You are on page 1of 30

CHAPTER 5 - WELL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF STIMULATED WELLS

An effective way to evaluate stimulation or to compare different stimulation designs is by comparing net payout due to stimulation over time. If a particular stimulation design pays out the cost of stimulation and yields a net revenueof x dollars in five months (whereas an altemative design does it in 10 months), the first design undoubtedly is the most acceptable or sellable design. Fig. 5.1 is an example plotof net payout vs time.

3020.-

COMPETITORS DESIQN

-50

TIME"

Fig. 5.1 Net Payout at any time = Extra revenuejiom oil or gas production due to stimulation at any rime, t - cost of stimulation.
pwh

ARTIFICIAL LIFT
I

PRESSURE

Artificial lift methods are used in oil wells that have adequate productivity but inadequate pressure to lift the oil to the surface. There are basically two methods of artificial lift. Pumping Gas Lift

E w
CI

DISCHARGE PRESSURE SUCTION PRESSURE

Pumping Wells

DEAD OIL GRADIENT

Downhole pumps add pressure to the 5.1, the PNI p r flowing system. Fig. shown in As dead oil column is stagnant the and hydrostatic pressure of the column over- Fig. 5.2 Effect Of SUbsUrfaCePumps Of well pressure profile. comes the reservoir pressure stopping the inflow into the wellbore. Installation of a pump modifies the pressure profile adding a by fixed pressure gain between the suction and discharge sides of the pump. When properly designed, this pressure gain allows the fluid to flow to the surface at a fixed wellhead pressure. Pumps always operate with a positive suction pressure provided by a fluid column in the annulus above the pump level. This fluid level in the annulus can be monitored by an echometer. Before stimulating a pumping well, the fluid level in the annulus should be monitoredto make the post-stimulation troubleshooting possible.
5-1

Diagnostic of potential stimulation needs in pumped oil wells In general, if the fluid level rises and the pump discharge rate falls, the problem is in the pump, (Case1 of Fig. 5.3). It is not uncommon to encounter problems such after stimulation of a pumping well. In most of these cases, the old pump needs to be replacedor repaired.

P,

IPR WITH HIGHER SKIN

t
3

ORIGINAL IPR CURVE

The other common problem is when the flow rate falls and the fluid level stays the same or recedes. This is commonly due to a , reservoir problem, such as depleq, q(STPD) -c q, tion or skin buildup (Case 2 of Fig. 5.3). Fig. 5.3 Showing potenrialproblems in a pumping well Note also that in a uumuinrr well after a successful stimulaiion: the pumps may needto be redesigned for optimum flow.It is very possible that aftera successful stimulationin a pumping well, the post stimulation production did not increase substantially due existing pump limitations. to
through IPR curves.

Gas Lift Wells


Gas lift is an artificial lift method where gas is injected to the liquid production string, normally through the tubing-casing annulus to aerate the liquid column, reducing the hydrostatic head of the liquid column. This reduces the bottomhole flowing pressure increasing production. The deeper the injection point, the longer the column of tubing fluid is aerated and thelower the bottomhole pressure. Thus, the objective of gas is to lift inject the optimum gas at the deepest possible point in the tubing. An optimum gas volume injection is very important because any higher volume leads to an excessive friction pressure loss in the tubing, thus overcoming the hydrostatic pressure gain. This situation results in an increase in the bottomhole flowing pressure, reducing production. Figure 5.4 shows a typical gas injection sequence used to unload or kick off a gas lift well. Gas lift valves are used to close and open at fixed casing or tubing pressures. The objective of unloading is to start aerating a fluid column in smaller lengths beginning at the top and then close the top valve to aerate through the second valve, and so on until the injection valveis reached. This valve is in such a way that it remains openall the time. set This stepwise unloading done to kick off a well with limited surface injection pressure. is

5-2

08 4

PRESSURE (100 PSI) -c 12 16 20 2824

1 2

3
4

5
6

7
0 9
L

..

D .

Fig. 5.4 Unloading wells with Gas L$t

Effect of Stimulation of Gas Lift Wells After stimulation with the improved IPR curve, a redesign of the gas lift system is normally required for optimized flow. This requires new setting of gas lift valves. It is possible that after stimulation a gas lift well loses production due to gas lift design problems. This section is to caution DS operations people against such gas lift system failures in a successfully stimulated well.

5-3

Example Problem 5.1 Clay Consolidation (Clay Acid) (Effect of moving damage away from the wellbore)

I I

Fig. 5.5

Average Permeability, F

re log rw = 1 1 re %+- 1ogk-E- log-G logrw kd rx ko rc

Percentage of original Permeability = Given:

100

r,

= 0.365 ft

FormationPermeability, k = 100 md Spacing = 160 acres (a) Calculate the percentageof original productivity due to80% damage I ft deep around the wellbore. (b) Calculate the percentage of original productivity due toan 80% damage collar, 1 ft wide and 4 ft from the wellbore.

5-4

Solution:

3.6106 0.0286 + 0.0304

= 61.2md

:. Percentage of original productivity= 61%


(b) k80% 1= 1 5.3654.365 log
+

1 0 lOg0.365 B 0

1 1,489 log4.365+100 log5.365

( ) m

1,489

0.01078

+ 0.00448 + 0.02443

3.6106

= 91 md

; Percentage of original productivity= 91% .


Example Problem 5.2 Pre- and Post-acid Evaluation

Summary
An offshore Louisiana well was tested followingits completion in the Pliocene formation. It produced 1,200 BPD at a wellhead pressure of 1,632 psig from a 71 ft. gravel-packed unconsolidated sandstonereservoir. Analysis of the test data identified severe wellbore damage which was restricting production (Skin = 210). It also showed that the production rate could be increased to 6,850 BOPD at the same wellhead pressure should thatdamage be removed. To treat the damage effectively, clear understanding of its a origin is needed.The analysis of the test data indicated inadequate perforations and a high probability of formation damage. This was confirmed by core analysis and production logs run after the test. An acid treatment was formulated and the post-acid indicated a significant improvement test in skin (Skin = 15). The production rate increased to 4,400BOPD at a wellhead pressure of 2,060 psig.'

Pre-Acid Test Results


The main results are summarized page 1 of the referred paper.1 The test procedure and on 5. analysis plots are given in pages 2 through The Model Verified Interpretation (page 3)
1

For more details refer to SPE 14820 presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, February 26-27. 1986

indicates a high permeability homogeneous reservoir with wellbore storage and severe skin effect. The Nodal analysis (page 4) shows that the production rate is significantly restricted by the skin effect, and projects a rate increase of 5,650 BOPD if the wellbore damage is removed. Finally, the shot density sensitivity plot (page 5) suggests adequate perforations and the likelihood of formation damage. The interpretation charts and computation sheets are presented. Production Logs Results The production logging data indicate that all of the 40 ft. perforated zone is contributing to the flow rate except the bottom 5 to 6 ft. Since the permeability variation in the perforated interval is minimal and the flow profile appears nonuniform, it is assumed that formation damage has affected the producing zone unevenly. Post-Acid Test Results Significant improvement in the wellbore condition is noticed. The resulting increase in production rate matches the prediction of the Nodal analysis. The charts and computation sheets are presented in this section. PRE-ACII INALYSIS NODAL YALYSIS Test Identification
Test Type ...................................... Test No. Formation..... ................................. Test Interval (ft)

Test String Configuration


SPRO 1 5 3 SAND 11942-11982 Tubing Vertical Multiphase Hagedom-Brown Flow Tubing Length (ft)/ID (in.) 11.830/2.992 11,826 Packer Depth (ft) 11,92O/DPTT Gauge Depth (ft)flype .................. Tubing Absolute Roughness( t 5.0E-05 f)

........................................

.........................................

............................

........... ..............

Completion Configuration
Total Depth (MD/l'VD) (ft) 11,920/10,800 6.094 Casingniner ID (in.) ........... 8.5 Hole Size (in.) 40 f) Perforated Interval (t.................. 12 Shot Density (shots/ft) 0.610 Perforation Diameter (in.) 71 Net pay (t f)

.......... ................

..

RockiFluld/WellboreProperties
Oil Density (" AFT) 29.5 Gas gravity .................................... 0.600 GOR (scf/STB) 628 Water Cut (a) 0 Viscosity (cp) 0.70 Total Compressibility (Vpsi) ........9.00E-06 28 Porosity (%) .................................. Reservoir Temperature (OF)..........218 Form. Vol.Factor @bl/STB) 1.37 Bubble Point Pressure, psi ............ 5120 1632 Wellhead Pressure (psig) 100.0 Wellhead Temp. (OF)........... Production Time (days) 3.0

............

.................. ............. .................. ............


........

............... ................ .................................

Interpretation Results
Model ofBehavior Homogeneous Fluid Type used for Analysis Liquid ................5585 Reservoir Pressure (psi) 53390 Transmissibility (md-ft/cp) Effective Permeability (md)..........526.0 210.0 Skin Factor.

.........

........... ..................

..............

.................

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION R TE DURING TEST: 1,200 BPD

5-6

Test Objectives The objectives of this test were to evaluate the completion efficiency and estimate the production potential of the well. Comments The test procedure and measurements are summarized on the following pages. The a storage and skin. The system behaved as a well in homogeneous reservoir with wellbore well and reservoir parameters listed above reveal a high permeability formation and a severely damaged wellbore. Removing this damage would result in increasing the production rate to 6,850 BOPD at the same wellhead pressure of 1,632 psig, without jeopardizing the integrity of the gravel pack. The shot density sensitivity plot suggests adequate perforations and high formation damage. This could be confirmed by production logs and core analysis. Acid treatment is recommended for removing the wellbore damage and increasing the production. Note that skin due to partial penetration cannot the be eliminated by acidizing - consequently the ideal production rate may not achieved. be

PRE-ACID TEST COMPUTATION SHEET


1.

LOG-LOG ANALYSIS
1.1 Match Parameters

Model: Homogeneous, Pressure Match Time Match: 1.2ReservoirParameter

WBS & S CDe*S = 1.0E185 PdM = 0.23 (Ta/CD)/At = 1,700


Calculations

=
match

0.0093 bbllpsi

370.1

210

5-7

2.

GENERALIZED HORNER ANALYSIS 2.1

Straight Line Parameters Superposition slope: m' P* P (1 hr)

= =
= =

4.1112E-03 5,585 psia 5,575 psia 4,622 psia

P (intercept): Pressure at onehour: Pressure at time zero:


2.2

P (0)

Reservoir Parameter Calculations

kh = 162'6 Bo m'

= 37,929 md-ft

Nomenclature permeability, md formation height, ft wellbore storage constant, bbl/psi scientific notation oil flow rate BPD dimensionless pressure pressure change, psi dimensionless time dimensionless wellbore storage constant time change, hr oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB oil viscosity, cp formation porosity

5-8

4000

0.00
L

2.00

40 .0

6.00
ELAPSED TIME lHOURSI

8.00

10.00

12.00

Fig. 5.6 Pressure IFIawrare His&ory

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
EVENT

DATE

TIME
( R H : W
1228 1540 1608

DESCRIPTION

ELAPSED

BHP
(PSIA)

NO.

TIME
048

(HRMIN)

WHP (PSIA)

I 23-APRI
23-APR 23-APR

I Run in Hole Flowing


Start Monitoring Flow

1613.0

1636.0

2 3 4

400
428 945 5579.0

1649.0 4621.0 1648.0 4623.0 2434.0

End Flow & Start Shut-In

21:25 23-APR End Shut-In, POOH

SUMMARY OF now PERIODS


PERIOD

DURATION
(HR:MIN)

PRESSURE (PSIA)

FLOWRATE

CHOKE SIZE (WCHES)

on
START STOP

(BD)

GAS (MMSCFD)

#1. DD

3:40

1613.0

0.754 1200.0 4623.0 5579.0 4623.0 0 5:17

0164

#, 2BU

5-9

IO0

10'

102

o3

1o4

DIMENSIONLESS TIME, TD/CD


Fig. 5.7 Diagnostic Plot

..
5400 -UI a 3

7
a
0

. . ..
"

0
"

8 51 00-w a n

4800-- 0

Data for #2. BU

"

Slopern'"4.11121E-03 P (intercept)= 5584.5

4500

1500

3000

4500

6000

7500

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


Fig. 5.8 Dimensionless Superposition

5-10

PRE-ACID TEST Buildup Data


Delta time
1

(hours) Bonornhole Pressure (psial


4622.6 4624.3 4635.5 4647.4 4656.5 4664.6 4672.7 4681.O 4689.4 4697.6 4705.9 4714.0 4722.1 4730.3 4738.4 4746.4 4754.5 4762.6 4770.8 4778.7 4786.8 4794.4 4802.4 4810.1 4817.9 4825.7 4833.4 4841.2 4648.9 4856.5 4864.1

0.00000E+00 1.50000E-03 2.83333E-03 4.16667E-03 5.66667E-03 7.00000E-03 6.33333E-03 9.83333E-03 1.1 1667E-02 1.25000E-02 1.40000E-02 1.53333E-02 1.66667E-02 1.81667E-02 1.95000E-02 2.08333E-02 2.23333E-02 2.36667E-02 2.5OOOOE-02 2.65000E-02 2.78333E-02 2.91667E-02 3.06867E-02 3.20WOE-02 3.33333E-02 3.48333E-02 3.61 667E-02 3.75000E-02 3.90000E-02 4.03333E-02 4.16667E-02

1
33

Delta time

(hours) Bonornhole Pressure (psis)


4879.3 4866.8 4694.3 4901.6 4909.1 4938.5 4967.3 4995.6 5023.2 5050.2 5076.6 5102.4 5127.6 5152.0 5175.7 5196.6 5220.8 5242.4 5283.0 5338.3 5386.8 5427.9 5462.8 5491.8 5515.2 5534.0 5548.4 5559.5 5567.5 5573.1 5576.0

4.45000E-02 4.58333E-02 4.73333E-02 4.86667E-02 5.00000E-02 5.56667E-02 6.1 1667E-02 6.66667E-02 7.23334E-02 7.78333E-02 8.33334E-02 8.9OOOOE-02 9.45000E-02 0.10000 0.10567 0.11117 0.11667 0.12233 0.13333
0.1 5000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

34 35

36
37

38
39 40 41 42 43

44
45 46 47 40 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

0.16667 0.18333 0.20000 0.21687


0.23333

0.25000 0.26667 0.28333


0.30000

0.31667 0.32783 0.37783

63
5581.7 64

4871.6 4.31667E-02 32

5-1 1

Delta time Bonomhole (hours) Pressure (psia)

Delta time Bonomhole (hours) Pressure (psia)

65 66 67 68 69 70

0.42763 0.47783 0.52783 0.57783 0.62763 0.69450 0.74450 0.79450 0.84450 0.89450 0.94450 0.99450 1.0445 1.0945 1.1445 1.1945 1.2445 1.2945 1.3445 1.3945

5582.3 5580.6 5578.2 5576.1 5574.0 5573.8 5574.1 5574.4 5574.5 5574.6 5574.9 5574.9 5575.1 5575.2 5575.3 5575.5 5575.5 5575.7 5575.7 5575.9 5575.9 5576.0 5576.1 5576.1 5576.2 5576.2 5576.2 5576.4 5576.4 5576.5 5576.4 5576.5 5576.6

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 106 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
124

2.2612 2.3445 2.51 12 2.6778 2.8445 3.01 12 3.1778 3.3445 3.4278 3.8612 3.6945 3.9278 4.0945 4.261 2 4.4278 4.5945 4.7612 4.9278 5.0945 5.1333 5.1362 5.1390 5.1417 5.1473 5.1500 5.1526 5.1557 5.1583 5.1612 5.1945 5.2278 5.2812 5.2778

5576.6 5576.9 5577.0 5577.2 5577.4 5577.5 5577.7 5577.8 5577.9 5577.9 5578.0 5576.2 5578.3 5576.5 5578.5 5578.6 5578.7 5576.7 5578.9 5576.9 5576.9 5579.0 5579.0 5578.9 5579.0 5579.0 5579.0 5579.0 5579.0 5576.9 5578.9 5579.0

71
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 62 83

84
85 66 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

1A 4 5
1.4945 1.5445 1.5945 1.6445
1.e945

1.7445 1.7945
1a445

125 126 127 128 129 130 5579.0 131

1.6945 1.9445 1.9945 2.0445

945

5-12

NODAL PLOT

"

"

"

"

3800

t
Fig. 5.9 Production Potential Evaluation, Nodal Plot
RATE vs. WELLHEAD PRESSURE

450

826

1200

1575

IS50

WELLHEAD PRESSURE (psi)

Fig. 5.10 Production Potenrial Evaluation, Rate vs. Wellhead Pressure,

5-13

WELL PERFORMANCE RATE vs. SHOT DENSITY


7000

0
0.00

I
2.00 4.00
6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

PERFORATION DENSITY (shotslft)

Fig. 5.11

Production Potential Evaluation, Well Performance Rate vs. Shot Density

POST-ACID ANALYSIS NODAL ANALYSIS


Test Identification
Test Type Test No. ........................................ Formation f) Test Interval (t

...................................... ...................................... ............................

SPRO 2 E 3SAND 11942-11982

Tubing Length (fi)/I.D. (in) ..........11,830/2.992 Depth Packer (ft) 11,826 Gauge Depth (ft)nype 11,920iDPTT Downhole Valve(Y/N)nype N

Test String Configuration

............. .................. .......

Completion Configuration

Total Depth (MDITVD)(ft) Casingniner LD. (in) Hole Size (in) Perforated Interval (t f) Shot Density (shots/ft) Perforation Diameter (in) f) Net pay (t

..........11,920/10.800 .......... 6.094 ................................. 8.5 ..................40 .................. 12 ............... 0.610 .................................... 71
............ Homo geneous ........ Liquid ................5431 ........... 53751 ......... 530
15

Test Condition

Tubinwellhead Pressure (psi) 2.060 Separator Pressure (psi) ................ 150 Wellhead Temperature (OF) 100.0

.... ...........

RocWFluidWellbore Properties
Oil Density (" API) 29.5 Gas gravity 0.600 GOR (scf/STB) 1,013 Water Cut(%) 0 . . 0.70 viscosity (CP) 9.00E-06 Total Compressibility (l/psi) 28 Porosity (%) Reservoir Temperature (OF) .......... 218 1.37 Form. Vol.Factor (bbl/STB) Production Time (days)................. . 25

Interpretation Results

Model of Behavior Fluid Type used for Analysis Reservoir Pressure (psi) Transmissibility (md ft/cp) Effective Permeability (md) Skin Factor.... ................................

............ .................................... ............... ............................... ................................. ........ .................................. .........

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION RATE DURING TEST: 4,398 BPD


5-14

Test Objectives The objective of the test was to evaluate the effectiveness of the acid stimulation treatment. Comment: The test procedure and measurements are summarized on the next page. The acid treatment was effective in removing the formation damage. Analysis the data revealed of a significant improvement in the wellbore condition resulting in over a 3,000 BOPD n increase i production at 428 psi higher wellhead pressure.

POST-ACID TEST COMPUTATION SHEET


1.

LOG-LOG ANALYSIS 1.1 Match Parameters

Model: Homogeneous, W B S & S Pressure Match: PdAF' = Time Match (TdCD)/At =


1.2 Reservoir Parameters Calculations

CDe2S 0.06318 1.300

1.OE16

kh

141.2Q

p
' O

32 (.P )match

= 37,626 md-ft

=
match

0.122 bbl/psi

486

2. GENERALIZED 2.1

HORNER ANALYSIS

Straight Line Parameters Superposition slope:

m'
P* P (1 hr)
5-15

= = =

4.14328 E-03 5,430 psia 5,401 psia

P (intercept): Pressure at one hour:

Pressure time P at zero: 2.2

(0)

5,041 psia

Reservoir ParameterCalculations

kh = 162'6 Bo m'

= 37,635 md-ft
(' hr)-P

('))-log Nomenclature
k

(4) PokCt )+3.2,)


'w

= 15

= =
=

permeability, md formation height, ft

h
C

wellbore constant, storage bbl/psi scientific notation oil flow rate, BPD dimensionless pressure pressure change, psi dimensionless time dimensionless wellbore storage constant time change,

Q, =
PI,
=

AP =

To =
CD =

At

hr

Bo =

oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB oil viscosity, cp formation porosity

po =

5-16

PRESSURVFLOWRATE HISTORY
" "

5300

4850

00 .0

1.50

3.00

4.50

6.00

7.50

80 .0

ELAPSED TIME (HOURS)

Fig.5.12

PressurelFlowrate History

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

SUMMARY OF FL.0W PERIODS

5-17

DIAGNOSTIC PLOT
X Derivalive Data. t 4 . Eu

Pressure Match
Time Match

--

8.3181E-02 1300

10

1o2 DIMENSIONLESS TIME, TD/CD

IO

1o3

1o4

Fig. 5.13

Posr-Acid Test Validation, Diagnosric Plot

SUPERPOSITION DIMENSIONLESS
5470

I I

SUPERPOSITION TIME FUNCTION


Fig. 5.14 Post-Acid Tesr Validation, Dimensionless Superposition

5-18

POST-ACID TEST Buildup Data


Delta time (hours) 1
2

Bonomhole Pressure (psia)


5040.6 5040.7 5040.7 5040.8 5040.8 5040.8 5041.9 5049.3 5058.2 5067.5 5076.5 5065.5 5099.5 5122.5 5144.3 5066.5 5184.7 5203.2 5220.2 5236.1 5250.6 5264.0 5276.3 5267.4 5297.4 5306.4 5314.4 0.14583 29 30 31
32

Deita time

(hours)

Bonomhole Pressure (psiar


5327.7 5333.3 5338.1 5348.6 5356.2 5361.1 5364.7 5367.5 5369.7 5371.4 5372.9 5374.1 5375.0 5376.0 5376.8 5165.2 5378.2 5378.8 5379.5 5380.1 5380.6 5381.1 5381.5 5382.0 5382.5 5382.9 5383.3

0.00000E+00 1.33338E-03 2.83330E-03 4.16667E-03 5.50003E-03 6.99997E-03 8.33333E-03 9.66670E-03 1.1 1666E-02 1.25000E-02 1.38334E-02 1.53333E-02 1.66667E-02 1.60000E-02 1.95000E-02 2.08333E-02 2.21667E-02 2.36666E-02 2.50000E-02 2.63334E-02 2.78333E-02 2.91667E-02 3.05000E-02 3.20000E-02

3.88334E-02 4.03333E-02 4.1 6667E-02 4.56333E-02 5.00000E-02 5.41667E-02 5.83333E-02 6.25000E-02 6.66667E-02 7.08333E-02 7.50000E-02 7.91667E-02 8.33333E-02 8.75000E-02 9.16667E-02 9.58333E-02 0.10000 0.10417 0.1 0833 0.11250 0.11667 0.12083 0.1 2500 0.12917 0.1 3333 0.13750 0.14167

3 4 5 6 7
8

33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20
21

22 23
24 25 26 27 28

3.33333E-02
3.46667E-02 3.61666E-02 5321.5 3.75000E-02 5363.8

5-19

Della time Bonomhole (hours) Pressure (psia] 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 0.15000 0.15417 0.15967 0.16800 0.17633 0.18487 0.19300 0.20133 0.20967 0.21800 0.22633 0.23467 0.24300 0.25133 0.25967 0.26800 0.27633 0.28467 0.29300 0.30133 0.30967 0.31800 0.32633 0.33467 0.34300 0.35133 0.35967 0.36800 0.37633 0.38467 0.39300 5383.9 5384.2 5384.6 5385.2 5386.9 5386.3 5386.9 5387.3 5387.6 5388.0 5386.4 5368.8 5389.0 5389.4 5389.8 5390.0 5390.4 5390.6 5390.8 5391.1 5391.4 5391.8 5391.9 5392.2 5392.4 5392.5 5392.8 5392.9 5393.2 5393.2 66 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 5406.3 118

Delta time Bonomhole (hours) Pressure (psia 0.401 33 0.40967 0.41 800 0.42633 0.43467 0.44300 0.45133 0.45967 0.48467 0.50967 0.53467 0.55967 0.58467 0.60967 0.63467 0.65967 0.70967 0.75967 0.80967 0.85967 0.90967 0.95667 1.0097 1.0597 1.1097 1.1597 2.1 638 2.1 763 2.1 668 2.2013 2.2138 5393.6 5393.8 5393.9 5394.2 5394.3 5394.5 5394.8 5394.8 5394.9 5395.4 5395.5 5395.9 5396.4 5396.5 5397.2 5397.4 5398.0 5398.7 5399.3 5399.5 5400.0 5400.5 5401.0 5401.2 5401.6 5402.0 5406.1 5406.3 5406.2 5406.3

77
78 79 80 81 82 83

84
65

86 5393.5 87

5-20

Delta time (hours)


119 2.2368 2.3430 120 121 122 2.5097 123 124 2.5638 125 126 127 128 129 2.8136 2.8638 130 131 2.6138 2.6638 2.7138 2.7638 2.5138 2.5055 2.2263

Bonomhoie Pressure (psia)


5406.4 5406.4 5406.6 5409.0 5409.0 5409.0 5409.1 5409.3 5409.4 5409.3 5409.5 5409.9 5409.8 3.0638 132 2.8638 133 134 135

Delta time Bonomhoie (hours) Pressure (psial


2.9138 5409.8 5410.2 30.138 5410.0 5410.3 5410.2 3.1638 3.2138 3.2638 5410.4 5410.8 5410.8 5410.9 3.3638 5410.9 5411.1 3.4638 541 1 .O

3.1138 136 137 138 139 3.3138 140 141 3.4138 142. 143

NODAL PLOT
5500

I I

4000
0

I I

1
352

907

1815

3630 PRODUCTION RATE (STBID)

2722

4537

5444

Fig. S.1S

Post-Acid Production Evaluation, Plot Nodal

5-21

RATE vs. WELLHEAD PRESSURE


80OOA

7000-

$ 6000" .I n

5000"
4000-

8 F
2

3000" 2000"
1000"

0 ,
900

I1350
1800

2250

2700

WELLHEAD PRESSURE (PSI)

Fig. 5.16 Post-AcidProduction Evaluation. Rate vs. Wellhead Pressure

Example Problem 5-3:Producing Well


Using tubing data from Example Problem 4-2 and reservoir parameters from Example Problem 2-3(b) (s = - 3 , calculate the natural productionof the well.

k = 5md h = 20ft
p 0 = 1.1 cp .
Spacing = 80 acres

pr =2,500 psig

s = -5

Bo = 1.2 RB/STB
r,., = 0.365 ft

Solution:
Drainage radius,

re =

= 1,053 ft
7.08 X 10-3kh

AOFP = q =

F~Bo[ In

:( )- 0.75 + s ]
5-22

p;

7.08 x 10-3 x 5 x 20 x 2,500

1.1 x 1 . 2 [ h ( g ) - - 0 . 7 5 - 5 ]
= 604 STBD

From example 4-2, the following tubing intake pressures are calculated for different flow rates:

400 600 800

800
910

1 .OS0

"0
Fig. 5.17

200

400

600

800

1000

FLOW RATE (STBID)


Example Problem 5.3.IPR and Tubing Intake Curve

These values are plotted on the figure shown above. The intersection of the tubing intake curve and the IPR curve gives the natural production of the well, i.e., 410 STB/D.

5-23

Example Problem 5-4


Solve Example Problem 5-3 for varying rw, Le., rw = 100 ft, 200 ft, 400 ft, and 800 ft. Make a plot of q vs r (Use a skin factor of +2.) . ,

Solution:
The tubing intake curve is plotted as shown in Example Problem 5-3 with the following points:

Using data from Example Problem 5-3, the value of production rate q is calculated for different values of rw and plotted (i) rw = 100 ft

AOFP = 9 =

7.08 X 10-3 kh

pr

1
7.08 x 10-3 x 5 x 20 x 2,500 l.lxl.2[h(~)-o.75+2]

= 372STBD
Similarly, the flow rates at other values of rw are calculated and plotted

200 400

46 1 605 879 800

5-24

00

FLOW RATE, (STD/D)

Fig. 5.18 PIOIof tubing intake vsproduction ratesfor dilferent rw.

From the above plot, production rate is read-off at the intersection Of the tubing intake curves and the IPR curves for the different values of effective wellbore radius. These are tabulated and plotted -

"0

200 600 400 800 EFFECTIVE WELLBORE RADIUS,W H I

Fig. 5.19 Plot offow rate vs effective wellbore

radius.

- Appendix F).

Note: Hydraulically induced fractures increase the effective wellbore radius (Rats, 1961

5-25

Example Problem 5-5


Using the data from Example Problem 5-3 (tubing intake and IPR) and Example Problem 3-1 (Table 3-3, do a shot density sensitivity analysis.

Solution
Calculate and plot the response curve from Fig. 5.17 (Example Problem 5-3)as follows:

Response Curve Calculation

4 (STB/D)
200

AP

250
300 350 400 410

938 713 488 244 40


0

Using data from Table 3.2, plot the pressure drop vs flow rate for different shot densities on the same plot as the response curve.
The intersection of the response curve with the shot density curves gives the production

rate for different shot densities.

Fig. 5.20 PIor offrow rate vspressure drop for varying shot densities.

5-26

These values are read and tabulated as off

Shot Density

Flow Rate

WF)
2 4 8 12 20
These values are then plotted as shown here.
500

(BPW
350 378 390 400 405 408 24

400

300

200

100

10

15

20

SHOT DENSITY (SPF)


Fig. 5.21

Plor ofshot density vsflow rate.

Exercises
1.

For the following well data, calculate theabsolute open flow potential of the well.

k , = 30md h = 40ft API = 30 ReservoirTemperature "Is = 0.7 (Produces oil) all Casingsize = 7 in.

P C GOR
hp
= 200F

= =

3,000 psia 300scf/STB 10 ft

160 acre spacing Drilled hole size

= 12-1/4 in.

5-27

2.

Calculate In (re&) for r, = 7 in. and for drainage areas of 20,40, 80,160 and 320 acres. Hint: make a table. Drainage Acres
20
40
re

rw

In (re/ r,)

80

160

3.

Draw the IPR for a well with the following data -

k
h
p,

=
= =

50md 100ft
2,000 psia (Producing

Depth

5,000 ft

all oil)

Determine the absolute open flow potential and an estimated production if you designed the tubular.
4.

Draw the IPR in Problem #I for skin of -50, +5. Using Vogels IPR relationship, construct an IPR for the following cases (a) P, AOFP (b) Pr
qo

5.

= = = = = =
= =

Pb.

3,000 psia 10,WBOPD

2,500 psia P b > P, 100BPD 1,800 psia

pf w

6.

Given: P,
pb

PI

2,000 psia 1,500 psia 4.7 BPD/psi

construct the IPR curve.

5-28

7.

The following data are obtained from a four-point test -

Pr

2,500psi Test # 1 2 3

Pb

3,000 psia

9 (BPW . 880 1,320 1,595 1,752

PH (psia)
2,000 1,500
1,000 500

4
Calculate -

1.
2.

Value of Cand n. Absolute open flow potential where:


qo = c (P:-Pwf)
2 2

8,

The well in Problem #1 is fractured with the best proppant available, and the fracture half-length is 500 ft. Draw the post-frac IPR.
Construct JPRs for the following well as a function of penneabilities -

9.

P = 2,000psi ,

s =o
h = 50ft = 2cp k = 1,lO. 100,1,ooO, 5,000 md

re = 2,000ft r, = 0 5 ft . Bo = 1 2 RB/STB .

1 . For Problem No. 1, assume k = 100rnd and construct IPR curves for skin. 0

Skin = -5,-1,O,1,5, 10,50,70


1 1.
12.

Draw a sensitivity of 90 vs S from Problem No. 2 . Givenp=* Flowline Length Flowline I D Depth Water Gr. Sp. Bottom Hole Temp.
=

= =
=

200 psia 400 ft

= =

2 5 in. . 5,000ft 1.074 180"F 5-29

GLR Fw Tubing ID Oil Gravity Gas Sp. Gr. Surface Temp.

= = = =

=
=

800 scf/bbl 05 . 2 5 in. . 35 A P I 0.65 60' F

Reservoir data for the constructionof an IPR pr

Pb

4,000 psia 3,000 psia

qo

Pf W

= =

3,000BPD
2,000 psia

Draw the IPR and intake curves and predict the rate in this well. flow 13. Make a tubing ID sensitivity and recommend the best tubing size for the following data GLR

Yg FW

Depth 5,000ft IPR from ProblemNo. 1 14.

800 scf/stb 0.65 0

API
pwh

T
Tubing ID

35 200 psia 140' F 2, 2.5, 3,4 in.

Make a completion sensitivity study for the following well Pwh

API
Yg

rP
1,
re

P,
r,
Po

Depth

200 psia 35

GLR
F W

0.65
0.021 ft 0.883 ft 2,000 ft 3,000 psia 0.365 ft 1.2 cp

B O C r
kP

h hP

k
Tubing I D

800 scf/STB 0 (all oil) 1

0.063 ft 0.4K 25 ft 20 ft 20 md 2.0 in.

5,000 ft

Use the McLeod equations.

5-30