SPE 25367

An Enhanced Recompletion Design Methodology for Vertical,

Inclined, and Horizontal Wells
Usman Ahmed, Schlumberger
SPE Member
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition held in Singapore, 8-10 February 1993.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract s ~ i t t e d by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal, as presented, does not necessanly reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.
ABSTRACT
Upon initial completion, a good number of wells
(vertical or horizontal nor inclined) typically do
not produce at expected flowrates. To remedy
the situation, an effective re-completion design
is needed that can address the various
components of wellbore total skin associated
with faulty and/or inadequate completion.
Important components of total skin include
mechanical skin (wellbore damage), partial
completion and ineffective perforation or gravel
pack. Reduced well production due to partial
completion will not be remedied by an effective
acid job. Also, by increasing the perforation
interval, one may not be able to remedy
problems associated with wellbore damage.
In this paper we present a technique that can
allow one to differentiate between the various
components of wellbore total skin and thus
provide the opportunity to design an effective
and optimized re-completion design. The
technique involves integration of petrophysical
log and well test derived permeability with
either production or injection profile data. The
paper concludes with a field case study to
illustrate the application of the technique.
INTRODUCTION
Following initial completion, a good majority of
wells typically do not produce at expected
potential flowrate. Such a problem can be
associated with all types of wells --vertical,
*References and Illustrations at End of Paper
407
horizontal and inclined. Reduced well
production behavior can often be related to
inadequate completion. Effective re-completion
design recommendations require the
identification of specific reasons for such
reduced production. Aside the absence of
energy, production decline can be due to a
number of reasons. Among the important ones
include, low formation permeability, partial
completion (not enough perforation or gravel
packed interval), ineffective completion,
formation damage or a combination of any of
these factories. Often, lack of formation
evaluation data can result into inadequate
completion. Nevertheless, correction of the
faulty completion and/or inadequate completion
will require necessary information regarding the
formation as well as the effectiveness of the
present completion. Derivation of all these
parameters is complicated at best. Careful
evaluation for re-completion requires the
knowledge of more variable than is required for
initial completion. Apart from the traditional
dynamic formation evaluation parameters like
permeability, mechanical skin (wellbore
damage) and pressure; one also needs to address
the various components of the wellbore total
skin. Important components of the initial
completion wellbore skin constitutes of
mechanical skin, partial completion and
ineffective completion (ineffective perforations
or gravel pack).
2 ANENHANCED RE-COMPLETION DESIGNMETHODOLGY FOR
VERTICAL, INCLINED & HORIZONTAL WELLS
SPE25367
Attempts to estimate and/or measure the various
components of the wellbore skin have been
made as far back as the early fIfties.
l
-4 Recent
advances
5
, 6 document the use of transient
pressure and rates during a well test to
differentiate between the various components of
the total skin. In majority of the documented
cases, the techniques failed to provide consistent
answers primarily due to overwhelming
influence of wellbore storage effects.
An alternate technique is presented in this paper
that integrates petrophysical log and transient
well test derived permeabilit with associated
well production or injection profIle data. The
development of the model takes into account the
basic differences in permeability derivation that
both well test and petrophysical log analysis
techniques have to offer. The technique
presented can be applied to vertical as well as
horizontal and inclined wells. Application of
the technique is illustrated through use of a fIeld
case study example.
The three most important factors that
differentiate petrophysical data based
permeability from well test derived permeability
are scale factor, measurement environment, and
the physics of measurement.7 Reference 7
presents the interrelationship between these
measurements so that they can be effectively
compared and correlated. Proper correlation
between log derived permeability and well test
permeability is necessary for the technique
presented here.
Well test method allows one to infer
hydrocarbon effective permeability. Well test
method can also allow the derivation of absolute
permeability in the event the well is either
producing or being injected into by one fluid
phase. Petrophysical data based method derives
absolute permeability concepts
8
can be applied
as follows:
k
ew
= kl
og
[(Sw - Swi)/{l - Swi)]3 (1)
and
k
eh
= kl
og
(1 - Sw)2.1/{l - Swi)2 (2)
To relate log derived permeability to well test
permeability (kwt) in-spite of the huge scale
factor difference, the theoretical standard
deviation of permeability from petrophysical
data, Ok, is given by7:
where, kl
og
is the log derived absolute
permeability, kew is the effective water
permeability, keh is the effective hydrocarbon
permeability from the logs, Sw is the water
saturation in fraction and Swi is the irreducible
water saturation in fraction.
where, Vwt is the volume of investigation
representing kwt and Vl
og
is the volume of
investigation representing the log derived keh.
The typical investigation depth of permeability
related logs range between 9 and 12 in. while
the resolution of measurement is about 2-ft. On
the other hand, a typical well test over a l00-ft
thick sand can easily encompass l000-ft of
radius of investigation. Inclusion of these
(3) Ok =(VwtlVlog) kwt
The many procedures that fall under transient
well testing involve making an abrupt change in
flow--starting, stopping, or abridging flow,
injecting fluid, or changing the flow from one
value to another. Reservoir properties are
deduced from the well's response to these
changes, measured by bottomhole pressure
gauges and at times also includes bottomhole
transient rates.
ANALYTICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
There are three basic established methods for
obtaining permeability from petrophysical logs:
(a) empirical correlation of permeability with
porosity, <D, and intragranular surface area; (b)
measurement of producible formation fluid with
the nuclear magnetism log (NML*); and (c)
estimate of mineral concentrations by the
geochemical logging tool (GLT*). Two other
methods (i.e., correlation of permeability with
Stonely wave velocity by acoustic logging tools
and pressure/time measurements of formation
fluid with the repeat formation tester (RFT*)
often classifIed as petrophysical technique
measures direct fluid movement similar to well
tests. These two methods are not included as
part of the petrophysical data based methods.
408
SPE25367 U.AHMED 3
volumetric parameters reduces Eg. (3) as the
following:
CJk = 966 kwt (4)
To complete relating log derived penneability to
well test penneability, the question of
measurement environment need also to be
addressed. Transient well test interpretation
provides fonnation capacity or diffusivity (a
product of fonnation penneability and
thickness). Therefore, to calculate penneability,
we need to ascertain the thickness of the
fonnation that responds to an imposed
perturbation. The only reasonable and practical
way to solve this problem is to have a production
or injection profile data as illustrated in Figure
1. Also, this same production or injection
profile data is necessary to deconvolve the
different components of the fonnation total skin.
A gradual slope of the cumulative production
curve (from bottom to top) of a production
profile curve indicates unifonn production
through the zone, and an abrupt change can
reflect a thin heterogeneous production layer.
With the flow-profile-per-depth information, the
transient-diffusivity equation for a drawdown
test can be modified as the following7, 9:
n
Pbhf = Pi - 162.6 I, qi/hi [log ti + 3.23
;=1
log {keh/<I>J.1ctrw2)} + 0.87 F
s
] (5)
A plot of flowing bottomhole pressure (BHP) vs.
the logarithm of flowing time should be a
straight line with slope, m, where,
various components of the total skin factor
typically varies from layer to layer. The total
wellbore skin factor is a function of mechanical
skin or wellbore damage (Ms), partial
penetration (Pes) and ineffective perforation or
gravel pack (Is).
Upon integration of transient well test data with
production or injection profile data F
s
can
account for all the components of the total skin
as mentioned in the previous paragraph and
further illustrated as:
F
s
(when using well test plus profile) =f (Ms +
PC
s
+ Is) (8)
When petrophysical log derived hydrocarbon
effective penneability is used to construct a well
producibility, F
s
by definition is non-existent,
i.e.,
F
s
(when using log derived penneability) =0.0
(9)
However, when log derived hydrocarbon
effective penneability is integrated over the
perforated intervals and compared with
measured production or injection profile, partial
completion effects become visible, i.e.,
F
s
(when using perforated interval log derived
penneability) = pes (10)
Also, the two log derived penneability profiles
do not represent the presence of any negative
skin factor that may be present due to
penneability enhancement via stimulation.
n
m = 162.6 I, qi/hi
;=1
or,
n
keh =162.6 I, qi/hi
;=1
(6)
(7)
The above analytical model is used in
conjunction with available log derived, well test
measured penneability and flow/injection profile
data to deconvolve the major components of the
wellbore total skin factor. The example
presented next, illustrates the methodology used
to estimate the major components of the total
skin. This process facilitates an optimized re-
completion design recommendations for either
new perforation or re-perforation, new or re-
gravel pack, acidize and fracturing or a
combination.
Equations 5 through 7 assume that the wellbore
total skin factor (Fs) is relatively unifonn
throughout the test interval. In reality, however,
this is more of an exception than rule. The
409
4 ANENHANCED RE-COMPLETION DESIGN METHODOLGY FOR
VERTICAL, INCLINED & HORIZONTAL WELLS
SPE25367
EXAMPLE CASE STUDY
The example well is a gas-condensate well
producing mostly gas at the surface. Figure 2
illustrates the interpreted petrophysical, well test
and production profile data. The first column
on the left track sketches the initial completion
perforation intervals. The second column is the
interpreted production profile of the well based
on spinner, temperature and density data. The
production profile was measured just prior to the
onset of a two layer transient well test. The
dashed bracketed intervals, 8505-8775 ft and
8850-8950 ft, in the third column represents
well test derived average gas permeability. The
cross-hatched bars in this column represent
individual sand layer permeability based on
production profile and the gross two layer well
test permeabilities using Eqs. 5 through 7. The
curve in this column represent the log derived
effective gas permeability using the correlation
presented in Egs. 1 and 2 and the petrophysical
formation analysis presented in column four.
The effective porosity and the fraction of gas
and water presented in column four have been
derived from compensated neutron log (CNL*),
litho-density tool (LDT*) and induction logging.
In general, the average sand layer effective gas
permeability as derived from the petrophysical
logs and well test compare quite favorably once
the scale factor issue has been taken into
account. Certain discrepancies, however, are
apparent in zones 8780-8790 ft and 8820-8890
ft. These discrepancies appear as a result of
possible variation in wellbore skin factor
distribution between the zones. In the following
paragraphs we address these discrepancies to
shed light on the evaluation of specific skin
factors and thus aid in the optimization of re-
.completion recommendations.
We make use of the difference between the
production logging profile (including well test)
and the cumulative log derived hydrocarbon
effective permeability profile to address well
completion problems. It is assumed here that
measurement error is at minimum. Figure 3
illustrates the inclusion of log derived
permeability profile displayed next to the
production profile data. The production flow
profile data reflects the total skin factor as
described by Eg. 8, whereas the log derived
profile does not include any skin factor
410
information as described by Eg. 9. Therefore,
the integtated log profile curve theoretically
should match with the production profile curve
over zones or intervals where F
s
is negligible,
assuming the reservoir pressure gradient is
uniform. To complete the interpretation
analysis, we add Fig 4 which includes a new
integrated log permeability curve that only
represents the perforated sections of the
intervals of interest. This curve represents the
F
s
value as described by Eg. 10, i.e., includes
the effects of partial penetration. Over the
intervals where this curve, as opposed to the
total integrated log permeability curve, has a
better fit to the production profile curve, it may
be safe to conclude that the positive skin factor
is due to partial penetration. The converse can
also be true.
Detailed analysis of the three curves lead us to
recommend the following re-completion actions:
- The interval between 8550 ft and 8580 ft is
production limited due to partial penetration.
Increased perforation interval and density are
recommended.
- The interval between 8580 ft and 8600 ft
appear to be plagued with both partial
penetration and wellbore damage. This interval
could benefit from increased perforation and a
small acid job.
- The intervals between 8610 ft and 8650 ft,
8733 and 8749 ft, 8777ft and 8790 ft, and 8930
ft and 8950 ft all appear to be either stimulated
or are blessed with the presence of natural
fractures and/or drilling induced fractures.
- The interval between 8820 ft and 8840 ft do
not exhibit noticeable difference between the
two log derived curves. However, they both are
significantly different from the production flow
profile. This clearly indicates that the interval
productivity is being hindered by effects other
than partial penetration completion and/or
ineffective perforation. This interval is
recommended for acidization.
- The limited production from the interval 8860
- 8885 ft appears to be partially due to limited
perforation and also due to wellbore damage.
This interval is recommended for added
perforation and also an acid wash.
SPE25367 U.AHMED 5
REFERENCES
A re-completion design based on the above
recommendations have been prepared to
eliminate the total high positive skin factor and
thus increase the production by four fold.
CONCLUSIONS
From this present study we make the following
conclusions:
1. For effective re-completion design
recommendations, it is imperative that the
wellbore total skin factor be deconvolved into
specific components of partial penetration,
wellbore damage and ineffective completion.
2. Integration of petrophysical log and well test
derived permeability with well flow or injection
profile data can significantly aid in
deconvolving the various components of the
wellbore total skin factor.
<I>
kwt
kcw
klog
kch
Sw
Swi
Ok
Vlog
=ineffective perforation or gravel pack
skin, dimensionless
= porosity, fraction
= well test derived permeability, md
= effective permeability to water, md
= petrophysical log derived absolute
permeability, md
= petrophysical log derived effective
permeability, md
= water saturation, fraction
= irreducible water saturation, fraction
= standard deviation of petrophysical
log derived permeability to well test
permeability, md
= volume of investigation representing
kwt, bbls
= volume of investigation representing
, kch, bbls
3. In the example cited, certain intervals only
required additional completion (perforation) and
certain intervals required acidizing. There were
several intervals that could benefit from both
additional perforation and acidizing. Also
certain intervals were identified as stimulated
and as such need to be isolated when performing
an acid job for other intervals.
NOMENCLATURE
Pbhf = bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
Pi = initial formation pressure, psi
= formation volume factor, Res.
Bbls/STB
I-l = average hydrocarbon viscosity, cp
n = number of flow layers or zones
qj = individual layer/zone hydrocarbon
flowrate, STBjD
tt = test time, hrs
ct = total system compressibility, psi-
1
rw = wellbore radius, ft
F
s
= van Everdingen-Hurst skin Factor,
dimensionless
M
s
= mechanical skin or wellbore damage,
dimensionless
PC
s
= partial penetration skin,
dimensionless
411
1. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The
Application of the Laplace Transformation to
Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans.. AIME
(1949), 186, pp 305-324.
2. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and
Its Influence on the Productive Capacity of a
Well," Trans.. AIME (1953),198, pp 171-176.
3. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect
and Its Impediment to Fluid Flow into a
Wellbore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) B-6 through B-
16.
4. Hawkins, M.F., Jr.: " A Note on the Skin
Effect," Trans.. AIME (1956), 207, pp 356-357.
5. Ahmed, U., Kuchuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.:
"Short-Term Transient Rate and Pressure Build-
up Analysis of Low Permeability Reservoirs,"
SPEFE. Dec 1987, pp 611-617.
6. Ahmed, U and Watson, J.T.: "Use of
Bottomhole Transient Rate Data to Enhance
Transient Pressure Analysis," SPE paper 15422
presented at the 61st. Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers held in New Orleans, LA,
Oct. 5-8, 1986.
6 AN ENHANCEDRE-COMPLETION DESIGN METHODOLGY FOR
VERTICAL, INCLINED & HORIZONTAL WELLS
SPE 25367
7. Ahmed, U., Crary, S.P. and Coates, G.R.:
"Permeability Estimation: The various Sources
and Their Interrelationship," lIT, May 1991,
578-587.
8. Jones, P.J.: .. Production Engineering and
Reservoir Mechanics - Oil, Condensate, and
Natural Gas," Oil & Gas Journal, 1945, pp 45-
46.
9. Ahmed, U.: "The Interrelationship Between
Various Permeability Measurements,"
Proceedings of the International Well Logging
Symposium Transactions, paper I, may 28-30,
1990, Beijing" China.
* Mark of Schlumberger
POROSITY PRODUCTION
INCREASES PROFILE
FLOWMETER? BPD 40
1
00
)
UP RUN J
I DOWN RUN
--f--- ----
J .,.l
--r-- ----I
- r - -- : ~
-fI-- ----
~ i - - __.'--
ZONE 4
ZONES
ZONES
Figure 1. Illustration of Production Profile
Data in a Well With Multiple Zones.
412
,SPE253 67
8400
8500
8600
8700
8800
8900
9000
Production Profile (%) 100.00
100.00Perme.bllty to G (md) 0.10
Ave Well Te.t Perm (md) 25.00
Water
Effective Porosity 0.00
100.00 0.10
Figure 2. Interpreted Petrophysical, Well Test and Production Profile Data of the
Example Well
413
L,253 67
(PU)
Water
Effective Porosity
.1000 I 25.0000
.1000 (MD)
(MO)
Log Perm to Gas (md)
Ave Wei Test Perm (md)
100.0
100.0 I 100.0
ProdJction Profle (%)
o
Integrated Gas Perm
0" - - - - - (MO)- - - - 5000
8500
8400
(PU)
Effective Porosity
.1000 I 25.0000 (MO)
Log Perm to Gas (md)
Ave Wei Test Perm (md)
100.0 (MO)
100.0 I 100.0
J
I
)
Integrated Gas Perm
ProdJction Profile (%)
o
0-- - - - (W)- - - - 5000
8500
8400



Figure 3. Comparison Between the Production Profile Data and the
Curnmulative Log Derived Hydrocarbon Effective Permeability
Profile.
Integrated Gas Perm (Perfs Oriy)
0. . --(K) _. -500:0
Figure 4. Comparison Between the Production Profile Data, Curnmula-
tive Log Derived Hydrocarbon Effective Permeability and
Curnmulative Log Derived Hydrocarbon Effective Permeabi-
lity over Perforated Intervals.