l—

. .

z
SPE-30746

)w~~~~!~~rI y
nf
WI
Unriznntal
I ow19&ull Lul
\A/all
rwull
and
Ullu
I iftinn
S-lltllly
Mln-hanieme
lvIuulIuIIIG7111Gr
tn
Lw
Imnrnun
Illlplwv=
1wItIltimzata
Ill Ic.a Lu
Rnenvnrw
1 Iwub#vwsy
in a
1!1 u

Depleted Field in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela

L. Saputelli, SPE, T. Mata, SPE, Z. Jimenez, S. Banerjee, SPE, Consultant, and T. Lozada. Maraven, S.A.

Copyright 1SS5, SocMy of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

wells, artificial lifts with gas lift and combinations of
TM paper waa prepared 101presentation at the %ciity of Petroleum Engkreera 70th Annual submersible pumps and gas lift.
Technical conference and ExhWion, ‘Z-25 October 1SS5.

Tlrii papers was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
ksfonnatii contekred in an abatracf aubmiftad by the author(a). Ccmtenta of the paper, aa Background
Wesantad, have not been reviewed by the Sceiity of Petroleum Engineers and am subjecf to
corraotiorr by the author(a). The meterial, aa presented, does not necaassrily reflect any
Lower Lagunillas Reservoir 2, VLC-5ZVLD-192 area of
poaitkm of the Sooiiy of Petroleum Engineers, tis officers, or members. Papers presented at Blinks III and IV of Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, is located
SPE meetings are aubjacf to publication revSw by Edtiorials Committees of the society of
Petroleum Engineers. Permiaaion to copy ia reatrictad to an abstract of no more than X0 16 Kms south-west from Bachaquero (Fig. 1). Its crude has a
words. Illustraticma may not be copy. Tna abstract should ccmtain conapuwoua
acknowledgment of where and by whom the papw was presented. Wriie Librarian, SPE, P.O. 29.3° API gravity. The reservoir is a north-south oriented
SOXS33S3S, Rk+wrdaOm,TX 750SHS3S, U. S.A.., Fss 01-21 4+52-9435.
synclinal structure. It is limited by a NE-SE fault at north,
the water-oil -contact at south, the Pueblo Viejo alignment at
Abstract east and by VLC-70 fault at west. It has an approximate dip
Recovery of the remaining reserve of millions of oil barrels is angle of 3°, which makes a north-south vertical displacement
inhibited by depleted reservoir pressures and existing of more than 2300 ft, and making gravity drainage the main
exploitation policies in Lower Lagunillas Reservoir in Lake production mechanism of the reservoir.
Maracaibo, Venezuela. Exploitation of the reservoir began in 1957, the discovery
Numerical simulation results indicated that proper production well “VLD-192”, produced 2600 STB/D and a GOR of 745
and reservoir management policies such as, controlled SCF/STB. The reservoir achieved a peak production of
drawdown, producing wells at rqtes below the critical rates, 215000 STB/D in 1959, with 65 producer wells.
low gas-oil-ratio production wiIl promote eftlcient gravity In December 1993, reservoir had a daily production
segregation process, and subsequent optimum final recovery. 18300 STB/D, a GOR of 1235 SCF/STB and 21940of water
Combination of infill horizontal wells and adequate lifting cut, with 43 oil producers and 4 gas injectors (39
mechanisms yielded the recovery of additional reserves. MMSCF/D). Official remaining reserves were 276 MMSTB,
equivalent to 13% of the OOIP (2225,7 MMSTB).
I
Introduction Cumulative production was 957 MMSTB (43% of OOIP).
Lagunilhs Inferior is one of the most prolific reservoirs in the Initial pressure was 4130 psi, at 10000 ft (btd). Bubble
Lake Maracaibo Basin of Venezuela. It currently produces point pressure was determined to be 3700 psi, indicating that
20,000 STB/D and the recovery to date has been 43% of the reservoir was initially under saturated. Reservoir pressure
OOIP (2,225 x MMSTB). However, the current production declined very rapidly at the beginning, due to a poor fluid
and the subsequent recoveries from the reservoir are inhibited replacement. At peak production, in 1957, pressure decline
was 9.8 psi/MMSTB, at a measured pressure of 3300 psi,
by loss of energy because of depleted reservoir pressures } .
Gravity segregation will improve the remaining reserves, but resulting an 830 psi decline in 3 years (Fig. 2). This
nmmittd
=---------- the
--- f~rm~~~~~ Of ~ SSCOH&prJ e-
ox cm
the actuai production poiicies are not conducive to supporting --r.

this mechanism. A gas injection project was implemented in 1966, to

The paper describes the results of a numerical simulation
model of the Lower Lagunihs reservoir, in which alternate
exploitation policies were investigated to promote gravity
segregation and maximize the ultimate recoveries. Different
schemes utilized in the model were, the drilling of horizontal
minimize pressure drop and increase oil recovery. Initial
injection rate was 90 MMSCF/D. Gas injection did not
compensate for the energy loss with time. Earlier geological
model considered Lower Lagunillas as a three homogeneous
superposed lenses, with perfect lateral and vertical continuity.
Presence of several unknown geologic discontinuities made

453
2 MODELING OF HORIZONTAL WELL AND LIFITNG MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE ULTIMATE RECOVERY
the initial goal to fail. 3D seismic, mineral based log analysis
and new sedimentological model have helped
multidisciplinary teams undertake a new geological model of
the reservoir since 1992. New model splits Lower Lagunillas
in twelve sedimentary units, which may explain the failure of
the initial gas injection project. Lateral and vertical
heterogeneities were taking into account in this new model.
Other priorities were given to the use of natural gas since
1968, which reduced the amount of injected gas to 39
MMSCF/D. A production reduction policy was adopted since
1980, in order to stabilize pressure decline. Pressure
maintenance is also associated with the activation of an
aquifer, the presence of this aquifer will be determined in an
integrated reservoir study.
Gravity Segregation Process. It is the counter current flow
of the free gas to upper reservoir structures, while an
equivalent volume of oil drain to lower positions from that
upper part 3 . Separation occurs due to gravity differential
between these two fluids. As gas cumulate at the upper
position in the reservoir, it will form a secondary gas cap,
which may expand as pressure drops (fig. 3).
Gas segregation is inversely proportional to oil production
rate (fig. 4) , it is a competition between viscous and
gravitational forces. The higher is the production rate, the
higher is the viscous force which pulls oil and gas to the
wellbore, and less free gas would segregate. For maximum
gas segregation, it is needed lower controlled production and
larger payback time. High vertical permeability will stimulate
fluids segregation. There is an economic limit where gas
segregation and rates are so that the net present value of the
investment is maximum (fi~ 6).
Recovery Effiiencie$. Gravity segregation has two
important effects on final recovery 4 : (1) Oil saturation is
higher down dip, so that relative permeability to oil will be
higher, so that GOR will be lower than in gas solution drive
reservoirs and, (2) a lower GOR means a lower net volume
produced of fluids, so that pressure decline will be lower for a
same net oil production Np.
Gravity segregation process and subsequent recovery
efficiencies will depend on: reservoir dip, vertical
permeability, reservoir heterogeneity, controlled draw-down
and low GOR production.
Critical Rates for Lower Lagunillas. In order to reduce
gas conning possibilities, and to preferentially produce oil,
analytical calculations b of critical rates have been made for
vertical and horizontal wells, for Lower Lagunillas
conditions. For k=900md and h=50ft, critical rates resulted to
be 130 and 634 STB/D, for vertical and horizontal well
respectively. For k=900 and h=100ft, 304 and 1262 STWD.
Horizontal well critical rate resulted to be around 4.1 to 4.9
times the vertical well critical rate. Calculations methods are
454
SPE 30746
explained in the appendix. Flow lines and drainage area for a
horizontal well are shown in fig. 5.
Problem Statement
On behalf of the background mentioned, it is of such
importance the fluid production, in order to stablish an
exploitation scheme that permits control on pressure decline,
by promoting efficient gravity segregation process, and
subsequent optimum final recovery ‘3.
Reservoir Description
Geology. Reservoir tops, faults and thickness from the new
geological model 17were taken into account for the numerical
simulation model. Average reservoir thickness is 300 ft.
Stratigraphically, Lower Lagunillas is conformed by three
main sand packages, well known as L, M and N units or
lenses. These units are separated by shally beds, which may
vary in some areas, permitting the split of twelve flow units.
Present study considers a representative reservoir pilot
area (Fig. 1) in order to asses gravity drainage processes and
rock-fluid behavior, taking into account new structure data
and heterogeneity barriers.
Rock Properties. Bodies conforming L, M and N units are,
in general, good quality sands. Average porosity varies from
20 to 26%. Average areal permeability is in the range of 1000
to 2500 md. A summary of these properties are shown in
Table 1.
Fluids Properties. Fluid data was taken from a reservoir fluid
characterization study finished in February 1994 ‘4 . Fluid
properties for the pilot area werw obtained from VLD-240
well sample. Fluid properties are summarized in Table 2.
Pressure. Since no history match was performed for this pilot
area model, actual pressure and fluid saturation data were
used for initializing the model. Pressure data was taken from
MDT logs in well VLD- 1112, which was recently
investigated. Pressure analysis indicates presence of several
vertical discontinuities near pilot area. Pressure in unit N
varies from 1050 to 1100 psi, indicating a uniform pressure
gradient and good vertical continuity.
Modeling and Simulation
Several mapping, analytical calculations and simulation tools
were used to model Lower Lagunillas reservoir. Inters’s black
oil simulator program was used for numerical simulation.
Grid. A comer point geometry grid (45x60x3 blocks) was
used for modeling the selected pilot area 16.Average size for
each block is 125ft x 115ft x 95ft , X-Y-Z directions
resnecti velv
‘--r---.--J.
~Qt@! ~r~~ & tii~ rn.o&! ~S ~~~ ac~~~ (~~ .2x ~06
ft2).Block sizing permitted a better reservoir visualization
and areal fluid movement. Location of actual well can be seen
. .
SPI+30746 L. SAPUTELLI, T. MATA, Z. JIMENEZ, S. BANERJEE, T. LOZADA
in fig. 7. A, B, C, D, E and F indicate new horizontal well
locations.
Local Grid Refinement. In order to model vertical
narmwwhil i tu harrierc
Y-,...--” ....J . . . .. . . (new
,..-., @o@~] mode] flow u~its) and
pressure drops near the welbore, local grid refinements (LGR)
were made around every horizontal well. LGR permitted high
resolution calculation around the well and a better
visualization of gravity segregation occurrence.
Rock-jluid Properties. Rock and fluids properties were
interpolated 15’lb from available well information. Porosity
and permeability were obtained from petrophysical evaluation
records and core analysis. Relative permeability data was
derived from existing information on core analysis from other
wells near to the pilot area. Relevant information from these
curves (Figs. 8 and 9) is that SONis much greater than S%,
which suggest that final recovery will be higher if reservoir is
swept by gas rather than water.
Aqu~er Modeling. A pressure support was modeled by
using a Fetkovitch analytical finite aquifer. Proper material
balance calculations 17 and continuos monitoring were
undertaken to calibrate this aquifer.
Initialization. Several considerations were undertaken to
initialize the pilot area model: (1) fluids are in equilibrium,
contact between two phases are horizontal, (2) there is no
flow communications through north, east and west
boundaries, south limit is partially connected to an aquifer,
and (3) there is no transmissibility between main lenses L, M
and N. Average dissolved gas ratio (Rs) and pressure values
for every unit were assigned to the grid.
Scenarios. Scenarios definition were oriented to asses gravity
segregation occurrence, under different production conditions
and reservoir properties sensitivities. As mentioned before,
producing wells at critical rates, will promote gravity
cnmn-.tinn
se&w& 4u”ls,
mid
(A. LU
mayimi7e
. ..-1..-”-
tinal
. . . . . .
p.nvt=rv
--.#
Analytical calculations showed that, horizontal well
critical rates are about 4-5 times greater than vertical wells.
Final recovery achievable by a horizontal well is affected “by
reservoir properties, well characteristics and production
policies. Scenarios considered in this study are: (a) length of
the well, (b) location, (c) initial rate, (d) K& ratio, (e)
aquifer activity, (f) artificial lift and (g) gas injection.
Results
Discussion of results are related to unit N from the conceptual
pilot area of Lower Lagunillas reservoir. Recovery factor is
related to actual oil in place, considered as a qualitative
productivity measurement of the simulated scenarios.
Horizontal Well Sensitivities. Different
applied to horizontal well modeling.
3
Location. Several sensitivities were made by locating wells
at different positions in the grid (Fig. 7). E and F locations
resulted to be the best combination as there were no
interference between the two wells and final recovery was the
highest. Horizontal well sensitivities are related to E and F
locations.
Rate of production. Final recovery is sensitive to oil
production rate, Maximum recovery factor is achieved at a
critical rate of 1100 STB/D (Fig. 10). For higher rates, final
recovery decreases because of premature gas irruption. Gas
breakthrough time decreases as rate production increases.
Critical rates for different reservoir qualities and horizontal
well length can be easily obtained from Fig. 11.
Length. Final recovery is higher as horizontal well length
increases (Fig. 12). There is no significant additional gain in
oil recovery, if length is higher than 1200 ft. This length may
vary from a reservoir to another, depending on the drainage
area.
K#Kh Ratio. Final recovery is higher as K& ratio
improves (Fig. 12). Breakthrough time increases as K&
increases. However. for a range of KJKh varying from 0.01 to
1, final recovery has little difference. It would be interesting
in testing several lower order of magnitude of K& ratio.
Down Dip Water Production. Location F had premature
high water cuts. This intentional iocation heiped to stop water
from the aquifer to advance to higher structural position of
the reservoir and therefore permitting a more eftlciently gas
swept from north to south. An increase in the final recovery
was observed due to a lower residual oil satutarion to gas.
Artz~iial Lift. Gas lift was used to lift production from
reservoir to surface. But, when reservoir pressure failed below
700 psi, it was not that efficient. Vertical flow performance
tables were designed from electrosumersible pump (ESP) data
to augment lifting capabilities when the gas lift capacity was
exhausted.
.-. , speciQ1 Ke,ywQrds.Gas lift and ESP were combined in
same simulation runs, and automatically switch by use the
special keywords of the Eclipse simulator 18.
By adding ESP’S, reservoir abiiamionment pressures
decreased to 400 psi, and final recovery increased 13%.
Gas Injection. Gas injection was succesful in maintaining
reservoir pressure, but caused a quicker shutin of the field
because of premature gas breakthrough. Final reeovery was
less when gas injection was considered, however thii
results should not he extrapolated to the total reservoir
due to model limitations.
Vertical Well Sensitivities. In order to compare horizontal
well results with a “do-nothing” case, actual vertical wells
were simulated, and produced accordingly to critical rates
scenarios were policies.
Rate ofproduction. As in horizontal well case, final reco-
very is sensitive to oil production rate. Maximum recovery
455
4 MODELING OF HORIZONTAL WELL AND LIFTING MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE ULTIMATE RECOVERY SPE 30746

factor is achieved at a critical rate of 150 STB/D (Fig. 14). p, = gas density (grn/cc)
For higher rates, final recovery decreases because of PO = oil density (gin/cc)
premature gas irruption. A milestone for this scenario is that Rs = solution gas in oil ratio, SCF/STB
eight vertical wells recovered less oil than two horizontal well radius, ft
wells. Critical rates for different reservoir qualities and s: : specific gravity of gas
horizontal well length can be easily obtained from Fig. 15. s, = liquid saturation.
s O,w,g = saturation of every phase.
Conclusions Slm-, (w) = residual oil saturation to gas, or water.
Proper production and reservoir management policies such sWc = connate water saturation
as, controlled drawdown, producing wells at rates below the
critical rates, temporary shutin of the wells and low gas-oil Subscripts.
ratio production promote efilcient gravity segregation process. f? = Gas
Developing the field with infill horizontal wells satisfies all h = Horizontal
these criteria 13’17. The critical rates for the horizontal wells o = Oil
were calculated to be more than 5 times that of the vertical v = Vertical
wells and producing the wells below the critical rates in the
model extended the field life and increased recoveries. The Abbreviations.
lengths and the locations of the horizontal wells were critical B= Bamels
to optimize final recovery. Gas lift was employed to improve bnl = Depth below lake level.
the productivities of the wells within the limited drawdown D= Day
,.mrbmh:l:+:a. UUUIIIGU
uapauluuva.
C,. h-- . . . ..hla
-, .. . ...”..,--
Z.JUIG puuqm
.A,b,i
WKZ G auucu
●,. . ...-.--..*
tu augluml L
●ha
UK
n..-
lAgp =
n:------- e-— Well plclultauum
I/lslCulLc Ilulll
. ..-11 -...c-_.-.:-... .-
lU -L.
Clnn

lifting capabilities when the gas lift capacity was exhausted. DSg = Quantitative Gas Segregation Measurement
Combination of the infill horizontal wells and lifting ESP = Electrsumersible Pump
mechanisms yielded an additional 13% of the OOIP. The gas Goc= Gas oil contact
._. __A. . .-
mymon process was successful in maintaining the reservoir UUK = Gas to Oii ratio
pressure, but caused a quicker shutin of the field because of LGR = Local Grid Refinement
the premature gas breakthrough into the wells and hence was NPv = Net present Value
discarded as an alternate recovery process. OOIP= Original Oil in Place
RB= Reservoir Barrels of Oil
Applications RCF = Reservoir Cubic Feet of Gas
The reservoir and production mechanisms utilized in the SCF = Standard Cubic Feet of Gas
model have been successfully applied to a selected pilot area STB= Stock Tank Barrels of Oil
of Lagunilht.s Inferior. Similhr techniques can also be applied woc = Water oil contact
to a greater area and to other reservoirs in the world where
gravity segregation is prevalent and substantial amounts of oil References
remain to be recovered. 1. Ferrer F., et. al. “Justificaci6n de Estudio psra cambio en la
polftica de Explotaci6n. Yacimiento Lagunillas Inferior VLC-
-- ”..-. . . .. . . ---- --- . ---
Nomenclature 3.UVLIJ-lYL” MSraVen, ~. A., AgO-Y5. Klppet No. KEN--/-/Y
= ellipse greater radius, ft 2. Labarca L. et. al. “Yacimiento Lsgunillas Inferior, VLC-
IL formation volume factor, RB/STB or RCF/SCF
c = compressibility, psr’
52/VLD-192, Bloques III/IV Lsgotreco. Revisi6n de Proyecto”.
Maraven, S.A., Abril 1993. Informe Rippet No. REN-772
3. Archer J., Wall P., “Petroleum Engineering, principles & Prac-
h = reservoir thickness, ft tice”. Imperial College of Science& Technology, London, 1986.
k = permeability, md 4. Dake L.P., “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering.
kr fo,w,~j= relative permeability to one phase. Development in Petroleum Sciences” (8), Holland, 1978
L= horizontal well length, ft 5. Bath P.G.H., “Gas Segregation in the Lower Lagunilias
lh = distance between GOC and horizontal well, fl Reservoir, SW Bachaquero”. Shell, LTD. 1960. REN-0003
1, = distance between GOC and vertical well, ft 6. Joshi S.D., “Horizontal Well Technology”. Joshi Technologies
v = viscosity, cp International, Tulsa, OK., U.S.A., 1991.
1--- = .critical rate .fnr
7. Chaperon I., ‘Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal
-lO,n . . . . . . . ---- . . hnrim-mtal
..”. .-”..-. WP1lC
.. ”,.”, “W’RM
A-, -
and Vertical Wells i Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical and
qo.v = critical rate for vertical wells, STB/D Cr;:,c~ Ra.@# 1 -..: -:--- 1ICI A i nOC @n17 , <~~~
. Wul~lml% UO% lYOO. itrlZ lJJ I t
r’W = effective drainage radius of a horiz. well, ft 8. Efros D.A., “Study of Multiphsse Flows in Porous Media”.
r~ = drainage radius of a vertical well, ft Leningrad, 1963
reh = radius of a circular area of horiz. well, ft 9. Giger F.M., “Evaluation theorique de I’effect d’arete deau sur la
production par puits horizontsux.” IFP Vol. 38, France, 1983.

456
. -

SPE30746 L. SAPUTELLI, T. MATA, Z. JIMENEZ, S. BANERJEE, T. LOZADA 5

10. Giger F.M., “Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting before ft X 3.038 ~) x 10-’ =m
breakthrough for horizontal Wells”. SPE Reservoir Engineering, ftz x 9.290304 (“) x 10-2 = mz
pp. 409+16, NOV. 1989.
ft3 X 2.831685 x 102 = m3
11. Karcher B.J. et. al. “Some practical formulas to predict
horizontal well behavior.” Louisiana, 1986. SPE 15430.
Barrel x 5.61 x 100O = m3
12. Joshi S.D., “Augmentation of well productivity using slant and in. X 2.54 ~) x 10W = cm
horizontal well.” JPT pp. 729-739, 1988. md X 9.869233 x 10-4 = pmz
13. Saputelli L. et. al. .: “Simulaci6n Conceptual del Yacimiento psi X 6.894757 x 10W = kpa
Lagunillas Inferior, Bloques IIL/IV, Lago de Maracaibo -
Alternatives de Explotaci6n para un Yacimiento Maduro”, f) Ccwersion rectoris execl

Maraven, S.A., December, 1994.ReporteEPC-13556.

1A T.-.-:,. @ XA OL-- . . . ..- J--A. –– -c m----- -. m . .
I Y. 1 ~ lq o .IVL, GIILU tuxxw,duun or ~eservom rnnas using an

Equation of State for Lower Lagunillas Reservoir, Block

IV, Lake Maracaiba, Venezuela. Schlumberger Doll
Research, Ridgefield, CT. Feb. 94.
15. Inters Information Technologies, “FILL - Reference
Manll!al”
. . . . . ..”U. v OAA Em.4m,+,4 100’1
. v. ~T-. ~u~lanu, I 77J.
Table 2- Summery of ReservoirFluidProperties
16. Inters Information Technologies, “G~ - Reference
(@ Resenmir pressure= 1000 psi, Temperatum = 246 QF)
Manual”, v. 94A. England, 1993. API Gravity, Q 29.3
17. COll C., et. al. Estudio de Frrctibilidad Para La Bubble Pr&xsure, psi 3700
Perforaci?m de un Pozo Horizontal en e] Yacimiento VO, cp 1.1
cO, psi-’ 6 X 104
Lagunillas Inferior, Lago de Maracaibo. Schlumberger -
Bo, RBISTB 1.25
Maraven, Oct. 94. R., SCFISTB 260
18. Inters Information Technologies, “Eclipse 100- Reference ~ , lb.m3 52
Manual”, v. 94A. England, 1993. L1 0.6
Ba , RCF/SCF 0.018

Appendix - Criticai Rates Caicuiations

LOWER LAQUNLLAS
Joshi method has been used in order to estimate analytical RESERVOIR
-\
critical rates. Critical rate for a vertical well can be calculated MARACAI
f
}
Ill
by:
-.
1.535x 10-3(P0 -Pg)kh h2 -(h -IV)2
‘-
qo,v = ........................(A-l) B AWERO
Boln ~ --
xl
[) rw , BLOCK
vu
Ill w
Horizontal well critical rate can then be obtained by:
PILOT AREA
W
-— -_ -

[ilz-(h\“-~ ,.h, )Zl,n(>)

,.,,(rw,
%’{&
LAKE
%,h _ 1“ MARACAIBO
(
....................................(A-2)
‘“v [h2-(h-l,)2]ln(~) ---
----

VENEZUELA
Other formulas are used to estimated r’. and a values: -.
--
-.
..
~eh(~,l~)
.................(A-3)
%

u
-+
- .v- WOT TO SCALE]

“w= a[l +~-][h /(2rw )](h’L)

Fig. 1- Location Map of Lower Lagunillas Reservoir and
Pilot Area.
a= (L I 2)[0.5+~~]0’5 ..........................(A-4)
L

Other authors may be consulted for analytical critical rate

estimations (see refs. 7’8’9’10’
11’*2
).

Si Metric Conversion Factors

Cp xl.o~) xlo-3 = pas

457
I

6 MODELING OF HORIZONTAL WELL AND LIITING MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE ULTIMATE RECOVERY SPE 30746

Procluro (p$l) o lo500n

4500-1 1 10

NPV
6
~+--:---:1 -:--:-----: ---: --:--1 (MM$)
-:- -’ -- -’ ---’--:--
4
t ‘M- ., --- ; lMi&alRate- ‘=
10004
WI-56
,!!!

sql-64 sqI-72
I I

Sep-so
I

sep-88
I I ~ v
l -----’
1
...--.!.

-- ” ” --’------
. ...’....

‘----’
. .

{
Fig. 2- Pressure Behavior vs time. InitialOil Rata(STB/D)

Fig. 6- Net Present Value vs. Initial Oil Production Rate.

P40TTO SCALEI /
Li~Horizontal well lengths, L3>L2>L1.

VISCOUS FORCES
\

WA>A GRAVITATIONAL FORCES

Fig. 3- Gravity Drainage Process.

0!4 -- ; ------, - l-,------

I 7

‘Sg:$%silm
f;c:t~lRam-j
—-.— _——
Fig. 7- Simulation Grid, Well Locations and Local Grid
Refinements. Contour lines indicate unit N structural tops.
VLD denotes well names for the area.
Initialail rate (STB/D)

Fig. 4- Gas Segregation vs. Quantitative Oil Production

0.9- -
Rate. Dsg= Quantitative Gas Segregation Measurement.
0.8-
Li=Horizontal well lengths, L3>L2>L1. 0.7-
0.6- -
Kr 0,5- -
0.4- -
9.VC. ‘z%
0.3- .
0.2- -
;*, ‘~ =: 0.1 - -
, >*._ ,,
0.
ORI 0.10 O.a 032 0.43 0s0 Odl o.m 080 0$0 I .m
I
WOhISdumSm (FmdiOrI)
~+=y=—==—==
+2’+ Fig. 8- Relative Permeability of Oil and Water vs. SW.
Fig. 5- Horizontal Well Flow Lines and Drainage Area.

458
. .

SPE30746 L. SAPUTELLI, T. MATA, Z. JIMENEZ. S. BANERJEE. T. LOZADA 7

6.m 12
09
0.8
+Krg
El
+ Krog
5.!73
1~
m

I 11
/ -----
0,7 1
5.s0
t ~-
------
1,,. n
/1
0.6- - f’b
Kr 0.5- ‘-*) 5.70 /- n ‘“ma-s]
0,4- -
#
9
0,3- Sor*20% 560 ‘

0.2- -
t I
0.1
- “L
0—:
O.@ 0.Y3 O.dl 0.70 0.80 O.’xl I .m
uqlid 3elu10sal(PIUcika)
Fig. 13- Cumulative Production vs KV/K~ratio.

4.M -1503
b
4.6s - -**

6.03 4.a -
5.80 “’ ~ R n

v
NP
4.s --
18 l-c.) (vWrf
17
450-
.
4.45- -

4.60 ● ● TI 13 443 ?
4,40 . . 12 lm lXI m Zel
4.20 r -. .-,
i Mid 011P~clhn Roh pa Vodicd Wol CilB/D)
4.03 ~ ~ 10
6cs3700eco x0mmllmlzfm 130JM03
Fig. 14- Field Cumulative Production and Breakthrough
Infflol 011Pmducfian Rate (SfB/0)
A!—-_.- T—!A!-l
n!, n—.J--–., –—m—
-- —-–.=,-..A,-.. . . . . ..
ume vs lmuiu UII rroaucuon mte per v erucal w en.
Fig. 10- Cumulative Oil Production and Breakthrough
time vs Initial Oil Production Rate in Horizontal Wells. lcml
+@ (OCW=75H,K4702rn@

F E
-W (OqMOfl, K470Cmd
Ioxl +Ov (Os@5tl, K=3700M.4
*OV (OS@=25fl, K=90md)
lam am’
-W (OCW==, K=90md)
(37c4iD) ‘m +Ov (~75fl, K=90m@
+@ (OcW=7511.K=90WIdl
10
lam +Ov (OCW=.5M, K=9C0naT
9! +av ( -25R, K=90Cknd)

fsnm) 1~
Im
I w
o el lm lal m

-Olr TNcknOss(ii)

lo~ Fig. 15 - Critical Rate for Vertical Wells vs Reservoir

‘m Kamlccal’xalaa ldlllemm
NOlixeeld W* Lengh (n)
Thickness and Permeability. Dcgp stands for distance
between well perforations and the gas oil contact.
Fig. 11 - Critical Rate vs Horizontal Well Length and
Reservoir Permeabilities. Calculations made from Josh]
Method.
1% ~a~ ~ Workovers on high GOR Wel!s,

&
<_} Temporary Shutln of wells

‘~: .
CrMcal Rate Ccmfro4 - Law GOR

..
Horizontal wells - Minimum Drawdown
+ Gas Lift od Eiecfrosumerslble Pump
*
(MMsfw

v
4“s
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
●
# ●
4
●
n
1
11

10
mm)

er
~ Wofer productionto stop water
Advance
Kotcomlmlm lmldll
(m (=0) B
-k+ —...-
.- wd
..- l-+
----- mmm)
... .,-,

Fig. 12 - Cumulative Production vs Horizontal Well Fig. 16- Exploitation scheme for maximum final recovery.
Length.

459