SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway ~#ER SPE 5605

Dallas, Texas 75206

THIS PRESENTATION IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Problem Well Analysis - Pumping Oil Wells

By

C. H, Kelm, Member SPE-AIB!E,Amoco Production Co.

——
@Copy rtght 197S
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the 50th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, to be held in Dallas, ‘Texas,Sept. 28-oct. 1, 1975. Permission to COPY
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is
presented. Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually granted upon request to the Editor
of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give proper.credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent
to the Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussions may be presented at the
above meeting and, with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two
SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT

This paper presents practical methods Symptom recognition and definition of

of recognizing and analyzing problem well
symptoms. It also discusses the required
data and its use, as well as presents a
“well checklist” that assists the engineer
in analyzing well performance. The objectives
of well analysis are to maximize producing
rates and recovery within allowable, economic
and/or reservoir restraints. Based on
experience gained from beam pumped oil wells
in West Texas waterflood projects, well
analysis as presented can be applied to oil
wells produced by other means of lift and
reservoir drive mechanisms.
INTRODUCTION
Maximizing pumping oil well rates and
reserves within certain restraints have
always been the objectives of petroleum
engineers, One of the obstacles that prevents
achieving these objectives is problems that
occur within the wells. These problems can
be associated specifically with the reservoir,
the wellbore and near wellbore area and
mechanical aspects of the producing well.
In this paper the primary concern is with
the problems of the wellbore or near wellbore
area and/or the mechnical condition of the
wel1.
tho cause of a problem can best be accom-
plished through regular collection and
analysis of individual well production data.
Although many times production data must be
supplemented with other data to completely
review performance.
In shallow West Texas waterfloods,
where beam units are the prevalent lift
mechanism, it has been found that constant
review of overall project and individual
well performance by the production engineer
results in wells being maintained in their
optimum producing condition. These reviews
are facilitated by the collection and proper
display of at least monthly well test and
fluid level data or pureroff control device
pump timeon every producing oil well.
A “well checklist”, as developed in
this paper, helps the production engineer
organize well performance and mechanical
data necessary for well reviews. Once the
data is organized, performance analysis
becomes a matter of interpreting the data
and comparing one well’s performance or
predicted performance to that of another.
Comparison of performance, while knowing

References and illustrations at end of paper.

 PRnRIFM
,,.”
WFII
”--- . -----
ANAIYSIS
. . . . . . . . ..-
- PUMPING
.--. .—-. ---——
OIL WELLS SPE 5605

basic reservoir properties such as porosity Reserves are lost because of the hysteresis
and permeability, is essential to well effect of relative~permeability. Hysteresis
reviews, is the difference in relative permeability
caused b the changing of the saturation
Good well analysis techniques are history.f The hysteresis effect occurs to
essential for obtaining a high confidence the highest degree in oil-wet rock2 and it
level of management in the production is assumed it would occur to some degree in
engineer. Hit and miss analysis will cause the moderately oil-wet rocks of the shallow
unnecessary repairs to be made resulting in West Texas reservoirs (Grayburg and San
reduced profitability and a loss of confidence Andres) being waterflooded. Backflooding
by management in the production engineer. slows response and amplifies the permeability
contrast (stratification)because of the
The following discussion will be mainly added resistance to the lower conductive
concerned with waterfloods; however, refer- intervals in the reservoir. In all probabi-
ences will be made to other drive mechanisms lity the well will be shut-in for economic
as well analysis applies. reasons prior to producing all the otherwise
connnerciallyproducible oil from the back-
BASIC PROBLEMS flooded zone due to the lower producing rate
of the zone. No number has been determined
There are two major problems that are for the amount of lost reserves.
encountered in beam unit artificially lifted
oil wells in shallow West Texas waterfloods. High back pressure on the formation is
In fact, these problems are common to all normally associated with mechanical well
reservoir drive mechanisms and lift types. problems. Examples of mechanical problems
Limiting discussion to already completed are insufficient artificial lift capacity, a
producing oil wells, the problems are 1) hole in the tubing, excessive sucker rod
back pressure on the formation face and 2) parts, bad pump, or improper pump setting
restriction of fluid flow into the wellbore depth. The analysis of this basic problem
due to plugging. These major problems have will be illustrated in a later section.
many causes and it is the engineer’s job to
first recognize a symptom(s) then to define Shallow West Texas carbonate reservoirs
the problem and provide a solution. For the which are being waterflooded have relatively
purpose of this paper it was ass’lmedthat low average permeability. Thus any foreign
the problem of low reservoir pressure was material buildup on the wellbore face and/or
solved by the installation of the water- in the formation near the wellbore greatly
flood. However, the engineer must remember restricts the amount of fluid entry into the
that until near the time when fillup is wellbore. When the wel?bore or near wellbore
reached in a waterflood project low reservoir area becomes plugged the flow channels are
pressure is a problem and the characteristics blocked and total fluid production begins to
of a solution gas drive mechanism in the decline which ultimately results in loss of
later stages of depletion must be recognized. current production and income. Of course,
These characteristics are low bottom hole plugging is not limited to West Texas water-
pressure, low oil rate and high gas-oil floods. It is conmon in many reservoirs and
ratio. Also, in primary operations low geographical locations. Plugging at the
reservoir pressure can definitely be a wellbore face or near the wellbore normally
problem. results from the deposition of scale, paraffin
and/or fill. An example of restricted fluid
Consider what happens in the reservoir entry due to plugging will be given later in
when a responding well (responding to water- the discussion.
flood) has a high back pressure on the
fot’mationface or said in simplier terms has COLLECTION AND DISPLAY ——
CFWELL PERFORMANCE
a high fluid level. First, current production DATA —
is lost since there is fluid in the reservoir —
and wellbore that is not being produced. There is a minimum amount of data that
Secondly, a high fluid level can result in must be collected on waterflood pumping oil
backflooding of lower pressure zones (zones wells to be able to analyze performance and
not yet pressured up by the waterf?~od) maintain the wells in proper operating
within the reservoir. This is illustrated condition. This data includes a 24-hour
schematically in Figure 1. Backflooding is production test that determines the oil rate
particularly critical if water breakthrough (BOPD), water rate (BWPD) and the gas-oil
has occurred in a waterflood or water drive ratio. Also essential is fluid level data
reservoir and can result in lost reserves. or pump off control device run time. Produc-
;PF 56t15 C H
tion data such as described are referred to
as problem well analys s tools. It iS
believed that production test data should be
collected monthly in waterflood projects
since conditions generally change rapidly
and there are numerous influencing factors.
If this philosophy is followed, then ample
production test facilities must be installed
to be able to test each producing well as
prescribed. Collection of production data
on a regular, frequent basis in any type
project allows production trends to be
established and greatly assists the engineer
in studying well performance. In this way
data interpolation is minimized.
Fluid level data plays a major role in
analyzing well performance and should be
collected on a monthly basis. This informa-
tion when associated with well test data is
extremely important in defining mechanical
well problems such as bad pumps or insuffi-
cient lift capacity. With the recent advent
of wide scale usage of pump off control
devices, pump off time has been used in
connection with fluid level data in deter-
mining if a well is being maintained in a
pumped off condition. For example, increas-
ing pumping time would be an indication of
more fluid entry into the wellbore or a bad
pump. On the other hand, decreasing pump
time could indicate restricted fluid entry
due to plugging or low reservoir energy.
Noticing symptoms such as these is a part of
r.woblemwell analysis.
The above data is felt to be ths minimum
amount necessary to recognize symptoms and
analyze problems. However, there are a
large number of other analysis tools that
provide data and assist the engineer in
analyzing pumping well performance. The
tools are:
Well completion and workover
histories
Wellbore sketches
Log cross sections
Naps of pay characteristics
(Isopachous maps)
Structure maps
Iso-productionmaps
Stick cross sections
Static bottom hole pressures and
buildup tests
Productivity index testing
Fluid analysis (oil, gas, water)
Production logs
Pump efficiency data
Field personnel
There are other analysis tools available,
but the above list comprises the most common.
KFIM 3
The abctietools give data that compliment
the ~asic production data described in
detail above and should be used as necessary
to completely define a well problem. The
use of all the tools listed above will not
be dealt with in this paper.
Properly displaying the basic well
performance and other analysis data is
essential to the quick realization of pro-
blem symptoms. In this paper, time permits
only a description of how basic production
data should be displayed for quick and
proper usage.
The basic production data, oil, water
and gas-oil ratio, must be displayed in two
different ways to facilitate a performance
review of a well or group of wells. First,
the data must be plotted as a performance
curve illustrated in Figure 2. If there are
a group of wells in a project or field, then
all the performance curves must be plotted
using a constant scale. The performance
curve not only displays production figures,
but it can also be adapted to contain the
fluid level. water analysis, workover, and
artificial lift data as illustrated in
Figure 2. Performance plots may be hand or
computer generated and each type plot has
its advantages and disadvantages. Hand
generated plots are normally not neat, but
enormous amounts of information can be
applied to them. Computer plots are neat
and save time but are not currently as
flexible, in that hand entered data to
computer generated plots is normally lost if
not transferred when a new updated computer
plot is made. Provisions can be made to
give the computer the capability of storing
and plotting a wider range of data. When
the engineer has the performance curve and
fluid level data he is well on the way to
analyzing well performance and solving well
problems.
To assist in analyzing well performance
the engineer must know how the production of
a group of wells producing from the same
reservoir compare. To accomplish this
comparison, production data is plotted in the
formofa well status map which is illustrated
in Figure 3. Since the discussion concerns
waterflooding, injection well data is also
shewn. This type map, which is easily con-
structed, aids the engineer in reviewing
well performance by allowing a quick compari-
son of a group of wells. Anamolous well
performance is most easily detected on a
well status map.
1 ,DRtlRIFM
,.””b b,,
WFII
● .Akb
ANAIVRT~
,,,
There is one basic tool that the engineer
should not neglect when studying well perfor-
mance. This is the use of Darcy’s Law.
Darcy’s Law can give the engineera ballpark
idea of the producing capacity of a well and
provide a standard of comparison. This
relates to the questions “how good is good”
and “could good be better”. For example,
consider a group of wells in which the
largest producer makes 100 BOPD. This is a
good producer, but could it be better? If
Darcy’s Law indicates this well to have a
capacity of 300 BOPII,under current conditions~
then this well may be a problem well and
should be reviewed. It is concluded that
the best well in the project should not be
ignored when analyzing performance. High
rate producers have the same problems as the
lower rate wells.
Since the basis of experience for this
paper is West Texas waterflood projects, it
is pointed out that injection well perfor-
mance must also be analyzed. Reviewing
injection wells in waterflood normally
results in answering questions concerning
producing wells.
BASIC TELLTALE SYMPTOMS —.
OF A PROBLEM WELL
This discussion will deal with the very
basic symptoms that can be detected from
performance data (oil, water, GOR) and fluid
level data. The reader should keep in mind
that the other analysis tools available also
detect symptoms. Waterflooding will be the
basis for the following discussion but
symptom determination can be applied to
other recovery mechanisms with some altera-
tions. The alterations would include consi-
deration of the characteristics of the type
of reservoir drive and lift mechanism involved.
Figure 4 illustrates a basic telltale
symptom which is a decline in total fluid
production. This symptom is easily recog-
nized, but this author’s experience is that
it is not always quickly recognized especially
by an engineer with a minimum amount of
experience. A decline in total fluid produc-
tion in a waterflood project is an indication
of a problem such as wellbore plugging, a
bad pump, or a decline in water injection
rate of an offset injection well, etc.
Considering a water drive mechanism, total
fluid decline could indicate a mechanical
problem or limited water influx. Total
fluid decline in a solution gas drive or gas
cap drive may be an indication of plugging,
mechanical problem, or depletion of reservoir
energy. Recognition of a decline in total
fluid production is basic, yet so important
in analyzing well performance.
.s .-s”-”
- PIIMPTNG
. . . . . -. ..”
f)Tl
“--
WFIIS
------
SPE 56fIEi
----- --
The second basic telltale symptom is a
high fluid level which is an indication of a
mechanical problem. A high fluid level
indicates insufficient artificial lift
equipment, a bad pump, a tubing leak, etc.
As indicated earlier, high fluid levels
result in lost current production and possibly
lost reserves.
There are numerous other symptoms that
indicate well problems, but they will not be
discussed in this paper. Generally, symptom
recognition is acquired through on the job
training.
WELL CHECKLISTS
Other well checklists have been developed
to assist the engineer in organizing data
and providing a logical thought process in
problem well analysis.3 However, this
author believes the one presented in this
paper has the advantage of being concise and
yet containing all the data necessary to
analyze performance and/or recommend further
data gathering or testing as necessary.
Figure 5 is an example of the “well check-
list”. It is flexible and can be altered to
apply to primary operations for various
types of reservoir drive and artificial lift
mechanisms and yet retain a similar form as
in Figure 5. Also, an injection well “check-
list” can be developed following the same
format. Secondly, the “checklist” is of a
question and answer nature, This is particu-
larly important for engineers just breaking
into the oil production business as it
trains them to recognize the various items
that must be reviewed and considered in well
performance studies. This includes current
performance, past performance, reservoir
data, mechanical conditions, completion
data, workover data and in this case the
offsetting injection well performance data.
Note that the “checklist” involves informa-
tion obtained by several well analysis
tools.
The engineer’s work is made much simpler
by using this form in periodic reviews of
wells for which he is responsible. Note
that much of the data, that which is not
interpretative,can be filled out by a
technical assistant prior to review by the
engineer. With this checklist, a performance
curve, and a current status map the engineer
is ready to analyze well performance.
,nr
)r~
ccnc
WULI
Pu
u.
FIELD EXAMPLES
Case A
Figure 6 is a performance curve of a
producing oil well in a West Texas San
Andres waterflood project. As shown by the
performance curve, the well began responding
to the waterflood in early 1969 and reached
a sustained oil rate of 100 BPD in late
1970. Production remained at this level
through mid-1972 when the oil and water rate
began to decline. The decline in total
fluid production is an indication of res-
tricted fluid entry or poor mechanical
condition of the pumping equipment. Figure 7
is a completed “checklist” on this particular
well. Numerous items point to scaling as
being the problem. These items are: 1)
high scaling tendency of water, 2) production
trends decreasing, 3) well pump time is
decreasing, and 4) evidence of scale found
in surrounding offset wells. Scale was
cleaned out of the subject well near the
first of 1973 and the results are clearly
visible from Figure 6.
Case B
Figure 8 is a performance curve of a
producing oil well in a waterflood projecb
in West Texas. This waterflood has a peri-
pheral pattern and the producing well is
located centrally in the pattern and would
be a terminal oil well. The performance
curve shows response to the waterflood by
the declining gas-oil ratio and the increas-
ing oil rate in late 1973. An analysis of
the performance of the well was made in
January, 1974, and a larger pumping unit was
installed which increased production from
100 to 300 BOPD. The engineer might have
been content with a 300 BOPD well and tend
to ignore the well as long as oil production
remained in that vicinity. However, note
that water production also began to increase
in early 1974. The performance of the well
was observed and in late 1974 a review was
made. Figure 9 shows the “well checklist”
prepared for this well. The problem indi-
caters are: 1) high fluid level and 2) high
volumetric pump efficiency. These point to
a mechanical problem, namely insufficient
artificial lift equipment. A centrifugal
submersible pump was installed and the
production increased to 363 BOPD and 900
BWPD.
Here is an example ofa well that
produces at a high oil rate but has a
problem. In well performance reviews,
efforts must be made to evaluate all wells
I 1.
Wl
l\ LI-1-1
M I
to determine if maximum producing rates are
being maintained.
CONCLUSIONS
10 Analyzing well performance to
maintain pumping oil wells in proper operating
condition will maximize producing rates and
recovery.
2. Frequent collection of performance
data is necessary to completely study pumping
oil well performance.
3. Properly displaying oil well
performance data will facilitate well
analysis.
4. “Well checklists” are helpful in
studying the performance of pumping oil
wells.
5. “Well checklists” can be developed
for all types of wells and recovery mechanisms
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank Amoco Produc-
tion Company for allowing him to publish
this paper. Special recognition is given to
the members of the Amoco Ad Hoc Committee on
“Problem Well Analysis” namely C. T. Broughtor
Amoco Production Company, Ltd., Canada, and
J. J. Elliott, Jr., J. A. Pope and R. J.
Byrd, all of Amoco Production Company.
REFERENCES
1. Cole, F. W., Reservoir Engineering
Manual, pp. 29-31.
2. Schneider, F. N., Owens, W. W., “Sand-
stone and Carbonate Two- and Three-
Phase Relative Permeability Characteris-
tics”, Transactions, AIME, Vol. 249
(1970), pp. 75-84.
3. Oil & Gas Consultants International,
Inc., Production Operations Manual,
Well Completion Stimulation and
Workover Systems, “Problem W~ Analysis’
,.-_
..
 OIL PROD. WATER INJ
WELL WELL

F!uid Leve12500’
Q III
- From Surfoce

5000’
i Primory Secondor lnjec:$n~ Wtr J
I Oil Oil Bon {
(H%%%ol
c
Wotered Out Zone 2
I

, J
I I I

Fig. I - Breakthrough water backfloorf!ng low

: ressure zone.

UNKNOWN UNIT
1la.

A?%FM )% P% F’w 100

90
F-r- F. F- F. F. f. F-F-r- F-F
1500
““ ~8”~*,”~%,*~$%o’$AR “:i >80

A 70
0. u

.45 . 10 . 50 -3000 ~
● 40 ● 60 ~ 60 R-R,
70: 210:
m
75: 5;: 70A 180% R.R/ ~
.O. O.O ,,0, olL 8 wATER ;
50 \H ,0
~, ITOTAL FLUID] 1-
/c. r,o.o. o’O
fi~ fix 6! 45 4*”5 40 qc OECLINIMG “Zooo ‘-
,C 0
0
\ ,*
930 O.O. ( z
R w a
o
olL RATE, FLPD &TER RATE, BPO \ o’ “$$ 1000 -J
:2 0 WI
PROWCER . wAiER RATE, SPO INJECTOR ● SURFACE WE SS. PSI 6
GA501L RATIO F CUM INJ. M8E+LS m -o.c~\R-R-R.l .R, R”
- a. k. ~, ‘.n, fi-R-R,& k
FT3 I EEL 10 &c. h&c-c m
~
.W.ww- .#. W.w-w. %.w, f.w/W*+/@’-* .0
0. w
UNKNOWN UNIT 1973 1974 1975
X FIELD
[
F,g. 4 - Performance curve I I Iustrat, ng total
Ueclnne In flu, o production.
F!g. 3 - iyplcai well
.,
sra~us mau.

,,,
..
. . . . . . . . . . .. :’”.

~ -. .
:200 “. . .. .’
z

1
3 lao m
m 160 o
u
140
>
0
120
I 400 d
o
01 I
i
: ao
e o
3300 0
m6
m 0
0
4 m
x
200 ~
m ~

~ 100 OIL
/
n
o I
m
c
1972 1s73 1974
“lg. 8 - Fie case 8, performance curve.

.
WELL PROIWCING MECHANISM: WATERFLOOD

LATEST TES~ _BO ANO BWP9 GOR _CUFT/BBL DATE

‘P~JCT ION COMPARABLE~FFSETS : YES NO
PRODUCING RATE PRIOR TO FLOOD: ~ATF_BCI AND _ BWPO GOR CUFT/BBL
. ..-
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION : _BO AND _~ DATE

WATER ANALYSIS:
.-.—
CURRENT Cl- MG/L NORMAL Cl- MG/L
ESTIMATE: % INJECTION WATER
SCALING TENm OF WATER:

EVALUATION OF PROOUCTION TRENDS:

NORMAL : ABNORMAL :
i RESPONSE : YES NO TYPE: 01L WATER BREAKTHROUGH GOR
3, OIL PROO. TRENO: INCREASING DECREASING LEVEL
4. WATER PROD. TREND: INCREASING DECREASING LEVEL
GAS PROD. TREND: :NCREASING DECREASING LEVEL
:: TOTAL FLUID PROO. TREND: INCREASING DECREASING LEVEL

FLU;O LEVEL:
. FEET ABOVE PUMP: DATE : TREND:

PRESSURE :
BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE : PSI _ HRS. _ PSIWELLBORE SKIN
mm-

MECdAN ICAL :
VOLUMETRIC PUMP EFFICIENCY: %
2: PUMP OFF CONTROL RUN TIME : _—HOURS OR HOURS PROOUCEO PER OAY
PUMP SETTING OEPTH:
5 CASING PRESSURE : -mFT”
TUBING PRESSURE : —PSI
t BEAM PUMPING UNIT:— 5PM SL UNIT SIZE:
7. COLLECTION SYSTEM BA_ESSUR=_ PSI
COMPLETION INTERVAL:
PAY INTERVAL EXPOSED: YES No
i WATER-01L CONTACT:
3. GAS-01L CONTACT:

LATEST WORKOVER
-.-—--OATA:
.- DATE
. PRODUCTION BEFORE -R: _BO ANO _BW GOR _CUFT/BBL
OATE
2. TYPE WORKOVER: .—
3. PRODUCTION AFTER WORKOVER : ‘B.ANO _B~ GOR CUF~fB~
Tm “.. ,..

4. WELL INIIIBITEDFOR SCALE: YES 7Z17PY OATE

5. WELL INIIIBITEOFOR CORROSION: YES NO TYP~_ DAT[
6. RlltARKS: _- -

OFFSETTING INJ&CTION WII.LS:

..-----
12~iljE I;AT”TLNN
: .---—- .—
. SURROUNOING INJECTION WLLL OPERATION:
a. (AT) (ABOVE) (BELOW SIGNIFICANTLY) (BELOW) STEP RATE TEST
DETERMINED FORMATION PARTING PRESSURE
b. SKINDAMAGE INOICATEO ON PRESSURE FALL OFF TESTS: YES NO
c, INJECTION WELL CONFORMANCE:
d. (ABNORMAL) (NORMAL) FRAcTuRE LENGTH5
e. OIL BANK MDII: “
—— FT. FT. — FT. _ FT.

ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM:

ACTION :

Fig. 5 - Well checklist.

 WELL FIELD CASE B PRODUCING NECHANISM: WATERFLOOD

LATEST TEST: 199 BO ANO 265 BWPO GOR 200 CUfT/BBL OATE _12-74
PRooucTIo~oMpARABLno OFFSETS: ~TTER THAN OFFsETS
WELL FIELD CASE A PRODUCING MECHANISM: WATERFLOOD PRODUCING RATE PRIOR TO FLOOD: 16B0 ANO O BWPD G~~ OATE~
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION: 154,729B~ DA’rE~
LATEST TEST: fifl
BO AND ~ BWPD GOR ~ CUFT/BBL DATE 12-72
PRODUCTIONCOMPARABLETO OFFSETS: YES w (LOWER)— WATER ANALYSIS:
PRODUCING RATE PRIOR TO FLOOO: ;A;~ ~~g BWPD GOR 10,000+ CUFT/BBL CURRENT Cl- MG/L - NORMAL Cl- MG/L -
ESTIMATE: -In~ INJECTION WATER (BASEOON NO WATER PRODUCTION PRIOR TO
CUMULATIVEPRODUCTION
: NOT AVAI
LABLE— WATER BREAKTHROUGH)
SCALING TENDENCY OF WATER: MEDIUM
WATER ANALYSIS:
CURRENTCl- Mr. I2~ NORNAL Cl- NG/L 4CJ00Q EVALUATION OF PRODUCTION TRENDS:
ESTINATE: 100. INJECTIONWATER NORF14L: ABNORM4L: x(ABN0f04AL8EcAusE
SCALINGTEN~y OF WATER: !!!!!i CIJRRENTFLUID PRODUC-
TION IS CONSTANT).
EVALUATION OF PRODUCTION TRENDS: 2. RESPONSE: YES NO TYPE: OIL WATER BREAKTHROUGH GOR
NORMAL: ABNCIRPtAL
: x OIL PROO. T~D: IN~ASING DECREASING ~EVEL
2: RESPONSE: YES NO TYPE: OIL WATER BREAKTHROUGH GOR :: WATER PRDO. TREND: INCREASING LE:EL
OIL PROO. T~O: IN=ASING ~EPs~ ~EvEL 5. GAS PROO. TREND: INCREASlNG ~
:: WATLi PROD. TREND: INCREASING OECRE~SING LEVEL 6. TOTAL FLUID PROD. TREND: INCREASING DECREASING ~
GAS PROO. TREND: INCREASING DECREASING LEVEL
:: TOTAL FLUIO PROD. TREND: INCREASING DECREASING LEVEL FLUIO
LEVEL:
1. FEET ABOVE PUMP: —1596 DATE: 12-74 TREND: INCREASING
FLUID LEVEL:
FEET ABOVE PUMP: ~ OATE: 12-72 TRENO: ~ PRESSURE:
BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE: NOT AVAILABLE
PRESSURE:
BD1TDM HOLE PRESSURE: NCITAVAILABLE NECMNICAL
:
VOLUMETRIC PUMP EFFICIENCY: 92%
MECHANICAL: ;: PUMP OFF CONTROL RUN TIME: 2a-JiouRs/oAY
VOLUNETRIC pUMP EFFIcIENCY: 60% PUMP SETTING OEPTW: 28 FT. ~F TOTAL DEPTH
2: PUMP OFF CONTROL RUN TIME: 1= HoURs/oAy (TREND Decreasing) i CASING PRESSURE: ~
3. PUMP SETTING OEPTH: 40 FT. ~TOTAL OEPTH 5. TUBING PRESSURE: NOT AVAILABLE
4. CASING PRESSURE: 35 PSI 6. BEAM PUMPING UNIT: 10 SPM “:,)1)
SL UNIT SIZE:: API 320
TUBING PRESSURE: ~nAILABLE 7. COLLECTION SYSTEM BA~PRESSUR~:—NOT AVAILABLE
:: BEAM PUMPING UNIT: 10 SPM 86” SL UNIT SIZE: API 320
7. COLLECTION SYSTEM BAR PRESSUW~ NOT AVAILABLE COMPLETION INTERVAL: 5200-5250
PAY INTERVAL EXPOSED: YES NO
c0NpLET10t4INTERvAL: 4210-4275 & WATER-OIL CONTACT: NON~
PAY INTERVAL~ YES NO 3. GAS-OIL CONTACT: —YE~
2: WATER-01L CONTACT: ~~
3. GAS-OIL CONTACT: ~ LATESTWORKOVER OATA: DATE 6-72
PRODUCTIONBEFORE WORKOVER: 25 BO ANDQBW GOR20QCUFT/BBL
LATEST WORKOVER OATA: ~TE 6-72
NONE WITHIN LAST 5 YEARs (OFFSETTING PROOuCERs HAVE HAO INDICATIONS OF SCALE). 2. TYPE WORKOVER: 6-72 CLEAN OUT ANO=C WITH 8000 LlALLONSOF
GELLED BRINE
OFFSETTING IN;E;~#~ELLS: 3. PRODUCTION AFTER WORKOVER: 4580 AND~BW GOR20QCUFT/BBL
~RREGuLAR ----- 7-72
~TE
2: SURROUNDING iNJECTION WELL OPERATION: 4. WELL INHIBITED FDR SCALE: YES m.
a.. BELOW STEP RATE TEST DETERNINEO FORKATION PARTING PRESSURE. 5. WELL INHIBITEO FOR CORROSIO= — YES NO
b. SKIN DA144GEINOICATEO ON PRESSURE FALL OFF TESTS: ~ 6. RENARKS: NONE
—
c. INJECTION WELL CONFORMANCE: ACCEpT~LE
d. NORMAL FRACTURE LENGTHS OFFSETTING INJECTION WELLS:
e. -K RADII: NOT AVAILABLE TYPE PATTERN: PERPHERIAL
;: SURROUNDING INJECT(ON WELL OPERATION:
ANALYSIS
OF PROBLEM: SCALING a. BELOW STEP RATE TEST DETERMINED FORM4TION PARTING PRESSURE.
b. m0AM4GE INDICATED ON pREssuRE FALL OFF TESTS: SLIGHT AMOUNT
- ~LEAN OUT SCALE c. INJECTION WELL CONFORt-ANCE: ACCEPTABLE
d. NORMAL FRACTURE LENGTHS
Fig. 7 - Well checklist. Field Case A. e. -K RAOII: PERPHERIAL FLOOO OIL M3VING FROM NORTH WHERE
THERE IS CONCENTRATED INJECTION NEAR THE ORIGINAL GAS-OIL
CONTACT RENAINDEROF FIELD BOUNDED BY PERMEABILITY PINCH OUT
kND FAINTS.

ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM: INSUFFICIENT LIFT CAPACIIT

m: INSTALL LARGER LIFT EQUIPMENT

Fig. 9 - Well checklist - Field Case B.