Answer Haggis Field

PAB 2094 Well Completions and Production THE HAGGIS FIELD
WELL COMPLETIONS AND PRODUCTION

PAB 2094
THE HAGGIS FIELD ANSWER FORM
Name: Nguyen The Thao

ID: 11828
Nguyen The Thao 11828

DECLARATION
I Nguyen The Thao confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and
expressed in my own words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in any
form (e.g. ideas, equations, figures, text, tables, programs) are properly acknowledged at the
point of their use. (A list of the references employed should be included.)
Name: NGUYEN THE THAO
Signed: Date: 04/11/ 2010

___________________________________________________________________________
COPYING
Copying the work of others, including that of other students in the class or group, is
an indication of unfair means, whereby one person gains credit for work undertaken
by another.
Recommendation to students Make clear in your submission any permitted

reproduction that you have carried out. Check the rest of the work to ensure that it is
your own. Working with other students in informal study groups is a desirable part of
the academic experience, but be sure that the work that you eventually submit is yours
and not that of others. Keep copies of material such as working notes, or sketches of
diagrams, or drafts of essays that show that the work is your own effort.
PLAGIARISM
Plagiarism is the act of stealing from the writings or ideas of another. This is
regarded as a very serious offence in academic works. It is generally accepted that
such “stealing” occurs where there is no acknowledgement that the writings or ideas
belong to someone else. Most academic scholarship involves building on the work of
others, while acknowledging their contribution. There are accepted conventions for
making that acknowledgement, although the conventions may vary marginally from
one subject to another.
Recommendation to students when you undertake an assessed work which involves

drawing on the writings or ideas of others, make sure that you acknowledge each
contribution. Use a style of acknowledgement that is good practice in the academic
discipline. If you are not sure what is good practice, read the guidance provided by
your School or seek advice from academic staff. When the work is completed, check
carefully that you have not overlooked acknowledgement of any source used.

Section A:
1) The well Haggis-3 is used as the base case well for the Haggis field throughout this
exercise. In order to minimise the computer time involved in simulations, the model used
contains only components are significant and that contribute significantly to the pressure
drop along Haggis-3. Therefore, the model contains only the following nodes:
Node No. Component Name Bottom Depth, MD (ft)
1 Tubing 1 850.0
2 SSS Valve 850.0
3 Tubing 2 1000.0
4 Tubing 3 1500.0
5 Tubing 4 4000.0
6 Tubing 5 5600.0
7 Casing 6530.5
8
9
The attached Figure A1 illustrates the nodes used in the WellFlo model.
[5%]
2) In flow simulations on WellFlo, Haggis-3 was modelled using the following correlation:
Hagedorn & Brown (Mod) [STD/MOD].
[10%]
There are two main reasons why this correlation was chosen:
a) The oil rate simulated by this correlation is closest to the given oil rate of 4770
STB/day at 2800psi and 30% WC; compared to the other correlations.
The attached Figure A2 supports this reasoning.
b)
i) Because the 7 pairs of TVD versus Depth values (that were given from a recent
pressure survey from Haggis-3; Fig. A2.1) are closest to the Hagedorn & Brown
(mod) correlation curve (with 5 near and 2 exact to the curve).
ii) Because Hagedorn & Brown (mod) has a good accuracy in pressure profile
predictions for a wide range of water-cuts. The correlation developed is
independent of flow patterns.
Reference: Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: .Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients

Occurring during Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits, J. Pet.
Tech. (Apr. 1965) 475-484.
[20%]

Section B:
In order to evaluate the viability of producing Haggis-3 under increased water-cuts and
reduced reservoir pressures, a number of sensitivity analyses were performed on the
production from Haggis-3 using WellFlo. These sensitivities are illustrated by the following
figures: B1, B2, B3, B4 and their results are summarised in Table B-1 below:
PRes. 2800 (psia) 2700 (psia) 2600 (psia) 2500 (psia)

WC
30% 4770 4042 3277 2459
35% 3777 3094 2357 1525
40% 2876 2212 1489 NOP
45% 2054 1413 NOP NOP
Table B.1: Haggis-3 Production Forecast [10%]
Since artificial lift cannot be supported by the production facilities on the Haggis platform at
present, you agree with your engineers that you have to start a water injection scheme to
maintain the reservoir pressure at 2800 psia. Under these circumstances, Haggis-3 will
produce economically (1500+ BOPD) at a maximum water cut of 48.7 %, and at an oil
production rate of 1500 BOPD, as illustrated by Figure B5. This is considered to be the Base
Case scenario, against which all other schemes in section C will be compared.
Scenario Maximum Economic Water Cut Oil Production Rate @ 30% Water
Cut @2800 psi
Base Case 48.7 % 4770 STB/day

[5%]
With a water injection scheme in place, you expect to face even more severe water
production from Haggis-3. One way of dealing with such a problem is to plug-off “watered-
out” perforations. List two advantages and two disadvantages of plugging off.
Advantages:
i) Prevent, reduce or isolate water production, hence no need to dispose water,
which results in cost-saving.
ii) Increases flowing pressure, allowing higher flow rates at upper zones. Stability of
zones also increases.
Disadvantages:
i) If cement plug is set it could damage the formation, reducing permeability and
increase the skin effects, and thus, reduces production. Solutions that are injected
in plugging operation can reduce hydrocarbon flow out of producing formation.
ii) Plugging off operation is costly and time consuming.

Reference: Johnson, D. E., and Pile, K. E. 2002. Well Logging in Non-technical Language. Tulsa,
Oklahoma: Penn Well Publishing.
[20%]

Section C:
Tubing Selection
a) Assuming that we have an option to choose the optimum production tubing size.
Examine the tubing performance for depleting reservoir pressure.
PRes. 2800 (psia) 2600 (psia) 2400 (psia)

OD
3.5” 3393 2477 1328
4.0” 4019 2860 1458
4.5” 4496 3140 1521
5.0” 4736 3258 1533
5.5” 4845 3309 1531
Table C1: Oil production forecast as functions of tubing sizes and reservoir pressures.
[10%]
b) After installing optimum tubing size of 5.5 inch diameter (OD), Haggis-3 is having
maximum water cut at which the well can produce economically of 48.7 %.
(See figure C4)
c)
Scenario Maximum Economic Water Cut Oil Production Rate

@ 30% Water Cut
Optimum Tubing Size 48.7% 4845 STB/day
[5%]
d) State the two main factors in choosing the optimum production tubing size. Explain your
answer.
1. The tubing size that is selected must have a lower pressure drop due to friction and
turbulence. So since larger tubing size will yield lower frictional flow, it will cause
lower pressure drop, and thus, maintain an optimized oil production rate.
2. The water cut. This is because at reservoir pressure 2800 psia, the oil production rate
is highest at 4845 STB/day with the best maximum economic water cut of 48.7%. The
aim is to get high oil rate. This means we should increase of tubing size. However, by
doing this, we need more energy to lift up the oil, so need high water cut (so that
energy needed is less). But this water cut can't be too high to avoid excessive water
production.
References: WCP lecture notes; John, F. Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production,

Standard Handbook of Petroleum & Natural Gas Eng.
[15%]

Section D
A. Electrical Submersible Pumps.
a) The most suitable pump of Haggis-3 given the present conditions is HC9000/KMH562
Series/#1/Centrilift. Figure D.A.1 shows the performance plot of this pump.
This pump is the optimum choice because

1) The power required to operate HC9000 is the lowest among the ESPs tested,
which is140.662 kW. Cost of operation can be reduced when the power required
is lower.
2) HC9000 has the highest efficiency, where 44.2% of electric power are converted
into pumping power, which is cost saving.
3) The operating point is located within the range of maximum and minimum flow
rate.
[5%]
b) Surface facilities limit the quantity of water that can be produced from the well. To
maintain a lower water cut, water injection could be suspended and the reservoir allowed
depleting. Sensitivity of the model to declining reservoir pressure is illustrated by the
following figures: D.A.2, D.A.3, D.A.4, D.A.5 & D.A.6. The results are summarised in
Table C.3 below.
PRes. 2800 psia 2600 psia 2400 psia 2200 psia

Pump
GC 8200 6296.6** 5888.3 5237.4 4161.7
HC 7000 6296.8** 5968.7** 5541.3 4998.9
HC 9000 6299.1 5312.2 4106.0 2633.5*
KC 12000 6289.9 4919.5* 3531.2* 2208.3*
KC 15000 6263.3* 4839.1* 3313.1* 1726.6*
** - above pump max; * - below pump min
Table D.1: Haggis-3 Production (Oil) Forecast with ESP installed, ** denotes rate out
with the operating range of the pump.
According to Table D.1 the optimum ESP for Haggis-3 for declining reservoir pressure
is GC8200, at a water cut of 30%.
This pump is the optimum choice because GC 8200 can operate in all of the specified
layer pressure except 2800psia. It has larger operating range compare to other pumps.
Other pumps have two or more layer pressure. They are not stable thus cannot operate
under this condition.
[10%]

c) If the optimum ESP is installed in Haggis-3 the maximum water-cut at which the well
will produce economically with no depletion is 76.667%. (see figure D.A.7)
Scenario Maximum Economic Oil Production Rate

Water Cut @ 30% Water Cut
Optimised ESP 77.40% 6296.634 STB/day
[Refer to Figure D.A.8] [5%]

B. Gas Lift Design
a) The gas lift design for Haggis-3 given the present conditions is shown in Figure D.B.1.
The required gas injection rate for the design production rate is 1.57 MMSCF/day.
[Refer to Figure D.B.2]
The purpose of the operating valve is to allow the lift gas to be inject during normal
production. It should be OPEN when assessing the gas lift design.
The purpose of the unloading valves is to allow the displacement of original fluid and
enable the circulation of the lift gas. It is also use to depressurize the pump when the
critical pressures downstream reach. These should be OPEN/CLOSED when assessing
the gas lift design.
[10%]
b) If the reservoir is allowed to deplete, sensitivity of the gas lift model to declining
reservoir pressure becomes an issue. This is illustrated in Figure D.B.2 where the
operating rate is plotted against the Lift gas injection rate (sensitivities: 1. layer
pressure 2. Gas Lift injection rate). These results are summarised in table D.2 below.
PRes. 2800 psia 2600 psia 2400 psia 2200 psia 2000 psia
Technical Optimum 7 6 6 5 4
injection rate
MMscf/day
Table D.2: Technical Optimum gas injection rate for Haggis-3.
The criteria used to choose the optimum injection rate :

i) Depth of injection.
ii) Amount of the gas inject.
iii) Tubing size.

Higher injection rates do not improve production as the reservoir pressure declines
because higher injection rates will also increase gas production rate, which will then
cause the friction term increase faster than the hydrostatic depletion rate. The oil
production rate will be reduced due to friction between fluids and tubing.
[15%]
c) After recalculating the valve positions for the optimum injection rate for 2800 psia the
maximum water-cut at which the well will produce economically is 76%. (See figure
D.B.3).

Optimised Gas Lift 74% 6302.634 STB/day
[Refer to Figure D.B.5] [5%]
Section E:
Summary
a) Table E below summarises the results from the various simulations carried out on the
Haggis-3 well.

Base Case 46.704% 4771.754 STB/day

Optimum Tubing Size (4.5 OD)in 47% 4498.513 STB/day
Optimum ESP 77.667% 6296.634 STB/day
Optimum Gas Lift 74% 6544.245 STB/day
Table E: Haggis-3 simulation summary
b) Based on the WellFlo simulations carried out and my assessment of them, I am

recommending that Big Kahuna Inc. invest in a water injection scheme to maintain
Haggis’s reservoir pressure at 2800 psia. In addition, I am recommending that Big
Kahuna adopts the Optimum Gas Lift because the optimum maximum economic water
cut will make the well have longer well life. And, optimum gas lift scenario able to give
us the highest oil production, which is 7298.245 STB.day compare to other scenarios.
[10%]

Risk/Uncertainty How this adds uncertainty Steps that can be taken to

to above assessment? account/minimise this uncertainty
1) Volume of The volume of oil initially in Maximize the use of the available data
Oil Initially in place for this assessment only from the exploration and logging
Place (OIIP) been estimated based on the activities in estimating the volume of
initial oil production rate. oil initially in place.
The volume will affect the

economical factor of the field Apply the most appropriate correlation
development. Hence add to determine the nearest estimation
uncertainties to the toward the true value.
assessment.
2) Reservoir When the production starts, Choose optimum rate of production

Pressure there will be declination in that can reduce the effect on reservoir
Declination Rate the reservoir pressure. pressure.
The rate of declination can Plan and install pressure recovery

sometimes become techniques for the reservoir during
unpredictable because it primary recovery. (water flooding/
depends on various factors natural gas recycling)
that are not easy to control.
3) Reservoir Reservoir formation can be Apply an appropriate perforation and

Formation damaged due to production completion program.
Strength depending on the strength of
the rock formation. Implement suitable well stimulation
and fracturing techniques.
Damages on the reservoir
formation can cause Maintain the optimum production rate
uncertainties in oil production that prevents damage on the formation.
as it reduces the reservoir
permeability.

PAB 2094 Well Completions and Production Section A
Figure A1
The nodes used in the WellFlo model.
Pressure and Temperature vs Depth Analysis for adonis
Sensitivity To: Well and riser flow correlation
Temperature (degrees F)
0 40 80 120 160
-2500
1 Pressure: Q liq = 6815.365 STB/day, Corr, v = Hagedorn and Brown (mod)
2 Temperature: Q liq = 6815.365 STB/day, Corr, v = Hagedorn and Brown (mod)
3 Pressure: Q liq = 6321.894 STB/day, Corr, v = Gray
Temperature: Q liq = 6321.894 STB/day, Corr, v = Gray
Pressure: Q liq = 4738.173 STB/day, Corr, v = EPS mechanistic
Temperature: Q liq = 4738.173 STB/day, Corr, v = EPS mechanistic
Pressure: Q liq = 6851.437 STB/day, Corr, v = Beggs and Brill (mod)
8 Temperature: Q liq = 6851.437 STB/day, Corr, v = Beggs and Brill (mod)
9 Pressure: Q liq = 5999.785 STB/day, Corr, v = Duns and Ros (mod)
a Temperature: Q liq = 5999.785 STB/day, Corr, v = Duns and Ros (mod)
0 1
9
31
9
3 a
a 2
8
2
8 P:Measured data
1
9
3 a 2
8
1
9
3 a8
2
1
93 a28
1
93 a82
1
9
9
33 a28
19
3 a8
2
19
3 a82
19
3 a8
2
True Vertical Depth (ft)
13
9 a8
2
13
9 a8
2
1 39 a8
2
1 39 a8
2
2500 1 39 a2
8
1 39 a2
8
1 39 a2
8
1 39 a2
8
1 39 a2
8
1 39 a2
8
1 39 a2
8
1 39 a2
8
1 39 a
8
2
1 39 a
2
8
1 39 a8
2
1 39 a
8
2
1 3 9 a
8
2
5000 1 3 9 a8
2
1 39 a
8
2
1 3 9 a
8
2
1 39 a
8
2
1 3 9 a
8
2
1 3 9 a
8
2
1 39 a
8
2
1 1 3 39 9 a
8
2
a
8
2 9
3
1
7500
0 700 1400 2100 2800
Pressure (psia)
Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
6815.364 4770.755 2044.609 2.624 30.000 550.000
6321.894 4425.325 1896.568 2.434 30.000 550.000
4738.173
6851.437
5999.784
3316.721
4796.005
4199.849
1421.452
2055.431
1799.935
1.824
2.638
2.310
30.000
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Figure A2

A2.1

Pressure and Temperature vs Depth Analysis for adonis
Sensitivity To: Well and riser L-factor
0 40 80 120 160
-2500
1 Pressure: Q liq = 6812.941 STB/day, L(v) = 0.9760 (fraction)
2 Temperature: Q liq = 6812.941 STB/day, L(v) = 0.9760 (fraction)
Temperature: Q liq = 6815.365 STB/day, L(v) = 0.9759 (fraction)
Pressure: Q liq = 6817.775 STB/day, L(v) = 0.9758 (fraction)
a Temperature: Q liq = 6817.775 STB/day, L(v) = 0.9758 (fraction)
b Pressure: Q liq = 6820.202 STB/day, L(v) = 0.9757 (fraction)
c Temperature: Q liq = 6820.202 STB/day, L(v) = 0.9757 (fraction)
0 b
9
5b
3
19
5
3
1 8
a
4
2
cc
a
8
4
2
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 8
a
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 4
2
a
8
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 2
a
8
4
c
b
9
5
3
1 2
a
8
4
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
2500 b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
5000 b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2
c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
5
3
1 a
8
4
2c
b
9
51
3
1 b
9
5
3 a
8
4
2
a
8
4
2c
c b
9
5
3
1
7500
0 700 1400 2100 2800
Pressure (psia)
Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
6812.940 4769.058 2043.882 2.623 30.000 550.000
6815.364 4770.755 2044.609 2.624 30.000 550.000
6815.364 4770.755 2044.609 2.624 30.000 550.000
6817.774
6817.774
6820.201
4772.442
4772.442
4774.141
2045.333
2045.333
2046.060
2.625
2.625
2.626
30.000
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Figure A3
Selected L-factor =0.9759
PAB 2094 Well Completions and Production Section B
Inflow/Outflow Curves for adonis 2_reservoir pressure
Sensitivity To: Layer pressure and Water cut
3600
Inflow: 2800.000 psia and 30.000 per cent
Outflow: 2800.000 psia and 30.000 per cent
2700
Pressure (psia) at Casing, MD 6530.500 ft
1800
900
0
0 9000 18000 27000 36000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2248.345 6815.365 4770.755 2044.609 2.624 30.000 550.000 Stable
2234.081
2223.418
2218.226
5773.815
4680.924
3512.997
4041.670
3276.646
2459.097
1732.145
1404.277
1053.899
2.223
1.802
1.353
30.000
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Stable
Figure B1
3600
2700
1800
900
0
0 9000 18000 27000 36000
2317.239 5811.467 3777.453 2034.013 2.078 35.000 550.000 Stable
2305.720
2300.431
2306.653
4759.481
3626.121
2346.712
3093.663
2356.978
1525.363
1665.818
1269.142
821.349
1.702
1.296
0.839
35.000
35.000
35.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Stable
Figure B2
3600
2700
1800
900
0
0 9000 18000 27000 36000
2391.587 4793.699 2876.219 1917.479 1.582 40.000 550.000 Stable
2386.665
2389.636
3686.875
2481.361
No operating point
2212.125
1488.816
1474.750
992.544
1.217
0.819
40.000
40.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable Figure B3
3600
2700
1800
900
0
0 7500 15000 22500 30000
2473.818 3735.250 2054.387 1680.862 1.130 45.000 550.000 Stable
2476.183 2568.705
No operating point
No operating point
1412.787 1155.917 0.777 45.000 550.000 Stable
Figure
FigureB3.1
B4
3600
g
g
g Inflow: 2800.000 psia and 48.653 per cent
g
g Outflow: 2800.000 psia and 48.656 per cent
2700 g
f g f Inflow: 2800.000 psia and 48.661 per cent
g g g Outflow: 2800.000 psia and 48.661 per cent
gf g
f

1800 f
f
900
0
0 7500 15000 22500 30000
2540.150 2923.776 1501.593 1422.183 0.826 48.642 550.000 Stable
2540.207 2923.099 1501.158 1421.942 0.826 48.645 550.000 Stable
2540.260 2922.452 1500.737 1421.715 0.825 48.648 550.000 Stable
2540.296 2922.027 1500.460 1421.566 0.825 48.650 550.000 Stable
2540.351 2921.368 1500.035 1421.333 0.825 48.653 550.000 Stable
2540.405 2920.717 1499.613 1421.104 0.825 48.656 550.000 Stable
2540.459
2540.495
2540.549
2540.604
2920.057
2919.632
2918.985
2918.323
1499.186
1498.910
1498.490
1498.062
1420.871
1420.722
1420.495
1420.260
0.825
0.824
0.824
0.824
48.659
48.661
48.664
48.667
550.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Figure B5

PAB 2094 Well Completions and Production Section C
Inflow/Outflow Curves for Copy of adonis 3_reservoir pressure
Sensitivity To: Layer pressure and Inside dia. of all well nodes
10000
Inflow: 2800.000 psia and all values
Outflow: 2800.000 psia and 3.068 in
7500
5000
2500
0
0 9000 18000 27000 36000
2407.703 4846.595 3392.616 1453.979 1.866 30.000 550.000 Stable
2335.273 5741.421 4018.994 1722.426 2.210 30.000 550.000 Stable
2280.058
2252.365
2239.735
6423.568
6765.700
6921.729
4496.497
4735.990
4845.209
1927.070
2029.710
2076.519
2.473
2.605
2.665
30.000
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Stable
Figure C1
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 7500 15000 22500 30000
2315.355 3538.143 2476.700 1061.443 1.362 30.000 550.000 Stable
2271.325 4085.434 2859.803 1225.630 1.573 30.000 550.000 Stable
2239.142
2225.618
2219.688
4485.475
4653.580
4727.292
3139.832
3257.505
3309.104
1345.642
1396.074
1418.188
1.727
1.792
1.820
30.000
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Stable
Figure C2
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 7500 15000 22500 30000
2248.314 1896.753 1327.727 569.026 0.730 30.000 550.000 Stable
2233.396 2083.294 1458.306 624.988 0.802 30.000 550.000 Stable
2226.192
2224.814
2225.046
2173.378
2190.609
2187.706
1521.365
1533.426
1531.394
652.013
657.183
656.312
0.837
0.843
0.842
30.000
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Stable
Figure C3
Sensitivity To: Water cut at Inside dia. of all well nodes = 4.767 in
3200 g
Inflow: 48.642 per cent
g Outflow: 48.642 per cent
g Inflow: 48.654 per cent
f Outflow: 48.654 per cent
g
g g Inflow: 48.658 per cent
gf g
Outflow: 48.658 per cent
2400 Outflow: 48.661 per cent
f
f Inflow: 48.664 per cent

1600
f
800
f
0
0 7500 15000 22500 30000
2540.028 2925.146 1502.297 1422.850 0.826 48.642 550.000 Stable
2540.084 2924.471 1501.862 1422.609 0.826 48.645 550.000 Stable
2540.139 2923.818 1501.439 1422.379 0.826 48.648 550.000 Stable
2540.194 2923.154 1501.010 1422.144 0.826 48.651 550.000 Stable
2540.249 2922.494 1500.584 1421.910 0.825 48.654 550.000 Stable
2540.323 2921.615 1500.016 1421.599 0.825 48.658 550.000 Stable
2540.378 2920.940 1499.582 1421.359 0.825 48.661 550.000 Stable
2540.433
2540.487
2540.542
2920.292
2919.639
2918.973
1499.161
1498.738
1498.309
1421.130
1420.901
1420.664
0.825
0.824
0.824
48.664
48.667
48.670
550.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Stable
Figure C4
PAB 2094 Well Completions and Production Section D
Figure D.A.1
Inflow/Outflow Curves for Hagis-C
Sensitivity To: Layer pressure
3600
Minimum Flow Through Pump
Maximum Flow Through Pump
Inflow: 2800.000 psia
Outflow: 2800.000 psia
2700 Outflow: 2200.000 psia
Pressure (psia) at Tubing 5, MD 5000.000 ft
1800
900
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
2053.212 8994.659 6296.261 2698.398 3.463 30.000 550.000 Above pump maximum
2113.449 8411.803 5888.261 2523.541 3.239 30.000 550.000 Stable
2159.678
2180.976
7481.182
5944.045
5236.827
4160.832
2244.354
1783.214
2.880
2.288
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Figure D.A.2
4000
2000
1000
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
2176.762
2229.910
7915.649
7139.665
5540.954
4997.765
2374.695
2141.900
3.048
2.749
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Figure D.A.3
3000
1500
750
0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
2057.544 8997.929 6298.549 2699.379 3.464 30.000 550.000 Stable
2077.273 7588.216 5311.750 2276.465 2.921 30.000 550.000 Stable
2089.439
2092.730
5866.317
3760.767
4106.421
2632.537
1759.895
1128.230
2.259
1.448
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Below pump minimum
Figure D.A.4
3000
1500
750
0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
2055.834 8984.529 6289.170 2695.359 3.459 30.000 550.000 Stable
2047.749 7027.080 4918.955 2108.124 2.705 30.000 550.000 Below pump minimum
2050.727
2064.259
5043.702
3154.252
3530.591
2207.976
1513.111
946.276
1.942
1.214
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
Below pump minimum
Below pump minimum
Figure D.A.5
2800
1400
700
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
2034.341
2040.464
4732.559
2465.330
3312.791
1725.731
1419.768
739.599
1.822
0.949
30.000
30.000
550.000
550.000
Below pump minimum
Below pump minimum
Figure D.A.6
Sensitivity To: Water cut
4000
h Inflow: 76.000 per cent
h Inflow: 76.444 per cent
3000 Inflow: 76.667 per cent

h Outflow: 76.667 per cent
i
i hi i Outflow: 76.889 per cent
i i h Inflow: 77.111 per cent
2000 h Inflow: 77.556 per cent
i Outflow: 77.556 perhcent
1000
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
2596.346 6745.945 1619.027 5126.918 0.890 76.000 550.000 Stable
2598.783 6727.706 1599.714 5127.992 0.880 76.222 550.000 Stable
2601.225 6709.474 1580.484 5128.990 0.869 76.444 550.000 Stable
2603.680 6691.165 1561.249 5129.915 0.859 76.667 550.000 Stable
2606.129 6672.952 1542.186 5130.766 0.848 76.889 550.000 Stable
2608.582 6654.738 1523.203 5131.535 0.838 77.111 550.000 Stable
2611.037 6636.541 1504.305 5132.235 0.827 77.333 550.000 Stable
2613.507 6618.266 1485.403 5132.862 0.817 77.556 550.000 Stable
2615.972
2620.615
6600.070
6566.985
1466.667
1444.737
5133.402
5122.248
0.807
0.795
77.778
78.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Figure D.A.7
Gas Lift Valve Positions - Hagis-C
0 40 80 120 160
-2500
0
2500
5000
Objective Tubing Pressure: Q liq = 9000.000 STB/day

Temperature: Q liq = 9000.000 STB/day
Unloading Casing Pressure, 1200.000 psia
Operating Casing Pressure, 1091.329 psia
Unloading sequence
Design operating valve
7500
0 750 1500 2250 3000
Pressure (psia)
Unloading Objective
Valve MD TVD Casing Tubing Temperature
No. Pressure Pressure
(ft) (ft) (psia) (psia) (degrees F)
1
2
2654.591
3196.366
2649.780
3189.075
1249.106
1209.389
956.145
1040.417
147.408
148.080
Figure D.B.1
WellFlo Performance Analysis for Hagis-C
Operating Rate vs Lift gas injection rate
12500
Layer pressure = 2800.000 psia
10000
Operating Rate (STB/day)
7500
5000
2500
0
0 2.5 5
Lift gas injection rate (MMSCF/day)
7.5 Figure D.B.2 10

Sensitivity To: Water cut
3600
g
g Inflow: 71.111 per cent
g
Pressure (psia) at Production Liner, MD 6530.500 ft

2700 f Inflow: 74.444 per cent
gfgf Inflow: 76.667 per cent
f f Inflow: 77.778 per cent
g
1800 f Inflow: 78.889 per cent
f
900 f
0
0 6000 12000 18000 24000
2070.552 9005.541 6303.878 2701.662 3.467 30.000 550.000 Stable
2224.237 5849.306 1689.806 4159.500 0.929 71.111 550.000 Stable
2229.228 5770.891 1603.038 4167.853 0.882 72.222 550.000 Stable
2234.270 5692.720 1518.077 4174.642 0.835 73.333 550.000 Stable
2240.729 5601.086 1431.413 4169.673 0.787 74.444 550.000 Stable
2245.845 5523.686 1350.210 4173.476 0.743 75.556 550.000 Stable
2250.989 5446.757 1270.892 4175.865 0.699 76.667 550.000 Stable
2257.633 5355.736 1190.151 4165.583 0.655 77.778 550.000 Stable
2262.814
2268.057
5279.938
5204.231
1114.648
1040.846
4165.291
4163.385
0.613
0.572
78.889
80.000
550.000
550.000
Stable
Stable
Figure D.B.3

Answer Haggis Field

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Answer Haggis Field

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PAB 2094 Well Completions and Production THE HAGGIS FIELD

WELL COMPLETIONS AND PRODUCTION

THE HAGGIS FIELD ANSWER FORM

Name: Nguyen The Thao

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Name: NGUYEN THE THAO

Signed: Date: 04/11/ 2010

Recommendation to students Make clear in your submission any permitted

Recommendation to students when you undertake an assessed work which involves

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Node No. Component Name Bottom Depth, MD (ft)

The attached Figure A2 supports this reasoning.

Reference: Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: .Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients

Nguyen The Thao 11828

PRes. 2800 (psia) 2700 (psia) 2600 (psia) 2500 (psia)

Table B.1: Haggis-3 Production Forecast [10%]

Base Case 48.7 % 4770 STB/day

ii) Plugging off operation is costly and time consuming.

Nguyen The Thao 11828

PRes. 2800 (psia) 2600 (psia) 2400 (psia)

Scenario Maximum Economic Water Cut Oil Production Rate

References: WCP lecture notes; John, F. Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production,

Nguyen The Thao 11828

This pump is the optimum choice because

PRes. 2800 psia 2600 psia 2400 psia 2200 psia

** - above pump max; * - below pump min

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Scenario Maximum Economic Oil Production Rate

Optimised ESP 77.40% 6296.634 STB/day

[Refer to Figure D.A.8] [5%]

Table D.2: Technical Optimum gas injection rate for Haggis-3.

The criteria used to choose the optimum injection rate :

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Scenario Maximum Economic Oil Production Rate

[Refer to Figure D.B.5] [5%]

Scenario Maximum Economic Oil Production Rate

Base Case 46.704% 4771.754 STB/day

Table E: Haggis-3 simulation summary

b) Based on the WellFlo simulations carried out and my assessment of them, I am

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Risk/Uncertainty How this adds uncertainty Steps that can be taken to

The volume will affect the

2) Reservoir When the production starts, Choose optimum rate of production

The rate of declination can Plan and install pressure recovery

3) Reservoir Reservoir formation can be Apply an appropriate perforation and

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Inflow: 2800.000 psia and 48.667 per cent

Nguyen The Thao 11828

f Inflow: 48.670 per cent

3000 Inflow: 76.667 per cent

Objective Tubing Pressure: Q liq = 9000.000 STB/day

Nguyen The Thao 11828

Inflow: 73.333 per cent

Вам также может понравиться