PRODUCTION PROFILES ON DEVIATED MULTPHASE

PRODUCERS

L.A. FLEXHAUG

this article begins on the next page F

PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM PAPER NO. 83-34-40 THIS IS A PREPRINT - SUBJECT TO CORRECTION PRODUCTION PROFILES ON DEVIATED MULTIPHASE PRODUCERS by L.A. Flexhaug Esso Resources Canada Ltd. PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE 34th ANNUAL TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM HELD JOINTLY WITH THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING ENGINEERS IN BANFF, MAY 10 - 13,1983. DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS INVITED. SUCH DISCUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE TECHNICAL MEETING AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION IN CIM
JOURNALS IF FILED IN WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING. ABSTRACT Production logs play a significant role in the implementation, evaluation and surveillance of enhanced recovery schemes. Maximizing scheme ef- ficiency through the refinement of depletion strategies, improvements on completion effective- ness, and problem well diagnosis is based on a quantitative downhole look at production as well as injection profiles. However, production log- ging tools do have limitations and are only now evolving to a stage at which some of
the more com- plex flow situations can be dealt with effec- tively. The volumetric measurement and identification of low rate multiphase inflow is an area of pro- duction logging in which conventional tool re- sponse to fluid flow, can be confusing and mis- leading. since many infill wells in secondary and tertiary recovery schemes traverse the reservoir at an angle, the difficulty in quantifying multi- phase flow is compounded. Recent flow loop experiments have shown that as little as 2 degrees deviation can result in an apparent downflow of the heavy phase, even though the net
flow is upward. Under these circumstances, tool response is not representative of actual flow rates or hold ups and results are easily misinterpreted. Flow concentration devices are generally recommended for fluid velocity and fractional com- ponent measurements in wells of this type. The actual measurements are taken between productive intervals by channeling cumulative production through a small diameter metering section. How- ever, the complex flow regimes must be disrupted and the measurements are not taken under what would be considered normal producing
conditions. This techiaique may not always be representative of actual production as normal producing conditions include these complex flow regimes. An alternative method of measuring inflow, without disturbing normal flow patterns, will be illustrated using field examples. The procedure includes the use of a flowmeter sensitive to radial rather than axial flow. The use of this instrument to detect and measure inflow directly at the entry points will be discussed as part of a detailed production evaluation of a typical deviated multiphase producer. -1-
 PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM PAPER NO. 83·34·40

THIS IS A PREPRINT - SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

,.
'~ .

PRODUCTION PROFILES ON
DEVIATED MULTIPHASE PRODUCERS

by
L.A. Flexhaug
Esso Resources Canada Ltd.

PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE 34th ANNUAL TECHNICAL MEETING OF THE PETROLEUM
SOCIETY OF CIM HELD JOINTLY WITH THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING ENGINEERS IN BANFF,
MAY 10 ·13, 1963. DISCUSSiON OF THIS PAPER IS INVITED. SUCH DISCUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED ATTHE
TECHNICAL MEETING AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PUBLICATION IN CIM JOURNALS IF FILED IN
WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING.

ABSTRACT upward. Under these circumstances, tool response

...,-,
; is not representative of actual flow rates or hold
" Production logs play a significant role in
the implementation, evaluation and surveillance of
; "
enhanced recovery schemes. Maximizing scheme ef-
.~ : ficiency through the refinement of depletion
strategies, improvements on completion effecti"e-
ness, and problem well diagnosis is based on a
quantitative dO'"..mhole look at production as well
as injection profiles. However, production log-
ging tools do have limitations and are only now
evolving to a stage at which some of the more com-
plex flow situations can be dealt with effec-
tively_
The volumetric measurement and ident~fication
of low rate multiphase inflow is an area of pro-
duction logging in which conventional tool re-
sponse to fluid flow, can be confusing and rnis-
leading~ Since many infill wells in secondary and
tertiary recovery schemes traverse the reservoir
at an angle, the difficulty in quantifying multi-
phase flow ~s compounded_ Recent flow loop
experiments have shown that as little as 2 degrees
deviation can result ~n an apparent down flow of
the heavy phase. even though the net flow is
ups and results are easily misinterpreted~
Flow concentration devices are generally
recommended for fluid velocity and fractional com-
ponent measurements in wells of this type~ The
actual measurements are taken between productive
intervals by channeling cumulative production
through a small diameter metering section. How-
ever, the complex flow regimes must be disrupted
and the measurements are not taken under what
would be considered normal producing conditions.
This technique may not always be representative of
actual production as normal producing conditions
include these complex flow regimes.
An alternative method of measuring inflow,
without disturbing normal flow patterns, will be
illustrated using field examples. The procedure
includes the use of a flowmeter sensitive to
radial rather than axial flow. T!J.e use of this
instrument to detect and measure inflow directly
at the entry points will be discussed as part of a
detailed production evaluation of a typical
deviated multiphase producer.
 INTRODUCTION
The economic success of a secondary or terti-
ary recovery scheme is dependent on the efficient
implementation of a sound depletion strategy. A eI
quantitat~ve understanding of the reservoir is
critical to the development of that strategy. The
reservoir characterist~cs, measured only at the
we Ilbore, are the basis for predict~on" of oil
recovery performance and projected profitability.
The basic data reqUired ror the reservoir in
que"tion is Qbta~ned from several sources and
utilized to make prerlictions of injection rates,
prorluction ratES, producing GOR's and producing
WOR's. The primary source of these data are core
analys~s, open hole logs and pressure transient
t.ests.
Although open hole logs and pressure trans-
sient tests are versatile tools, employing inter-
pretive and diagnostic techniques to provide
inplace measurements of rE"servoir parameters, an
evaluation of productivity is also necessary.
~~hen dealing with a system that cannot be seen,
measured or tested in its entirety , o u r anI}'
communicat~on with the reservoir is the individual
well. Kfter that well has been cased, perforated
and stunulated, an evaluation of the well ~s re-
qu~red to determine production and completion per-
formance. This evaluation, made practical through
the use of product.ion logs, can supply valuable
information regarding the reservoir as well as the
individual well. The production dat.a can t.hen be
util~zed in the refinement of the deplet~on strat-
egy, improvement of completion effectiveness and
problem diagnosis.
Ma)(im~z~ng
scheme eff~ciency through proper
use and int.erpretation of production logs can re-
sult ~n increased production and in some cases
recoverable reserves.
PRODUCTION LOGS
Production logs refer to logs run after the
production casing has been cemented, perforated,
and the well placed on production. l>leasurement.s
are taken downhole under dynamic and static
conditions by means of instruments run on electri-
cal wireline. The inst.ruments known as production
logging tools provide sorre quantit.ative insight
~nto the following areas:
Reservoir Description
• Product.ivi ty vs. poros it.y and permeability.
• Product ivit.y V5. reser\Toir stratificat.ion.
• Product.iv~ty vs. natura] fractures.
• Productivit.y V5. stimulation.
completion Evaluat10n
.. 1I.re completions/stimulations as effective as
they could be?
eI \Vas a stimulation treatment effective at a de-
s~red ~nterval? (Fracturing, acidiz~nq, et.c.).
Problem Well Diagnosis
!II What is the physical condition of the wel17
(Mechanical failures, etc.).
How much of what fluid is being produced f~om
or injected into var~ous zones?
.. Are there fluid movements between zones?
III Wnat fluid saturation changes have occurred in
the reservoir due to production or ext~aneous
fluid movement?
Once t.he scheme is fully implemented, t.he
production profiles will serve as a base for re-
servo~r surveillance practices during the pro duc-
tive l~fe of the field.
The accurate determination of a production
profile from production logs is, however, a more
sophisticated process then one would presume. fit.
complex balance of interact~nq variables under
producing conditions makes interpretat.ion of tool
response and logs an intricate procedure_ '1'001
response is often confusing and misleading because
of the complex nature of multiphase flow charac-
ter~stics inside of plpe. The flow patt.ern or
regime is one of a number of factors affect1.ng a
'"ell's performance and should be examined thor-
oughly through its volumetric measurement and
identification. However, downhole tools are sub-
ject to lirrutations, t.ool response is interpre-
tive, and the quantitat.ive accuracy of the inter-
pret.ations are limited.
A Descr~ption of Flowing Regimes
The most s~gnificant. factor affecting the
accuracy of quant~tative dynamic flow measurement.s
in producing wells 1.S the mixture of oil, gas and
'"rater in unknown proport~ons. These measurements
are particularly difficult in wells producing gas,
o~l, and water m~xtures at low rates.
A.ccurate fluid velocity measurements are
critical to the calculat.ion of the component dis-
tribution in any flowing regime. For example, in
low-rate gas/oil/'''''ater regimes, o~l flow can occur
as droplets in water, oil slug floW', segregated or
mist. flow depending on the velocity and d~str~bu­
tion of the various components. At very low
'relocities, gravit.y segregat.ion occurs, result.ing
in different vertical velocities of the compo-
nents. The velocity of the light.er phases wi tl
always be substant.ially greater than that ('If the
heavier phasE'S, 'regardless of which fluid preriomi-
nates. The differences in velocities of t.hese
component.s must be taken ~nto consideration when
relating downhole product.~on anel distribution t.o
surface product.ion rates. All of these f21cr.ol"s
are responsible for making cumulative inflow cal-
culat.ions cumbersome and largely inaccurate.
In addit.ion to t.he difficulty encounter'~tl tn
the measul-ement of liquid velocit.ies, the ldent.i-
f icatiQn of the various flu id components present.s
other prohlems, in that. other physical ch<lracter-
istics are involved, such as v1.scosit.y, surfacl-'