~ (16-79) where qi is the injection rate. respectively. the leakoff coefficient. proppant slurry is added to the fracturing fluid in increasing slurry concentrations until at the end of the treatment the slurry concentration reaches a predetermined value. Af is the fracture area. The created hydraulic fracture length differs from the propped length because proppant cannot be transported beyond the point where the fracture width is smaller than three proppant diameters. and the product qiti is equal to the required total fluid @ad and proppant slurry) volume.18 in. (16-35) for the PKN model and a non-Newtonian fluid]. Squaring the positive solution would result in the calculation of the total injection time. and it leads to an excessive pressure increase that prevents further lateral fracture growth. qi. This value depends on the proppant-transporting abilities of the fluid and/or the capacity the reservoir and the created fracture can accommodate. It is intended to initiate and propagate the fracture. Since the portion of the total fluid volume that is pad can be calculated from Eq. 16-11.g. The fracture area. for a shale with larger horizontal stress. is the ratio of the net to fracture height ( h l hf). After the pad injection. This narrow opening can allow fluid to escape leaving proppant behind. the onset of proppant addition can be obtained readily: v*ad tpad = (16-81) 4i The leakoff coefficient. created fracture volume V'.and gravity. CL in the material balance of Eq. In general. can be calculated under the assumption of a fracture model [e. being the first fluid injected. ti is the injection time. was given by Nolte (1986) and Meng and Brown (1987): +K L C L ( ~ A ~ ) ~ . each intended to perform a significant and specific task. because overdisplacement would push the proppant away from the In Example 16-6. Eq.interlayer stress contrast. i An approximation of the relationship between total fluid volume requirements. Another problem may be encountered as a result of fracture height migration. 16-7 Fluid Volume Requirements 449 The three terms calculated above denote the relative contributions from the critical stress intensity factor. G. is simply equal to 2xf hf. the second net pressure would result in fracture growth into another permeable formation. is controlled primarily through the buildup of a wall filtercake. EXAMPLE 16-10 Total fluid and pad volume calculations Flush is intended to displace the slurry from the well into the fracture. These phenomena may result in excessive slurry dehydration and a "screenout. Pad is fracturing fluid that does not carry proppant. A material balance between total fluid injected. acts as sacrificial to the following proppant-canying slurry. based on the fluid efficiency. t i . V . CL is the leakoff coefficient. q. and Nolte (1986) has shown that (16-80) The fracture area in the leakoff term is multiplied by 2 to accommodate both sides of the fracture. and it can provide the required time to propagate a fracture of certain length (and implied width) while undergoing the penalty of fluid leakoff. (16-79)." The latter refers to an inability of the slurry to transport the proppant. . the first term can be neglected and the gravity effects can be ignored for about a 10%error. excessive fluid leakoff may be caused by reservoir heterogeneities. This is a quadratic equation. and the fluid efficiency would readily allow an inverse calculation using Eq. the average hydraulic width. The variable KL is related to the fluid efficiency.e. Fracture migrations downward for 200 and 500 psi would be 6 and 35 ft. h = 70 ft). and the volume that is pad. Breaking through a thin layer that separates two permeable formations is likely to create a narrow opening (rememberSneddon's relationship. respectively. into the reservoir and normal to the created fracture area. = 0.0 well and a "choked" fracture would result after the fracturing pressure dissipates and the fracture closes. Therefore. It should be less than well volume. Of the two solutions for the square root of time. Knowledge of the fracture height.usually an undesirable occurence. For the typeof saess contrast in this problem. the average fracture width of a 1000-ft fracture was calculated to be equal to 40 bpm. can be obtained from a fracture calibration treatment as described by Nolte and Economides (1989).448 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap.. In view of the calculation for 100-ft migration. During the fracture propagation. Use CL = 2 x coefficient (2 x lo-' ft/&) and a small leakoffcoefficient (2 x loe4ft/&). 16 Sec. and r. From Fig. and fluid leakoff VL can be written: V =V i f + VL (16-78) Equation (16-78) can be expanded further by introducing constituent variables: qiti = AfG A fracture execution consists of certain distinct fluid stages. Assuming that r. Af. the fracture height migrations above the reservoir for 200 and 500 psi net pressure are 9 and 110 ft. one will be positive and the other negative. For a given fracture length. calculate the total volume and pad ftl&. pad. The injection rate. This should be a major concern of the stimulation treatment and should be avoided at all cost.. Vpad. fluid leakoff. Repeat the calculation for a large leakoff portion requirements.

5 x lo4 gal 4 ti .9 2. The required total volume is Vi= (40)(42)(1425) = 2. beyond the point where the hydraulic width is smaller than three . (16-95) where cp(t) is the sluny concentration in pounds per gallon (ppg). and at what concentrations it is added versus time depend on the fluid efficiency.48.13. lo5 ft2. and assuming that K L = 1. "ramped proppant schedule" versus time. At an injection rate of 40 bpm. The total volume requirements are ! = (40)(42)(15) = 2.37 where 7.4fi .4 = 0 The efficiency is = V.0. should follow a relationship expressed The solution is then ti = 1425 min. e = -1-rl l+v (16-96) representing 98% of the total volume and requiring 1397 min of pumping. cf is the end-of-job (EOJ) slurry concentration.374& . its starting point.4 = 0 (16-91) and therefore ti = 15 min.74.48) = o. In the previous section the onset of proppant addition was determined after the pad volume was estimated [Eq. cL= 2 10-2 ftl&& The corresponding quadratic equation would be ti . proper unit conversions. it would require 17 min 2. v.18112) (7.5 x 104 V i which leads to ti=36 min.37. the continuous proppant addition. based on a material balance.48 is a conversion factor. This is not entirely realistic. is E ~(16-80) suggests that K L is bounded between 1. (16-8% K L = 1. 16-8 Proppant Schedule 45 1 3. = (2 x 104)(0. .5. since the fracture length. justifying the of ~ ~ = 1 . Equations (16-95) and (16-96) simply denote the appropriate proppant addition mode so that the entire hydraulic length coincides with the propped length. cL= 2 10-3 ft/& E ~(16-79).18/12)(7. Unavoidably. Vpad. Nolte (1986) has shown that.Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap.4 = 0 Proppant addition. The total volume required is then (16-93) 6 = (40)(42)(36) = 6 x lo4 gal leading to an efficiency. C L = 2 x lo4 The fracture area is (2)(100)(1000) = 2 1. (16-77).& (16-92) .13. (16-77)]. and tpad and ti are the pad and total times. This calculation could be done by trial and emor. From Eq. of 2 x 105) (0. although simple observation 5.3. respectively. the pad volume. The variable E depends on the efficiency and is given by and the pad volume would be also very different.33 and 1. this has a major impact on the total amount of proppant that can be injected and the resulting propped fracture width for a given fracture length.57 and the use of E L 2: . generally appropriate.39 x lo6 gal The efficiency7 is very different from the previous calculation.13.48) = 0. 0 16-8 PROPPANT SCHEDULE representing46% of the total volume. From Eq. 16 Sec. Then*from ff/& The quadratic equation is ti . From thesecalculationsit is evidenthow important the Ieakoff coefficientis on the portion of the total fluid that must be injected before proppant is added to the slurry. and the pad volume is representing 5% of the total injected volume and requiring less than 1 minute of pumping.

452 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. which is the absolute minimum. The density pp is also a characteristic property of the proppant. c. EXAMPLE 16-11 Determination of proppant schedule Assume that the total injection time.4. it depends greatly on the fluid efficiency and especially on the possible end-of-job proppant concentration. (16-1001. 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (min) Onset of proppant slurry and continuous proppant addition (Example 16-11). The width in that expression is the propped width of the fracture.84 ppg. ti. in all cases the calculated average propped width cannot exceed the average hydraulic width. at t = 105 min.4 p ) ~ p where the product 2xf hf w p ( l . Mp. at t = 150 min c. Eq. Figure 16-12 For example. w p . the propped width of the fracture describes the fracture geometry that controls posttreatment production.4. Of course. The fracture conductivity is simply the product of the propped width and the proppant pack permeability.0 ) c-tl = -2ei-1 . Another consideration for the end-of-job slurry concentration. (16-95) and c = 3 ppg. c f . the pad injection time. . cannot accept proppant. is the proppant-transporting ability of the fracturing fluid. is 245 min. Therefore. cf cp = . tpad. c p . Solution From Eq.rearranged for the propped width. plot the continuous proppant addition schedule. If the end-of-job slurry concentration.4p)represents the volume of the proppant pack and is characteristic of the proppant type and size.( I . is 105 min. (16-17). then 2xf hf (16-100) and the units are lb/ft2. 16-9 Propped Fracture Width 453 proppant diameters.(t) = 1. and from Eq. . The dimensionless conductivity was already given by Eq. 16 Sec. Traditionally. Figure 16-12 is a plot of the injection with the onset of proppant addition and proppant schedule. it will bridge (Note: Bridging can also occur at widths larger than three proppant diameters. a good proppant pack concentration in a fracture be Ibfft2.has been injected into a fracture of half-length x f and height h f and the proppant is uniformly distributed. A used quantity is the proppant concentration in the fracture. and for efficiency q = 0.(t) = 0.) Hence. As should be obvious from the last two sections. in designing a hydraulic fracture treatment. 3 ppg.defined cp=* 16-9 PROPPED FRACTURE WIDTH In addition to the length. Assuming that a mass of proppant. the relationship between hydraulic width and propped width is indirect.(t) = 3 ppg. Certainly.leads to wp . (16-96) and q = 0. this type of criterion may be used as a check for the total mass of proppant that can be placed. and at t = 245 min. c f .@p)pp (1 cp (16-101) Mp = 2 x f h f w p ( l .

and de Klerk.. The tensile stress is 500 psi. 1957. 21. "Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behavior-Incompressible Fluid Case:' SPEJ. C p . and Poisson ratio are 165 Ib/fG. E. 1955.Math. "A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures:'JPT.1)(2.012 f t = 0. fluid density.36 x lo5) = 4. Calculate its initial breakdown pressure and its value when the reservoir pressure declines by 500 and 1000 psi.0.. and Roegiers. G. and Kem. Brown.. 10. 5. and Zheltov.. pp. "Performance and Stimulation of Horizontal Wells. Cmco-Ley. September 1981. E. D. K.-Z. What overpressure (above hydrostatic) is necessary to result in a horizontal fracture? The formation density. Assume that the reservoir described in Problem 16-1 is at hydrostatic pressure.. NJ. A. M. 210: 153-168. and Smith. and if the formation fluid is at hydrostatic pressure. 1767-1775. Economides and K. M. [from Eq. Nolte.. "Widths of Hydraulic Fracture:'JPT. K. Appl. A. 315-323. "Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules from Fracturing Pressure Decline:' SPEPE. World Oil. February 1978. 1987. Roegiers. Moscow. Prentice Hall. K. Wiss.. pp. Jr. 12. C. December 1969. Englewood Cliffs. G. July 1989. Englewood Cliffs.. 4'9 lo5 = 1. Nauka. 3. M. G. Mech. "Evaluation and Prediction of Performance of LowPermeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic Fracturing:' JPT. "Fracturing. Biot.43 (see Example 16-11). 22. ''A Continuum Damage Mechanics Model of Hydraulic Fracturing:' JPT. "Abnomally High Fracturing Pressures in Step-Rate Tests. R..1946. A. B.... Aknd. Wien. the mass of proppant can b e determined: 3 (16-105) Mp = (2. 16 Problems 455 The mass of proppant would t h e n b e M p = C p ( V i . K. G... Sec.. R. 306-314. R.42 and pp = 230 lb/ft3) into a fracture designed to have xf = 1000 ft and hf = 150 ft. September 1961. REFERENCES 1. andElliott. (16-100)l cp= (2)(1000)(150) Finally. 937-949. "Propagation of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture:' SPEJ.. the breakdown pressure is in terms of absolute stresses and reservoir pressure. "Extended Reach and Horizontal We1ls:'inReservoir Stimulation. W. J.. and Willis. pp. Kachanov.. Nolte. 15. 3. McLeman.. 27-32." Proc.1956. August 1990. pp. July 1986. F. pp. 132:105.9 x lo5 lb The proppant concentration in the fracture.. M. 5 0 lb/ft3. also in Advances in Creep Design.c 1. (16-101). and Economides.43 From Eq. E "Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells:' JPT. M. Appl. "Containment of Massive Hydraulic Fractures:' SPEJ... Economides and K. Khristianovic(h). P. and Veatch. calculate the total mass of proppant.. L. Englewood Cliffs. 16-2. 18. Trans. Nordgren. "Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures:' JPT. Valk6.. Applied Science Publishers. Meng. 1989. Sneddon. 7.London. I n Terzaghi's relationship [Eq. Assume that a formation is 6500 ft deep. M.. 1989. 579-586.. pp. Nolte. J. 1989. Geertsma. T. 2nd ed. 'Theopening of aGriffith Crack underhtemal Pressure:'Quart. 8. D. from Eq. Perkins.. hats. pp. J. M. and Ahmed.. N. 20. J.(1. R. E. 19. Part 2. D. 198-205. 267. (16-104). February 1993. what fracturing net press would cause turning of the fracture from vertical to horizontal? Is it possible? Explain. 1923. the propped width. M. EXAMPLE 16-12 Calculation of the propped width Suppose that 20140 mesh sintered bauxite is injected ( @ p = 0. "Modeling of Hydraulic Fractures:' in Reservoir Stimulation. 9. NJ. L. 2. 105118. 1985. M. 17. J. K. . Hubbert. J. AIME. G. Theory of Creep (in Russian). 3. June 1961.. D. 1571-1581. and Brown. 16. Diagnosis Using Pressure Analysis:' in Reservoir Stimulation. "Mechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing:' Trans.Fracture Geomehy Requirements and Treatment Scheduling in the Optimum Hydraulic Fracture Design:' SPE Paper 16435. If 2500 ft of overburden from the formation described in Problem 16-1 were removed. R.63 lb/f? 4. . Nolte. 1966. J.Vpad) (16-104) Equations (16-99) through (16-104) are sufficient to calculate t h e average p r o p p e d width o f a fracture.-C.. NJ. The volume of pad is (4. If cf = 3 ppg and 6 = 0.(1 . K. P.A. 1971. Terzaghi. (16-6)1. 2nd ed.42)(230) PROBLEMS 16-1. Economides. "Prediction of Vertical Hydraulic Fracture Migration Using Compressional and Shear Wave Slowness:' SPEDOE Paper 13895. and Samaniego. G. pp. Fourth World Petroleum Congress. World Oil. Carter.-C. Nolte. D. Agarwal. Newberry.. and Pollock. Nelson. 91-96. "Die Berechnung der Durchlassigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem Verlauf der Hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen:'Sber. 1749-1766. Ben-Naceur. B. H. "Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous 1 Liquid. Prentice Hall." Part 1. McLeMan. Simonson. 13.. M. "Coupling of Production Forecasting. 1 . eds. U. G.I. G. 2nd ed. P. J. Economides and K. W = 0. K. "General Solutions of the Equations of Elasticity and Consolidation for a Porous Material:' J... 11.. S. and Economides.12 x lo5) . H. and ~conomides. W. eds. Prentice Hall. 6. 14. June 1989. 16-3.. Nolte. Solution The average sluny concentration can be calculated from Eq. B...454 Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. March 1979. AIME. Palmer. K..36 x 10' gal. 362-372.. M..23.15 in... (16-103): E ( t ) = %1 + = 2 .. pp. pp.76 x lo5) = 2. I. and 0. 1 p p g =.. R.. M. J.. and the proppant concentration in the fracture. 3. E. August 1972. respectively.. M..'' SPEFE. R. 23. Y. September 1981. eds. 255-265. IP262..

one in a 1-md reservoir and the other in a 0. 16-14. ti versus 9. above those that the unstimulated well could deliver. and hence an attempt for optimization is warranted. develop an expression of the form Apf = f (qi.7. (16-79)].3. = 100 cp. equal to 1000 md-ft.4.fi2. lf qi = 40 bpm. show the corresponding changes in qi (with K' constant) or K' (with 9i ~f constant) to allow a 10%reduction in Apf.370. Proppant selection should focus on the maximization of the proppant pack permea b i l i t ~ / ~ r o ~ ~ e d of the fracture at the expected state of stress. vi = lo6 gal. .. ' and 0.6. calculate the total mass of Proppant injected. E ~(16-48). What would bethe limiting value for k if kf w cannot be smaller than 100 md-ft? 16-7. (Note: l-hroughout this width chapter?the term "viscosity" refers to the apparent viscosity of the largely non-Newtonian ffacturing fluids. Note that hf = h~ f hd ./ p = 0. from 20 to 40 bpm. Show the effect of doubling the injection rate. r. ~f the propped width w. and p = 0.) Injection rate and Pressure should be kept below a level that would cause undesirable fracture height migration. K'g n) '.width relationship and n = 0.h. for two wells. Pp = 165 lb/ft3. 16-5. There is a large range of possible fracture sizes. E = 4 x lo6 psi. Use an apparent fracturing fluid viscosity equal to 100 cp and a Poisson ratio equal to 0. (16-35) (for width) and (16-39) for relating this width with Apf. Repeat Problem (16-12) for qi = 40 bpm but allow hf to increase from 100 to 300 ft (still h = 70 ft).and Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments 17-1 INTRODUCTION The design of a hydraulic fracture as a well stimulation treatment involves the selection and use of appropriate fracturing fluids and proppants. 1fthePemeabilitiesin tworeservoirs are 1md andO. (l6-56) and (16-5711 and hence the possibility of breaking into another formation or. Graph and compare the average fracture widths obtained with the PKN and KGDmodels for qi = 40 bpm. qi.100 ft. 16-8.kfw.5. Fluid selection should depend on two main criteria: to transport the proppant (adequate apparent fluid viscosity) and to Cause relatively small residual damage to the proppant pack.6. = 100 ft. K'. v = 0. cannot exceed 0.25. plot the average fracturewidth. Develop a simple p-3-D fracture propagation model using Eqs. if height growth is tolerable. inefficient fracture growth. On the other a function of the injection rate qi and the consistency .328 ft.5. = 0. at least.4-0. h. CL = 8 Xt and rp = 0. 16-11.328ftforarangeofkfw and reservoirpermeability k . that a coherent design approach must first interconnect them and then empldy a criterion to identify the optimum design. Perform the calculation for xf up to 1000 ft (although the KGD model should not be used for such a length). High injection rate would result in a high net pressure Eqs. hf =. Calculate and plot the hydraulic fracture width versus fracture length for a sandstone with E = 5 x 106 psi and a chalk formation with E = 5 x 10' psi. E = 4 x lo6 psi. 1f cf = 8 ppg. = 0. 2 / f 8 10-3 lb. secfl'. then a higher injection rate would result in a lower injection time and hence a more efficient fracture Propagation. graph V and the total time of injection. It is obvious from these considerations. This is the purpose of this chapter. what is the ratio of the average widths forqi = 40 bpm ' and 20 bpm? 16-9. since fluid leakoff is proportional to the square root of & execution time [see Eq. An appropriate criterion for design optimization is production economics. If re = 1500 ft and rw = 0. 16-12. what should bethe minimum (target) kfw products if xf = 500 ft? 16. using the non-Newtonian Auid expression for n = 0. what would be the effect from the injection rate on the total fluid volume requiremerits? Using the non-Newtonian PKN. calculate the correspondingproductivity index increases.25. 16-10. the constant C.E = 4 x lo6 psi. . tempered by the costs of executing the fracture treatment. What would be the propped width if xf = 1500 ft.O1 md. for a fracture length 50° ft and sioned conductivity.. which are affected by a few dozen variables. of the power law rheological model. Assuming that n = 0. The amount of these materials and the of injection (rate and pressure) are related to the resulting fracture size. rsee 457 .81% calculate and plot the allowable end-of-job proppant concentration cf for increments of 50 ft in the hf. K' = ' . hf = 100 ft. (16-74) and (16-75) and downward fracture migration and Eqs. that the maximizing of incremental benefits. i 16-13.5. and K' = 0. D ~ ~(16-23) ~ plot the productivity index ratios for areservoirwithre = 1500ft3 ~ ~ E ~ . Sf.2 lbf sec"'/ft2. and hf = 100 ft. 16 C H A P T E R 17 16-4.Hydraulic Fracturing for Well Stimulation Chap. Calculate the fracture equivalent skin effect.01-md reservoir. Assuming that all other variables are constant. Plot the proppant addition schedule for the same fracture heights.56.

requiring carefully metered acids or bases to accomplish the task. while zirconate.. Breakers must strive toward certain ideal characteristics. The viscosity at 170 sec-' of a 40-lb/1000-gal borate-crosslinked fluid is over 2000 cp at 100°F and about 250 cp at 200°F. Furthermore. though. However. mixed water and slurried polymers are blended together at the appropriate concentrations for the desired viscosity at any stage of the treatment.e. Borate-crosslinked fluidshave an upper temperature of application about 225"F. particulates such as silica flour or oil-soluble but water-insoluble resins can be used for additional leakoff control. resulting in very high-molecularweight compounds. lower shear. Subsequent portions will experience somewhat lower temperatures and. ideally. a filter cake deposited on the walls of the fracture is an adequate means of leakoff control. Mayerhofer et al. Wettability changes may result at the fracture face or in the associated invaded zone. their concentration in the fracturing fluid must be such as to accommodate the increasing polymer concentration in the fracture because of continuous water leakoff instead of the injected polymer concentration. As shown in Section 16-7. Bacteria attack the organic polymers. cannot be regenerated readily. which is a naturally occuring material. titanate. Viscosity degrades with increasing temperature and shear. storedin "frac tanks" and in the absence of bactericides. Batch-mixedfracturing fluids. Fluid loss additives. leading to a highly reduced fracture permeability.Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. Surfactants. by virtue of the widening of the fracture. while boratecrosslinked fluids are not shear sensitive(bonds that may be sheared are readily regenerated). and. Polymers such as guar. zirconate and titanate bonds. An ideal fracturing fluid has very low viscosity while it is pumped down a well. they will effectively plug the proppant pack. Hence viscosity requirements are likely to decrease during fracture execution. For hydration. once broken. In addition to their effectiveness. Stabilizers. unavoidably. This can be accomplished with a base. Continuousmixed systems disperse with the high agitation energy provided by the mixer and exhibit much faster hydration. Materials such as weak organic acids are the preferred buffers. (1991) have shown that 97-98% of the pressure drop from the fracture into the formation is controlled by a successfully placed filter cake. 17 Sec. Additives such as sodium thiosulfate or methanol are used as free oxygen "scavengers. perhaps. is highly detrimental to the well performance. depending on the crosslinking agent. 40 lb/1000 gal being the most common concentration in batch-mixed fracturing fluids that are currently in use. Breakers. they must be activated after the treatment is over and yet as quickly as possible. continuous addition of polymer and on-time mixing is implemented as a preferred method over the traditional batch mixing of polymers in "frac tanks. powdered polymers must be first dispersed and then hydrated. Experience has shown that the viscosity of fracturing fluids must be almost always above 100 cp at 170 sec-' to transport the proppant. The largest degradation will be experienced by the firstportion of the injected fracturing fluid. destroying the bonds and. the perforations where the maximum shear values are encountered. in largely homogeneous formations. Leakoff control can be augmented by the creation of oil-in-water emulsions with the addition of small quantities of diesel. Perhaps the most important additives in a fracturing fluid are the polymer breakers. this degradation reaction increases with increasing temperature. or hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) have been used in aqueous solutions to provide substantial viscosity to the fracturing fluid. A higher pH (-9) is necessary for proper dispersion. In addition to the inherent viscosity thinning caused by the elevated reservoir temperature. This is an issue that can be remedied through "delayed crosslinking. As mentioned earlier. reducing the viscosity. and then reverts to very low viscosity upon the completion of the treatment. active research has identified a number of additives to modify the fracturing fluid properties at the appropriate time during the fracture execution. highest shear). fluid loss and its control are critical to a successful fracture execution. 17-2 Design Considerationsfor Fracturing Fluids 459 CONSIDERATIONS FRACTURING FOR FLUIDS 17-2 DESIGN Almost all desirable and undesirable properties of fracturing fluids are related to their viscosity. and zirconate. especially. as should be expected. the pH must be lowered.and titanate-crosslinked fluids may be used up to 350°F. For example. Crosslinked polymers can perform this task up to 5 md reservoir permeability. if they are left intact. free oxygen attacks the polymers and. Buffers. . tubing." which is activated after the fracturing fluid has traversed the pumps. which in turn is a function of the polymer load. Today. Thus crosslinking agents." trapping the oxygen and removing it from the reaction path. the same solution at 175°F has a viscosity of less than 20 cp. usually organometallic or transition metal compounds. has the maximum required viscosity in the fracture to transport the proppant. Surfactants are added to facilitate the posttreatment cleanup. Usually. leading to a low friction pressure drop. The most common c r o s s l i n g ions are borate. Polymer concentrations are often given in pounds of polymer per 1000 gallons of fluid (lb/1000 gal). The latter is particularly important because although the polymer solutions serve a purpose in transporting the proppant. Guar and HPG can be crosslinked at pH between 3 and 10. since it will experience the highest temperature and narrowest fracture width (i. are likely to lose an appreciable amount of viscosity. and typical values range between 20 and 60 with. are used to boost the viscosity significantly. The range of crosslinking is usually very narrow. and the polymer load could be decreased. following the treatment execution. In batch-mixed systems. Typical reservoir temperatures (175-200°F) would lead to relatively low viscosities of the straight polymer solutions. Some of the most common fracturing fluid additives are listed below: Bactericides. To accomplish these seemingly contradictory requirements. In fissured or naturally fractured formations. while a 40-lb/1000-gal HPG solution would exhibit a viscosity of approximately 50 cp at room temperature at a shear rate of 170 sec-'. unsuccessful degradation of the polymer chains." Simply. They form bonds with guar and HPG chains at various sites of the polymer.

moderate.J Courtesy Schlumberger. e. and associated additives. If the pressure is low. in addition to water-sensitiveformations. retaining much of the ideal proppant pack permeability. The expanding gas in the foams can aid in the lifting of the fracturing fluid back toward the surface. . reservoirs that are underpressured or with relative permeability problems. organometallic crosslinked fluids can be used. 17-1 the first and obvious division is whether the reservoir is oil or gas. then 70. if the temperature is very low.. These fluids. facilitating a rapid and more efficient cleanup following the stimulation treatment. In Fig. borate-crosslinked fluids are recommended. Figure 17-1 . In'higher-pressure gas wells. More thorough outlines of fracturing fluid additives can be found in Gulbis (1989) and Economides (199 1). While cleanup and fracture face damage are important considerations (wettability or clay swelling problems). In addition to the aforementioned aqueous fracturing fluids. If the pressure is low or the formation is water sensitive.1 Fracturing Fluid Selection Guide Figure 17-1 (Economides. 1991) is a fracturing fluid selection guide representing current and evolving industry practices. Such products are currently becoming available in the industry.. additives that are inert during the execution but can be activated by physical or chemical means immediately after the treatment. then these fluids can be energized with COz or Nz. I .. The temperature of 225°F is used as a dividing point. Thus the proppant-transporting ability of the fracturing fluid and its ability to deliver a substantial propped width with good fracture permeability should be the paramount consideration in fluid 75-quality foams can be used. 17-2. Otherwise.. which are excellent proppant transporters. polymer load. that is. and they should be used whenever possible. reflecting the applicable upper limit of borate-crosslinked fluids. 1991. . low-permeability reservoirs are candidates for long fractureswhere the fracture permeability is of lesser concern. have been consistently proven in both posttreatment performance and laboratory experiments to be less damaging. Current research seeks "encapsulated high-permeability reservoirs require higher-permeability fractures and the fracture length is secondary. then linear fluids can be used if small fracture permeability or length is acceptable. If the gas reservoir temperature is more than 225"F. Fracturing fluid selection guide. Oil-base fluids and oil-and-water emulsions are obvious candidates for water-sensitive formations. This reservoir requirement should also influence the selection of the type of fracturing fluid. fracturing fluids should never be used exclusively on the basis of these criteria. below 150°F.. As will be shown in Chapter 18. whereas foams target. 17 Sec. oil-base fluids and mixed formulations involving gas and liquid (foams) or oil and water (emulsions) have been developed and used.Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. Chemical breakers are added in cooler wells.g. 17-2 Design Considerationsfor Fracturing Flulds 46 1 Thermally activated breakers are used at times in wells with temperatures over 225°F. the performance impairment due to fracture face damage is always minor compared to the damage to the proppant pack or inadequate proppant pack. As was shown in Section 16-4. (From Economides.. .

borate-crosslinkedfluids can be used effectively in the majority of fracturing treatments. 17-2. If the reservoir is only moderately water sensitive. (From Economides.Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. is Figures 17-2 through 17-5 present the rheological properties of the most common fracturing fluids. The first two contain n' and K' for the 40-lb/1000-gal borate-crosslinked fluid plotted with both temperature and exposure time. 1991. (From Economides. then a polymer emulsion can be used. For a pipe. While this selection guide allows a wide spectrum of fluids.and n is the flow behavior index. Figure 17-3 .1 I I 2 I 3 I 4 where t. and the most commonly used model to describe their rheological behavior is the power law 0. Otherwise. I the pressure is high.2 0. Figure 17-2 where B = rcup/rbob rCuP the inside cup radius and rbob is the bob radius. This encompasses a large majority of all oil wells. While the flow behavior index n is equal to n'. then gelled oil with N2 is f recommended. then the same selection guidelines as applied to gas wells can be used. Fracturing fluid rheological properties are obtained usually in concentric cylinders that lead to the geometry-specificparameters n' and K'. and is The generalized consistency index is in turn related to the consistency index for various geometries.2 Rheological Properties Most fracturing fluids are not Newtonian. significant water sensitivity is a concern. is the shear stress in lbf /ft2. is and for a slot. K is the consistency index in lbf secnjft2.) Courtesy ' Schlumberger. 17-2 Design Considerationsfor Fracturing Fluids 463 In oil wells. A log-log plot of s versus 3 would yield a straight lime. then straight gelled oil can be used. If the reservoir is only moderately water sensitive. The last two figures represent n' and K' of the 40-lb/l000-gal zirconate-crosslinked fluid. the slope of which would be n and the intercept at ). 0 1 2 3 Time (hr) 4 5 K' for 40-lbI1000-galborate-crosslinked fluid. foamed or energized organometallic crosslinked fluids can be injected. with higher pressure and less than 200°F. 1991.. 17 Sec. Kilo.) Courtesy Schlumberger. KLi.=I would be K . y is the shear rate in sec-' .. the generalized consistency index K is related to the K' from a concentric 0 1 5 Time (hr) n for 40-Ib/1000-gal borate-crosslinked fluid. If a reservoir is very water sensitive and with low pressure.

32/0.) Courtesy Schlumberger. For foam fluids.50 where d is the diameter and u is the superficial velocity and is equal to q / A .35 in. (From Economides. 0 1 0 2 3 Time (hr) 4 5 6 Solution From Figs.90 0. If in a fracturing treatment the injection rate is 40 bpm. and a given shear rate y : ' In Eq.3 1)1. the fracture height is 250 ft. 17-2 Design Considerationsfor Fracturing Fluids 465 An interesting property is the apparent viscosity.which is related to the geometrydependent K'." EXAMPLE 17-1 Determination of rheological properties of power law fluids Calculate the Kkip. (1992) showed that the consistency index in Eq.3 - Figure 17-5 K' for 40-lb11000-galzirconate-crosslinkedfluid.. 17-2 and 17-3 (at T=175"F and t = 0 hr). which could approximate the geometry of a fracture. In a well the superficial velocity of the foam changes with depth. (17-1) can be expressed as Figure 17-4 n' for 40-lb/1000-galzirconate-crosslinkedfluid. p.75 C Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. Equation (17-8) is called the "volume equalized power law. (17-8) is that the change in K will compensate for density variations and hence will result in a constant friction factor along the tube in both the laminar and turbulent flow regimes. 1991 . where E is the specific volume expansion ratio: (17-9) and Kfo.18 ' Ibf sec"'/ft2. Finally. For a slot.65 0.3(1.80 0. 17 Sec.60 0.464 0. n = 0. the wall shear rate in a tube (well) for a power law fluid is 0. for a 40-lb/l000-gal borate-crosslinked fluid at 175°F Assume that the rheological properties were obtained in a concentric cylinder where B=1. .55 0. since the pressure change causes a density variation. and the width is 0. the n .3. The important property of Eq.. 1991 . the wall shear rate is Time (hr) where w is the width of the slot.) Courtesy Schlwnberger.85 0. Valk6 et al. (17-5). (17-2): 0. calculate the apparent viscosity in the fracture. the viscosity is in cp. . The generalized K is given by Eq.3 and K' = 0. (From Economides. and Kilo. and n are characteristic for a given liquid-gas pair at a given temperature.70 0.

where The apparent viscosity is then [from Eq. (17-4). (17-7). Assume that the average temperature is 150°F. and the actual APF is likely to be smaller than the one calculated. and K' is in lbf -secn'/ft2. 17-2 Design Considerations for Fracturing Fluids 467 = (0. (17-31. . becomes The calculation implied by the equations above would result in an upper limit of the friction pressure drop. where qi is the injection rate in bpm.5 50 The friction pressure drop is given by the well-known C b= 1. Therefore. The velocity in oilfield units is and from Eq. D is the diameter in in.466 Then. inside diameter. (16-14)]. Downholepressure gauges cannot be usedunless they are permanently installed andinsulatedfromtheproppantcarrying slurry or they measure the pressure indirectly. from Eq. At first the superficial velocity (with proper unit conversions) is > If the flow is turbulent ( N R ~ 2100). The real-time measurement or extrapolation of the net fracturing pressure is a potent tool for the detection of the morphology of the created fracture. < For laminar flow ( N R ~ 2100). it is especially necessary for the prediction of the downhole fracture propagation (net) pressure. as in the annulus. the Fanning friction factor for smooth pipes can be calculated from the well-known expression The shear rate in a fracture can be approximated by Eq.143) [ (3)(0'3) + (4)(0. since measurements are usually impractical. Interpretation of the net pressure and the meaning of the most commonly encountered patterns were outlined in Section 16-5. In oilfield units it becomes Calculatethe pressure drop of a 40-lb/1000-galzirconate-crosslinkedfluid per 1000ft of vertical fracturing string with a 3-in. (17-5)] and log n' 2.3) ] 0'3 = 0.164 lbiieCn/ft2 where p is the density in lb/ft3. u is the velocity in ft/sec. with ApF in psi. EXAMPLE 17-2 Friction pressure drop calculation Equation (17-16) is in consistent units. Polymeric solutions are inherently friction pressure reducing agents. then the Fanning friction factor is The division of the flow rate by 2 implies that half of the flow is directed toward one wing of the fracture. 17 Sec. K'.log n' 7 (17-21) = + 17-2. Use a range of injection rates from 1 to 60 bpm and plot the results on log-log paper. To calculate the friction pressure drop for a power law fluid. The fluid density is 60 lb/ft3.4 . This is true not only for the calculation of the treating pressure [see Eq. at first the Reynolds number must be estimated. pipe Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap.3 Friction Pressure Drop during Pumping The rheological properties of fracturing fluids are particularly useful for the estimation of the friction pressure drop.4. which in oilfield units.

For higher injection rates. and the friction factor is 8. (17-21) and (17-22)]. and the hydrostatic. respectively [from Eqs.047. the lnjechon rate 1s 15 bpm of 40-lb/1000-gal zlrconate-crosslinked fluid. pressure drops. In HHP the relationship is This valueimplies turbulent flow. 17-4 and 17-5 at 150°F. 17-2 Design Considerationsfor Fracturing Fluids 469 What would be the pressure drop for the 40 bpm if the inside tubing diameter were 6 in. tubing.2 x 10-3)(8. (17-17): 17-2. EXAMPLE 17-3 Power requlrements for a fractunng treatment Suppose that a reservotr IS 10. Repeating the calculation ford = 6 in.7 x The pressure drop is then ApF = (5. Therefore the friction factor is m otlfield unlts. qi (BPM) Figure 17-6 Friction pressure drop for a 1000-fipipe with a 40-lbl1000-galzirconate-crosslinked fluid (Example 17-2).. Below is a calculation of the pressure drop for qi=40 bpm. tubing is not an appropriate size. A p p ~ . from Figs.7 x 10-3)(60)(1000)(19. the flow is turbulent.4170 = 6030 pst (17-32) From Eq. the velocity is 19. the flow is laminar. APF. The hydrostattc (17-31) ptr = 8200 inn + 2000 . (15)(6030) HHP = . Ap. and friction.-= 2217 hhp (17-33) 40 8 The number of pumps avadable for the job should be able to provlde at least t h s power plus whatever addttlonal capactty 1s warranted tn the event of breakdowns or other mechantcal 0 . the fracture propagation pressure (pbd for breakdown. and. This is a very large pressure drop. (17-24).the minimum stress IS 7200 pst. 17 Sec.7)2 = 176 psi 6 (17-29) 0 which is much more attractive.000 ft deep.68 and K' = 0. and the denstty 1s 60 lb/ft3 Calculate the power demand tf the expected maxtmum net fractunng pressure. finally. the Reynolds number can be obtained from Eq. and the ApF IS 2000 PSI Solution The maxlmum fractunng pressure 1s 8200 psl (1000 pressure 1s APPE = (60)(10. p.? Solution Figure 17-6 is a graph of the friction pressure drops versus the injection rate for the 3-in. (17-18). n 1000 PSI.468 Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. (17-30). The treating pressure and the injection rate are related directly to the power demand. Theconstants b andc are equal to 0. pf during fracturing).7 ftlsec.22 and 0.4 Power Demand for a Fracture Treatment Equation (16-14) readily relates the wellhead treating pressure. the Reynolds number is 2100 (assume turbulent flow). from Eq..05 lbf-sec"'/ft2? Assuming that n' and K' (from a concentric viscometer) are also valid for the tubing and after the velocity is calculated from Eq. 1 10 100 Injection Rate.. Up to a rate of 15 bpm. First. suggesting that the 3-in. n' = 0.000) = 4170 144 + 7200).

Figure 17-7 (Brannon and Pulsinelli.g. In the late 1980s. Their results have shown that. For aqueous polymer solutions and their retained proppant-pack permeability. 1990) In the absence of a propping material. s 40 19 Finally. Thus borate-crosslinked fluids should be used within their range of application (T < 225°F) instead of fracturing fluids with other crosslinkers. are the least damaging fluids. Furthermore. the difference from the type of crosslinker is dominant. Much of the stress-induced permeability reduction of a proppant pack is caused by the crushing of the particles and the migration of fragments into the pore space of the pack. Table 17-1 (Thomas and Brown.or antimonatecrosslinked fluids.) Ongoing research is continuously seeking better and more effective breakers. as should be expected. Resins are also used ' with the Proppant "tail-in" to prevent flowback after a treatment.(From Brannon and Pulsinel[i. 17-3 Proppant Selection for Fracture Design 471 17-2. not only improves their strength but also retains fragments if already crushed. The retained proppant pack permeability is frequently over 95%. with viscosities of several hundred centipoise at reservoir temperatures. 2 1blft2. and several new products are emerging at the time of this writing. Although the type of breaker has an impact (e.5 Polymer-Induced Damage Polymer solutions. especially in low-stress formations. A thin coating of resin. There are several varieties of resin-coated sand with the resin precured or hardened during nianufacturing or in situ. Breaker Concentration (lb/1000 gal) Figure 17-7 Long-Term Retained Permeability of 20140 Jordan Sand at 2000 psi Closure Pressure. the breaker concentration must be such as to accommodate the increased polymer concentration within the fracture. coupled with their inherent ease of cleanup. Natural sand is the most common proppant. applied to the sand grains. STIM-LAB pioneered the testing of fracturing fluids under realistic pressure and temperature conditions and likely proppant concentrations in a fracture (1 to 2 lb/ft2). foams. Reduction of these detrimental effects is accomplished through the selection of less damaging fracturing fluid formulations and. Table 17-1 suggests that while the breaker concentration should be substantial (4 to 5 lb/1000 gal). in addition to the obvious-higher polymer loadings damage the fracture conductivity more than lower polymer loadings-the type of crosslinker has a major effect. 17-3 PROPPANT SELECTION FRACTURE FOR DESIGN Borate-crosslinked 30-lb HPG with persulfatelamine breaker Borate-crosslinked 40-lb HPG with persulfatelamine breaker Borate-crosslinked 30-lb HPG with enzyme breaker Titanate-crosslinked 40-lb HF'G (low pH) with enzyme breaker Antimonate-crosslinked40-ib HPG (low pH) with enzyme breaker Titanate-crosslinked 40-lb HF'G (neutral pH) with enzyme breaker ' ~ r o m~ h o m a and Brown. larger concentrations (> 6 lb/1000 gal) would not result in appreciable improvement in the proppant pack permeability. by the introduction of better breakers at the appropriate concentrations. a created hydraulic fracture will heal shortly after the fracturing pressure dissipates into the reservoir. From the first finding. 17 Sec. a persulfate/amine breaker performs better than an enzyme breaker). and 1 Iblft2 Proppant Concentration with Various Fracturing Fluidsa Retained Permeability Effect of breaker concentration on retained permeability of 20140 Northern White sand. because of filtrate leakoff into the reservoir. 1989. especially. would rapidly increase the polymer concentration within the fracture to several hundred lb/1000 gal.. would create a highly unfavorable mobility for the posttreatment production of reservoir fluids. 1989) shows clearly that borate-crosslinked fluids are far less damaging than titanate. sluny dehydration. Higher-stress formations .160°E.Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. 1990. 100°F. while the injected concentrations may be 20 to 60 lbI1000 gal. the type of crosslinker is far more critical.

0496 0. the propped width [from Eq.0350 0. grain size distribution. the relative reduction of the permeability/conductivity of larger-size proppants with increasing stress is larger. crushing and embedment are the two main stress-induced effects on the fracture permeability/conductivityreduction. the magnitude remains high.. It affects particularly higher-strength proppants. such as mesh size.0248 0.0248 0. 4000. which in turn affects the conductivity of the fracture. 2.42 0.0248 0. 2.2.0248 0. and the proppant pack permeability is reduced. reflecting the larger relative impact of embedment at the lower proppant concentration.39 0.0248 Density (lb/ft3) Porosity 165 165 165 165 165 165 160 160 160 160 160 160 198 202 170 23 1 23 1 23 1 197 0.39 0.5-fold) and.0496 0. the long-term proppant pack permeability.0350 0. All of these properties affect the initial and. The right side of Fig. the conductivity ratios for sand between the values at 2000.0248 0. In designing a hydraulic fracture treatment.4. 16-lot)] is 0. Comparison with the data in Fig. Embedment is an additionalfactor for proppant-pack permeability reduction at higher stresses.43 0.0350 0.43 0. 4000.37 0. Resin-coated sand undergoes only a three-fold reduction within the same stress range.2.42 0. However. respectively. It is conceivable that the permeability/conductivity of a larger-size proppant at higher stress may be less than that of a smaller-size proppant. C p . Prolonged exposure at higher stress leads to an additional reduction because of fatigue and final redistribution of the fragments. Therefore.0124 0. especially.40 0.0248 in.37 0.38 0.0. 6000. strength decreases. proppant density. As proppants are subjected to higher stress they crush.e. respectively. For a stress increase from 1000 to 5000 psi.0496 0. ISP also undergoes conductivity reduction.0400 0. 17-9 (for Cp = 2 lb/ft2).) 0. 3.000 psi are 2. and concentrations within the fracture. The properties of proppants that affect the success of hydraulic fracturing include: grain size. Since the particle diameter is 0. their advantages may disappear at higher stresses. sizes. and 10.42 If the proppant concentration within the fracture.4. and 6000 psi are 2. 8000. roundness and sphericity. quality. For example. representing almost an order-of-magnitude reduction from the original value at 1000 psi stress. Table 17-3 contains the fracture conductivity reduction for a sand and ISP but with C.40 0.42 0.472 Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. Manufactured ceramic intermediate-strength proppants (ISPs) and even higher-strength proppants such as sintered bauxite or zirconium oxide are used frequently. k f w . largersize particles are more susceptible to crushing because as grain size increases.38 0. The conductivity of ISP is more than an order of magnitude larger than that of sand Larger proppant sizes have larger permeabilities. along with preexisting impurities or smaller spheres (in a wider range of particles) into the pore space of the proppant pack results in an unavoidable reduction in the proppant pack permeability. the resulting conductivity must be balanced against the Northern White sand Texas Brown sand Curable resin-coated sand Precured resin-coated sand ISP ISP-lightweight sintered bauxite Zirconium oxide . but both the relative reduction is lower (2. For ISP the ratios for 2000.02 ft. and 1. On the left side is the reduction with increasing stress.0350 0. especially.0496 0. without proppant embedment into the walls of the fracture) and the number of particle diameters can be calculated.. the reduction is from 310 darcies to 95 darcies. 4. and the porosity of the proppant pack.=l lb/ft2. the calculated propped width is equal to more than nine particle diameters. and 4.43 0. The relative reduction in lower proppant concentrations within a fracture will be more severe.. The product of the permeability/propped width.) The subsequent lodging of these broken fragments. Complete sets of data for most common proppants can be found in Penny (1986) and Penny (1988). is known. 1988) shows the reduction in the fracture conductivity for several 20140-mesh proppants. = 2 lb/ft2 and @p = 0. quality (amount of impurities). 17-8 shows this reduction where the permeability drops down to40 darcies. 17-3 Proppant Selection for Fracture Design 473 require higher-strength proppants. are listed in Table 17-2. and roundness and sphericity are all affected by the stress value (less roundness means greater possibility for fragments to be broken off.9. Thus.0248 0. Lower-strength proppants may crush instead of embed.40 0.42 0. The grain size distribution.4 (from Table 17-2). The other main properties.0248 0. Coupled with the fact that large particles form larger pore sizes where fragments can migrate. at higher stresses.8. Long-term proppant permeability/conductivity testing is now the norm. Sands undergo a very severe conductivity reduction (more than 20-fold) for a stress increase from 2000 to 8000 psi. and density of the most common proppants. 2.0496 0. if 20140-mesh Northern Sand is used and if C.41 0. Figure 17-8is an example of the permeability and associated conductivity reduction versus stress for a sand. is the dimensioned conductivity of the fracture in md-ft (see Section 16-4).8. and data exist for a variety of proppants. Table 17-2 Typical Proppants and Their Characteristics TY pe Mesh Size 12/20 16/30 20140 12/20 16/30 20140 12/20 16/30 20140 12/20 16/30 20140 12/20 20140 20140 16/20 20140 40170 20140 Particle Size (in. 17 Sec.42 0. Figure 17-9 (data from Penny. then the maximum propped width (i.

17-3 Proppant Selection for Fracture Design 475 10000 E X .000 psi 1970 3770 660 310 EXAMPLE 17-4 Calculation of stress on proppant and resulting permeability reduction Assume that a reservoir is 10.25.Poisson ratio equal to 0. Table 17-3 Long-Term Conductivity for V a r i o u s Proppants at 1 Ib/ft2and 200°Fa Fracture Conductivity (md-ft) 2000 psi 20140 Northern sand 20140 ISP-lightweight aFrorn Penny. (Aper Penny. 474 . in a design approach based on production economics.) 8000 10000 costs. 1988.7.000 ft deep with a formation density equal to 165 lb/ft3. 1988. the optimum proppant selection must be based not only on costs but also on the posttreatment performance of the created proppant pack. Hence. While the costs of ISP or higher-strength proppants are greater. and initial reservoir pressure equalto 6500psi. at higher stresses these materials retain their conductivity.Sec. Biot constant equal to 0. 4000 psi 1210 2580 6000 psi 380 1330 8000 psi 10.- A LL 20140 Brown Sand 100 0 2000 4000 Stress (psi) 6000 Figure 17-9 Long-term fracture conductivity for various proppants at 2 Ib/ft2.

) in pounds per gallon (ppg) of slurry was introduced as a function of the end-of-job slurry concentration. and therefore cf = 7.(0.. Cf < (165)(0. V. respectively) would result in an increase in the effective stress by 1400 psi (0. while at 5100 psi it would be 1350 md-ft.48 (17-42) 17-3.2 ppg < 7.7)(5000) = 6150 psi (17-35) and with pm1 = 4500 psi. (17-42) corresponds to 17-3. then the absolute horizontal stress would be o~. at 3700 psi the conductivity of (Northern) sand would be 2600 md-ft. and rock and fluid properties. Smce cp is ppg of slurry. then [with Eq. For pwl = 2500.min would be 4400 psi instead of 5100 psi. (16-2) through (16-4).48 is to convert from cubic feet Into gallons). The initial stress on the proppant would be the maximum value. the effective horizontal stress on it could simply be calculated from Eqs. min]mum horizontal stress. for example. Since.48Zcf (17-40) . 17 f Calculate the fracture conductivity of 20140 sand and 20140 ISP at 2000.13. from Table 17-2) then. reservoir permeability. the reservoir pressure would decline. However. (16-103). the o. proppant concentration in ppga. Therefore. fracture design must focus on the optimization of the treatment while t&ng into account these reservou constraints. combmatlon of Eqs. (17-38).2 Proppant Mixing In a continuous mixing.. (16-77)] c1 = 13.I.7 x 2000) and 2800 psi (0. ppga. c.2/(165/7. The relationship is simple.48) 2 : 33 ppga (17-44) 17-4 FRACTURE DESIGNAND FRACTURE PROPAGATION ISSUES In designing a hydraulic fracture. cf. After a time of production.(0.. If 20140 sand 1s pumped (pp =I65 lb/ft3 and @p = 0. Eq. =Cp l-cplpp (17-43) For example. The mass of proppant was related to the fracture volume. is the proppant-carrying fluid. (17-37) leads to The first category includes the depth.6) .min = 6150 . (17-39). Thus the effective stresses would be 3700 and 5100 psi. the Equation (16-77) is a relation between the pad volume.2000and 4000-psi drawdowns (pw1 = 4500 and 2500 psi.(0. Will the stress on the proppant increase or decrease with time? Solution Since a proppant pack can be considered as a porous medium. In addition. Furthermore. several variables are involved.min = This is the maximum allowable slurry concentration in pounds of proppant per gallon of slurry. 17-4 Fracture Design and Fracture Propagation Issues 477 (the factor 7.1 Slurry Concentration In Section 16-8 the slurry concentration cp(. is used. then in 1 gal of slurry there are cP/pP gal of proppant (pp must be density in Ib/gal) and therefore 1 . by definition.48 (17-41) This is the stressthat the proppants might have experiencedwithout drawdown.7 x 4000). the flowing bottomhole pressure (or the related wellhead pressure) are frequently dictated by surface production requirements or bottomhole constraints such as fines migration or coning. Frequently the proppant concentration in pounds per gallon added.7)(6500) = 2300 psi I (17-34) ' PPU -#PI 7. was related with cf and the total mass of proppant placed in a fracture. o. If VsI. Thus at the initial conditions of pressure: See.7)(5000) I + (0. (16-99). respectively. 17-9. Vpadr total injected volume. For 20140 ISP the corresponding values would be 7200 and 6000 md-ft. Eq.13. Table 17-4 is a Iist of these variables. and proppant density by Eq.2 1 . q. and (16-99) results in wPpp(l It is essential that w. initial reservoir pressure. p = 5000 psi. in Section 16-9 the average slurry concentration. This refers to pounds of proppant per gallon of fluid.476 Design o Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. If. is then The C1 - (165)(1000). Typical values are listed for the calculations included in this and the With Eq. reservoir thickness. < G.cp/pp gal of flu~d. FP.and the efficiency. the cf m Eq. From Fig. proppant pack porosity.and 4000-psi drawdowns.. respectively.7)(4500)= 3000 psi (17-36) 0 representing a 700-psi decrease. (16-95) provides the slurry concentration in ppg. .4.

Fracture permeability. = 0. Reservoir. c. or both. during production. = 8 ppg Proppant density. = 7000 psi Initial reservoir pressure.000 ft Reservoir permeability. H = 10. = 1. This is simply a solution of the material balance equation [Eq.000 No. If the stress contrast is large. 0. These include the fracture height. and Treatment Variables for Example Fracture Design for an Oil Well Depth. During execution. qi = 40 bpm EOJ sluny concentration. as should be expected. it can be concluded readily that fracture length can grow at constant Apf (and thus keeping the fracture height largely constant) if the injection rate or the viscosity.1 Formation volume factor. and high temperature. pwf = 3500 psi Fracture height. If it penetrates another permeable formation. The opposite is true for a small stress contrast. u = 0. then a larger net pressure is tolerable.1 res bbl/STB Total compressibility.000 md Damage factor. CL = 3 x Injection rate.i.0248 in. Fracturing Fluid. kf = 38. of years for NPV = 2 Discount rate = 30% Oil price = $15/bbl Three other variables fall under the second category. (16-56). hf = 150 ft ftlLeakoff coefficient. B. for which only limited capability is afforded to the designer. 17-10.25 Reservoir porosity.75 n = 0. h = 75 ft Minimum horizontal stress. d.1 md Reservoir height. c. excessive Ieakoff may lead to a screenout. At first the efficiency for the given leakoff coefficient (Ct= 3 x ft/&) can be calculated. a~.25/hr/hhp Fluid cost = $l/gal Fixed cost = $15. where. (16-79)] for each fracture height for a range of fracture lengths as shown in Example 16-10. leakoff coefficient. The results for various h f / h ratios are shown in Fig. pi = 5500 psi Young's modulus. = lo-' psi-' Reservoir fluid viscosity. providing the approximation for net fracturing pressure with the PKN model. These variables are classified under partial control because they also depend on reservoir and formation characteristics such as the presence of fissures.04 lbf-secn)ft2 Proppant cost = $0.4 Proppant diameter. and the end-of-job proppant sluny concentration. 6 = 165 lb/ft3 Proppant porosity. 4p= 0. it may be worse. the efficiency increases with increasing hf.55 ' K' = 0. q3 = 0.- - 478 Table 17-4 Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. k = 0. From Eq. poor interlayer stress contrast. g = 1 cp Flowing bottomhole pressure. . 17 Well. are reduced. This is not a particularly attractive thing. E = 3 x lo6 psi Poisson ratio. This relationship was outlined in Section 16-6. The fracture height depends on the stress contrast between the target and adjoining layers and is a function of the net fracturing pressure. where partial control may be in the hands of the designing engineer. problems of zonal isolation may arise. since fracture height penetrating a nonproducing interval is useless.4/lb Pumping cost = $3..


is selected. and the reservoir fluids would dictate the choice of the fracturing fluid. and the conclusion is that this well is not a candidate for hydraulic fracturing. while the state of stress and the desired fractured well performance would point toward the proppant selection. A number of design techniques combine the incremental. it should be obvious that the NPV depends on the number of years for which the calculation is to be performed. which has a maximum. and NPV. A and B. reflecting the larger fracture volume with longer fractures and. and time of injection would lead to the service cost. For all cases the revenue curve will have a large slope for small values of xf and will flatten out for larger xf values...g. by 100 ft. The upper branch of Fig. while Meng and Brown (1987) expounded upon the net present value (NPV) as an appropriate treatment optimization approach. The conductivity and the fracture half-length are generally sufficient for a forecast of the posttreatment transient well performance.. The NPV criterion is simple. e. Fco. The net pressure. Finally. especially. xf. Figure 17-15 is a schematic depiction of two cases. which are functions of the selected fracturing fluid and proppant (see Sections 17-2 and 17-3). and ~ed mass of proppant. The calculation is repeated for additional xf increments. the incremental net present value of the revenue can be calculated. The calculated propped width and permeability of the created fracture. the end of the lower branch of Fig. 17-5 Net Present Value (NPV) for Hydraulic Fracture Design 483 and design. implied net pressure. This is done incrementally. (1988). discounted revenue deriving from a fracturing treatment and the associated costs of execution. cost.. Therefore. These include critical fracture height. A fracture propagation model such as the PKN. The cost curve will be concave upward. A fracture half-length. essentially the width (see Sections 16-5. Therefore NPV = NPVR . . Case A shows positive NPV with a maximum value corresponding to optimum fracture size. Case B has negative NPV. The posttreatment performance will be dealt with in Chapter 18. maximum allowable injection rate. the much larger leakoff. Veatch (1986) presented a comprehensive list of the various techniques. Fracture half-length versus revenue.cost (17-47) Figure 17-15 The net present value (NPV) concept. with each new fracture half-length longer than the previous. (For a gas well it would be AG. This calculation was outlined in Section 16-7 for the fluid volume requirements and in Sections 16-8 and 16-9 for the proppant schedule (and its ~ n s e t ) : ~ r o ~width. the fracture half-length. (17-45) and (17-46). . KGD. 17 Sec. Figure 17-16 shows the steps and components for the optimization of fracture design as presented by Meng and Brown (1987) and Balen et al.3). For case B the NPV is negative. from Eq.1 through 16-5. 17-16 is the calculation of the fluid volume and mass of proppant and hence their costs. (16-17). and reservoir permeability. At first let us follow the lower branch on Fig. Thus. 17-16. as shown in Eqs. plotting the respective discounted revenues. its lithology. (1988) presented a series of parametric studies and the components of the NPV calculation. The fracture half-length is graphed on the abscissa. and the shape of this curve will be justified explicitly. and NPV curves. injection rate. (17-47). Subtracting the cost curve from the revenue curves results in the NPV curve. Then. Balen et al.) The net present value of the revenue is then I where i is the discount rate. Subtracting from the annual cumulative production what the unstimulated well would deliver (often zero) leads to the incremental cumulative production. is the annual incremental cumulative production for year n for an oil well. the NPV can be obtained with Eq.. costs. 17-16 then describes the calculation for the incremental revenue. For a reservoir. and leakoff coefficient. A treatment optimization is then done with imposed limits. Finally. Coupling of the forecast of the fractured well performance with the tubing intake curve would readily allow the forecast of production decline and the associated cumulative production. its temperature. The annual incremental revenue above the one that the unstimulated well would deliver is Net Present Value where AN. are sufficientto calculate the dimensionless fracture conductivity. For case A this maximum is positive and corresponds to the optimum fracture size.482 Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. or p-3-D would then describe the fracture geometry.

respectively. In the parametric studies shown below. 17-6 Parametric Studies 485 One of the most useful products of a coherent design approach.5-.8 x lo5. in certain cases. and $1. often approaching the cost of the treatment itself in certain locations. knowledge of a particular variable may prevent a wasteful overtreatment. xf (ft) Figure 17-17 Effect of permeability on NPV. four of the most important variables affecting the fracture design are allowed to fluctuate within plausible ranges that have been observed in real cases. logs to infer the fracture height. However. some of these are unknown. all other variables are taken from Table 17-4. 1-md permeabilities. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Fracture Length. One additional.Sec. 0. or fracture calibration treatments to estimate the leakoff coefficient are costly. extremely important. such as the NPV.1-. Interestingly. The main reason is economics. This will be observed in the case of inappropriate selection of fracturing fluids.1 x lo6. Tests to measure the permeability. In the parametric studies shown below. Similarly. the design of a hydraulic fracture treatment as a well stimulation depends on a large number of variables.8 x lo6 for the 0. Frequently. Benefits from an appropriate increase in the treatment size may dwarf the incremental costs. $1. As seen in the previous two sections. it should always be remembered that the cost of the treatment and the associated costs of testing are only one component of the NPV design approach. corresponding to NPV values of $3. Figure 17-17 shows the effect of the reservoir permeability on NPV. In this study all optimum fracture half-lengths are 500 ft. . is the ability to perform parametric studies. variable is the residual damage to the proppant pack.reservoir and formation properties such as the permeability and fracture height migration have a much larger impact on fracture design (both in the expected NPV and the optimum fracture half-length) than any of the treatment execution variables.

5. 17-19. In general.2. corresponding to fracture heights of 113. xt (ft) F~gure 17-20 Effect of polymer res~due damage on NPV. and reservoir variables. Three values are used: a very large 1. 150. well. -600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 The same trends are evident in Fig. very importantly. and 400 ft.1-md reservoir can compete with a treatment in the 1-md reservoir. Thus. the corresponding optimum half-lengths are 700.3 x lo5. If this damage factor is not known. and 700 ft.5 x ft/&. For a severe 95% damage. the maximum NPV would be $5. 600. 2.6 x lo5and the optimum length is 700 ft.500. . The costs of such Fracture Length.1-md reservoir. and 3. corresponding to a 300-ft fracture half-length. . which allows the combination of treatment. Corresponding optimum fracture halfft and a small 6 x 3x lengths are 400. in the optimum sizing of a fracture stimulation treatment. Finally. The effects of fracture height migration are shown in Fig. a very small treatment (it is not even shown in the expanded scale of Fig. xf (ft) Figure 17-19 Effect of leakoff coefficient on NPV 600 400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 -400 Fracture Length. 17-6 Parametric Studies 500 400 487 Often. respectively. For the four fracture heights. Both the maximum NPV values and the associated optimum fracture lengths are reduced. 300 0 0 0 -100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Fracture Length.600. 188. If the damage is only 15% (i.5. a 900-ft fracture treatment (the optimum for a 15% damage) would result in an NPV equal to zero for a 95% damage. If the damage is 55%. Fig. Conversely.7 x lo5. 17-20 shows the major impact of the polymer residual damage on the NPV and the optimum fracture length. respectively. where the effects of the leakoff coeff t l 6 . The abiIity to perform parametric studies is perhaps the most important product of a coherent design approach such as the NPV. 17-17.486 Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. a 15% reduction from the ideal proppant pack permeability at that stress).. This is true only if the reservoir permeability is the same. 17 Sec. a normal ficient are studied. posttreatment performance comparisons in the ignorance of the reservoir permeability are meaningless. and 225 ft. any adversity in the fracture treatment will result in a decrease in the optimum treatment in the 0. the maximum NPV is only $2. the posttreatment production rate (roughly proportional to the NPV) is used as a gauge for the success or failure of a treatment. 17-18 for h f / h ratios equal to 1. xf (ft) Figure 17-18 Effect of fracture height migration on NPV. As can be seen in Fig. themaximum NPV is $4. 17-17) in the 1-md reservoir could produce as much as the optimum treatment in the 0.e. /a. respectively. a stimulation treatment could not be offset by the performance of the damaged hydraulic from these parametric studies is that lack of knowledge of a certain The conclus~on important variable carries a cost both in the expected performance and. corresponding to an optimum fracture length of 900 ft.

the leakoff coefficientbetween 3 x and 3 x ft/&. a range of values.75. However. for smaller lengths the corresponding NPV values are smaller compared to the larger fracture lengths. However. Variables are given in ranges with probability distribution (probability to occur).488 Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. in-situ stresses. shown in Fig. Depictions such as the ones in Figs. and. 17-16) to account for the Monte Carlo input and the uncertainty in reservoir variables. reservoir pressure. 17-23. The results of the design appear in a three-dimensional plot on Fig. Therefore. This leads to a result that generally looks the same as the input. there are uncertainties in a large number of the variables that affect the fracture design. and this number assigns a value to the variable from the cumulative probability graph shown on the right. All calculations are done several times. reservoir thickness. This method of data input and design procedure is a significantimprovement over all other existing methods. 17 Sec. Figure 17-22 is a modification of the NPV design procedure (shown in Fig. Looking at just the fracture length versus NPV. within the range input.g. for each fracture length there is a distribution of probabilities to occur for each NPV value. Larger lengths result in riskier designs. The permeabilityvaries between 0. The data in Table 17-4 are used for this design case study along with four variables that are offered as Monte Carlo inputs. leakoff coefficientand proppant packdamage. porosities. A random number generator picks a number between zero and one. but also because a more realistic impression of the results from a fracture treatment can be obtained. and the damage factor between 0. proppant sluny concentrations).g.35 and 0. the deviation between maximum and minimum NPV values is much smaller for smaller lengths.. Thus for each fracture length there is a corresponding distribution of NPVs and an associated standard deviation. especially when the input parameters are not exactly known. Values are selected randomly. Figure 17-21 shows the methodology of the Monte Carlo input and the assignment of a value to a variable within each design run. the fractureheight between 75 and 225 ft. 17-25. permeabilities).g. 0 Value o the variable f Value of the variable Figure 17-21 The Monte Carlo concept. Others cannot be known at the moment of the job execution (e. certain variables may change during job execution in an unpredictable manner (e.. EXAMPLE 17-5 Case study for fracture design with Monte Carlo data input Generator selects 11 number [O. rock properties). and a frequency curve. oil price). 17-24 and 17-25 can be very useful in reservoir management. weighted by the given distribution. Every variable is assigned a value completely randomly. the normal and characteristic shape is evident.1 and 1md. The Monte Carlo technique has been applied by Haid and Economides (1991) to fracture design to account for normal field and treatment uncertainties. Frequently. . 17-24. This is shown in Fig. Many of the variables needed for the optimization of a fracture treatment must be measured and can have large variations within the same field (e. finally. These uncertainties have several reasons. 17-7 Fracture Design with Uncertainty: The Monte Carlo Technique 489 17-7 FRACTURE DESIGN WITH UNCERTAINTY: THE MONTE CARLO TECHNIQUE In the previous section the effects of variable fluctuations on the calculated NPV and the associated fracture length have been demonstrated through the use of parametric studies. Variables are given in terms of distribution and probability to occur. Others have different values at every well in the same field (e. The probability and the magnitude of the variable are shown on the right. with the probability to occur as the third variable. While for each run the calculations are similar to the standard NPV procedure.. As should be expected. and each time the variable is given another value by randomized assignment (from the range already defined). the result is a threedimensional plot of NPV versus fracture half-length. fracturing fluid properties. These are the reservoir permeability..g. not only because natural facts and uncertainties are represented in a much more logical manner. smaller fractures are less risky but are likely to deliver smaller NPV values. fracture height.


and Pulsmellm.Fracture Geometry Requirements and Fracture Desmgn. Englewood Cl~ffs. G . lnReservorr Strmulat~on. M R . 1991 4 Gulbms. H D . "Applmatlon of the NPV (Net Present Value) In the Optmmmzatmon of Hydraulic Fractures.M J . Duncan."Optlmmemng HydraulmscherFrakbehandlungenbm der Erdolgew~nnung e m t Hllfe der Monte-Carlo-Techn~k unter Anwendung des Banvertes. OK. Amsterdam. M 3 . and Nolte. and Econommdes. M J ." BHM. K G ." SPE Paper and 20135. R 1 ." SPE Paper 16435. 1991 7 Meng. and Elsev~er. 5 Had. and Econommdes. A Practrcal Companron m Reser vorr Strmulatron.12/91 467474."An Investlgatlon of the Effects of Fractunng R u ~ d upon the Conducbv~ty Proppants. Meng.References 493 14000 13500 11000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Fracture Length [ft] F~gure 17-25 Standard deviation of NPV values for a range of fracture lengths for Example 17-5 REFERENCES 1 Balen. H -2.M J Econom~des K G Nolte." Fmnal Report STIM-LAB. G S . 1988 2 Brannon. "An Expenmental and Fundamental lnterpretat~on of Rltercake Fractunng Elumd Loss.1987 Treatment Schedulmng m the Opt~mum s of 8 Penny. K E . 2nd and eds . Econommdes. 1986 . H -2. ed . "Breaker Concentrattons Requ~redto Improve the Permeabmlmty of Proppant Packs Damaged by Concentrated L~near Borate-Crosslmked Fractunng Flumds.Prentlce Hall. M J . Houston. J "Eractunng Rumd Chem~stry"." SPE Paper 22873.1990 3 Econommdes. M J ." SPE Paper 18541."Couplmg of Production Forecasting. 1991. and Brown. SES. 1989 NJ. 1991 m und 6 Mayerhofer.

S. 1989.. This methodology is a substitute in those cases where either a pretreatment well test is not available or posttreatment downhole testing is impractical. Veatch. P. E. J.. Penny. and Brown. Valk6. Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Production data. The techniques described in this chapter. Jr. . Duncan. are frequently the only information collected on a well. OK. W. R. testing is hindered not only by economics but also by the natural flow-retarding effects of the low permeability. 11.494 Design of Hydraulic Fracture Treatments Chap. the performance of hydraulically fractured wells merits the special emphasis given here.. and fractures with face damage are examined.. "An Investigation of the Effects of Fracturing Fluids upon the Conductivity of Proppants... 1986. Examples andcase Studies:' SPEPaper 15509. while they are particularly applicable to hydraulically fractured wells. R.. J. Many of these wells are economically marginal. 10. Because of the current wide use of hydraulic fracturing and its certain increase in the future. L. At the fracture pretreatment stage. Then. frequently these wells may not flow at all without hydraulic fracturing. and McElfresh. S. G. and the cost of sophisticated well testing techniques described in Chapter 11often cannot be justified. "Impact of Fracturing Fluids on Conductivity and Performance in LowTemperature Wells:' SPE Paper 18862. consisting of surface rates and pressures. A. Also. damage to the proppant pack. Baumgartner. M. In this chapter. M. can be used for any other longflowing well where surface production and rate information are available. this situation suggests the utilization of long-term surface production and pressure history for the evaluation of well performance and the calculation of fracture geometry and conductivity variables." Final Report STIM-LAB.1992. 1988. Calculations with these data are essential not only for the forecast of future performance but also for the evaluation of well design and past stimulation treatments. Coupled with economic constraints. The possibility of substituting a fractured vertical well with an unfractured horizontal well and the potential benefits of fracturing horizontal wells are also discussed. Similarly. P. 17 9. A well test in a low-permeability reservoir is likely to require a long data acquisition time for satisfactory interpretation. Thomas.. first the performance of fractured vertical wells is treated. "The Rheological Properties of Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen Foams:' SPE Paper 23778. "Economics of Fracturing: SomeMethods. Economides.. 12. the low permeability delays posttreatment evaluation. choked fractures.

are given in terms divided of the dimensionless pressure p~ and the fracture dimensionless time.1 md this time becomes 40 hr. The definition of the dimensionless variables for oil in oilfield units is and The distinguishing responses of a high. The slope of a Cartesian plot of pressure versus the quarter root of time yields the kf w product.for a range of values of the latter. early-time 4. from the slope of which the fracture half-length can be estimated if the reservoir permeability is known. Following an additional transition period. For the case of Fco=l (Fig. -~ the time for the end of wellbore storage if k=100 md is 0. after the 45" straight line characteristic of wellbore storage. . and the impact of this relationship on the desirable treatment design was emphasized. and the fracture length were related with the effective wellbore radius. If the following variables are common to both wells. This is also indicated in Chapter 11. available to production engineers. In Section 16-4the dimensionless fracture conductivity.04 hr. This shortcoming affects both the design procedure. presented by Economides (1987). an interpretable test typically requires a duration of 5 to 7 days. linear flow from the reservoir is developed. linear and pseudo-radial flow for a lowand a high-conductivity fractured well Two oil wells. boundary effects. outlined in Chapter 17. at late time. For finite-conductivity fractures (FcD i lo).1 md is 100 hr. ~ = 1 0 bbllpsi. and s=O (best case). Assume that in both cases kf w (=10. from Table 11-8a. EXAMPLE 18-1 Calculation of the beginning and end of bilinear. the reservoir permeability and. using the techniques described in Chapter 11.025 cp but with C=lO-'bbl/psi. are hydraulically fractured.5" straight line and late-time pseudo-radial flow are also present.496 Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap. For the oil well case. However. the fracture length. These inherent difficulties are addressed in the posttreatment interpretation methodology outlined in Section 18-8. has been deemphasized in the recent past because of readily available reservoir simulation technologies and much more accessible formation evaluation data. by the fracture dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient. t ~ ~ f . the dimensionless fracture conductivity. estimate the beginning and end of bilinear and the beginning of pseudo-radial flow in the first well and the beginning and end of . and a log-log plot of pressure and pressure derivative versus time yields a straight line with a slope equal to 112. In the same section the inverse relationship between reservoir permeability and fracture conductivity was identified. and also any posttreatment well test interpretation. low reservoir permeability prolongs wellbore storage. CDf. (16-17). However. This traditional tool. The well testing techniques described in Chapter 11 can be applied to wells that are candidates for hydraulic fracturing. for k=0. For a gas well with p=0. Of interest is the difference in the response between high. Consequently. the expression for the end of wellbore storage (in oilfield units) is - Using typical values for an oil well. Again. The dimensionless fracture conductivity of the first well is 1 and of the second is 100. 18-2. there is a long log-log straight line with slope equal to 114. the solution by Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1981a) suggests that while such fractures control the well response. a log-log plot of pressure versus time will form a straight line with a slope equal to 114. p=1 cp.(approaching infinite) conductivity fracture and that of a lower. FcD. if an infinite-conductivity fracture controls the well response (FcD > 300 and for practical purposes Fco z loo).1 md. low-permeability wells are not tested in a large number of reservoirs where hydraulic fracturing is indicated. These plots. For the much larger-conductivityfracture of Fig. As the solution by Gringarten and Rarney (1974) suggests. This is shown in Chapter 11. 18-3 Transient Response of a Hydraulically Fractured Well 497 Finally. respectively. a long linear flow is evident (with a log-log slope equal to 112). For exam~le. the corresponding time for k=0. decline curve analysis is presented in a section of this chapter. h=50 ft. infinite-acting reservoir flow. The pressure or rate transient response of a hydraulically fractured well depends on the well (the size of wellbore storage). 18 Sec. one with k=10 md and the other with k=0. The use of specialized plots or type curve matching for the determination of xf or kfw requires knowledge of the reservoir permeability. The dimensionless fracture conductivity is given by Eq. bilinear flow (linear flow from the reservoir into the fracture and linear flow along the fracture into the well) will be dominant. the well enters pseudo-radial.( F c ~ = l ) a much higher-conductivity fracture (Fco=lOO).or finite-conductivityfracture were introduced in Chapter 11.000md-ft) and xf (=I000ft) are the same. A plot of pressure versus the square root of time on Cartesian coordinates forms a straight line.and low-conductivity fractures. During h i s time. Figures 18-1 and 18-2 give comprehensive solutions for the pressure transient reand sponse under constant rate for a low. which masks the appearance of the recognizable and interpretable patterns from which reservoir permeability and other reservoir features mav be determined. and after a transition period. 18-l).

D(mension1ess P l ~ " l * PD Dlmsnslml~ss Pressure Derivative p'. .t.

=6 t= the beginning of bilinear flow is marked and is equal EXAMPLE 18-3 Production from a fractured gas well The gas well in Appendix C is an obvious candidate for hydraulic fracturing.615) = 5 x lo-' bbupsi (18-1 1) (5. = 1.) At t=10 days and from Eq. [Eq.08 x 10-4)(15002) and therefore ~D. the d~menslonless wellbore storage coefficient is (5.=2. 18-1)=2.pwf)is held constant at 1000 psi.1)(1) (18-9) (18-5) % ~ After 15days. assume that H=8000 ft.w is 2550 md-ft.14)(0 1)(10-5)(60)(100021= 10-5 and from Fig.1. from Eq. was obtained in Example 4-9. Since the average flowing Pressure in the well is 915 psi. 7. / / or at t=4000 hr (almost 6 months). andthe k.2)(1.l7)(lO)(24) - (18-14) Substitutionof the known variables and rearrangement yields q = 5.000/(10)(1000)] From Eq l (18-4). The conclusion from this calculation is that while the kJ w product could be estimated through a test within a reasonable time (e.. @=0.14)(0.6 x 10'. 3 lo4.//cDf = 1. 18-1.14)(2. it should be noted that the decline in fractured well performance is considerably steeper than for unfractured wells.44 in.44)2(8000)(1 x .265 x lo9 . (18-3). From Fig.000264)(10)(24) (18-13) (0. (18-4). The end of the linear flow is at t ~ ~CD/ = 7 X lo3.PD (fromFig.Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap. In general.615)(5 x (2)(3. Infinite-acting reservoir behavior would emerge after tDXJ/cDJ 7 x lo5 (t > 45 years) if no boundaries appear earlier. Further.d (1. Develop a transient IPR relationship for a fractured well at t=l0 days and compare it with the unfractured caseofExam~le4-9 (4-64)l. k =O. B=l.1 x psi-'. (O~OOO264)(O.2)(141.=10-5psi-' cp.Therefore.39 x 10-5[1. should be tDxf = PD = kh[m(~i) m(pWf)] 1424qT . the real time would be 40 hr. cast in t e r m s ~ f r e a l ./=830 psi (calculated). and tubing LD.CD~ t= 0. For the PuIposes of this calculation. 18-1 at cDf 1.7 X 10d (18-12) HOW EXAMPLE 18-2 rate versus pressure for a fractured well Considerthe k=10 md and FcD=l well of Example 18-1. From ~ i g18-3 (drawn for F ~ = I O )at tDXf/cDf= 6 x ~ ( B ~ x lepD=Qn. from Eq. (3. In section 18-8 it will be shown that. (~D. . ~ = i ~.m(pWl)] . p~=1.08 x 10-4)(78)(1500 ) (Note: The c. assume that pWf=1000 and p.//C~/=70 and therefore.l res bbl/STB. F c ~ = [=10.//CD/)@PC:X. From the same figure.1 md). (18-21. if it is present. the dimensionless pressure foragas well.034 hr (0.//CD/= 7. the pseudo-radial behavior can be analyzed and therefore the fracture half-length can be estimated.5 x cz to t ~ ~ / / c ~ / then . (18-6) (and with k=0. the gas compressibility is approximately equal to 11915 1.5 x lo5 and from Eq. 18 Sec.1 (4)(144)(5. in addition. The fracture half-lengthis 1500ft. The wellbore storage coefficient is then (see Table 11-3) - C= and from Eq. psi Solution The dimensionless fracture conductivity is [from ~ q(16-17)] . a 24-hr buildup and if the reservoir permeability is known). If Ap (= pi . the beginning of the infinite-acting pseudo-radial flow is at tD. C = 1 x h=60 ft.~ ~ s pseudo-pressures.000264)(10) ~l~~ marked is the end of bilinear flow.g.andthereforeq = 1840 STBId.17)(1500) Now the wellbore storage coefficient must be calculated.5 x lo-') = o. the fracture half-length could not (no infinite-conductivity behavior is evident).5 x for the beginning of linear flow is at tD. and. = In this example. 18-2and CD/ = 1.14)(0.000264k since from Fig. which is at tD.J/CD/=1O4. (0.l md The FcD this case is equalto 100. linear and the beg~nningof pseudo-rad~alflow In the second. Fc~ = (6)(0.2. All other variables are the same. = (~0)(60)(~000) = 3220 STB.615)(1 x CD/ = (2)(3.1. ~ D ~ / / C D / 6 . 0 The requlred real time for any m~lestonem the well performance can be obtalned from a rearrangement of Eq (18-3). leading to a real time of over 55 hr.1)(1)(10-~)(100@)(1. (18-2) and rearrangement.14)(1. . (18-3) and with t=24 hr. what would the flow rate be after 24 hr and after 15 days? Solution From Eq. Solut~on k = 10 md The d~mensionless fracture conductlvlty.0244)(1. 18-3 Transient Response of a Hydraulically Fractured Well 501 bbllpsl. the fracture half-length could be calculated after a few days' test dura- 2550 = lo (18-10) (0. (18-6) the real time would be almost 40 days. 17 G X Similarly to@.

the flow rate for the unfractured well [Eq. The larger flow rate implied by the fractured well could cause a marked increase in the influence of the non-Darcy coefficient. then substitution of all known variables yields + psi.. (18-14). (18-15) is 64.solution of Eq. because the fractured well flow rate declines more steeply. In their work they defined a choke skin effect. disproportionate damage occurs in the near-well zone of the hydraulic fracture. . and kf. (18-15) is almost 25 times the one in Eq. This skin effect can be added to the dimensionless pressure of Eq.Sec. Well performance prediction can be handled appropriately with a transient solution using a lower FcD. Therefore. 0 The fracture permeabilityis frequently far below the ideal proppant pack permeability. normal to the fracture path in the near-well portion. the flow rate would be reduced accordingly. The enhancement of the flow rate of the fractured over the unfractured well will decrease with time significantly. Finally. are the damaged length. Equation (18-14) with the non-Darcy contribution would become 1424qTp~ 1424TD (18-16) m(pi) . given by where xs. In Section 17-2. Both of the above factors would result in a reduction in the dimensionless fracture conductivity. Since pi=4613 psi and pWf=1000 the m(p) values from Table 4-5 are 1. (18-2): - . 2. though. A situation such as this results in a "choked" fracture. as named by Cinco-Ley and Samaniego (1981b). kh q2 Assuming that D = 5 x (MSCF/d)-'. (4-64). (18-17) yields q=16. Flow in the fracture is likely to cany along reservoir fines and accumulate them. While the flow rate from Eq.000 MSCF/d (without considering turbulenceeffects). would result in a larger effective stress on the proppant and a larger stress-induced permeability reduction. Thus the actual flow rate would be considerably less than the one obtained from Eq.000MSCFId. respectively. sch. Frequently.m(p. Tko comments are in order here: 1. 18-4 Choked Fractures 503 The coefficient of Eq. and permeabiIity of the fracture. even after accounting for a stress-inducedreduction. respectively. w. for a constant drawdown.396 x lo7. Higher drawdown. (4-64)]is 2570 MSCF/d.f) = .265 x lo9 and 8. overdisplacement of the proppant-laden slurry into the fracture during execution may reduce the fracture permeability (and perhaps the width) of the near-well zone.5 the polymer-induced damage was considered.


155. It is given by Eq.=0. and dimensionless effective wellbore radius rbD (see Fig. Calculate the impact on the effective wellbore radius. and (sf.)-'=6. Ordinarily. Assume that b. Figure 18-5 (Brown and Economides. In Eq. xf. normal to the fracture face and into the reservoir.. I~ ( -. longer lengths than the ones calculated from Eq.=0. (18-25) would be required. (18-22). From Fig. 18 EXAMPLE 18-6 Apparent fracture face damage Inadvertently. 0 (sf.=50 ft. What fracture length would be required to offset the problem? Is it realistic? Solution From Eq. then. Any possible combinations of rbD and xf can be unrealistic fracture half-length equal to 6200 ft would be required. from Rg.506 Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap. k/ks=5. =) The relationship is . (18-22). (2-48) in Chapter 2. and.)-' 21 3. it was natural to speculate whether they could substitute for a fractured vertical well. From the relationship of Eq. 1992) shows a series of example calculations for the required horizontal well lengths for equal productivity indexes as that of vertical wells with fracture half-lengths xf. However. This is the case when the pressure gradient.05. fromEq. Assuming from Fig. a well may behave as if it has fracture face damage.4. 18-4 that at (so)-' > 20 there is no impairment. If all other variables remain constant. which represents a considerable reduction.42. 18-4. and xf=lOOO. this would be the situation in a rich gas condensate reservoir with associated liquid knockout extending several feet into the reservoir. in a reservoir of vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy. VERTICAL VERSUS HORIZONTAL WELLS 18-6 FRACTURED Following the emergence of horizontal wells. then sf. The plot is given for a range of . The result would be optimistic for the horizontal well option. an appropriate choice would be the optimized xf and FcD (and therefore rLD)for a reservoir of a given permeability and other variables as shown in Chapter 17.35. since no near-wellbore damage is considered. a 2000-ft fracture half-length would lead to sf. an improved rb/xf=0. 16-5) with a horizontal well of length L draining an area with an equivalent radius re. (18-25) the variable a is the large half-axis of the drainage ellipse formed by a horizontal well. However. 18-4. For example. results in a phase change and an associated relative permeability reduction. rb/xr=0. (1825) it is possible to calculate the required horizontal well length that would deliver the same productivity index as would a fractured vertical well. Mukherjee and Economides (1991) presented a relationship for equal productivity indices under pseudo-steady-state conditions between a fractured vertical well of half-length.

However. the fracture initiation direction and the fracture plane would coincide. The fracture direction has been discussed extensively in Chapter 16. (16-18).in formations with significant horizontal permeability anisotropy. for a horizontal well to be potentially attractive in a lower-permeabilityreservoir. Brown and Economides (1992) have addressed these issues extensively and presented results for anisotropic formations. the difference between the right-hand sides of Eqs. 16-7 Performance of Fractured Horizontal Wells 509 For most applications. an undesirable fracture width reduction will occur. EXAMPLE 18-7 Minimum required horizontal well length to deliver equal productivity index to that of a fractured well ft and In a reservoir of k=l md. Trial and error is required to solve for the horizontal well length L. from Eq. . t ~ ~ f productivity index increases are large. by interpolation. Thus. is attractive). the well can be drilled along the expected fracture trajectory.then the relative capacity parameter (to use in 2.. Therefore.14/(2)(2.3. In order to prevent the longitudinal-to-transverseturning of the fracture. (1991) have shown that. from Eq. Imi=3 h=50 ft).described in the next subsection. the optimum fracture halflength. LP 18-7. the well may be drilled normal to the expected fracture trajectory (i. The corresponding dimensionless fractureconductivity. First. is w' . especially since a hydraulic fracture will propagate normal to the minimum permeability (aligned with minimum stress). it is then obvious that a longitudinallyfracturedhorizontal well may be attractivein reservoirs where the fractured vertical well is likely to accept a low-conductivity fracture.FcD. 18-6. with L=2000 ft. along the minimum horizontal stress).7 [=3. the left-hand sides of Eqs. w where Lp is the perforated length. From Fig. McLennan et al. (18-26). an unfractured horizontal well is unlikely to be economically viable in most reservoirs where vertical wells are fractured.328 ft and rex = reV=2980 calculate the minimum ft.g. a calculation such as the one in this example suggests that an unfractured horizontal well is not an economically attractive alternative to a fractured vertical well in most reservoirs that are candidates for hydraulic fracturing. Second. they decrease with time. 18 Sec. and thus the right-hand side of mentioned before this example. the PI ratio approaches unity.. leading to the possibility that multiple fractures can be generated with proper zone isolation. equal to 0. See Brown 0 and Economides (1992) for a comprehensive analysis. Second. the right-hand side is identical to that calculated by Eq. and in this case transverse hydraulic fractures can be generated. to The ratio of the reduced fracture width. Therefore. using the NPV criterion.1 Longitudinal Fracture Penetrating a Horizontal Well Figure 18-6 shows the incremental productivity index of a longitudinally fractured horizontal well (with 2xf = L) versus the dimensionless vertical well fracture conductivity. required horizontal well length to deliver an equal productivity index. Eqs. In highly horizontally anisotropic formations. (18-26)] give very nearly the same results. Drilling such a well normal to the maximum permeability could result in a significant improvement to the productivity index. Finally. was found to be 1800 ft. (18-25) and (18-26) are both equal to 540 ft. the horizontal well direction is critical.3. In such cases there would be no justification to drill a horizontal well to accept a longitudinal fracture. This is the longitudinal configuration. (18-25) is equal to 590 ft.3)]. Solution If FcD=2. There are therefore two limiting cases of horizontal well fracturing.. the required horizontal well length is 2800 ft. it must be fractured also (or not be drilled at all). This fracture turning would be highly detrimental during execution because of potential screenouts. it is necessary to minimize the perforated length. then.1. 1987. assuming total removal of damage. Economides et al. the fracture direction and the well trajectory can coincide only if the well is drilled along the maximum horizontal stress direction. a hydraulic fracture will first initiate longitudinally and then will turn to become normal to the minimum horizontal stress (Yew and Li. A fractured vertical well would suffice (unless the transverse fractured configuration.. Therefore.if a horizontal well is to be drilled. (18-25)yields As suggested in the previous section and example. Thecalculatedlarge horizontal well length of 2800ft is the required minimum. Imih=150 (e. Large values of FcD are likely to be obtained in lower-permeability reservoirs. (18-25) and (18-26) are for a reservoir with horizontal permeability isotropy. (18-25) and (18-26) would be less than 10%. For large values of FcD. in relatively higher-permeabilityreservoirs. in formations with large k. if the perforated length is larger than one and one-half times the well diameter. the right-hand side is equal to 592 ft (compared with 590 ft). If L=2000 ft. For a horizontal well the situation is far more complicated. then a=3174 ft and the right-hand side of Eq. r. (2-48).a horizontal well drilled normal to the maiimum permeability direction may be attractive. where it was concluded that for most petroleum engineering applications a hydraulic fracture would be vertical and normal to the minimum horizontal stress.3. Thus the two expressions [Eq.508 Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap. that of a fracture that is not affected by near-wellbore turning. With L=3000 ft. (18-25) and equal to 350 ft. In general. In the case of a perfectly vertical well.=0. (18-25) and Eq. for all other horizontal well directions./kv and no horizontal permeability anisotropy. From Fig. ever. w'. is equal to 0. 16-5. First. Using the approximation of Eq.5D -- If L=3000ft. the dimensionless effective wellbore radius. but it would also reduce the well production rate significantly.. At early dimensionless time.. it must be hydraulically fractured also. that is. 16-5)is. w.e.. 1989). FcD. If r. Howthe .

=0. is a matter of economic optimization and comparison with the base case of a fractured vertical well.328 fi is drilled fractured. Mukherjee and Economides (1991) have developed an expression for this skin effect: Transversehydraulic fracture mtersectmg a honzontal unchanged. (From Economides et al.31 (18-31) If the perforated length. skin effect. The incremental benefits from multiple fractures (tempered by the production rate reduction from the skin effect and long-term (1)(100) 1000 I-[ 100 (2)(0. 1991. a horizontal well with r. s. a configuration as shown in Fig. what would the skin effect be? Assume that the proppant permeability. Reg~on lrnearconverglng of to radlal flow Figure 18-7 interference effects) must be balanced against the treatment execution and zonal isolation costs and the additional costs of drilling the horizontal well. .) 18-7... from Eq. then the corresponding width ratio would be. because of converging linear-to-radial flow. Assuming that the entry point is minimized to prevent fracture turning. Taking measures to avoid fracture width reduction because of turning may reduce this skin effect further. s. L.510 Evaluating the Performance of Fracturedand Long-Flowing Wells Chap. and therefore there is no reduction to the fracture width. (18-30) no fracture width reduction. and can be reduced further if the near-wellbore kf w is large. The converging linear-to-radial flow within the fracture would result in an additional .328) y) = 0. Solution From Eq. "Tailing-in" with high-conductivity or resin-coated proppants may accomplish the task. If the well is in the vertical center of a reservoir of thickness h.2 Transverse Fractures Intersecting a Horizontal Well The other limiting case is when the well is drilled in a direction normal to the expected fracture trajectory. The fracture permeability-width product kfw is 1000 md-ft. which can be added to the dimensionless pressure of the transient fracture response. 18 Sec. and is hydraul~cally Calculate the skin effect. 18-7 Performance of Fractured Horizontal Wells 511 Figure 18-6 Productivity index ratio between longitudinally fractured horizontal well and fractured vertical well. there exists a region of radius h/2 outside of which the flow in the fracture is linear. how many fractures are needed and of what size. The horizontal well is "notched" instead of perforated. is 100 ft. With the linear flow component from the reservoir into the fracture. with sc = (In The skin effect is small if kh is small. 18-7 can be expected. EXAMPLE 18-8 Skin effect calculation for a transverse fracture Assume that in a reservoir of k=l md and h=100 ft. Whether the transverse fracture configuration is attractive. If the well is perforated instead of "notched" and the perforated length is 200 ft. kf. this configuration could be described by the Cinco-Ley and Sarnaniego (1981a) solution..

The dimensionless for all cases. = lo-' 1 psi-'.. and B=l. Data $=0. for L. 1979. a horizontal well with a transverse fracture. The strategy is to process the data in such a way that they can be interpreted using conventional well testing techniques. and thus trends are sought that are visible even without the derivative. the latter would be 36 STB/d. Gladfelter et al. the permeability and the skin effect. identified by 114-slope straight line on the log-log plot. these data are used for history matching with a numerical simulator. the The fracture half-length. however. (18-2) and rearrangement. from Fig. ~ = cp. 2. EXAMPLE 18-9 Production rate from a horizontal well with a transverse fracture Using the data and the results of Example 18-8 and Ap=lM)Opsi. (2-52). 3.=100 ft and s. 18-1 can be used.m(pWf)llqfor gas. 18-1. Assume xf and calculate FcD. calculate the well production rate for a 1000-ft fracture halflength after 30 days. However. h=177 ft.512 Evaluatlng the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap. and they have been commonly used in decline curve analysis (described in Section 18-9).l res bblISTB. calculate + xf and compare with the assumed. 44. can also be estimated with a procedure is as follows: 1. Consider a fractured vertical well. 18 Sec. (See Example 18-1 for the expected onset of this behavior.=36. In the case of hydraulically fractured wells (and if the permeability is known). These data are routinely collected in almost all wells.] On the other side of the spectrum.5. EXAMPLE 18-10 Hydraulic fracture evaluation using production data Interpret the transient response derived from wellhead pressure and flow-rate data acquired on a monthly basis for a hydraulically fractured gas well in a low-permeability reservoir.9 x lo4 and. Therefore tDzf /CD/ = 1. Bottomhole pressures can be calculated using the methods presented in Chapter 7 and. pi=6742psi. These equations can be found in Table 11-3a (again omitting the factor q). Production data. 16-6. wellbore storage coefficient CDf is equal to Solution Since xf=lOOOft. However. Note that in fractured well performance the flow into a 0 well from outside is usually and justifiably ignored. Again the equation in Table 11-3a can be used but without the factor q. From Fig. The dimensionless time. but without the factor q. T=356"E required for the analysis are the following: rW=0. xf. From Eq. is.1 md) is likely to exhibit an infinite-conductivity fracture behavior. If half-slope behavior is evident earlier. obtain sf In(xf/rw).p$)lq and [m(pi) . and thus a log-log half-slope straight line may allow the determination of the fracture half-length.) The equation in Table 1I-3a could be used for this calculation. 1 5 8 lnterpretatlonof Surface Rate and Pressure Data 513 Substituting this value in the denominator of Eq. and a horizontal well with atransverse fracturebut with Lp=lOOft. (1955) have shown that rate-normalized pressures versus time approximate the pressure behavior that would be observed under constant rate. For a hydraulically fractured well in a relatively higher-permeability reservoir (k > 1 md). a finite-conductivity fracture behavior is likely and therefore the kf w product can be obtained from the portion of the data exhibiting bilinear flow. Fetkovich and Vienot. tDxf. if quarter-slope behavior is observed. [From Eq. representing a 19%reduction. p~=1. 18-8 lNTERPRETATlONOF SURFACE RATEAND PRESSURE DATA This section demonstrates the use of surface production and pressure data as a practical alternative to downhole well testing. 1984) have used rate-normalized pressure data for the determination of reservoir parameters. This result demonstrates the need for the minimization of the perforated interval for 0 such a stimulation treatment.54ft. 1965. This flow rate is also less than the flow rate that an unfractured horizontal well of length Lp would produce.1. . If the reservoir permeability is not known.1. (18-3). resulting from the presence of the hydraulic fracture can be obtained. then the fracture half-lengthcan be determined and the analysis is complete. from Eq. a very low-permeability formation (k < 0. Since sf is already obtained from the pseudo-radial flow interpretation. In its simplest form this function is (pi . the production rate from a fracture vertical well is From each transverse fracture in a horizontal well (infinite-acting reservoir with no intrafractureinterference). the FcD=l and Fig.=36. once these pressures are calculated. A number of authors (Jargon and van Poollen. From a semilogarithmic straight line. then it is necessary that pseudo-radial flow be observed in the transient response.pwf)/q for oil or (pj? . (18-30) would lead to an extremely large s. Economides et al. c. are frequently too noisy to differentiate successfully. the flow from the fracture is which represents a 96% reduction from the unhindered fracture flow. bottomhole rates can be determined readily by simply multiplying the surface rate by the corresponding formation volume factor. sf.

which compares well with the value expected for wells drilled with 40-acre spacing. Bottomhole pressures computed using the standard Cullender and Smith technique explained in Chapter 7 are shown as BHP in Fig. as shown in Fig.(p) value is divided by the flow rate corresponding to the same month. pg=0. 0 . there is no pseudo-radial flow. Figure 18-8 Wellhead production rate. Solution To proceed with the analysis. Using the gas gravity and impurities.216. Analysis of the pseudo-steady-state response in late time gives a drainage radius of approximately 600 fi. Without the pseudo-radial flow regime. each Am. 18-8. m. Am. rate-normalized pressure. On this plot. Bottomhole flow rates are computed using formation volume factors computed for the bottomhole pressure values. and wells are drilled on an approximate 40-acre spacing. Z=1. Wellhead pressure and flow-rate data are shown as WHP and WHF in Fig. for each point. corresponding to pseudo-linear flow to the fracture. the RNP and RNP derivative data both show a half-slope trend initially. An appropriate model for the transient behavior is determined from a log-log diagnostic plot of RNP and its derivative. and calculated bonomhole pressure for Example 18-10. Since the derivative response is never constant (flat). it is apparent that a conventional pressure buildup test lasting up to 1 month would see the pseudo-linear flow regime in late time. The formation permeability is estimated at 0. reservoir temperature. 18 Sec. and a unit-slope trend in late time. this provides a fracture half-length of 600 ft. This provides the Figure 18-9 Diagnostic plot for Example 18-10 indicating the presence of a high-conductivityfrac. 18-8.1 md. Since the first data point corresponds to 1 month of production.852.(p). The RNP can be treated as transient pressure in the analysis. The slope of the plot of RNP versus the square root of the elapsed production time as shown in Fig. the plots usedfor analysis appear with arangeof values approximately l i e the bottomhole pressures. and the average psi-'. hue and boundary effects. Using the estimated reservoir permeability of 0. and c. corresponding to pseudo-steady state. 18-9.04 cp. RNP.016. Otherwise. the wellhead production data must first be converted to bottomhole pressure and flow-rate data. Since the initial flow rate is 0. With this normalization. the plotted values would be approximately like the bottomhole pressures squared. (p) for the analysis. is determined for each computed BHP value.5 x loW5 hole pressure is transformed to normalized real-gas pseudo-pressure. mole% C02=0.1 md.13. Each bottomcomputed bottomhole pressure. the change in the normalized real-gas potential. 18-8 Interpretation of Surface Rate and Pressure Data 515 yg=0. = 5. Using the initial reservoir pressure.. wellhead pressure. mole% N2=0. 18-10 is used to determine kx. the reservoir permeability cannot be determined directly.514 Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap.

18-9. Since almost all production data can be fitted approximately with a semilog straight line. and finally. (18-40) has been used for a large number of wells. it is still in wide use and may be an alternative well performance evaluation methodology in those locations where more sophisticated techniques are uneconomical or unavailable. Eq. (18-42) becomes simply q-' = Kt + q. coupled with modem formation evaluation. leads to A traditional. 18-9 Decline Curve Analysis 517 sumption for normal production. phenomenological means of well production study and forecast of performance is decline curve analysis." + q. (18-37) becomes amd after rearrangement it can be integrated between time 0 and t with corresponding flow rates qi and 9 . and for the special case where n=l. It should be emphasized here that modem single-welltransient analysis and numerical simulation. (18-42)] can be used to fit data that do not form an apparent straight line on a semilog plot. 18 Sec. For hyperbolic decline. However. n=O. Under the sometimes tenuous assumption that the well flow performance will continue to obey the same mathematical function. Under constant flowing pressure.2 Hyperbolic Decline Equation (18-37). 0 < n < 1. (18-43) should be considered as a special case of Eq. For constant fractional decline (exponential decline). Equation (18-39) leads to q = 4ie-Kt (18-40) A semilogarithmic plot of log q versus t would form a straight line with a slope equal to -K/2. it forms a semilogarithmicstraight line when log q is graphed versus time. render decline curve analysis obsolete. After n and . 18-9. as will be shown below. Arps (1945) has presented several mathematical expressions that can be used in well flow rate decline analysis. rearranged and integrated between qi and q and 0 and t . a forecast of future performance can be performed.' Equation (18-42) [Eq. Eq.3.3 Harmonic Decline For n = 1. the exponential decline has been used extensively. the general expression for rate versus time is suggested to obey dqldt = -Kq" (18-37) 4 where K and n are constants. Eq. There is little fundamental justification to this method except empirical evidence that well performance data can be fitted with certain type functions. the decline is called harmonic. Of these cases. q-" = n Kt 18-9.51 6 Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap.1 Constant Fractional Decline (Exponential Decline) For n=O. which is a reasonable as- Figure 18-10 Specializedsquare-root-of-timeplot for Example 18-10. because.

(18-46) results in AN = 8. (18-40) or Eq.5)(365) 1 (1 8-47) ForwellB. 18 Sec. Eq.(-3. calculate the projected rate at the end of 1995.5 yr). = q dt = 2300 S (9. solution of Eq. can be described by the exponentialdecline expression. 18-9 Decline Curve Analysis (9. Eq.7 x (with t in years) or K = 7 .5) 650 STB/d = Figure 18-11 Decline curves for wells A and B (Example 18-11).5 yr) would be simply (converting t in days) . The slope (with t in years) is -5. (18-42) can be used to forecast the well performance at a future time t.5)(365). EXAMPLE 18-11 Decline analysis and forecast of future performance Using the production performance for wells A and B in Table 18-1. exhibiting straight-linebehavior. the decline expression is [after Eq.133)(9. (18-42)] Observed Production Rates for Wells A and B (Example 18-11) Date Well A q (STBld) Well B q (STBld) After t=9.133 yr-'. fit ofthe dataresults inn=0.5)(365) e-3. 4 ~ (with t in days). The initial production rates were the ones recorded on 711986. Thus. (18-45) With t in days. (18-48) results in q = 42 STBW.5 yr) and 1211995 (9.65~10-')(9.5 and K = 2.7 x lo5 STB (3.. Solution Figure 18-11 is a semilog plot of the observed declines of wells A and B. The expression providing the well production versus time is then 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time (yr) At the end of 1995 (t=9. Well A.518 Evaluating the Performance of Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap.5)(365) 519 K are obtained.8 x and therefore K=0. Also calculate the incremental cumulative production from 111992 to 1211995.2065) Integration of Eq. the production rate would be q = 2300e-(0.65~10-4)(6.5 yr. (18-48) becomes The incremental cumulative production from 111993 (6. Table 18-1 AN.65x10-41 dt (18-46) (6.

5. J. M.. McLeman. H. M.. "Analysis of Decline Curves:'Trans. 3. Develop a "folds" of increase versus time plot of an unfractured and fractured gas.1 res bbVSTB. ~ B=1. I was equal to 3. H... M. kf w=1000md-ft.... J.. G. If in a reservoir with I. and pi -pwf =1000psi. August 1965.l res bbl/STB. and Heinemann. "A Parametric Comparison of Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance.. (1 8-50) 18-5. 418426.... August 1974. and Ramey. 18 Problems 521 and after integration.7 10-~)t 0. Ramey.=100 ft and kfw values one-third of the given. Gladfelter. Calculate the required horizontal well length to . Calculate the incremental cumulative production for each of these years. E. K. J. Nolte. pp. andxf =1000ft. J. The price of oil is $20/STB." SPEFE. Economides. Brown. Arps. R. c . 347-360. 2211-2224. J. M.i=l and h=100 ft it is contemplated to drill a 2000-ft horizontal well (rw=0. 4. Economides. Roegiers. Economides and K. and Mannetti. and Wilsey. REFERENCES 1.~ psi-'.02531-~ (6.. J. In Example 18-7. June 1991.. B=l. Mukherjee. 14. H. A.. M.E. Cinco-Ley. Miller. H. 1955. J. "Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells:' in ReservoirStimulation.5)(365) + 18-4..i=l and 0. What is the likely perforated interval in each zone to deliver such a flow rate? 18-8. D=10-4 (MSCF/d)-'. h e x f =500ft andkf w=2000 md-ft.5 and 9. M. "Fracturing of a Deviated Well:'SPEFE. and Economides. D. December 1991. J. Y. and Economides. 429-437.1987. Z. G. Tracy. The following well production history was observed. Jargon. NJ. 18-9.E. ~ .." JPT. "Observationsand Recommendations in the Evaluation of Tests of HydraulicallyFractured Wells:' SPE Paper 16396. Calculate the linear-to-radial convergence skin effect.h=90 ft. pp. Fetkovich.M. and kfw=lOOO md-ft. Use all variables as in Problem 18-1 but with k=10 md. J. @=0.."JPT. J. "Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells. AN^ = 1 3. Useasabasecaseafracturedvertical well withk=l md. pp. pp. Forecast the production rate at the end of years 7 through 10.E. G. Gringarten. L. 965-972. Economides. Brigham. C. 1945.1. Jr. and Economides. 10. and the time value of money is 25%..2nd ed. 209-216. 117-129.wel1 as in Appendix C. use C=10-3 bbl/psi. G. Chap. Barelli.. C. i compete with the same fracture in the vertical well but in a reservoir where I. F. xf =500 ft.' SPE Paper 24322. Calculate the production rate after 30 days if C=10-3 bbl/psi. @=0. E. W. What would be the forecast of well production rate at 9. "Selecting Wells Which Will Respond to ProductionStimulation Treatment:'Driil. 18-6. F. Assuming that no appreciable interference among the fractures will be observed in the first year. Repeat Problems 18-1 and 18-2 but with a choked fracture with x. 6. W E.. Consider a fractured well with k=l md.. What would be the difference if only the history of the first 4 years were to be considered? 18-10. J. J. J. Brand. Cinco-Ley. R. xf=lOOO. M. What observations can be made? 18-2. . pp. Make any reasonable assumptions.25. pp. Dallas. eds.5 years if the "best" straight line were to be drawn through the data of well B of Example 18-11. Englewood Cliffs. pp. AIME. 2. = 1 0 .1989.... and Samaniego. W. 11. H. and Vienot. and kf w=5000 md-ft. 1979. "Unsteady State Pressure Distributions Created by a Well with a Single-InfiniteConductivityVertical Fracture:' SPEJ.. Production Rate Year (STBM) 1100 hi) 980 867 769 684 609 543 PROBLEMS 18-1. s. 18-7. "Rate Normalization of Buildup Pressure by Using Afterflow Data:' JPT..000mdft and xf=lOOO ft and also with kf w=2000 md-ft but xf=2000 ft. and Samaniego. Prac. 1749-1766.. J. Deimbacher.1992. "InfluenceFunctions and Their Applicationto Geothermal Well Testing:' GRC Trans. API. M..- 520 Evaluating the Performanceof Fractured and Long-Flowing Wells Chap. and pi .328 ft). J. Comment on the relative impact of the choked fractures as a function of the reservoir permeability. 7. A horizontal well is transversely hydraulically fractured with five equally spaced treatments. A. and van Poollen. September 1981a. 9. 12. E. In addition.1. Repeat the calculation with kf w=10.pwf=lOOOpsi. November 1988.5 years and the cumulative production between 6. J. What would be the effect of reducing kf w to 2500 md-ft but increasing xf to 1000 ft? 18-3.. A transversely fractured horizontal well produced 100 STBM from each fracture. 13. Prentice Hall. C... thus assuming exponential instead of hyperbolic decline? Compare these results with those in Example 18-11."SPEFE. "An Analysis of Hydraulically Fractured Horizontal Wells. Cinco-Ley. 160: 228-247. h=90 ft. F. Assume that kf w=2550 md-ft and xf=1500 ft. H.. = ~ O -psi-'. p=1 cp. Consider Example 18-9...-C. fi=1 cp. 19. develop a series of combinations of xf and FCD a fractured vertical in well to deliver the same productivity index.. 1981b.. December 1984. Yew. 3: 177-180.. "Transient Pressure Analysis: Finite Conductivity Fracture Case versus Damage Fracture Case:' SPE Paper 10179. . and Prod.5)(365) f(3. A.. pp.7 x 10-5 (9. "Unit Response Functions from Varying-Rate Data. estimate the net present value of the incremental revenue from these treatments. coefficient. Use a non-Darcy . Jr. and Li. "Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance.. 8. X.

. The other is mechanical lift. large amounts of gas injected into the well will affect the separation facilities at the top. Other valves may be placed below the injection point and may be put into service during the life of the well as the reservoir pressure declines or if the water-oil ratio increases. a blowup of a gas-lift valve. The positioning of the gas-lift valves and their number is a matter of wellbore hydraulics optimization. gas is injectedcontinuouslyor intermittentlyat selected location(s). and the associated surface process equipment. First. Two other considerationsmust enter the design. Figure 19-1 is a schematic of a typical gas-lift system showing the well. an " operating valve" will be used to inject the appropriate amount of gas at the desirable tubing pressure at the injection point. The purpose is to bring the fluids to the top at a desirable wellhead pressure while keeping the bottomhole pressure at a value that is small enough to provide good driving force in the reservoir. If the bottomhole flowing pressure is smaller than the tubing pressure difference caused by a fluid with a given flowing gradient. First a liquid slug must be built in the tubing above the bottom valve. both a single injection point and multiple injectionpoints can be employed. and it will be discussed in Chapter 20. This pressure drawdown must not violate restrictions for sand control and water or gas coning. and thus reducing the hydrostatic component of the pressure difference from the bottom to the top of the well.C H A P T E R 19 Gas Lift In Chapter 8 the relationship between tubing and inflow performance led to the well deliverability. resulting in a reduction in the natural flowing gradient of the reservoir fluid. For continuous gas lift. Second. there exists a limit gasliquid ratio (GLR) above which the pressure difference in the well will begin to increase because the reduction in the hydrostatic pressure will be offset by the increase in the friction pressure. then gas lift may be employed. Gas lift is one method of artificial lift. For gas lift. For intermittent gas lift. Then.

this gradient is not constant throughout the depth of the well. Then. Example 7-10 (and associated Fig. (1980). (19-5) results in (dp/dz). and then the valve closes.3 is the pressure gradient for the GLR=300 SCFISTB curve (from Fig.and three-phase oil wells. displacing the liquid slug upward. 7-16) between depths of 4000 and 8000 ft. 7-16) the required GLR would be 450 SCFISTB.gas at a rate q. 7-16. Equation (19-1) can be rewritten in terms of the flowing pressure gradient in the well. 7-16) showed a typical calculation. It reopens when a new liquid slug builds in the bottom of the well. what should be the working GLR. is the pressure traverse and is a function of the flow rate. (19-2) is considered constant. the valve opens. Thus. therequiredflowingbottomhole pressure would be 1900 psi. is a function of depth. In addition to the . (19-1) Ptf A~trav Pwf = + where Ap. (dpldz). 7-16. Now for the altemative option. The valve remains open until the slug reaches the top. the gradient can usually be considered as largely constant for common well depths (w 10. valves below the slug open. Valves can open and close based on the value of the casing or the tubing pressure. simply. For each production rate. The methodology was outlined in Chapter 7 and especially in Section 7-4. Other valves may be operated on the basis of the fluid level. The valves close after the slug reaches the top. and the properties and compositionof the fluid. I 9 Sec. No fluid in this well can provide such a low flowing gradient. If the indicated bottomhole pressure is 1500psi. but as the liquid slug moves upward. For intermediate values. EXAMPLE 19-1 Calculation of required GLR and gas-lift rate Suppose the well described in Example 7-10 (with q0=400STB/d and q. where 0. should be the pressure gradient above the injection point.=0. Therefore. these calculations result in gradient curves for a range of GLRs. Solution of Eq.000 ft). Suppose that the natural GLR (subscripted 1) would result in a pressure traverse requiring an unacceptably large pwf.524 Gas Lift Chap. As can be seen from Fig. the bottom valve opens as described for the singleinjection-point operation.=400 STB/d) is in a reservoir where H=8000 ft and GLR=300 SCFISTB. where dpldz in Eq. and how much gas should be injected at the bottom of the well? Would it be possible to inject (instead) at 4000 ft and still produce the same liquid rates? What would be the GLR above this alternative injection point? Solution At 8000ft andGLR=300SCFISTB (seeFig. for a more desirable pwf. instead. the GLR. Pressure differences are graphed against depth. 19-2 Natural versus Artificial Flowing Gradient 525 Gas Compressor produced For a given flowing wellhead pressure. from Eq.05 psilft. Thus. The actuation of the valves for intermittent gas lift can be done with a timing device or can depend on the pressure. (19-2) it can be written that 19-2 NATURAL VERSUS ARTIFICIAL FLOWING GRADIENT In Chapter 7 a number of correlations were introduced for pressure traverse calculations in two. dpldz is not constant but. Since the indicated pressure is 1500 psi. which is not possible as shown in Fig. If the rate is 91. the depth. the required bottomhole pressure can be calculated. then (again from Fig. For small values (< 100) or relatively large values (> 1500) of GLR.then Figure 19-1 Gas-lift concept and gas-lift valves. For multiple injection points. (19-3). From Eq. A detailed discussion of the operating details of these valves can be found in Brown et al. 7-16).4. would lead to a higher GLR (subscripted 2).

as can be calculated readily from Eq. = pwf=lOOOpsi? [The average reservoir pressure. Hinj. the position in the tubing where the downholepressure of the injected gas is equal to the pressure in the tubing. Solution Trial and error is required for this calculation. that is. The actual point of injection is placed a few hundred feet higher to account for the pressure drop across the gas lift value. and well flow rate Suppose that the well at a depth of 8000 ft and a GLR=300 SCFISTB (as in Example 19-1) drains a reservoir with an IPR given by (19-11) 0 - which agrees well with the assumed value. 19-3. 19 Sec. (19-12). 4-2).j. Assume that pi. ~ ~ + & ~ " dH=O p =- where the pressures are in psi and Hbj is in feet. can be useful for first design approximations.. 19-3that (dp/dz)b=0.86 and therefore p. The higher the required wellhead pressure. Figure 19-2 shows the concept of continuous gas lift in terms of the pressure values.33 psilft for GLR=300S W T B between H=5000 and 8000ft. Eq.1 Point of Gas Injection If Eq.~. 19-2 is the balance point... 28. ~ . the reservoir fluids would ascend only to the point indicated by the projection of the pressure profile in the well.j=llOOpsi.526 Gas Lifl Chap. P.~.. Note from Fig. the lower the flowing gradient should be.73 psi ft3/ib-mole-OR. since the actual downhole injection pressure can be calculated readily with a simple computer program that considers the actual annulus geometry and accounts for both friction and hydrostatic pressure components. In current practice this type of approximationis usually not necessary.. 19-3 Pressure of Injected Gas 527 Wificial GLR. The gas constant R is equal to 10. From Chapter 4 (Fig. (7-15)].Ap. From the real-gas law. pi.7)(8WO)I(0. and depth of injection. EXAMPLE 19-3 Relating gas iniection pressure. point of iniection. The value of this pressure drop will be supplied by the manufacturer. Use Ap. calculate the pressure at the injection point.7 (to air) is injected at 8000 ft and if p.01875)(0.e.01875~~. With the availableflowing bottomhole pressure and the natural flowing gradient (dp/dz)b.would create two zones in the well: one below.. temperature is in OR. ignoring changes in kinetic energy and the friction pressure drop in the casing (i. with a flowing pressure gradient ( d p l d ~ ) and one above.. (19-8) is expanded as a Taylor series and if common fluid properties for a . Apvalve.*=900 psi. (dpldz). Addition of gas at the injection point would lead to a marked alteration of the pressure gradient (dpldz). Thus. TSd=8OoFand T. . (19-8) or its approximation. ~ = 0 . (19-7) into Eq. and the pressure within the tubing must be balanced for gas to enter the tubing at the injection point. 2=0. .=39OoRand therefore (900 + 1100)/2 = (19-9) Ppr = 668 and From Fig.97 is the molecular weight of air. The point of gas injection. (19-6) and integration (using average values of 2 and f)results in 0. though. with a flowing pressure gradient ~.97~~ ZRT where y is the gas gravity to air and 28../?? (19-8) Pinj = Psurfe EXAMPLE 19-2 Injection-point pressure If gas of y=0. This pressure is related to the surface pressure as shown by Eq.)] What should be the point of gas injection for a production rate of 500 STB/d? Figure 19-3is the tubing performancecurve for q1=500STBId with 50%water and 50%oil. natural gas and reservoir are considered such as y=0. The Substitution of Eq. pp. well depth. is 3050 psi for ql=800 STBId. This relationship was offered first by Gilbert (1954). two other variables must be reconciled-the possible gas injection pressure and the required compressor power demand. 19-3 PRESSURE INJECTED OF GAS From the mechanical energy balance [Eq. The p q in the production tubing must be reduced by an additional 100 to 150 psi for the pressure drop across the gas-lift valve.j.86)(580)= 1110 1"J It should be obvious that the downhole gas injection pressure. 4-1. These will be outlined below. This would leave a partially filled wellbore.=668 psi and TP. relatively small gas flow rates) and changing into oilfield units. pressuregradients.=lOO psi.(19-14. which would lift the fluids to the surface. which is a function of both the gas injection rate and 0 pressure.900e(0.7. pi. Equation (19-12).=160°F. 9and T=600R. then Pinj Psud 1 ( +4ZOO) What should be the surface gas injection pressure if the gas-lift valve is at the bottom of the well and phi . . Also marked on Fig.

For ql=500 STB/d.528 Gas Lifl Chap. Therefore the gas injection from Eq. 19-4)... the phi at Hi. (19-3) would be qg = 2 x lo4 SCFId.= 1770 psi 0. Finally. then from the IPR relationship [Eq.39 (19-16) The injection point must be where the pressure between the injected gas and the pressure in the production string must be balanced. is pi3 = 915 (1 + -) " 1040 psi (19-18) Inside the tubing the pressure is 940 psi. (19-14)]. (19-12) and rearrangement and noting that pi.~. 19 Figure 19-2 Continuous gas lift with pressures and pressure gradients versus depth.=lOO psi. Thus. and therefore Hinj=5490ft. The intersect between p=940 psi and Hip5490 is at GLR=340 SCFISTB (see Fig. since Apv. 0 . 500 pwf = 3050 . Solution From Eq.j=llOO psi..

Sustaining of Oil Rate 531 Pressure [psi] EXAMPLE 19-4 Calculation of gas-lift compressor horsepower Suppose that the gas injection rate is 1.600.d is 1330 psi. 4 h h p x (19-20) 0 Figure 19-4 can be used to investigate the effect of increasing the gas injection rate. 19-5 Increase of Gas Injection Rate. Figure 19-4 Point of gas injection.33 psilft (GLR=300 SCFISTB). First.l ] = 1 8 . p. Thus for a given gas injection rate in a well and the surface pressure. (19-19). 19-4. the wellhead pressure is 100 psi.f will necessarily decrease. This can be accomplishedby lowering the injection point and by increasing the gas injection rate. 19-4represents a gas-lift graph. pi. )~ then p. and it will be addressed in the next section. the following table can be constructed from the intersection of the gas and pressure traverse curves: GLR 500 600 700 Injection Point 6250 6800 7050 Pressure at lnjection Point 960 psi 970 psi 975 psi where pi. EXAMPLE 19-5 Effect of injection rate and injection point on the flowing bottomhole pressure Assuming that Fig. is the inlet compressor pressure. is 100 psi.. as Hhj increases [with the associated smaller ( d p l d ~ )and since ~] ( d p l d ~remains constant within a smaller interval H .the flowing bottomhole pressure must be lowered. HHP = 2. the calculated horsepower would be an important variable in gas-lift optimization design. Therefore larger oil production rates are likely to be achieved with higher GLR and a lower injection point. and the compressor inlet pressure. Similarly. . Calculate the horsepower requirements. The flowing gradient below the injection point is 0. respectively. increasing the gas injection rate allows the injection at a lower point in the tubing without increasing the injection pressure. Intersection of gas injection pressure with gradient curves (Ex ample 19-3). and therefore increasing the GLR in the wellbore. Solution From Eq. and 700 SCFISTB. This has a limit. calculate the flowing bottomhole pressure at 8000 ft for the injection points described by the intersection of the gas injection curve and the pressure traverse curves for GLR values equal to 500. I9 Sec.Hinj.2 x 10' SCFId.Gas Lift Chap..23 x 10-~(1. Also.tosustain aproductionrate whilethereservoirpressuredepletes. Solution From Fig.2 lo5) [ ( ~ ~ . (19-13). From Eq.

these lower bottomhole pressures would lead to larger oil production rates. 1366. there exists a limit value of GLR referred to here as "limit" (Golan and Whitson. the gas injection rate is This injection rate is more than 10 times the gas injection rate calculated in Example 19-3. 0 minimum. leading to Hinj=7120 From Fig. 19-4 describes approximately the pressure traverse of flow rates larger than 500 STBM. equal to 590. 19-4 and the data of Example 19-5 for the analysik.600. Assuming that Fig.the GLR must be equal to 750 SCF/STB. (19-14) in Example 19-3 describes the IPR for this well. respectively. (19-14). and 687 STB/d.39 The injection point must then be obtained from the solution of ft. Solution From Eq. Finally.. (19-12) using pSu6=915 and subtracting 100 psi across the gas-lift valve.f = 2550 . As discussed already. (19-14) and rearrangement if p=2550 psi (500 psi less than the original 3050 psi). for GLRs equal to 500. the limit GLR is approximately equal to 4000 SCF/STB. the well flowing pressure gradient is a combination of the hydrostatic pressure head and the friction pressure drop.-= 1268 psi (19-22) 0. 657. For GLR values that are larger than the . If Eq.532 Gas Lift Chap. respectively. have referred to it as "favorable") GLR. The values of the GLR have been selected to be large enough to observe the behavior reversal at the limit GLR value. The injection point is also deeper: from 5490 to 7120 ft. For this example. Figure 19-5 represents pressure traverse calculations for a specific liquid production rate (ql=800 STBId) in a given tubing size. 0 19-6 MAXIMUM PRODUCTION WITH GASLIFT RATE As stated in the introduction to this chapter. the flowing gradient begins to increase. Therefore the bottomhole psi pressure can be calculated readily by where pinjis the pressure at the injection point. continued GLR increase would lead to a disproportionate increase in the friction pressure. and 700 SCFJSTB. and 1288 psi. 1991. Pressure [psi] EXAMPLE 19-6 Sustaining a production rate while the reservoir pressure depletes Repeat Example 19-3 with the IPR described by Eq. Where should the injection point be after the reservoir pressure drops by 500 psi? What should be the gas injection rate to sustain a liquid production rate equal to 500 STBJd? Use Fig. Substitutingthe values for P. While increase of the GLR from small values would result in fluid density reduction with modest friction pressures. 19-6 Maximum Production Rate With Gas ~ i f t 533 The pressures at the injection points shown above are obtained from Eq. Thus the limit GLR is that value at which the increase in friction pressure will offset the decrease in the hydrostatic pressure. which would be required at the reservoir pressure of 3050 psi.f equal to 1538. then the lower bottomhole pressures (using b=3050 psi as in Example 19-3) would result in q. where the flowing pressure gradient is minimum.~and the corresponding Hinjresults in p. 19-4 at Hkj=7120 ft and (calculated)pjnj=980psi. 500 p. 19 Sec.

of course. Intersecting this IPR curve is the optimum gas-lift performance curve of minimum flowing bottomhole pressures (minimum pressure intake curve). A plot of the gas injection rate versus the production rate is the gas-lift performance curve. Solution Figure 19-11 is a graph of the intersection of the IPR and the optimum gas-lift performance curve. for each liquid production rate there exists a limit GLR where the minimum p. Figure 19-6 is for a smaller liquid production rate (qr=500STB/d) in the same size well.534 Gas Lift Chap. Figure 19-12 is the gas-lift performance curve for this well. 19 Sec. (19-3). This performance curve will change with time. 0 . The gas-lift GLR minus the natural GLR times the liquid production rate is the required gas injection rate as shown by Eq. For later times a new gas-lift performance curve will be in effect. the gas injection rate could be larger or smaller. Each gas-lift performance curve in the vicinity of the maximum production rate will result in a larger pressure intake and therefore lower production. as will be shown in Example 19-12. (1953). the locus of the points corresponding to the limit GLR for each production rate. p. For production rates other than the maximum. will be dealt with in Section 19-8. This is shown conceptually in Fig. A larger well size would lead to a larger limit GLR. 19-7 Gas-Lift Performance Curve 535 The limit GLR increases as the production rate decreases. (19-14) (Example 19-3)and a well at 8000 ftdepth whose gradient curves for 800 and 500 STBId were given in Figs. that is. Maximum production rate is 825 STBId.f will be obtained is rarely the natural GLR of the reservoir fluids. which corresponds to a limit GLR of 3800 SCFJSTB (gradient curves are not shown for this rate).f will be observed. 19-7 can be drawn. and the natural GLR is 300 SCFISTB.the gas injection rate for the maximum production rate of 825 STBId and limit GLR=3800 SCFISTB is Figure 19-6 Large GLR values and limit GLR for ql = 500 STBId. is 3050 psi. as always. 19-10. 19-5 and 19-6. Thus it can be reached only through artificial gas lift. develop a gas-lift performance curve assuming that the gas injection valves are at the bottom of the well. EXAMPLE 19-7 Development of gas-lift performance curve With the IPR curve described by Eq. From Eq. Optimized gas-lift performance would have an important difference from natural well performance. and for each production rate they correspond to the limit GLR. a larger gas injection rate. introduced the "gas-lift performance curve:' which has been used extensively in the petroleum industry ever since. appropriate production engineering must take into account these concepts before the well is completed. In this example the limit GLR is approximately 7000 SCFISTB. Other values of GLR above or below the limit GLR will result in smaller production rates. While the above apply to an already completed well. balancing benefits and costs. in developing design procedures for gas-lift systems. characterizes the ability of the reservoir to deliver certain combinations of production rates and flowing bottomhole pressures. This limit GLR for which the minimum p. This is shown in Fig. Pressure [psi] 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Poettmann and Carpenter (1952) and Bertuzzi et al. a plot similar to the one shown in Fig. These design issues. with. (19-3). where the maximum production rate corresponds to the gas injection rate for the limit GLR. Based on the information presented in the previous section. In summary. The IPR curve. The average reservoir pressure. 19-8. This graph corresponds to an instant in time in the life of the reservoir. Thus. the intersection of the LPR curve with the intake curves from various GLR values in a given tubing can be depicted as shown in Fig. 19-9.

.q.q. Limit GLR corresponds to maximum ql. Figure 19-7 P R and optimum gas-lift performance (at limit GLR) GLR Figure 19-9 Liquid production rate versus GLR. 1 I Gas Injection Rate. T m e dependency. Larger or smaller values of GLR will result in smaller production rates. Figure 19-8 Maximum production rate is at the limit GLR. Liquid Rate.Liquid Rate. qg Figure 19-10 Gas-lift performance curve.

is 3. though. (19-26). (STBId) Figure 19-12 Gas-lift performancecurve (Example 19-7). from Eq.22 Limit GLR 7000 SCFISTB Limit GLR 4000 SCFISTB If.-= 780 psi = (19-27) 0. q. ~ 3050 . From Fig..- 2. 19-7 Gas-Lifl Performance Curve EXAMPLE 19-8 Near-wellbore damage and gas lift Suppose that wellbore damage (s x +9) would reduce the IF'R curve used in Examples 19-3 and 19-7 to (19-26) qi = 0. 1000 GLR =. The point of intersection is at ql=500 STB/d.then the GLR would be 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Liquid Production Rate. then. the gas injection rate for the undamaged well were maintained (q.d (19-28) Figure 19-1 1 IPR and optimum gas lift (Example 19-7). 500 p . .35 x lo6 SCFId..Sec. Figure 19-13 Wellbore damage and its effect on gas-lift performance(Example 19-8).5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Liquid Production Rate.5 3 Gas Injection Rate. (STEM) GLR = % q 1 and therefore + (GLR). qg (MMSCFId) 3. = 2. the gas injection rate.P ~ J ) what would be the maximum production rate and the associated gas-lift requirements? Solution Figure 19-13 shows the new IPR curve and its intersection with the optimum gaslift curve.. If q1=500STBM. 19-12 (done for Example 19-7) at 500 STB/d..22(P .89 x lo6 SCF/d for q. = 825 STB/d-see Example 19-7). q. qg.89 x lo6 500 + 300 = 6100 SCF/STB 0 2.

19-14.134 = $1220/d. This would tend to reduce the production rate further. If the cost of gas injection is $O. Incremental benefits between this and the 1 x 105 SCFld rate are Aql x ($/STB) = (660-615) x 30 = $1350/d. Figure 19-14 Production with gas lift with unlimited and limited gas injection rate (Example 19-9). on the price of oil. In addition to qg = 5 x lo4 SCF/d. of course. is indicated always. The results are shown in Table 19-1. for example. Solution If only a gas injection rate of 5 x lo4 SCFId is available. (19-12). Intersections with the IPR curve would lead to the expected production rates and flowing bottomhole pressures. and natural GLR=300 SCFISTB. and any production-induced damage should 0 be removed periodically to allow optimum well performance. from Eq.7.540 Gas Lift Chap. = 5 x lo5 SCFId. 19 Sec. EXAMPLE 19-9 Limited eas s u ~ ~ leconomics of gas lift v: In Example 19-8 the required gas injection rate for maximum production was the one corresponding to the limit GLR. An economic comparison between the various options is made below considering the 5 x lo4 SCFId injection rate as a base case. This would assume unlimited gas supply. are also drawn. the horsepower requirements are calculated (using pi. the two other curves.curve is shown in Fig. develop a simple economic analysis (benefits minus costs) versus available gas rate. Incremental costs are AHHP x 24x ($/HHP. It depends heavily on local costs and. respectively. 19-7 Gas-Lift Performance Curve 541 It can be calculated readily that at GLR=6100 SCF/STB and H=8000 ft the flowing bottomhole pressure would be 810 psi rather than 780 psi. the incremental production rate cannot compensate for the incremental compression and separation costs. Finally. (19-19). incremental benefits are $2900/d. the cost of separation is $l/(MSCF/d). Use the IPR curve for Example 19-3. Similarly. then if. for the limit GLR (q. repeat the well deliverability calculation for 0. and the price of oil is $30/STB. (STBId) + (19-30) From Fig. = 2. like everything else in production engineering. It is then evident that matrix stimulation must be a continuous concern of the production engineer. This example also shows that optimized gas lift not only cannot offset wellbore damage but will require a larger gas injection rate (larger GLR) to lift the maximum possible liquid production rate. the surface pressure can be calculated (assuming 100 psi pressure drop across the valve). 0 Table 19-1 Well Performance with Unlimited and Limited Gas Injection Rates qg (SCFld) ql (STBId) PWJ (psi) P S U ~ (psi) HHP EXAMPLE 19-10 Tubing size versus gas-lift requirements The IPR for a high-capacity reservoir with producing water-oil ratio equal to 1 is . Similar calculations can be done with the gradient curves for other flow rates. that is. With the help of Eq.89 x lo6).5 . corresponding to 1 and 5 x lo5 SCF/d. (19-8)] 104 GLR = . The resulting gas-lift performance .300 = 400 SCFISTB 500 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Liquid Production Rate.S/HHP-hr. This type of calculation. the incremental benefits are -$720/d. q. for q. and 5 x lo5 SCF/d gas injection (14. especially. Finally. Since this is frequently not the case.5)(24)(0. 19-3 at GLR4OO SCF/STB. p=3050 psi. ql=500 STB/d. 1.5) = $84/d and Aqg x $l/MSCF = [(I x lo5) (5 x 10~)1(1/1000)= $50/d.=lOO psi). the GLR would be [from Eq. It should be remembered always that for a given production rate there is always one specific limit GLR. the flowing bottomhole pressure (with p t f =I00 psi) is 1500 psi. Therefore the incremental benefits are 1350 .

Figures 19-15. . Solution If q=2000 STB/d. at H=8000 ft and pwJ=1610psi. is 3550 psi and the natural GLR is 300 SCFISTB.. from Eq. the required gas injection rate. (19-31).. an order of magnitude smaller. (Example 19-10). From Fig.. must be 2000(800-300) = 1 x lo6 SCFId. as can be seen readily from Fig. respectively) in order to produce 2000 STBId of liquid. 19-7 Gas-Lift Performance Curve 543 If the average reservoir pressure. This calculation shows the importance of the tubing size selection (and the associated economics of well completion) versus gas-lift requirements (i. p.. the natural GLR would be sufficient to lift the liquid production rate if the tubing diameter is 4.~.5 in. 19-16 (for the 3. the required GLR for the same H and p l would be W only 350SCF/STB and therefore thegas injection rate would beonly 2000(350-300) = 1 x lo5 SCF/d. 50% oil) for the three tubing sizes.5 in. Finally.542 Gas Lifl Chap. 19 Sec. 19-15. From Fig.5 (Example 19-10).5-in. then.. q. 19-17. the GLR must be 800 SCFISTB. and 19-17 are the gradient curves for q1=2000STBId (50% water.5 in. Pressure [psi] 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Pressure [psi] Figure 19-16 Gradient curves for qr=2000STB/d and tubing LD. Since thenaturalGLR is 300 SCFISTB. The wellhead pressure is 100 psi.=3. 3. pwf must be equal to 1610 psi. volume of gas. well).e. and 4. calculate the required rate of gas to be injected at the bottom of the well (H=8000 ft) for three different tubing sizes (2. in.5 in.=2. 19-16. 0 Figure 19-15 Gradient curves for ql=2000 STB/d and tubing 1. compression and separation costs).5 in.

5 in. Solution The simplest solution to this problem can be obtained graphically from Fig. The maximum production rate must be at the intersection of the new IPR curve (slope 0. the flowing bottomhole pressure must be reduced accordingly.f. design of gas lift versus time must be the subject of economic evaluation. develop a new IPR curve. is 770 psi. the driving force in the reservoir is reduced and therefore.39) and the optimum gas-lift curve. the corresponding flowing bottomhole pressure. 0 Figure 19-17 Gradient curves for q1=2000 STB/d and tubing I. need for gas lift 19-8 GAS-LIFT REQUIREMENTS VERSUS TIME As the reservoir pressure declines. the IPR curve for this well. A?. 1. 3. and what should be the location of the gas lift valves versus time? Assume that the well is completed with a 2 318-in. 6. (3-11) and allowing for different average reservoir pressures p and formation volume factors B. 2. 19 Sec. 7. From the same figure or from the IPR equation. is . 4. Calculate the flowing bottomhole pressure. The intersection of the IPR curves with the optimum gas-lift performance curve is the maximum production rate. p d .) and that the wellhead pressure requirement is 300 psi. Well performance and gas injection rate requirements versus time can then be forecasted. Use theIPRcurvedescribed by Eq. In the same example the production rate was not the maximum possible for the given reservoir pressure (500 STB/d Use the well described in Appendix B. as shown in Example 19-7. 19-18) is drawn. Thus. Again. in order to sustain a given production rate. which is also associated with the minimum p. Establish an optimumgas-lit performance curve for the given tubing and reservoir fluid. EXAMPLE 19-11 Maximized production rate with gas lift in a depleting reservoir What would be the average reservoir pressure for a maximized production rate of 500 STBId. Maximizing the liquid production rate with gas lift requires an increase in the gas injection rate. could gas lift play a role? If so. 19-11. which intersects the vertical axis at an average reservoir pressure. An appropriate method for forecasting gas-lift requirements versus time is as follows.D. Suppose that the depth is 8000 ft. using Eq. where maximized gas-lift performance was calculated). 19-8 Gas-Llfl Requirements versus Time 545 Pressure [psi] 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 versus 825 STB/d.Gas Lifi Chap. 5. p. In that example it was concluded that sustaining a production rate would require an increase in the gas injection rate as the reservoir pressure declines. when should it begin. since the limit GLR is larger for smaller production rates in a given tubing size.. I. equal to 2050 psi.D.=4. For each average reservoir pressure. If there is to be an attempt to sustain the production rate at 1000 STBW. Material balance calculations as shown in Chapter 9 can provide the reservoir cumulative production within each reservoir pressure decline interval. tubing (= 2-in. This was discussed in Section 19-5 and was shown in Example 19-6. (Example 19-10) EXAMPLE 19-12 Onset of gas lift in the life of a well. This maximum production rate is at the limit GLR. Solution From the data in Appendix B. a parallel IPR (Fig. (19-14) (thesame asforExamples 19-3and 19-7). The production rate within this interval and the calculated cumulative production easily allow the calculation of the time required for this pressure decline.

546 Gas Lift Chap. allowing the minimum production rate of 1000 STBId without the need of artificial lift. The incremental cumulative productions and cumulative productions for oil and gas and the producing GLR (listed as R. Furthermore. However. q.. (19-32)]. Of course. the production rate cannot be sustained at 1000 STBW after the reservoir pressure drops below 3750 psi. the producing GLR will increase. q. The corresponding required flowing bottomhole pressures for q=1000 STBId can be readily extracted from this figure. From Fig. The incremental time and total time versus average reservoir pressure for this example are listed in Table 19-2. Figure 19-20 is an expanded scale of the flowing gradientsfor this well for differentGLR values. Figure 19-19 shows the series of IPR curves for this problem for average reservoir pressures ranging from the initial value (4350 psi) to 3350 psi in increments of 200 psi. From the gradient curves in Fig. At pwf=1710psi. increasing the GLR would require an even larger p. The way to interpret these results is as follows. as can be seen from Fig. 19-19 or Eq. From Table9-5. Therefore. Therefore the well would naturally move the fluid to the top. The curves for GLR z 1600 are practically indistinguishable. as the well matures. in the interval between p=4350 psi and p=4150 psi for q=1000 STBId. the producing natural GLR is 845 SCFISTB. B-1 in Appendix B) .therequired p w jis 1400psi [from Fig. In theinterval between 3550and 3750psi forq=lOOOSTB/d. The increasing producing natural GLR would shift the required bottomhole pressure to the left. The example shown here is the type of calculation that is needed in every well in order to design an artificial lift system in anticipation of future 0 production behavior. the producing GLR is 1280SCFISTB. which would require a bottomhole flowing pressure of 1600psi (from Fig. Similar calculations can be done until the reservoir pressure is 3750 psi.) are shown in Table 9-5. Table 9-4 gives the physical properties (obtained from Fig. The maximum GLR is 2000 SCFISTB. will decrease). (19-32)J equal to 1090 STBId. The conclusion from this problem is that gas lift cannot be used as a means of artificial lift. Gas lift could then be possible. reflecting the emergence of a gas cap (although the solution R. 19 Sec. 400 600 800 1000 q (STBld) 1200 1400 Figure 19-19 IPR curves at different reservoir pressures for Example 19-12. (STBld) Figure 19-18 IPR curves with declining reservoir pressure for optimized gas lift (Example 19-11). the producing rate. 19-8 Gas-Lift Requirements versus Time 547 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Liquid Production Rate. (at average j=4250 psi) would be [from Eq.Thenatural GLR for this well is 840 SCFISTB (= R. To allow for decisions on gas lift. 19-10 at H=8000 ft and GLR=845 SCFISTB.. From Table . a material balance calculation as suggested by Havlena and Odeh (1963) and a deliverability relationship for solution gas drive as introduced by Tamer (1944) are indicated. and the calculated values of @" and @ for reservoir pressures from p=4350 to 3350 psi.). 19-20. 19-20). 19-19. 9-5. This type of calculation was presented in detail in Chapter 9. the required pwf would be only 1710 psi. the maximum GLR curve at that depth would require a p w jequal to 1560 psi. the pwf should be 2000 psi.

. Flow Gas-Lifi InstaIlation:'JPT. C. 3. What would be the natural bottomhole pressure to lift this liquid rate? What should be the working GLR for the bottomhole pressure to be 1500 psi? If the average reservoir pressure is 3500 psi. E. Tulsa. J. 2. and Odeh. 32-34. K. Oil and Water through Vertical Flow Swings with Application to the Design of Gas-Lifi Installations:' Drill. "Multiphase Flow of Gas. (STB) At (days) t (days) REFERENCES 1.. what is the governing IPR for this well? What would be the gas injection rate for this case? 19-2. Prentice Hall. API.548 Gas ~ i f tChap. 1952. 257-3 17. 6."How Different Size Gas Caps andRessure MaintenanceProgramsAffect Amount of Recoverable 0il:'Oil Weekly.87 x lo7 STB for A = 640 acres) j (psi) AN.. The Technology o Anifrcial Lifr Methods.. D. pp. August 1963. Suppose that the natural GLR is 200 SCFISTB and the well depth is 10..P. Poeman.. W.E. Tamer. H. pp. M. 896-900. 7. Prac. "Description and Analyses of an Efficient Continuous . 1. G. 19-3. Havlena. and Poethnan. Day. 5. June 12. 1991. 4. Petroleum f hblishing. API. and Prod... 1. and Whitson. Brown.1944. 271-278. Figure 19-20 Expanded-scale gradient curves for well in Example 19-12. 2nd ed.1954. Golan. PROBLEMS 19-1.000ft. pp. Gilbert. A. November 1953. E. What would be the production rate if gas with pSd=1000 psi were injected at 5000 ft .. NJ. F. A. 1 K. Welchon. and Carpenter. Use Fig.. Byrd. "The Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight Lie:' JPT. Bertuui.. "Flowing and Gas-Lifi Well Performance:'DriN.. S. 1980.. p. pp. 19 References Table 19-2 549 Pressure [psi] Production Prediction versus Time for Well in Example 19-12 (Initial Oil in Place 5.. OK.. and Mach... F. Englewood Cliffs. P. H. Well Performance. Prac. J. and Prod. 1. H.. 143..

If for a production of 1000 STBM there is a need for 5 x lo5 SCF/d of additional gas.. because most of the gas produced with the liquids is vented through the casing-tubing annulus. and horsepower requirements for Problem 19-4.(fok q1=2000STBId) for your calculations. calculate the expected product. respectively. Gas surface injection pressure 1s 1000 psi. At what average reservoir pressures should these polnts be activated to sustain a production rate of 500 STBId? Use the IPR from Problem 19-2. 19-3. Use Rg. j. In fact. For any well with a downhole pump. and dynamic displacement pumps.550 Gas Lift .6 and if j=3500 psi? What would be the maximum production rate after the reservoir pressure declines to 3000 and 2500 psi. A typical well configuration and pressure profiles in the well are shown in Fig. as in gas lift. Chap.=500 STBId) and 19-15. (psi) 1020 1200 2000 What would be the maximum production rate if the IPR multiplier were 0. the work supplied by the pump is related to the increase in pressure across the pump by the mechanical energy balance equation. Supposethat the following limit GLR values and bottomhole pressures (at H=10. Assume that the natural GLR is 300 SCFISTB. sucker rod pumps and electrical submersible pumps are the most common.1. the most common of which are electrical submersible centrifugal pumps and jet pumps. Of these. 19-4. injection pressure.000 ft) correspond to the three production rates listed below. downhole pumps increase the pressure at the bottom of the tubing a sufficient amount to lift the liquid stream to the surface. 19-7. What should be the injection point for ql=400 STBId? 19-3. The well depth is 8000 ft. which include sucker rod pumps and hydraulic piston pumps. Suppose that the pnce of oil is $30/bbl. 20. the pressure gradient in the tubing is actually higher in a pumped well than it would be without the pump. 600. Start with the IPR of Problem 19-4. and ~fthe flwing gradient below the injection points is 0. so the equation simplifies to P2 -P1 w. ql (STBId) 500 1000 2000 Pump-Assisted Lift GLR (SCFISTB) 7000 2500 1000 p. Rather than lowering the pressure gradient in the tubing to reduce the bottomhole pressure.37 psl/ft. Assume that the available gas is only 3 x lo5 SCFId. 19-3 (for q. the cost of injection 1s $0!5/hhp-h. If the natural GLR is 200 SCFISTB. 19-6. 19 C H A P T E R 20 and the average reservoir pressure.000 ft if the points of injectionme at thecurves for GLR equal to 400. Two types of pumps are used: positive-displacement pumps.= P + . CaIculate the bottomhole pressures at 10. Downhole pumps are a common means of boosting the productivity of a well by lowering the bonomhole flowing 3500 psi. and 800 SCFISTB.ionratefrom this well. Calculate the gas injection rates. what should be the gas rate demand for a production rate of 1200 STBM? Make any reasonable assumptions for gas injection pressures and depth of Injectton point. which for an incompressible fluid is For liquids. Use Figs. and will be treated in more detail here. and the cost of separation is $l/(MSCF/d). respectively? 19-5. the kinetic energy term is usually small compared to the other terms.

Since we can assume the oil to be incompressible.0073. we calculate the potential energy pressure drop to be 3760 psi. 8. p2 is calculated from Eq.1484NE.887. not the pressure increase generated by the pump. From Appendix A. the pressure just below the pump.) The flow relationships presented in Chapter 7 can be used to calculate the needed pressure profiles in the wellbore below the pump and in the tubing. the sucker rods transmit the reciprocating motion from the polished rod to the downhole pump.j is 1000 psi.259/12) (20-3) [ Flowing /I !/PR and pz = P E U ~ ~ Ap = 100 + + 14.001. From this figure.Sp (20-6) EXAMPLE 20-1 The pressure increase needed from a downhole pump For the well described in Appendix A. To determine the frictional pressure drop. 2-7. the traveling valve opens. = Solution IPR curves for this well for different reservoir pressures are presented in Fig. Figure 20-1 Well configuration and pressure profiles for an oil well. (Ajier Golan and Whitson. pl = 1000 psi.800) = 1775 lbf/f? = 12.A. Once the pressure increase required from the pump is known.) When the plunger moves up. the pressure increase needed from the pump. pl.4)(1.1000 = 2885 psi. APF = With Pumped Liquid l pressure I I (2)(0.887)(62. pl is the pressure just below the pump. usually based on empirical knowledge of the frictional losses in the pump (the pump efficiency. since the compression of the wellbore fluid in the pump will create enough pressure to displace the fluid in the tubing.7 cp. 2. The average velocity is 1.665and the friction factor from the Moody diagram (Fig. For a detailed review of rod pump equipment. (7-22). 20 Sec.165 ftls. and that the surface tubing pressure is 100 psig.552 pump-~ssisted Lln Chap. pn is pump is near the production interval. the Reynolds number is found with Eq. is 3885 . 20-2. To determine the size and power requirements for a downhole pump. the standing valve closes. 1991. p. the API gravity of the oil is 28". Using Eq. (7-7) to be 10. The volumetric flow rate displaced by a rod pump is q = 0. The surface and downhole equipment for a rodpumped well are shown in Fig.) and a relative roughness of 0. for a production rate o 500 f STB/d. The well has 2 718-in. The pump (Fig.1 Sucker Rod Pumping Sucker rod pump equipment. and F is the frictional loss in the pump.6-lb./ft tubing (ID. and the barrel fills with fluid. the kinetic energy pressure drop will be 0. Calculate the pressure . Thus.) where W. On a down the work supplied by the pump.259 in. From Eq. pl determined based on single-phase liquid flow at the desired rate. Positive-displacement pump performance is evaluated based on the volume of fluid displaced. the work required from the pump is found.0073)(0. from a two-phase flow calculation. p l is the pressure in the tubing just above the pump. (7-31). it is desired to obtain a production rate of 500 STBW at a time when the average reservoir pressure has declined to 3500 psi. a design procedure is as follows: From the IPR relationship. 20-2.165)2(9. see Brown (1980a). 20-3) consists of a barrel with a ball-and-seat check valve at its bottom (the standing valve) and a plunger containing another ball-and-seat check valve (the traveling valve. (7-15) for single-phase liquid flow.from the surface tubing pressure. assuming the pump is set at 9800 ft. (7-391is 0. Volumetric dispacement with sucker rod pumps. the pressures on either side of the pump are related to the the bottomhole flowing pressure by the pressure gradient in the gas-liquid stream below the pump and to the surface pressure by the singlephase liquid gradient in the tubing.7 + 3770 = 3885 psi (20-5) 0 so pz . 7-7) or the Chen equation [Eq. Since the pump is set near the production interval. just above the production interval.f needed for a desired production rate is determined. and the oil viscosity is 1. and the fluid in the barrel is displaced into the tubing. 20-2 Positlve-DisplacementPumps 553 increase needed from a downhole pump.3 psi (32. is calculated from pwf (when the pwf). the p. when the average reservoir pressure is 3500 psi.p l .17)(2. the standing valve opens. the traveling valve closes. The rotary motion of the crank is translated to a reciprocating motion of the polished rod by the Pitman and the walking beam.. equivalentto a specific gravity of 0.

and e. where S is the polished rod stroke length. Assuming harmonic motion of the polished rod and elastic behavior of the rod string and tubing.')(50 in. is the volumetric efficiency. the tubing stretch will be zero. (20-5). 1991. and a volumetric efficiency of 0. 'Ilk effectiveplunger stroke length will differ from and generally be less than the polished rod stroke length because of the stretching of the tubing and the rod string and because of overtravel caused by the acceleration of the rod string. (From Golan and Whitson. The highest speed is limited to avoid excessive vibration of the rods due to resonation. For. . Effective plunger stroke length. the effective plunger stroke length is . (From Brown.8 for a properly working rod pump. The volumetric efficiency is usually 0. The oil formation volume factor is 1.(e.1484E.).-diameter plunger.7 to 0. is the length the tubing is stretched. 1980a. 0 where q is the downhole volumetric flow rate (bblld).1484)(0. is the length the rod string is stretched. N is the pump speed (strokes per minute. 1962) N=. E.554 HORSE H E A D WALKffla B E A M Pump-Assisted Lifl Chap. e p is the plunger overtravel.8)(nin. e.) where L is the length of the rod string (in ft). effective plunger stroke length. using Eq. Then. 20 Sec. Pump speed should be kept below this limiting value. Note that if the tubing is anchored. The volumetric efficiency is less than 1 because of leakage of the fluid around the plunger. Ap is the plunger cross-sectional area (in2).stee1rods. the lowest pump speed that can cause the rods to vibrate at their natural frequency is (Craft et al.2) = 16 spm (0.000 L (20-8) Figure 20-2 Rod-pumped well.ApS. N = qBo 0. The surface production rate will be the downhole rate divided by the formation volume factor.) + EXAMPLE 20-2 Calculation of required pump speed Determine the pump speed (spm) needed to produce 250 STBM at the surface with a rod pump having a 2-in.) (20-7) The required pump speed is found to be 16 spm.8. Sucker rod pumps are typically operated at speeds ranging from 6 to 20 spm. Thus. e. (20-9) Sp = S + e.237.) Solution The downhole volumetric flow rate is calculated by multiplying the surface rate by the formation volume factor. 20-2 Positive-Displacement Pumps Tubing 555 1 Sucker Rods Working barrel ME VER & liner Traveling valve Plunger Standing valve TUBING Figure 20-3 Sucker rod pump. spm).-diameter plunger is n in. - (250 STBld)(l. and Sp is the effective plunger stroke length (in.'. The cross-sectional area of the 2-in. a 50-in..2.

The next step in designing a sucker rod pump installation is the determination of the power requirements for the prime mover.) The horsepower needed to overcome frictional losses is empirically estimated as EXAMPLE 20-3 Effective plunger stroke length - -- Calculate the effective plunger stroke length for a well with a rod pump set at 3600 ft. The pump speed is 20 spm.f is the surface tubing pressure in psig.812 in. In this case. and the specific gravity of the produced liquid is 0.) 1. To obtain Eq. A. and all other variables are defined as before.077 3. Tubing Nominal Size (in. The net lift is the height to which the work provided by the pump alone can lift the produced fluid. is a safety factor accounting for pripe mover inefficiency. yl is the specific gravity of the fluid. S is the polished rod stroke length (in./ft) 2.respectively.. Pf js the power dissipated as friction in the pump. More generally. sucker rods and 2 1/2-in.90. is the weight of the rod string (lb. and the polished rod stroke length is 64 in. the casing surface pressure is atmospheric and n the hydrostatic head of the column of gas i the annulus is negligible) and that the average density of the liquid in the annulus is the same as that in the tubing (we are neglecting the gas bubbling through the liquid in the annulus.800 1. For the well described in Example 20-3.25 to 1.4 .812 2. 1962).000 4. A.500 4. EXAMPLE 20-4 Prime mover power requirements = 64 + 6. Ph is the hydraulic horsepower needed to lift the fluid. and N is the pump speed (spm).D. the cross-sectionalareas of the rods and the tubing are 0. The prime mover must supply sufficient power to provide the useful work needed to lift the fluid. is the cross-sectional area of the tubing.5 in. (in. so the fluid level is at the pump depth. the net lift is simply the depth at which the pump is set. The hydraulic power is usually expressed in terms of net lift. . Table 20-1 Prime mover power requirements. tubing.556 Pump-Assisted Lifl Chap. is the cross-sectional area of the rods.2. 20 Sec.17. Solution From Table 20-1.433~~ where H is the depth to the liquid level inthe annulus and p.lft) Area (in. we have assumed that the pressure at the liquid surface in the annulus is atmospheric pressure (i. If the tubing and casing pressure is zero at the surface and the fluid level in the annulus is at the pump. Thus the required prime mover power is Sucker Rod and Tubing Cross-Sectional Areas Sucker Rods Rod Size (in.) Weight (Ib. The safety factor can be estimated as 1. the plunger is 2 in. the polished rod.2) .90 4. LN. in diameter. and F.75 O. the fluid in the annulus above the pump exerts the force of its weight in helping to lift the fluid in the tubing and the tubing pressure is an additional force that the pump must work against. Cross-sectional areas of common sizes of rods and tubing are given in Table 20-1.2) 0.). (20-14).304 1.30 11. 20-2 Positive-Displacement Pumps 557 In this equation. and to allow for inefficienciesin the prime mover and the surface mechanical system. calculate the power requirement for the prime mover if the surface tubing pressure is 100 psig and the fluid level in the annulus is 200 ft above the Pump. for several empirical approaches to determining this factor.5 (Craft et al..). E is Young's modulus (about 30 x lo6 psi for steel).00 12.900 2. and the rod string. is the prime mover horsepower.590 3.442 and 1. The well has 314-in. where P. H is the fluid level depth in the annulus (H= L if the fluid level is at the pump). H = L = 3600 ft.9 = 52.601 where the flow rate is in bbl/d and the net lift is in ft of produced fluid. to overcome frictional losses in the pump. the net lift is L ~ = H + P ~ ~ (20-14) 0. the reader is referred to Brown (l98Oa).) I ln 2 2 112 3 3 112 4 Weight (Ib.70 6. Applying Eq.875 3.500 Area (in.50 9. Since the fluid level is at the pump. The well is pumped off.375 2.e. where W. (20-9.

20-2 Positive-DisplacementPumps I 559 Solution Since the fluid level is 200 ft above the pump. H. much of the pump energy is expended in compressing the gas instead of lifting the liquid. (20-15) is The >)> Finally. The performance characteristics of sucker rod pumps are commonly monitored by measuring the Valve / I \ r ~raveltng I Valve Closes Figure 20-4 Effect of gas on rod pump performance. The load remains constant until the downstroke begins at point c. (20-6) using a volumetric efficiency of 0. An ideal dynamometer card for elastic rods is shown in Fig.. (20-13): Pump Shown at Instant Just Before TravelingValve Opens Compression Cycle Using the data in Table 20-1. Then. the pump is said to be "gas-locked. essentially nothing will occur in the pump except the expansion and compression of gas. = (1.the prime mover horsepower requirement is P. using a safety factor of 1. some means must be employed to exclude most.200 = 3400 ft.." The dynamometer card plots polished rod load as a function of rod position. in this instance. (From Golan and Whrtson. 20 Sec. When gas is present in the pump. the fluid level. the gas must expand until the pressure is below p i . from Eq.1991. the pressure in the casing just below the pump. sucker rods is 5868 Ib. is 3600 . . the weight of 3600 ft of 314-in. 20-5. Downhole devices installed on rod pumps to separate the gas from the liquid are called "gas anchors. an upstroke begins and the polished rod load gradually increases as the rods stretch until at point b the polished rod supports the weight of the rods in the fluid and the weight of the fluid. A recording of the polished rod load over one complete pump cycle is referred to as a "dynamometer card. At point a . On a down stroke. Any downhole pump is adversely affected by the presence of free gas in the fluid being pumped.(20-12). In extreme cases. is The hydraulic horsepower is then calculated with Eq. the polished rod load decreases as the rods recoil until. with sucker rod pumps. frictional horsepower from Eq. the effect can be particularly severe.25 in Eq. the polished rod supports only the weight of the rods in the fluid.5 4. on an upstroke.25)(9.) load on the polished rod with a dynamometer. obtained from Eq. if not all." Because of these deleterious effects. the gas must be compressed until the pressure in the barrel is equal to the pressure in the tubing above the pump before the traveling valve will open and allow fluid to pass into the tubing. When gas is present in the pump barrel. Figure 20-4 illustrates this effect. The load then remains constant until another cycle begins at point a. the net lift is Stroke Length -I Charging Cycle Pump Shown at Top o Stroke f The flow rate. the standing valve closes and the standing valve supports the weight of the fluid. of the free gas from entering a sucker rod pump. at point d.558 Pump-Assisted Lift Chap.8 and the results from Example 20-3. At this time. . before the standing valve will open and let wellbore fluids enter the barrel." Analysis of rod pump performance from dynamometer cards. This is accomplished by setting the pump below the perforations so that the gas will rise out of the liquid stream moving to the pump or by employing various mechanical means to separate the gas from the liquid stream. (20-14).7) = 18 hp (20-20) Vm 2E i k End 01 Compression Cycle + 0 Gross Stroke Standing closes '' The effect of gas on pump efficiency.

20-6.) .560 Pump-Assisted Lift Chap. When the pump is almost completely filled with gas. 20-7d. This card shows a decreasing load on the upstroke and little pump work. Excessive friction in the pumping system results in erratic dynamometer responses. The acceleration and deceleration of the rod string accounts for most of the difference between the ideal load history and the actual history of the polished rod in a properly operating rodpumped well. Liquid pound occurs when the pump barrel does not fill completely on the upstroke and is characterized by a sudden decrease in load near the end of the downstroke (Fig.. (From Crafl er al. resulting in a dynamometer card like that in Fig. I Stroke (in) (a) Well being pumped at synchronous speed (b) Restriction in well Numerous factors will cause an actual dynamometercard to differ from this idealization-a dynamometer card from a properly working rod pump is shown in Fig. 20-7a.) m 8:10 A. 20-7c (sticking plunger) or Fig. The character of the dynamometer card can sometimes be used to diagnose abnormal characteristics of the pump or well behavior. (e) Liquid pound (0 Gas pound (9) Gas lock (h) Plunger undettravel (i) Plunger ovettravel Figure 20-7 Characteristic dynamometer card shapes. the load w decreases throughout the upstroke. but the decrease in load is not as pronounced on the downstroke. 20-7b). gas lock has occurred. With plunger undertravel. as indicated by the area of the region enclosed by the load curve (Fig. 20-2 PositlveDisplacement Pumps 561 Figure 20-5 Meal dynamometer card for elastic rods.. 1962. 20-7g. (Fmm Crafr et al. (c) Sticking plunger (d) Excessive friction in the pumping system Figure 20-7 illustrates characteristic dynamometer card shapes for a number of adverse conditions that can be encountered in a rod-pumped well (Craft et al. 20-7f) occurs when the pump partially fills with gas and exhibits a similar character to liquid pound. Gas pound (Fig. Finally. while with overtravel. 20-7h and 20-7i. Notice the decreasing load on the upstroke and the loop in the curve at the end of the upstroke. A well being pumped at synchronous speed will exhibit the distinctive card shown in Fig. like those shown in Fig. plunger undertravel and overtravel are indicated by cards like those in Figs. 20 Sec. 1962). 1962.M.. A restriction in the well leads to an increasing load on the upstroke and little pump work. Figure 20-6 Actual dynamometercard. the load increases throughout the upstroke. 20-7e).

such as . A typical ESP completion is shown in Fig. the total head developed is equal to the sum of the pumping head from each stage. 20-3 Dynamic Displacement Pumps 563 20-2.2 Hydraulic Piston Pumping The use of sucker rod pumps is not feasible in deep or highly deviated wells because of the weight or large amount of friction of therods.) h = Nshs (20-24) The production rate from a hydraulic piston pump is related simply to the power fluid flow rate by The pumping head of a centrifugal pump will decrease as the volumetric throughput increases.1 Electrical Submersible Pumps -ENGINE PISTON An electrical submersible pump (ESP) is a multistage centrifugal pump that offers a great deal of flexibility.562 Pump-Assisted Llfl Chap. In the United States. The developed head and efficiency of a centrifugal pump depend on the particular design of the pump and must be measured. A positive-displacement pump that can be used in these applications is the hydraulic piston pump. DOWN STROKE UP STROKE where q p ~ the flow rate of the power fluid and Apump Aengineare the piston crossis and sectional areas for the pump and the engine. the efficiency of the pump. meaning that fluid is being displaced from the pump on both the up and the down strokes. and are able to handle some free gas in the pumped fluid. The pressure increase provided by a centrifugal pump is usually expressed as pumping head. Centrifugalpumps do not displace a fixed amount of fluid. 20-8) consists of an engine with a reciprocating piston driven by a power fluid connected by a short shaft to a piston in the pump end. The pump acts much like a rod pump. defined as the ratio of the hydraulic power transferred to the fluid (q Ap) to the power supplied to the pump. The motor is situated so that the produced fluids flow around the motor. The high-pressure power fluid is injected down a tubing string from the surface and is either returned to the surface through another string of tubing or is commingled with the produced fluid in the production string. depending on the back pressure held on the system. The flow rate through the pump will thus vary. providing cooling. has a maximum at some flow rate for a given pump. ESPs typically operate at 3500 rpm driven by a 60-Hz AC electrical supply. 20 Sec. while in Europe. respectively. Either water or oil may be used as the power fluid. as do positive-displacement pumps. but rather create a relatively constant amount of pressure increase to the flow stream. the height of produced fluid that the Ap created by the pump can support: PUMP PISTON which in field units can be expressed as The pumping head is independent of the density of the fluid. can be used efficiently in deeper wells than sucker rod pumps. (From Brown. ESPs are capable of producing very high volumes of fluid. either by setting the pump above the producing interval. except that hydraulic pumps are usually double acting. 1980b. The pump is driven by an electric motor connected by cables to a three-phase power source at the surface. Thus the production rate is easily changed by changing the power fluid injection rate. 20-9. or by equipping the pump with a shroud that directs the fluids past the motor before entering the pump intake. These characteristics are provided by the pump manufacturer as a pump characteristic chart. For a multistage pump. A hydraulic piston pump (Fig. however. 20-3. or Figure 20-8 Hydraulic piston pump. operation at 2915 rpm with a 50-Hz AC power supply is common.

) 1. . the pumping head will be the same. the pump depth is that shown in Fig. 20-3 Dynamic Displacement Pumps -$ Switchboard // Transformers d?////// ! ' TAMP meter The pump characteristic chart for an ESP is usually for a 100-stage pump. (From Centrilifl. so the head developed per stage is the total head from the chart divided by 100. Thus. Calculate the minimum pump depth based on pwf and the necessary pump suction pressure. Pump Only EH 80 70 60 50 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Pump Rate (bbVD) Figure 20-1 0 Pump characteristic chart. but the power requirements will differ. 2. and psuCb. These characteristics are measured with fresh water. for a fluid of a different density. Determine the appropriate size pump from manufacturer's specifications. (20-23). From the IPR relationship for the well. With another fluid of about the same viscosity. ESPs generally require a suction pressure of 150-300 psi. . determine pwf for the desired production rate. (20-26) for any pump depth. since the Ap will vary with specific gravity according to Eq. Hpump the pump depth. Thus the pump size can be selected based only on the flow rate. 20-10. The steps needed to select an appropriate ESP to produce a desired volumetric flow rate are as follows: Figure 20-9 I t Motor Electrical submersible pump completion. 20 Sec. An efficient throughputfor an ESP depends on the size of thepumpinot the Ap developed by the pump.564 PumgAsslsted Lift Chap. The pump suction pressure can be calculated from Eq. To design an electrical submersible pump installation. the Ap (pumping head) needed to produce the desited volumetric flow rate must be determined from the well's IPR and the pressure drop that will occur from the pump to the surface. The pump can be set at any depth below this minimum depth. For zero casing pressure and neglecting the hydrostatic pressure of the gas column in the annulus.Psuction where H is the depth of the producing interval. 3. is is the required suction pressure of the pump. 1987. and will often be located nearer the production interval.

assuming that all free gas is excluded from the pump. 7. To determine the formation volume factor for this saturated oil .001). 6. 20-3 Dynamic Displacement Pumps 100 Stage Electric Submersible Pump 567 Minimum Casing Size 5 112 in O D 4. 90 (20-30) Reading from Fig. (3-54)] or Fig. Using Eq. We will use this value throughout to calculate the hydrostatic head of the oil.433)(0. The specific gravity of the 32"API stock tank oil is 0. B-I.000 . (20-27). Following Example 20-1.3 P Capacity Figure 20-11 Pump characteristicchart for Example 20-5. is (20-33) The pump can be set at any depth below this point. Figure 20-11 is the pump characteristicchart for one such pump. The flow rate through the pump is the downhole volumetric oil rate. The Ap needed from the pump is then and the total head from the pump can be calculated with Eq. the pump suction pressure is then pS.210. the surface tubing pressure is 100 psig.0068.433)(0.8 Wstage.800) = 2225 psi (20-29) = 4350ft (20-34) The pressure drop in the tubing must now be calculated to determine the pump discharge pressure. (20-24). (20-23).433)(0.865)(10. from Fig. Next we check the minimum depth for setting the pump. and the well casing is 7 in. The required number of stages is then The Reynolds number is 26. or 21. 20 Sec.566 Pump-Assisted Lifl Chap. we must know the pressure. Determine the required specifications for an electrical submersiblepump for this application. so the flow rate through the pump is (1000 STB/d)(1. even though it will vary somewhat with temperature and pressure.865) = 2300 . the head per stage is read. The number of stages needed is then calculated with Eq. EXAMPLE 20-5 Electrical submersible Dump design A 10. the horsepower required for the 100-stage pump at 1260 bbl/d from Fig. For the 200-stage pump. using the equations presented in Chapter 7. tubing (6 = 0. 5.26. 20-1 1. Assume that the minimum suction pressure required by the pump is 200 psi. Determine the required pump discharge pressure from a pressure traverse calculation for the flow in the tubing. for a flow rate of 1260 bbljd. Solution The first step is to choose a pump with a capacity range suitable for the desired flow rate.7 psia f 3741 psia = 3856 psi + Ap = 3856 .9. B.21. so the total Ap is 3670 + 71 = 3741 psi. From the pump characteristic curve.80 4350 (20-35) Finally. the power requirement will be 70 hp. is 1.-= 200 stages . From Vogel's equation [Eq. We now choose a pump that will fit in the 7-in. 20-11 is 35 hp. The well will be equipped with 2 718-in. . We will assume that the pump is set at 9800 ft. BD P GM P = 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 B D s 34. The pressure increase from the pump can be expressed as feet of head using Eq. the friction factor is 0. The total power requirement for the pump is obtained by multiplying the power per stage from the pump characteristic chart by the number of stages. and the mean velocity is 2.94 N ' . (20-23): h= (0.26) = 1260 bbl/d. the head for a 100-stage pump is 2180 ft. from Eq.865)(9800) = 3670 psi = ft/sec. pWffor a rate of 1000 STBld is 2300 psi. casing and that has a suitable capacity. The discharge pressure is pdischarge = psud Ap = 100 psig + 14.(0. APPE (0.2225 = 1631 psi (20-32) and the pressure increase from the pump. 3-6...865.000-ft-deepwell in the reservoir described in Appendix B is to be produced at a rate of 1000 STBM with an ESP when the average reservoir pressure is 4350 psi. Then.

19806. A schematic of a jet pump is shown in Fig. Pump manufacturers provide correction charts to account for behavior with high-viscosity fluids. As the reservoir pressure declines. The optimal system is ultimately based on . Gas Lift versus Pump-Assisted Lift 569 This example illustrates the optimal pump to produce this well at a fixed rate and fixed average reservoir pressure. High fluid viscosity decreases the efficiency of a centrifugal pump and can affect the head developed. (From Brown. and hence. . the reader is referred to Brown (1980b) or Petrie et al. They can also be used at any depth. the pumping requirements may change drastically. in the diffuser. Drawbacks to jet pumps are their low efficiency (generally in the 20-30% range) and the need for high suction pressure to prevent cavitation in the pump. (From Brown. where the water production rate may rise dramatically 0 over the life span of the well. Particularly in water-floodedreservoirs. so dirty or gassy fluids can be produced without the wear that will result in positive-displacement pumps.568 Pump-Assisted Lift Chap. Power fluid . The pump characteristics given by ESP manufacturers are for pumping water and must be corrected if the fluid being pumped has a higher viscosity. Jet pump installations are designed u h g characteristic charts in a manner analogous to the design of centrifugal pumps.2 Jet Pumps Ajet pump is a dynamic-displacementpump that differs dramaticallyfrom a centrifugal pump in the manner in which it increases the pressure of the pumped fluid. Jet pumps offer the advantage of having no moving parts. In addition. To design an ESP that will be optimal over a finite life span of the well involves a trade-off between pumping requirements early in the life of the well and later in the life of the reservoir and is ultimately an economic question. careful calculation of the pump depth needed 20-4 SELECTION OF ARTIFICIAL LIFT METHOD. the IPR curve will change. 20-12. A schematic of a typical downhole jet pump is presented in Fig. A power fluid is accelerated througfi a nozzle and then mixed with the produced fluid in the throat of the pump. some of the momentum of the power fluid is transferred to the produced fluid. 20-3. 20-4 Selection of Artificial Lift Method. 20-13. Nozzle Production inlet chamber Throat Diffuser Combined fluid return Well production Figure 20-13 Schematicof a downholejet pump. Pump tubing Casing . LIFT VERSUS GAS PUMP-ASSISTED LIFT The production engineer designing an artificial lift scheme can choose among gas lift and the various types of pumping systems. some of the kinetic energy of the mixed stream is converted to static pressure.) to provide sufficient suction pressure to prevent cavitation is required in designing a jet pump for a well. For further details about jet pumping. the optimal pump design will gradually change. As the fluids mix. (1983). 1980b) I 1 1 I ? A Figure 20-12 B Schematic of a jet pump. 20 Sec.

5 hp. an ESP with about 350 stages can deliver the required rate after the average reservoir pressure has declined 0 to 3350 psi. With the pump of Fig. = 975 psi and pdluharge = 3856 psi (the same as in Example 20-5). Well Design: Drilling and Production.8.570 Pump-Assisted Lift Chap. 1962. Likewise.1... particularly in offshore development.5-lb. 109-114. 20-5. pp. 6. with their large surface beam-pumping units.-ft tubing. Following Example 20-5.Vol. The TechnologyofArtifrcia1Lift Methods.. E. 6.2 if the pump speed is 16 spm? 20-4. Calculate the prime mover horsepower requirement for the pump in Problem 20-3. Thus. In Example 19-12.. and the reservoir performance must be amenable to gas lift. A first consideration is available space. EXAMPLE 20-6 Feasibility of pump-assisted lift instead of nas lift PROBLEMS 20-1. Petroleum Publishing Co. rods is set at 6000 ft. 20-1 1.since most of the &. pp. The well described in Example 20-5 is to be produced at a rate of 1300 STBM using the pump with the characteristics given in Fig. and the volumetric efficiency of the pump is 0. Solution From Fig... 2. E. 4. Tulsa OK.~= 1050 psi. 2nd ed. the well is producing 500 bblld of water. The water has a specific gravity of 1. Centrilii Submersible Pump Handbook. The well is equipped with 2 112-in. the number of stages needed is 7690121. 4th ed. psUcti.18. as illustrated in the following example. D. so the downhole production rate is 1180bblld. 20-3. . R. REFERENCES 1.. is 1. there are constraints that may eliminate one or more possible lift methods. Golan. 3.. Brown. simplifying the design procedure... The polished rod stroke length is 72 in. E. M. NJ. Part 3.8 ft of head per stage. Then. the higher the natural GLR. Craft."and Smart. The horsepower required is (350/100) x 35 = 122. B. December 1983. 2a. W~lson.75. Holden. E. 19-19. Pehie. calculate the required pressure increase needed from a downhole pump if. The Technology ofArtifrcialLiftMethods. Petroleum Publishing Co.. in certain environmentally sensitive areas. The amount of gas needed for gas lift is approximately the amount that is required to power the gas comp~essors. Englewood Cliffs. However. requiring a careful comparison among alternatives over the life of the well or the reservoir. 1980b. Well Pelformance. Part 2. was shown that for the well of Appendix B that a production rate of 1000 STBId could not be maintained with gas lift after the average reservoir pressure had declined below 3750 psi. . in addition to 500 STBW of oil. 1991. either from the produced associated gas or from other nearby sources. NJ. In thes. Tulsa OK. the horsepower requirements of the pump.. This difference in flow rate from that in Example 20-5 will result in a slight difference in the frictional pressure drop. The pump is to be set at 9800 ft. K. C. H. 20 Problems 571 economic considerations. From Appendix B.. and the liquid level in the annulus is 5000 ft. 20-2.8 = 353 stages. The space limitations of an offshore platform generally preclude the use of rod pumps. and Whitson. p. Ap. at 1050 psi. What diameter rod-pump plunger is needed to produce 600 STBW of oil at apump speed of 18 spm with a 60-in. 101-108. but will not affect the potential energy pressure drop and thus can be ignored. 2b. For gas lift to be the lift method of choice. for the pump set at 9800 ft. ber 1983. Jr. equivalent to 7690 ft of head. and the liquid level above the pump. Vol. and the volumetric efficiency of the pump is 0. pump-assisted lift is the lift mechanism of choice. .wells. W. some wells cannot benefit from gas lift. a gas supply must be available.. Prentice Hall. effectiveplunger stroke length? The oil formation volume factor is 1. B. January 1984. As shown in Example recycled.m P. . For the well described in Example 20-1. the less benefit will be obtained from gas lift.975 = 2881 psi. where minimizing surface facilities is important. C. What would be the production rate (STBId) of a 30"API oil with a formation volume factor of 1. H. 5.05 and a viscosity of 2 cp. Englewood Cliffs.. and the pump plunger diameter is 2 114-in. rod pumps may not be feasible. Determine the number of pump stages.e M. for ? = 3350. L. Bmwn... K. In general.. 20-1 delivering 21.. 1980a. A rod pump with 314-in. = 3856 . and Graves. Prentice Hall. Check the feasibility of using an electrical submersible pump to maintain the target rate by designing an ESP for an average reservoir pressure of 3350 psi. E ..

is equal to the flow rate that would result in a pressure difference in the tubing equal to the determined flowing bottomhole pressure minus the given wellhead pressure.g. All individual pressure differences depend on well-understood variables but whose values in certain cases may be unknown. The individual components of the system are interdependent. At any point along the system the rate that the upstream pressure drop may deliver must coincidewith the rate that the downstream pressure drop may allow. through the completion zone (which can be damaged. where appropriate flow performance relationships (IPR-describing what the reservoir can deliver) are combined with the well vertical lift performance for a given wellhead pressure (as shown in Chapter 7). . resulting from the pressure difference between the reservoir and bottomhole pressures. and remedial action mav be taken. The system and the corresponding pressure drops describethe path of a petroleum fluid beginning in the reservoir. The combination of the two is the expected production rate at exactly the expected flowing bottomhole pressure. B. across a choke. This concept is demonstratedamply in Chapter 8. or indirect (e. shown schematically in Fig.. this rate. each representing a pressure difference in series. Well deliverability is one use of system analysis. he idea of analyzingindividual components of aproduction system becomespossible because pressure measurements-either direct. through the wellhead. equipped with gravel packs and screens or perforations). determining average reservoir pressure from a buildup test)-can be readily available. the value of an unknown or group of variables may be determined. or downhole. deducing the corresponding pressure difference. Thus. and finally along the horizontal lines into separators or other surface facilities. up the tubing. such as at the surface.C H A P T E R 21 Systems Analysis In this textbook the petroleum production system. 1-6. is decomposed into individual parts.

p . Figure 21-1 is a schematic depiction for such a calculation. a correspondingp.Psep 21-3 SYSTEM DESIGN DIAGNOSIS AND (21-1) This total pressure drop may be decomposed into a number of individual parts. number of open perforations. the pressure difference is between a reservoir pressure. if any. Chapters 19 and 20. allowing a plausible solution but not necessarily an optimum one. the correspondingbottomhole pressure can be obtained (Chapter 7).f . p. In Chapter 8. If these two. a most appropriateapplicationis for the design of individualcomponents or the diagnosis of suspected problems. and 4.and steady-state) are presented in Chapters 2. Thus. using the Monte Carlo approach. and horizontal lines. has beenin wide use in the past. Traditional systems analysis examines each component individually. Multivariate optimizationof production systems can be done with the aid of presently available computers.. the well deliverability at the determined flowing bottomhole pressure. These tasks can be accomplished through parametric studies. or any other point along the path. etc. COMPONENTSTHE SYSTEM OF 21-2 PRESSURE DROP Depending on the beginning and the end point of the petroleum production system. Most of the prominent correlationsnecessary for this task are included in the chapter.f. Chapter 7 contains an extensive treatment of the pressure drop associated with the vertical lift of a petroleumfluid through a well. etG. For a pair of wellhead pressure and flow rate and for each tubing size. it will be the required solution to the problem. Combination with the IPR (accounting for all relevant near-wellbore conditions) leads to the expected flow rates from each tubiig size. adequately defined system in determining well deliverability or forecast of well performance (Chapter 9). or p.3. and must. A variety of skin effects are introduced to account for damage. (1984) have presented an extensive procedure for decoupling the individual components of a petroleum production system and solving for the corresponding pressure and flow rate at any point along the fluid path. (21-2) are for the reservoir. In addition to the obvious use of the analysis of an existingorcontemplated. Usually. respectively. that is. Suppose that the tubing size is at issue. independently derived. This type of exercise. 21-3 System Design and Diagnosis 575 Well performance analysis then becomes an exercise of determiningthe total pressure difference. safety valves. systems analysis is crucial to any petroleum production management strategy. completion. completion configurations. p S e pThe total pressure drop would then be AP = p . can serve the same purpose adequately. Haid and Economides (1991) offered a similar technique.pwf and p. for convenience. the system was considered between the reservoir and the wellhead. The well bottomhole was the selected point for the reconciliation of two individual components of the total pressure drop. and gas reservoirs for all types of conditions (infinite-acting. it is certainly not mandatory. relationships have a point of intersection. A11 components of the system can. The wellhead. a total pressure drop Ap can be defined. the corresponding wellhead pressures can be calculated for a series of flow rates (Chapter 10). p.f can be calculated. is invaluable during well design because the incremental benefits.p. chokes. methods for calculatingthe pressure drop in oil. For wells under artificial (gas or pump-assisted) lift. This type of analysis leads to the detepination of near-wellbore damage.. and the inlet pressure to a separator. In this textbook. can be used for the calculation of the corresponding pressure drops in the tubing and the pressure increase provided by a pump.f can be determined. Chapter 10 contains the necessary correlations and calculationalprocedures for the estimation of the pressure drop through the wellhead chokes and horizontal lines. taking into account the near-wellbore zone and the completion.for each flow rate and the given wellheadpressure. examples were presented in Chapter 8. 21 Sec.and isolating the pressure differencethat may cause a problem. and 15). Carroll and Home (1992) have presented such a generalized approach to multivariate optimization. the most optimum (profitable) configurationof the entire system can be identified. Again. Thus. Since the well bottomhole is the chosen point of analysis. AP = A P ~Aps + + AfiOmp Aptub + Aphor + (21-2) where the pressure drops on the right-hand side of Eq. The pressure drop through a gravel pack is presented in Chapter 6 .perforations. Brown et al. pseudo-steady-state. that is. For each flow rate and the given reservoir pressure. accounting for restrictions. graphs of flow rate versus pwf can be constructed for each tubing size. two-phase.or even more basic issues such as the optimization of choke or tubing size. these individual pressure drops may be subdivided further. and it may encompass one or more wells..574 Systems Analysis Chap. respectively. Pressure drops across the near-wellbore zone are treated in Chapter 5. be subjected to such a scrutiny both at the planning stage and during the life of the well. .vertical tubing. They labeled their analysis Nodal (trademark of Schlumberger) analysis. Startingfrom the separatorpressure.. several examples of which are presented in Chapter 8. 14. considering all components simultaneously. skin zone. focusing on the design of hydraulically fractured wells. turbulence effects. the procedure is straightforward.identifying the components. and phase and rate phenomena. Figure 21-2 is a schematic depiction for this exercise. For design. While the choice of the well bottomhole. Finally. as a location for such an analysis. Similarly. a corresponding p. can be compared against the incremental costs of different completion schemes. accounting for friction and hydrostatic effects while considering the fluid's physical and thermodynamic properties (Chapter 7). This approach should include potential modifications to the IPR (such as fracturing-chapter 17) and certainly a continuousattention to the crucial near-wellbore zone and the inherentneed for matrix stimulation(Chapters 13. In turn.

For example. q Figure 21-2 Parametric study w t IPR modifications (e. number of open perforations). the number of open perforations may be approximated. nonflowing perforations constitute a frequent problem. If the knowledge of the reservoir is adequate. can resolve discrepancies. Figure 21-3 is a schematic depiction for this problem. corresponding to different hydraulic ih fracture designs). in cases of doubt. a series of IPR curves can be constructed. as described in Chapter 11. For example. by actual measurements at any point along the system. Two observations are in order here: Individual pressure drop components and the corresponding pressure values may affect neighboring parts of the system. Comparison with the observed actual rate yields the corresponding pressure drop across the perforations. 21 Sec. or heterogeneities. q Figure 21-3 Use of system analysis for problem diagnosis (e. Testing techniques. Often. reservoir discontinuities. Assuming a series of pressure drops across the total perforated interval..g. q Figure 21-1 Method for a design parametric study for tubing size Problem diagnosis uses a similar approach. the previously mentioned . If the well does not perform as designed. The problem can be isolated by a process of elimination through parametric studies or. Production Rate.g. the discrepancy between expectations and actual performance is caused by incorrect assumptions about important variables such as the permeability. Production Rate. 21-3 System Design and Diagnosis 577 Production Rate. Intersections with the VLP curve provide the corresponding production rates. Since the pressure drop is directly proportional to the perforation skin effect (Chapter 5). appropriate investigation should attempt to identify (1) the problematic pressure drop component and (2) the responsible culprit.. then any other part of the system may be causing the problem.576 Systems Analysis Chap.

J. 2. E.. OK. While most of these issues are concerned with specific pollutants. 782-789.1991. rules. Production logging (Chapter 12) can provide invaluable information for this purpose. Arctic areas. A. "Optimiemng Hydraulischer Frakbehandlungen bei der Erdolgewinnung mit Hilfe der Monte-Carlo-Technikund unter Anwendung des Banvertes:' BHM.. This chapter reviews some of the environmental considerations common to oilfield operations.and Economides. using the techniques presented in this textbook. G. may result in different phase distributionin the near-wellbore zone and thus a different phasedependent skin effect (and pressure drop) There is always an issue of uniqueness in problem diagnosis. 22-2 WASTES GENERATED PRODUCTION IN OPERATIONS Production operations include normal well operations. 3. July 1992. These concerns may constitute a large part of the costs of petroleum production.. N.. 1984. reserves. production logs can indicate whether closed perforations are distributed throughout or whether they are concentrated in specific. The Technology ofArlifrcia1 Lifr Methods. while parametric studies may provide an estimate of actual open perforations (versus number of shots).S. analysis of the petroleum system and its individual parts. 21 C H A P T E R 22 pressure drop through the perforations. other environmental impacts are discussed. In Section 22-3 the techniques for handling oilfield production operations are discussed. Carroll. and stimulation can thus be made for optimum petroleum production." JPT. urban areas. REFERENCES 1. surface facilities. Governmental regulations and rules vary significantly with each country and are modified with great regularity. Further. lift mechanisms. must be an essential exercise for the production engineer during the design and subsequent operation of a well. and workovers. J. and Home. Brown. separationand treating at production facilities and gas plants. This reduction is from an estimate in which environmental costs are not considered. Godic and Biglarbigi (1990) have shown that costs for environmental compliance may result in a 42% reduction in future drilliig. R.Systems Analysis Chap. Haid. nodowing but shot intervals. A petroleum production engineer must exercise prudent care in all phases of oil and gas production. ' h o of the most important aspects of this care are protection of the environment and concern for safety. Pennwell Publishing. et al. The production engineermust also be familiar with these issues. M. and regulations in the area of operations. In the previous perforation example. 1II. Necessary aids include testing and production logging. Tulsa. Environmental Concerns in Petroleum Production Engineering In conclusion. Environmental issues for onshore and offshore operations are discussed in Section 22-2. Arctic issues are dealt with in Section 22-4. The production engineer must be environmentally sensitive and aware of applicable laws. wetlands. qpical wastes generated within these areas are discussed below. System analysis through parametric studies can be augmented by measurements.especially offshore.and enhanced oil recovery (E0R)-related additions to U. etc.. 12191: 467474. 579 . Appropriate decisions for hardware selection. "Multivariate Optimizationof Production Systems. many environmental issues are unique to various production operations.. pp. K. affecting the sandface pressure.

Pollutants include NO. generally. While methane is the principal component of natural gas. involve larger volumes of lubrication and hydraulic oils. Fewer wells are involved. In the case of gas. hydrocarbons. production logs to detect channeling should be run (see-chapter 12. acids. oil. Even the cleanest and most efficient of these technologies (cogenerating electricity using natural gas as a fuel and making steam from waste heat) generates contaminated water in the water-softening and deionization systems. In the case of oil. all have potentially greater damage and are more difficult to contain and to remediate compared to onshore locations. Nonhydrocarbon diluents such as C02. Regulations generally require that efforts be taken to ensure that no fluids can migrate into freshwater aquifers. Thus. and larger scale of operations. caustic and iron sponge material. Filters used to improve water quality generate potential contaminants when the filter medium is replaced or cleaned. Oil and gas wells generate a variety of wastes.. These include air pollution. Steam generators for thermal oil recovery generate a variety of air emissions (COz. Oil and produced water contaminants are occasionally produced as a result of stuffing box leaks or spillage during well site operations. cleaners. pumps. and solids from wells.3 Natural Gas Plants Natural gas plants provide a centralized facility to efficiently dehydrate. waste lubrication oils. Accidents are responsible for the majority of serious offshore pollution incidents. N1. mercaptan. separate liquid hydrocarbons and natural gas. heater-treaters.) Remedial cementing to eliminate fluid migration should be conducted if fluid migration to freshwater aquifers is detected. and filters. including paraffin. free hydrocarbon liquids. etc. propane. and methanol injection pumps. produced water. The large number of engines. solids.5 to 1.5 Offshore Operations While all offshore operations are generally similar to onshore production operations. The compact location and necessity of transporting equipment by barge. NO. certain differences are significant. Air pollution controls to decrease SO2 emissions for oil-fired generators generate sulfur compounds in a liquid solution called "sulfur liquor. etc. energy content (BTU content). and extract nonhydrocarbon diluents from natural gas and to extract natural gas liquids (NGLs). spent glycol. mine." Other facilities.4 Workover Operations Workover operations range from very clean operations involving minimal environmental risks to operations that are identical in risk to drilling operations. however. filters. or helicopter affects logistics. fracturing fluids and related chemicals. plants accept full well stream. suchas compressors. sludge. Workover fluids include muds.0%. and H2S (API. with the amounts varying strongly with the technology and fuel used for steam generation. and other impurities may also be present. complicating well access. etc. solid desiccants. there are limits on water content. sand. If flow behind pipe that could allow communication with potable water sources is suspected. certain problems are exacerbated. ships. and heavier NGLs. gels. typically 0. many natural gases contain significant fractions of ethane. and H2S are very common.1 Well Operations During the course of normal well production and injection operations. free water knockouts. are more compact and isolated than their onshore counterparts. pollution is possible through spills or leaks on the surface and from unwanted migration of fluids underground. and mole fractions of nonhydrocarbon gases such as N2. fluids. etc.. gas scrubbers. mines. etc. used lubricator oils. Water. stock tanks. Numerous wellheads are close together. Sand and scale contamination with traces of hydrocarbons and other hydrocarbon sludge are generated from flow lines. etc.2 Production Facilities Production facilities gather produced vapors. longer life. and treatment processes. butanes. compress. Workover rigs themselves generate waste hydraulic fluids. and them for sale. . residual hydrocarbons. 1989). Some gas Several of these potential problems are unique to the offshore environment. The relative roles of gas plants and well production facilities vary. CO2. ship. scale.). caissons. etc.. spilled pollutants reach navigable waterways almost immediately. 22-2. 22-2. Sources of air pollution in offshore operations include ship engine exhaust. because of the greater number.. 22-2. these are (on average) higher-flow-capacity wells. glycol. and others essentially "straddle" a gas pipeline that is transporting marketable natural gas. Reserve pits must be handled with care as will be discussed later. some accept gas separated at the lease. generate a variety of low-level contaminants. separators. used oils. filters.580 Environmental Concerns in Petroleum Production Engineering Chap. compressors. drilling/ power supply equipment. solvents. However. The types of pollutants generated in natural gas processing operations are similar to those in production facilities. wells must be cemented properly so that produced or injected fluids are isolated from aquifers that may lie above the productive zones.dehydratorsandsweeteningunits. sumps. and empty containers. Potential sources of significant oil spills due to accidents include: Well blowouts Platform collapses Ship collisions Pipeline ruptures Equipment failures Fires and explosions a Human error a a 22-2. Salable products have restrictions as to allowable contaminants. oily debris. 22 Sec. line heaters. Paraffin is generated in operations such as cutting paraffin intubing with downhole tools and pigging flow lines. Production operations from fixed platforms. 22-2 Wastes Generated in ProductionOperatlons 581 22-2. a maximum limit is set on basic sediment and water (BS&W). More important. desanders. solids. surfactant. cooling waters.

No attempt is made to cover all issues. most locations require that all spills that impart a visible sheen be reported. heavy hydrocarbons. The number of substances to be reported to government regulatory bodies depends on specific regulations and may depend on the volume released. The relative amounts of oil spillage that must be reported vary according to location and specificregulations. may be reportable. Produced water contains both free and dissolved oil as well as water-soluble organic compounds (WSOs). Example chemicals frequently consideredtoxic include polychlorinated biphenyls (CFAs).1 Chemical Concerns A "release" of substances can include spilling. discharging. This also creates the potential for new pollution sources 22-3. leaking. Nearshore operations near inhabited areas may be required to mitigate such pollutants. While produced water may be the most important source of oil and grease in water. At the end of this section are some example applications and calculations of environmentally related problems. 22 Sec. and extraction gravimetric devices. fishes. disposal. 22-3 Operating Issues--Handling Oilfield Wastes 583 CO. (PCBs). 1989). Sacrificial anodes are frequently designed into the platform legs. 22-3 OPERATING ISSUES-HANDLING OILFIELD WASTES The following areas of environmental concern deal with production operations and the minimization and disposition of potential pollutants. and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs). explosive removal of platforms can potentially kill such marine creatures. Devices to detect low concentrations of oil and grease in water include infrared monitors. pouring. solids contaminated with crude oil. down to an amount dictated by purely economic constraints-that is. injecting. anemones. turtles.3 Road Spreading Certain hydrocarbon wastes such as tank bottoms. However. storage. and marine mammals. Numerous offshore areas have live bottom characteristics that make offshore development particularly difficult. and the structures are then left on the ocean floor. 22-3. Most oilfield chemicals. and disposing into the environment. and should not cause excessive black smoke or particulates. and other fauna a Another measure required in offshore facilities design is the installation of protective devices over subsea equipment in areas of shrimp harvesting (or other drag net fishing). Produced water from onshore wells is typically reinjected after removal of entrained oil. includingoil and condensate. Sanitary waste must be treated and is subject to restrictions on chlorine concentration. Typical requirements are to remove enough hydrocarbons so that no visible sheen results on the surface of the ocean and that there is no discharge of free oil. The total amount of such material and the types of metals permitted are often subject to regulation. This requires a better level of cleaning than for onshore operations. The specific technologies of recovering low concentrations of oil and grease from produced waters depend on the volumes involved. which are preferentially consumed to protect the structural integrity of the platform material. most produced water will ultimately be dumped into the ocean or sea. Selection of the technology should include the following criteria: Cost versus reduction in pollutants Age of the equipment a Process specifics and engineering details a Process changes required a Energy demand a a associated with sewage and trash. total and suspended solids. In fact. Other pollutants that are unique to offshore operations include cathodic metal discharge.) a Lithotypes favoring accumulation of turtles. Trash is typically burned during daylight hours and is subject to volume constraints. and emulsions may be used for road oil or road building material . emptying. in some cases offshore structures are severed at a depth below the water surface.and in some instances even produced water.582 Environmental Concerns in Petroleum Productlon Engineering Chap. transport. While air quality is typically degraded in the immediate platform vicinity. because of their beneficial effect as artificial reefs. and biological oxygen demand (BOD). and record-keeping requirements will generally apply to these substances. personnel live on location on a continuous basis. can more oil be recovered at a cost less than its value? The remaining water with entrained oil typically is injected into subterranean formations. and particulates. pumping. Because the presence of platforms frequently attracts fish. Burning should be restricted to materials such as paraffins and oily sorbents. etc. deep enough not to interfere with ship traffic. Offshore operations have extremely limited storage space and volumes. ~Norofluoroalkanes 22-3. Certain chemicals must be treated as toxic substances. total flows.2 Open Burning and lncincerators The open burning of nonhazardous hydrocarbon-containing materials with properties that make recycling unsuitable is appropriate when it is allowed by regulations. emitting. WSOs include organic acids and light hydrocarbons (Arscott. Most of these environments cannot be developed except by extended-reach drilling from areas with less sensitivelocations. Live bottom characteristics include: a Sea grass communities Sessile invertebrates (sea fans. corals. Platform structures are typically removed by explosive charges approximately 5 m below the mudline. escaping. dumping. Most large offshore production facilities are manned-that is. Producedsands and other solids are also routinely dumped overboard after cleanup and removal of free hydrocarbons. as this is beyond the scope of this book. Burning should be conducted during daylight hours. Acceptable oil and grease concentration can be quantified as generally less than 48 mglliter. A final concern in offshore environments involves the ultimate removal of platform structures. deck drainage (water runoff) from cleanup activities or rain may also cany enough hydrocarbons to impart a surface "sheen" on the ocean. calorimetric devices. the dynamic offshore environment quickly disperses these pollutants. Specific labeling.

and absorption. Solid and liquid wastes may be treated this way after free oil and water have been removed. 1982). vessels. in an approved synthetic or clay-lined evaporation pond. and maintenance of underground disposal and injection wells should be maintained at the facility. and other reporting relevant to permits. tests. Reserve pits use should be limited only to drilling muds. 22-3. compressors. Leaks. or vegetation.. or more frequentlyif required by regulations. The use of such materials should be at a rate that minimizes surface runoff. Existing unlined disposed pits should be evaluated. cuttings. etc. specific bacteria selected for the process) may be added. rates of leaching into the subsurface (with potential contamination of shallow aquifers) exceed rates of evaporation. Pressure monitoring devices should be installed and routinely observed measurements recorded for the evaluation of the tubing and casing annulus pressure. and completion fluids. or pursuant to a discharge permit in accordance with applicable requirements. Disposal of produced water in injection wells requires equipping with tubing. film.584 Envlronrnental Concerns In Petroleum Production Engineering Chap.6 Produced Water Produced water for onshore wells should be disposed of at an approved injection well.7 Injection Wells for Produced Water Underground disposal of produced water in injection wells must be carried out strictly within approved parameters to prevent any risk of contamination to underground water supplies or to the environment. NORM contaminated surplus material may be returned to like service without any remedial action. a mechanical integrity test pursuant to the well's permit should be properly performed. Pits designed to provide pressure relief during emergency conditions only are acceptable if they are pumped and cleaned promptly after use. The use of such waters in lieu of road salting for snowlice control may be acceptable if approved by appropriate regulations. This process reduces organic and inorganic constituents by natural processes such as biodegration. 22-3. A written agreement should be required with all third-party disposal well operators. Historically. and the presence of toxic substances and significant metals eliminates this method of disposition. casing. water.000 ppm total dissolved solids)may be unlined if they comply with applicable standards where freshwater is produced. soil. but may not be used for any other service outside oil and gas production or sold for scrap unless NORMs are below acceptable levels. These materials may produce radioactive scale. Shut-in disposal water injection wells should be monitored and pressures recorded at least quarterly. Upon well completion or plugging.g. Frac tanks should be used where feasible in lieu of blowdown pits.4 Land SpreadinglBiodegration Low-toxicity wastes may be treated and disposed of by land spreading." In many such cases. Freshwater pits (e. Existing underground petroleum storage tanks should be phased out. phased out. 22 Sec. gas plants. Wells that do not meet operating requirements should be immediately shut in until they are adequately repaired and successfully retested. valves. Copies of disposal well water injection reports. This process must be carefully managed to eliminate the chance for groundwatercontaminationor harm to animals. A temperature/radioactive (RA) tracer log or its equivalent should be required once every 4 years or within 12 months after a well has been acidized or subjected to other activities that could affect the integrity . Pits that are not closed should be lined with synthetic or clay liners and should be inspected annually for integrity. less than about 10. Produced waters that are brackish (salinities > 300 ppm) should not be used for road spreading or dust suppression. Timing of the underground removals should be planned to allow for notifi- . The facility supervisor should ensure that all injection wells are operated and tested according to the approved and applicable permit conditions. surveys. and a packer. Numerous precautions are required.of the well or the injection zone. pumps. dilution. Land spreading may also generate other materials that will be unsuitable in areas immediately adjacent to populated areas. and closed. spills. * 22-3.8 Radiation Naturally occumng radioactive materials (NORMS) have been known to be present in varying concentrations in hydrocarbon reservoirs throughout the world for many years. reserve pits should be promptly closed and reclaimed.5 Pits Unlined pits for production. or other releases of produced waters must be reported to the appropriate agencies. 22-3 Operating Issues-Handling Oilfield Wastes 585 under certain conditions.e.. Surplus materials must be evaluated for NORMs. monitoring. All disposal of produced water in injection wells should undergo a formal mechanical integrity assessmentat least every 2 years. and materials to accelerate biodegration (nitrogen. and sludge in equipment associated with oil and gas production and processing. 22-3.) are affected. these require that the materials are not ignitable (flash point > 140°F) and that they have a density and metals content consistent with approved road oils and mixes. Only equipment that has been in service in the production fields and gas plants (i. The facility supervisor should obtain assurance that third-party disposal and produced water injection wells also meet these conditions. %pically.9 Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks and Sumps Installation of new underground petroleum storage tanks is discouraged due to the substantial risk of future leaks. 22-3. The material is spread evenly. 22-3. pipes. This includes pressure testing or an assessment of tubing and casing annulus pressure-monitoring records. If significant pressure anomalies or trends are noted. operators may have disposed of field brines and other materials in unlined pits to "evaporate. or drilling operation are an invitation to disaster (Jones and Hulse. compliance.

Waste-minimizationand recycling programs and practices should be implemented in all operations to the extent practicable. and recycle wastes generated within their area.000 bbVd. fiberglass tanks or concrete).63 x 10' min = 182 d 320 The calculated time assumes zero oil concentration in the produced water and thus it is the minimum required time. Solution The volumetric capacity of each coagulation/flocculationtank (and remembering the need of 30 min residence time) is Therefore. A water treatment plant is to handle 600. resulting in increased disposal costs.4 x lo7) (8. Assuming that oil flow can be controlled with the water. EXAMPLE 22-1 Water treatment plant sizing 22-3. the width of each tank should be Similarly. and they must be approved for use prior to installation. residues of hazardous waste. Such a time is inordinately long and not a likely solution. nondischargeable drilling muds. manifested. the waste must be stored.3 ft. Hazardous and nonhazardous waste materials should not be mixed or consolidated. distillate. methanol. requiring vendors to take back the drums they deliver. 22 Sec. and disposed of at a permitted disposal facility. Used oil that is not recycled or reclaimed either at the generating facility or at an approved third-party reclaimer should be manifested as hazardous waste and disposed of properly at an approved hazardous waste facility. Assuming that three sets of tanks. each 60 ft long are to be used. Hazardous and nonhazardous waste substances should be stored in separate storage facilities. workover fluids. and therefore the corresponding width is 23. Since the throughput is 0.4 x 10') = 2. calculate the required widths. the resultant mixture is considered hazardous and must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Sumps for petroleum collection should be constructed so that its walls are self-supporting (i. frac fluids. All operating waste for disposal must be tested to characterize its composition andlor to identify the presence of any hazardous substances. then the total volume of water required to dilute 20 bbl of oil is Waste Management. lead-based paints. avoiding the mixing of hazardous wastes with nonhazardous wastes. solvents. An oil spill results in 50 bbl of oil being released out of the lease. One alternative is to regulate the release of the oil with the water stream into the estuary.7/0. 22-3 Operating Issues--Handling Oilfield Wastes 587 cation of the appropriate regulating agencies.and the correspondingwidth should be 104 ft. acid or caustic solutions. If testing indicates the presence of a hazardous substance.000 bbl/d or 34.586 Environmental Concerns In Petroleum Production Engineering Chap. Cleanup efforts recover 30 bbl of oil. Total flow into the estuary is restricted to a rate of 320 gprn with no more than 10 ppm oil and grease. and additives. the volumetric capacity of each sedimentationtank should be 9. Each of the 12 filter boxes is 30 ft long (two for each tank). and preventing leaks and spills. ignitable. Suppose that a coagulation/flocculation time of 30 min and a sedimentation time of 2 hr are required. reduce. All used or waste oil sent offsite to an approved recyclerJreclaimer needs to be manifested to protect from future liability in the event of improper handling by a third party. Substances used in operations that are generally identified as hazardous waste include chromates. t = + . with 20 bbl contained in a wastewater pond. reactive. and other wastes that are hazardous by "characteristic" (corrosive. the coagulation/flocculationtanks are 10 ft deep. treating chemicals. calculate the required filtration area per unit.7 bpm. or toxic).e. 0 EXAMPLE 22-2 Discharge in surface waters A group of wells produce a great deal of water that is ultimately discharged into a nearby estuary.36 x lo4ft3. and transported according to government regulations. inhibitors. If hazardous and nonhazardous materials are mixed.05). residues from heater treaters and separators.05 bpm/ft2and if 12 units will be used. Practices should include minimizing the number of chemical drums at locations. pesticides. Preventative measures include employing and maintain- The time required would be (8.. and the sedimentation tanks are 15 ft deep. how long will it take to discharge the trapped oil under permitted conditions? Is this a practical solution? Solution Since the allowable oil concentration is 10 ppm. A soil/groundwater assessment program should be implemented upon removal of any tank or sump found to have been leaking.10 Waste Management and Minimization Wastes must be handled in a manner that protects the environment within the area of production operations and complies with all applicable laws and regulations and good housekeeping practices. Appropriate tests should be conducted to identify the presence of a hazardous substance in wastes from tank bottoms. Hazardous waste procedures must be followed when hazardous substances or regulated levels of radiation are present in any waste. Adequate testing and record-keeping procedures for a monitoring program must be implemented. utilizing products/chemicals that do not contain hazardous substances when possible. If the throughput per filter box is 0. Further reclamation will be costly and difficult. Operating facilities should develop and implement a waste management plan to effectively manage. ing leak. Each of the 12 filter boxes will handle 50.and spill-prevention mechanisms and substituting nonhazardous components for hazardous ones. eliminating waste-generating activities where alternatives exist.05 bpmlftz. the required area is 694 ft2(= 34.

M. Extreme cold. and Hulse. API. However. . however.. human discomfort. Total arctic and subarctic areas include 26 million km2 of water and 5 million km2 of land area. April 1989. beodegrations. drilling operations. An "active layer" of soils that thaw and refreeze may exist to depths up to a few feet.. These complications increase costs. L. the arctic environment includes numerous additional risks.1%. This constitutes more than 20% of the earth's surface area. Godic. etc. 3.. Arctic and subarctic areas contain vast quantities of identified and prospective hydrocarbon-bearing formations. June 21. 'The Economic Impacts of Environmental Regulations on the Costs of Finding and Developing Crude Oil Resources in the United States. 1991). 1982. which work on land or on water and can be applied with varying success in the arctic and subarctic environments. absorbants.W R. V. Actual pollution of groundwater and waterways is not generally as great a problem as in warmer areas. Ship and barge access is restricted to summer months.921)/0. burning. and air. Thus a maximum of 6400 yd3 can be added. slow operations. L..588 EnvironmentalConcerns in Petroleum Production Engineering Chap. The costs of developing permanent infractures are very high. production facilities.. D. 336-342. This can be accomplished by setting an additional casing string and leaving an insulating material (typically a gelled crude oil REFERENCES 1. 1974).. Jones. and limited loading facilities make helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft travel difficult. . M. Temperaturerelated technology issues.2% oil and grease content. making it nonpotable. "New Dictions in EnvironmentalProtection in Oil & Gas Opemtions:'JPT. Unique flora and fauna with unusual susceptibilities to damage Permafrost zones and arctic tundra soils and subsoils Limited access by land.1%.. were to be dumped in the 9. These include: - mixture) in this annulus. Liddell. and limit the time period during which operations may be conducted. Damage to sensitive arctic flora and fauna is certainly possible from E&P operations. and Ramert. The oil and grease content of the sludge is 16. From a cleanup operation of a spill. The density of the sludge is 78 Ib/ft3.4 acres. How much can be incorporated within permit limits? Solution If all the sludge. 2. March 1974. with 16. R. American Petroleum Institute. Costs to move the sludge off-leaseare large. while the soil density in the 1-ft-thick zone of incorporation is 91 lb/ft3. "Arctic Bioremediation: A Case Study. 9470 yd3 of oily sludge is produced. and Biglarbigi. M. Arctic regions are characterized by mean temperatures during their warmest months of less than 10°C and average annual temperatures below 0°C. high winds. so it is necessary to incorporate as much as possible within the facility.4 acres and with the 10%limit. especially during winter Isolated from infrastructure associated with exploration and production activities Unusually large transportation risks Permafrost consists of water saturated-soils that are frozen year-round. Oil production in permafrost environmentsrequires special insulation to prevent thawing of the permafrost (and subsequent instabilities). D. B. 269-278. oil spillage from tankers and barges remains the largest threat to the arctic enbhonment.Washington. the weighted equivalent of the sludge-in-place is 4500 yd3[= (0. Tanker collisions. since the current oil and grease content is 4. DC. and other facilities must be either placed on gravel skids or elevated. and limited visibility conditions affect the degree of success and the costs of cleanup (McLeod and McLeod. 6. oil barriers. 1989. Permafrost conditions require special well completions."SPE Paper 20619. The permafrost layer in arctic regions can be hundreds of feet thick. 1st ed. which means that 3070 yd3(= 9470 . etc. and the measured oil and grease content is 4.2%. L . pp. Permit restrictions limit oil and grease in the soil to 10%. API Environmental Guidance Document: Onshore Solid Waste Management in Exploration and Production Operations. 1990. sea. Smallback. and McLeod. Pipes. Insulated tubing and insulating fluids in the tubinghasing annulus may also be used. pp. 4. skids. Arscott. Installation of permanent facilities and pipelines is also complicated by permafrost environments. L. and other tanker damage have the most significant potential for spill events. One of the greatest environmental ris$s in the arctic is product transportation. The subarctic region extends to areas with no more than 4 months with a mean temperature above 10°C.. 5. K. 22 Sec. it would be the weighted equivalent of However.. "Drilling Fluid Bioassays and the OCS:' O&GJ.1991.041)(10. skimmers. 2 2 4 Arctic Environments 589 EXAMPLE 22-3 Bioremediation of sludge A small "bug farm" is operated for bioremediation of produced sludge.). Pipelines must be elevated and wrapped for insulation. dispersants. Land transportation over the arctic tundra requires specially designed vehicles with extraordinary large tires at low air pressure. accidental or deliberate discharging of crude oil into the sea. McLeod. "Measures to Combat Arctic & Subarctic O'i Spills:'JPT. A wide variety of cleanup technologies are available (booms. C. .6400) must be disposed of elsewhere. The bug farm contains 9. . The environmental risks associated with onshore and offshore operations include all of the risks associated with warmer climates. since many spills will not travel readily to waterways in the lower temperatures and the liquid-phase groundwater below the permafrost is frequently brackish to saline. Cleanup o i spills and other remediation efforts are also seriouslv hampered (Lidell et al. Travel and operations in the most severe arctic environmentsis severely limited. A pipeline failure could cause significant local d * . the presence of ice in the water." SPE Paper 22215. R. P.1].


= 0..2 c.7 cp yo = 32" API y..1 x psi-' Q = 1.. = 0. C = 3. = 1.Well in a Two-Phase Reservoir k. = 395"R p.25 x psi-' p.406 ft .3 4 = 0..71 T = 180°F T.. = 3 x psi-' . = 13 md (from cores) h = 115ft pi = 4350 psi pb = 4350 psi co = 1. = 667 psi S.21 r. = 0..

.Appendix B Well in a Two-Phase Reservoir 0 1000 2000 3000 Pressure (psi) 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 Pressure (psi) 4000 5000 Figure 8-2 Relative permeabilities for fluid. Pressure (psi) Figure B-1 Thermodynamic properties for fluid.

73 4 = 0.021) i-C5(0. = 671 psi ~~(0.A P P E N D I X C Well in a Natural Gas Reservoir Composition of gas and properties: Cl(0.0244 cp h =78ft S. = 378"R C2(0..17 md 597 .328 ft (7 718-in. = 0.003) C7+(0.006) n-C5(0.002) n-C6(0..945 pi = 0. = 0. = 0.65 Well and Reservoir Variables T = 180°F = 640°R pi = 4613 psi Zi= 0.875) i-C4(0.008) T.14 r. = 0.001) p. S.001) y.083) n-C4(0.27 . well) k = 0.


moles/sec s = skin effect. = initial reservoir pressure. m2 k. ft. md. ftlsec. psi. = well radius. m3 G = elastic modulus. m2-sec ( m o l e ~ / m ~ ) ~ ff = Fanning friction factor. STB. m2 kf = fracture permeability. m3/sec/Pa k = permeability. = mass of proppant. m2 (Chap. = injection rate. Pa ptr = fracture treatment pressure. 10. m i = index of permeability anisotropy.. m2 K' = power law consistency index. psi &Pa f i L = horizontal well length. m3 NRe = Reynolds number Nu. m2 kH = horizontal permeability. m R = universal gas constant. ft. = gas velocity number Nu[ = liquid veloclty number p = pressure. hr. psi. Pa p. psi. ft. m2 k. psi2/cp. md. m L = linear distance. psi. m3/sec (bpm in Chap. m3/m3 h = reservoir thickness. MSCF/d. ft. (sTB/~)-'. "C F u = veloclty. SCFISTB. Pa pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure. STB/d. m r . md. m3/sec r = radlal distance. psi. ft. = gas relative permeability. ft. ft. SCFISTB. dimensionless k. Pa Ef = reaction rate constant. = gas production rate. sec T = temperature. lbf -secn'/ft2. = gas saturation. md. STB/d. = pressure due to skin. = wellhead injection pressure. fraction t = time. Pa (Chap. = solution gas-oil ratio. m h .. fraction S.+a = skin effect for partial completion and slant sch = choke skin effect s:." KI = stress intensity factor. m r. = oil relative permeability. STB. dimensionless N = oil-in-place. md. = oil permeability. = connate water saturation. psi. sec tp = producing time. I J = productivity index. dimensionless . kv = vertical permeability. kglsec m ( p ) = real gas pseudo-pressure.73 psi ft3/lb-mole-"R R. = water saturation. m r~ = area specific reaction rate. m H = depth. m3/m3 RA = rate of appearance of species A. SCFISTB.. Pa pbd = breakdown pressure.Appendix D Nomenclature 601 D = non-Darcy coefficient.. STB/d/psi. psi. = gravel pack skin factor sp = perforation skin effect Sb = surface area of mineral B. md. m r . fraction So = oil saturation. psi. m3/sec q . m3 N = pump speed. m m = gas cap fraction m = mass flow rate. (m3/sec)-' E = Young's modulus. kg MW = molecular weight n = number of moles n' = power law exponent. Pa p = average reservoir pressure. = horizontal drainage radius. ft2. = radius of damage zone. ft/sec2. strokes per minute (Chap. SCF. m rh = effective wellbore radius. Pa p. 16) GLR = gas-liquid ratio. dimensionless FcD = dimensionless fracture conductivity g = acceleration of gravity. psi. m3/sec q. m/sec2 G = ghs-in-place. m hf = fracture height. = horizontal well equivalent + skin effect s. m ~ rev = vertical drainage radius. lb/hr. m3/m3 GOR = gas-oil ratio. O . Pa p. 20) NAc = acid capacity number Noa = Damkohler number N F = Froude number ~ NL = liquid viscosity number Np = oil cumulative production. Pa p~ = dimensionless pressure pf = fracturing pressure. ft. Pa q = production rate. Pafsec M. Pa prf = flowing wellhead pressure. m2 k. 16) qo = oil production rate. psi. = completion interval. ft. = water relative permeability. ft. m/sec . md. STB/d. dimensionless s. moles/sec-m2 re = drainage radius. ft. = gas permeability. 13) S. dimensionless . fraction S. dimensionless k. = water permeability. m2 k. psi. hr. lb. ft. ft.



115 Injection well diagnosis. 3 12-1 8 channeling. 271-74 Fractured horizontal wells: fractured vertical wells vs. power requirements of. 110-15 mechanisms. artificial flowing gradient. 100-104 injection damage. 126-29 Harmonic decline. 531-32 Gas lift. 496503 Hydraulic fracture candidate wells. 114-15 Decline curve analysis. pretreatment testing of. 317-18 preferential flow of gaslwater through high permeability layers. 133-35 Land spreadinghiodegradation. 276-78 Inflow performance relationship (IPR). 9. 448-51 fractured horizontal wells: fractured vertical wells vs. 55 1. 314-17 Holdup behavior. 68-70 for non-Darcy flow. 107-8 Fixed-length interval. hydraulic fracturing.21619 Electrical submersiblepumps (ESPs). defined. 3 17-1 8 Gas well deliverability. fracture width with. 174-79 of gas reservoirs. 107-8 fluid damage.523-50 gas compressors. 64-67 Gaslwater coning. 551. 509-12 longitudinalfracture penetrating horizontal well. 517 Drilling. 438-41 non-Newtonian fluid. 432-45 Fracturing fluids. 166-67 Axed pressure increment. 105-7 production damage. 506-8 performance of. 46266 friction pressure drop during pumping. 119-22 gravel-packed wells.. 427-28 fracture face damage. fracture width with. 56368 Environmental concerns. 512-15 treatment designs. preferential flow of gaslwater through. fracture width with. 312-13 gaslwater coning. 79-80 Horizontal well test. 382 Gravel pack completions: gravel and screen design. 551. 130-31 placement. 584 Longitudinal fracture penetrating horizontal well. 370 particulate diverting agents. 526-29 Injection damage.423-27 F Fines migration. 31-36 impact of skin effect on. 529-3 1 Gas formation volume factor. 46062 nature vs. 67 Gas gravity. 532-34 J Jet pumps. 428-32 net fracturing pressure. 41-45 decline curve analysis. 5 17-20 hyperbolic decline. 5 5 8 4 1 E Eaton correlation. 5 9 4 2 Gas injection rate. 11&12 Drillstem test. pressure traverse with. carbonate acidizing. 192-97 generalized expression. 219-21 Dynamic displacement pumps. 108 completion damage. 56869 K KGD model. 71-73 Gas well performance forecast. mechanisms for. 110-12 fines migration. 110 chemical precipitation. 506-8 performance of. 314-17 Exploration well test. 503-4 conductivity. height migration. 4 0 6 8 Fluid loss additives.445-48 High permeability layers. hydraulic fracturing. 526-29 maximum production rate with. 466-69 selection guide. 104-10 horizontal well damage skin effect.. 496 Hydraulic fracturing. 5 1 6 2 0 constant fractional decline. 122-26 gravel pack: evaluation. 321-24 Injection wells for produced water. 421 fluid volume requirements. 5 17-20 Hawkins' formula. 488-93 net present value (NPV) for. 371 gels and foams. 434-36 proppant schedule. 4 5 . petroleum production engineering. 1 Drilling damage. productivity of. 52629 pressure of. 112-13 drilling damage.power requirements of. 84-86 HCL preflush. power demand for.4-5 Fluid volume requirements.4 8 in-situ stresses. 512-15 interpretation of. 274-76 Hydraulically fractured well. 485-87 polymer-induced damage. 100 pore spaces. 509-12 fracture direction. 148-50 Horizontal well damage skin effect.Index 607 length. 459 Gas compressibililty. defined. 28-3 1. 544-49 Gas viscosity. 382-84 Height migration. transient response of. 529-3 1 gas injection rate. 436-37 PKN model. mechanisms for. 371-82 Fluid saturations.56263 Hyperbolic decline. 504-6 fracture geometry modeling. 109 Fluid diversion. 370-82 ball sealers. 5 3 5 4 requirements vs.421-56 choked fractures. 524-26 performance curve. time. 68 Gas compressors. hydraulic fracturing. 181-84 of two-phase reservoirs. 269-71 Fluid placement/diversion: sandstone acidizing. 382 Formation damage: during well operations. 517 D Damage characterization: biological damage. hydraulic fracturing. 516-20 defined. 45769 Monte Carlo technique. 471-77 Hydraulic piston pumping. 181-84 combination of vertical lift performance (VLP) and. 504-6 Fracture geometry modeling. 110-15 mechanisms. 457-94 and fracture propagation issues. hydraulic fracturing. increase of. 45 1-52 propped fracture width. 1 Formation test. 531-32 injected gas: point of injection. 36 natural gas reservoirs. 509-10 M Material balance for oil reservoirs. 26849 Dukler correlation. 452-54 skin effect. particle plugging of. 510-12 Fracture direction. 432-45 fracture treatment. pressure traverse with. 109 near-well damage.56369 Dynamometer cards. reactions with sandstone minerals. 382 mechanical acid placement. 167-70 Fluid damage. 2 0 3 4 Gelled solutions. 470-71 proppant selection for. 509-10 transverse fractures intersecting horizontal well. 100-104 Horizontal well production. 115 mechanical damage. 109 formation damage: during well operations. 4 5 8 6 0 rheological properties. 481-84 parametic studies. 428-32 surface ratelpressure data. 427-28 Fracture face damage. 448-5 1 Fluosilicic acid. hydraulic fracture width with. 428-32 continuum damage mechanics in. 579-89 Excessive gaslwater production. 340 Foamed acid solutions. 517 harmonic decline. 179-81 Injected gas: point of injection. 585 In-situ stresses. 477-81 fracturing fluids. 192-93 reservoir variables. 57-58 pseudo-criticalproperties from. as fracturing fluid additives. 526-29 pressure of. 423-27 KGD model. 193-97 . performance analysis of sucker rod pumping with. 437-38 L Laminar or turbulent flow. 45769 design considerations. 437-38 I Impulse test. 104-10 Formation evaluation.

279 Production engineering: defined. 167-70 Pressure traverse calculations. 386 acidizing process. 285 Real gas law. 584 injection wells for. 48-50 fluid density. 385 acid selection. 327-45 acid-mineral reaction kinetics. 2-7 well. 64-67 gas well deliverability: approximations of. hydraulic fracturing. 58-59 transient flow of a gas well. 47 fluid viscosity. pressure gauge. 2 Reservoir engineering. 166-67 with fixed pressure increment. 2-3 S rate. 1 reservoir. 288-90 Rheological properties: fracturing fluids. 10-12 and well productivity. 62-64 presence of.523 Monte Carlo technique. 434-36 Polymer-induceddamage. 55363 hydraulic piston pumping. 24-25 Pulse test. 46246 friction pressure drop during pumping. 5 lateral discontinuities.Index Matrix acidizing. 358-59 Preflushlpostflush design. 221-23 Produced water. See Skin effects. 36-38 Reservoir: cl~ssification 5 6 of. 83 Precipitation sandstone acidizing models. 569-70 positive-displacement pumps. monitoring. 5 3 5 4 Permeability. 52-53 Open buming/incinerators. 165-70 two-phase flow regimes. 382 mechanical acid placement. 285 resolution. 288 Response time. 7 surface equipment.284-91 accuracy. 9 Near-wellbore conditions. two-phase reservoirs. 371-82 Pay thickness. for hydraulic fracturing. 563-68 jet pumps. 281 609 Pump-assisted lift. 2-7 Reservoir thickness. 583 pits. 384-85 acidizing models. 62 real gas law. 579-89 Pits. 47 1-77 Pseudo-steady-state flow. 154-65 Multirate test. 58&81 Natural gas reservoirs. 3-4 Reservoir hydrocarbons. 562-63 sucker rod pumping. 290-91 Sandstone acidizing design.. 35960 Petroleum hydrocarbons. 318-21 Production log test. 1-5 defined. pressure gauge. 4 7 4 8 Proppant schedule. 151-54 two-phase pressure gradient models. 279 presence in natural gas reservoirs. 109 Mechanical lift. 382-84 Pressure gauge characteristics. 583-84 N Natural gas plants. 279-81 Production logging. 105-7 Porosity. 148-50 pressure traverse calculations. 584 produced water. 9. 181-84 nonhydrocarbon gases: gas deviation factor correlation for. 314-17 injection well diagnosis. 10-13 Production facilities. 312-13 gaslwater coning. wastes in. 100 Negative skin effects. 585-86 waste management/minimization. 470-7 1 Pore spaces. 357-58 two-mineral model 350-57 acidiziig of horizon& wells. 1-2 Reservoir height. 1 system components. 568-69 gas lift vs. 466-69 Road spreading. See Reservoir height Resolution.485-87 Particulate diverting agents. 3 4 W 1 defined. competing factors influencing. 371 gels and foams. 7 relative. 350-61 permeability models. 46-50 accounting for water presence. 370 . hydraulic fracture width with. 310-12 excessive gadwater production. 488-93 Multilayer transient test. 282-83 PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) properties. 58-59 Relative permeability. 6 0 Offshore operations. 317-18 preferentialflow of gas/waterthrough high permeability layers. flowing oiwgas in. 358-59 two-acid three-mineral model. 62 Non-Newtonian fluid. 22-24 transition from infinite acting behavior to. hydraulic fracturing. wastes in. 8 Petroleum production engineering. Damage characterization Near-well damage. precipitation of.hydraulic fracturing. 10 volumelphase of reservoir hydrocarbons. 321-24 and well treatment evaluation. 79-80 inflow performance relationship (IPR). 9 zone surrounding well. 330-34 acid reaction products. 553-61 Pumped well test. pressure gauge. 370-82 ball sealers. 347-89 acid additives. 3C38 Permeability sandstone acidizing models. 148-70 se holdup behavior. 83-84 Net fracturingpressure. hydraulic fracturing. 278 Multiwell interference. 359-60 precipitation models. 584 injection wells for. fracture width with. 350 acidiizing treatment operations. 585 Range. 55361 Positive skin effects. 114-15 Production data analysis. for hydraulic fracturing. 68-70 for non-Darcy flow. 1 objectives of. 43841 Net present value (NPV). 583 R Radiation. 585 radiation. 569-70 dynamic displacement pumps. gas lift. 57-81 correlations/calculations. 4 Petroleum production: artificial structures. 1 environmental concerns. 361-70 acidizing treatment design. 341-43 acid transport to mineral surface. 62-64 P Parametic studies. 585 Production damage. selection of. pressure gauge.55363 hydraulic piston pumping. 56263 sucker rod pumping. 584 PKN model. 71-73 horizontal well IPR in. 56369 electrical submersible pumps (ESPs). sandstone acidizing design. 2-10 permeability. 1 general systems. 67 gas gravity. 481-84 Nonhydrocarbon gases: gas deviation factor correlation for. 5 9 6 8 gas compressibililty. 348-49 acid volume/injection rate. 290 Pressure traverse. 327 Mechanical damage. defined. 165-70 with fixed-length interval. 288-90 sampling rate. 580 ProductionJinjection well test. 181-84 Natural lift.291 stability. 278 ~ u l t i ~ h aflow. 584 open burning/incinerators. 551. 586-88 Oil inflow performance. 3 12-1 8 channeling. 94 Performance curve. 583 land spreadingbiodegradation. 290-91 shock resistance. 55 1-71 artificial lift method. 583-88 chemical concerns. 581-83 Oil field wastes. 57-58 pseudocritical properties from. See Reservoir height Perforating gun string. 285-88 range. 436-37 Positive-displacement pumps. 281 Property correlations: two-phase reservoirs. 288 response time. 585 road spreading. 59-62 gas viscosity. wastes in. particle plugging of. 309-26 abnormally low productivity. 350-70 fluid placement/diversion. 334-40 acid-mineral reaction stoichiometry. 451-52 Proppant selection. 73-79 vertical lift performance (VLP). 583-84 underground petroleum storage tankslsumps. 68 gas formation volume factor.