Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Temirlan_Jatykov_IP_Presentation
Similar to Temirlan_Jatykov_IP_Presentation (20)
Temirlan_Jatykov_IP_Presentation
- 1. Analysis of Various ParametersAffecting the Design of PassiveAdvanced Well Completion MSc. Petroleum Engineering Project Report 2013/2014 Temirlan Jatykov Heriot-Watt University Institute of Petroleum Engineering Supervisors: David Davies, Khafiz Muradov, Bona Prakasa
- 2. Outline • Introduction • Purpose • Workflow, Results and Discussions • Conclusion • Suggestion for Future Work 2
- 3. Introduction • Heel-toe effect causes early water or gas breakthrough • No (or reduced) heel- toe effect using passive advanced well completion – causes equalized flow distribution 3
- 4. • Analyse various parameters and understand their impact on passive advanced well behaviour • Explain and validate Birchenko's Analytical Estimation of ICD strength, i.e. explain his rule of thumb • Propose additional methodology (workflow) of how to design advanced well completion using ICDs in terms of optimum well and field performance 4 Purpose
- 5. Inflow Control Devices • Nozzle type • Orifice type • Channel type - helical - labyrinth type • Slotted • Tube type 5 ICDs ICD is a device to make flow to well evenly distributed along the wellpath (Faisal Al-Khelaiwi. 2013) Used with: • Debris filter • Sand screen
- 6. Study of ICD Performance Can be analysed with: • Well modelling software • Reservoir simulation software But there are also relatively simple analytical models: • Depending on what assumptions and what aims they are needed to for (Birchenko et al, 2010): Quick feasibility studies (screening ICD installation candidates) Verification of numerical simulation results Communicating best practices in a non-product specific manner 6
- 7. Birchenko’s analytical method to reduce heel-toe effect • General solution: • 𝑼 𝒍 = −𝟏+ 𝟏+𝟒𝒂∆𝑷 𝒍 𝒋 𝟐(𝒍) 𝟐𝒂𝒋(𝒍) • 𝒒 𝒘 = −𝟏+ 𝟏+𝟒𝒂∆𝑷 𝒍 𝒋 𝟐(𝒍) 𝟐𝒂𝒋(𝒍) 𝑳 𝟎 𝒅𝒍 • ∆𝑷 𝒍 = 𝒂𝑼 𝟐 𝒍 + 𝑼 𝒍 𝒋 𝒍 • 𝑗 = 𝐽 𝐿 specific productivity index • 𝑑𝑞 𝑑𝑙 = 𝑗(𝑙)(𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑎 𝑙 ) • 𝑈 𝑙 = 𝑑𝑞 𝑑𝑙 specific flow rate • ∆𝑃 = ∆𝑃𝑟 + ∆𝑃𝐼𝐶𝐷 - total pressure drop 7 Heel Toe
- 8. Birchenko’s analytical method to reduce heel-toe effect Homogeneous reservoir case: • Two solutions: Rate constrained well Pressure constrained well • 𝑞 𝑤 ≈ 𝑗∆𝑃𝑟ℎ 1.5/(1.5 + 𝑖 𝑝) 3 • 𝑈(𝑙) ≈ 𝑗∆𝑃𝑟ℎ 1 − 𝐺 𝑝 𝑙 𝐿 3 + 𝐺 𝑝 • 𝒊 𝒑 = 𝑪 𝒇 𝝆𝒇 𝒂 𝑩 𝟐 𝒋 𝟐 𝑳 𝟑∆𝑷 𝒓𝒉 𝟐𝒂𝒋 𝟐 𝑷 𝒓𝒉+𝟏 𝑫 𝟓 • 𝐺 𝑝 ≈ 1 − 𝑖 𝑝 (1.5+𝑖 𝑝) 8 ∆𝑃𝐼𝐶𝐷 ≈ 𝑛∆𝑃𝑟ℎ 𝑎 ≈ 𝑛𝐿2 ∆𝑃𝑟ℎ 𝐽2 𝑎𝐼𝐶𝐷 ≈ ( 𝜌𝜇 𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝜌 𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝜇 ) 1 4 𝜌 𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝐿2 𝜌𝑙𝐼𝐶𝐷 2 𝐵2∆𝑃𝑟ℎ 𝐽2 𝑑 ≈ 𝐶 𝑢 𝜌𝑙𝐼𝐶𝐷 2 𝐵2 ∆𝑃𝑟ℎ 𝐽2 𝐶 𝑑 2 𝑛𝐿2 Rule of Thumb 𝑛 ≈ 𝑈ℎ 𝑈𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝐼𝐶𝐷 − 1 ICD strength parameter
- 9. Workflow, Results and Discussions 9
- 10. Creation of a Base Case • All data was matched to get the curves Birchenko got • Data used are obtained from Troll field case studies • This is done to get reasonable numbers to create a grid of synthetic reservoir 10 Length (L) = 8202.1 ft Internal Diameter (ID) = 0.49 ft Pressure drop at heel (∆Prh)= 17.4 psi Productivity index (PI) = 2168 bbl/psi/day ICD strength = 2.7613 𝑝𝑠𝑖∙𝑓𝑡2 (𝑏𝑏𝑙/𝑑𝑎𝑦)2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 U(l),stb/day/ft MD from heel, ft with ICD No ICD
- 11. Creation of reservoir grid in Eclipse L = 8202 ft W = 1400 ft h = 111 ft k = 1837 mD φ = 20% Relative permeabilities Capillary pressure 4000 cells Homogeneous etc 11 Exaggeration 1:50 in Z direction So
- 12. Input data to NETool • The Base Case model was created in NETool, i.e. reservoir and well were created. • Now variable analysis could be done. • This is only static model – i.e. doesn’t change with time. • ICD strength = 2.7613 𝑝𝑠𝑖∙𝑓𝑡2 (𝑏𝑏𝑙/𝑑𝑎𝑦)2 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 5000 10000 U,stb/day/ft MD from heel, ft U(l) U(l) Birchenko U(l) from NETool Reasonable match is achieved d = 0.1588 inch – Nozzle diameter
- 13. Results for different nozzle sizes for Base Case The concept of • 𝑈ℎ 𝑈𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝑈ℎ 𝑈 𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐼𝐶𝐷 𝑈ℎ 𝑈 𝑡 𝑛𝑜 𝐼𝐶𝐷 vs • 𝑃𝐼𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝑃𝐼 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐼𝐶𝐷 𝑃𝐼 𝑛𝑜 𝐼𝐶𝐷 is proposed here to show and explain the validity of Birchenko proposed rule of thumb 13 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 00,20,40,6 PIratio Uh/Ut ratio BHP constant This is the point which is proposed by analytical model of Birchenko based on his rule of thumb ICD strength increases
- 14. Results for different nozzle sizes for Base Case 14 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 00,20,40,6 Uh/UtratioandPIratio Nozzle diameter d, inch BHP constant Uh/Ut ratio PI ratio 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 00,20,40,6 PIratio Uh/Ut ratio BHP constant These are the points which are proposed by analytical model of Birchenko, based on his rule of thumb 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 0 50 100 150 Uh/UtratioandPIratio delta Picd, psi BHP constant Uh/Ut ratio PI ratio
- 15. Length affecting the well’s Uh/Ut ratio at analytically recommended ICDs • The higher the length the lesser the Uh/Ut ratio which is achievable. • The more beneficial ICD installation • But there is always trade-off between equalization and PI 15 1 2 3 4 Ряд1 0,96986 0,38464 0,12440 0,01528 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 Uh/Utratioatrecom.ICD Uh/Ut ratio at recom.ICD (thresholds) 1640ft 4921ft 8202ft 16400ft 1 2 3 4 Ряд1 0,87287 0,70473 0,59597 0,45669 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 PIratioatrecon.ICD PI ratio at recom.ICD at differ. L 1640ft 4921ft 8202ft 16400ft PI reduction is not so high as Uh/Ut ratio reduction
- 16. ID affecting the well’s Uh/Ut ratio at analytically recommended ICDs 16 1 2 3 Ряд1 0,04905 0,38464 0,53783 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 Uh/Utratioatrecom.ICD L=4921ft Uh/Ut ratio at recom.ICD at different IDs 1 2 3 Ряд1 0,53902 0,70473 0,70007 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 PIratioatrecom.ICD L=4921ft PI ratio at recom.ICD at different IDs 1 2 3 Ряд1 0,01105 0,12440 0,22040 0,0 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,3 Uh/Utratioatrecom.ICD L=8202ft Uh/Ut ratio at recom.ICD at different IDs 1 2 3 Ряд1 0,39819 0,59597 0,56844 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 PIratioatrecom.ICD L=8202ft PI ratio at recom.ICD at different IDs 1 2 3 Ряд1 0,00096 0,01528 0,03031 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,04 Uh/Utratioatrecom.ICD L=16400ft Uh/Ut ratio at recom.ICD at different IDs 1 2 3 Ряд1 0,28132 0,45669 0,43919 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 PIratioatrecom.ICD L=16400ft Uh/Ut ratio at recom.ICD at different IDs Good validation
- 17. General comparison of impact • The highest influence on heel-toe effect is from ID. • Then from L. • And less significant is friction 17 0,00 0,30 0,60 0,90 1,20 1,50 1,80 -100% -50% 0% 50% 100% Spider Diagram Evaluating sensitivity of various parameter on Uh/Ut ratio L D e/d 1,00 2,00 3,00 Ряд1 1,5345 4,4470 20,6757 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 zratio e/D, L and ID affecting action Z ratio = (Uh/Ut ratio)max/(Uh/Ut ratio)min 𝒊 𝒑 = 𝑪 𝒇 𝝆𝒇 𝒂 𝑩 𝟐 𝒋 𝟐 𝑳 𝟑 ∆𝑷 𝒓𝒉 𝟐𝒂𝒋 𝟐 𝑷 𝒓𝒉 + 𝟏 𝑫 𝟓
- 18. L, ID and e/D influence on Uh/Ut ratio 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Uh/UtwithandwithoutICD L, ft Heel-toe effect due to L Uh/Ut no Icd Uh/Ut with ICD x-section of lines says no need any ICD 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 Uh/UtwithandwithoutICD ID, inch Heel-toe effect due to ID Uh/Ut no Icd Uh/Ut with ICD x-section of lines sign no need any ICD • The higher the ID the higher Uh/Ut ratio, consequently less beneficial the ICD installation • The higher the L the lower Uh/Ut ratio, consequently more beneficial the ICD installation • The relative change of Uh/Ut with or without ICD due to friction is very small 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0,0001 0,0002 0,0003 0,0004 Uh/UtwithandwithoutICD e/D Heel-toe effect due to friction Uh/Ut no Icd Uh/Ut with ICD
- 19. L and ID influence on Uh/Ut ratio These plots could show when there is no requirement for ICDs 19 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Uh/Utratio L, ft Sensitivity to Length 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 Uh/Utratio ID, ft Sensitivity to ID
- 20. • The rate without ICD is higher as it is expected • But good equalization is achieved with ICD 20 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 2000 2100 2200 2300 FlowRate,stb/day BHP at heel, psi NO ICD with ICD Inflow Profile Without ICD Well length from heel to toe (L=8202ft, ID=5.9 inch) Inflow Profile with ICD Well length from heel to toe (L=8202ft, ID=5.9 inch) Base Case Inflow Performance Relationship 60 0 30 Inflowstb/day/ft 7 0 4 Inflowstb/day/ft
- 21. Economical considerations • The Base Case in this report was considered as a representative for economic evaluation • Troll field development by ICDs showed a good performance in term of technical and economical parameters • Many other authors also showed that implementation of ICD technology gave gain in production and development terms • Thus the Base Case could also be considered as economically viable. 23
- 22. Create a Base Case Model Provide screening Need ICD? Yes No Conventional completion Choose ICD strength (rule of thumb) Using Uh/Ut vs PI ratios validate chosen ICD Run sensitivity varying ICD strengths, L, D. Choose the best option Create well IPR – select a regime Apply numerical simulator for reservoir performance Calculate economics Apply completion Achieve consistency with all data Yes No Check assumptions and uncertainties Methodology
- 23. Conclusion • 1. Various parameters and their affect on the design of passive advanced well completion were analysed in term of Birchenko’s analytical solution • 2. The rule of thumb applied in Birchenko’s analytical solution was explained and validated • 3. A new approach to consider when designing completions with ICD is proposed • 4. Suggestions for future work are given 25
- 24. Suggestion for Future Work • 1. Create Eclipse dynamic model for reservoir behaviour understanding • 2. Consider various reservoirs scenarios with different formation and fluid properties: - homogeneous - heterogeneous - highly viscous oils - fractured reservoir - for different well placement • 3. Consider cases under rate constrained solution • 4. Find Uh/Ut ratio vs ID or L general correlation 26 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 00,10,20,30,40,50,6 PIratio Uh/Ut ratio
- 25. Thank you! Any question, please 27 Analysis of Various Parameters Affecting the Design of Passive Advanced Well Completion