SPE WVS 041

Optimization of Workflow Design in DST Test Procedure

Improves Quality of Reservoir Data and Time Requirements
for Deep and Ultra Deep Water Testing
Jan R. Loaiza and Pablo Ruiz, Halliburton

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2011 South American Oil and Gas Congress,
organized by the SPE Western Venezuela Section, held in Maracaibo, Venezuela, 1821
October 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Western Venezuela Section Program
Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members.
Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. .

Abstract
Undoubtedly, the oil-and gas industry will continue to be
considered as one of the most important producers of energy
resources for many years. Thus, it is critical to explore all
possibilities for increasing oil and gas production. This
includes exploration of new reserves in complex environments
in deep and ultra-deep water environments.
For operators, this represents huge investments for
development of new reserves; for this reason, it is vital to
ensure that sufficient high-quality data is gathered in
exploratory wells to justify subsequent production.
Drill-Stem Testing (DST) provides one of the most
important reservoir evaluation methods for the incorporation
of new hydrocarbon reserves, because the DST allows
dynamic reservoir characterization and can assess potential
production as well as the proposed production plan. When
target reservoirs produce heavy oil, gas, and condensate, the
DST in deep and ultra-deep water requires prolonged periods
of exposure to low temperatures and heat loss, which may not
only affect oil viscosity but also result in hydrate formation
when gas is present; in order to control all these variables, the
DST design must focus on gathering quality reservoir data
while also considering safety and risk mitigation.
To achieve the above objectives, a new methodology that
focuses on DST test design in deep and ultra-deep water has
been developed that considers new workflow criteria. It
includes:
Analysis of hydrate formation
Injection design of viscosity-reducing systems
Real-time data acquisition
Operative decision-making.
This paper presents details of this state-of-the-art method
for reliable DST testing in deep and ultra-deep water that
increases the quality of the reservoir data and reduces testing
time as well as operational risk.
Introduction
Usually, exploratory wells are drilled in many possible

production reservoirs to evaluate the best exploitation

scenarios, the number of production intervals, and their
productivity potential. One of the most important areas in the
evaluation is gained through dynamic testing. This is
accomplished with a DST that consists of a drawdown/buildup
test using a temporary string that evaluates all potential
intervals that were identified through previously run openhole
log results. Initial information from seismic, perforation data,
openhole logs, and DSTs are necessary for a thorough
calculation of the potential reserves. The DST is particularly
important as it can obtain reservoir fluid samples at surface
and bottomhole as well, measure hydrocarbon rates, and
potentially identify reservoir boundary effects.
DSTs are initiated after the well is drilled to evaluate
hydrocarbon reserves in deep and ultra-deep water. A
temporary string composed of several tools that include a test
packer, downhole shut-in valve, circulating valve and bottom
pressure/temperature gauges is run. The DST is used to flow
the reservoir, which disturbs the reservoir pressure, and then
shuts-in the well to perform the build-up test.
Valves are controlled with annulus pressure; hydrocarbon
and water rates are measured using surface well testing
equipment since it is possible to take fluid samples at surface
in real time in order to characterize the hydrocarbon and water
flow. Figure 1 is a depiction of the equipment used in a
typical DST test.
The goals of a DST follow:
Reservoir Parameters.
Hydrocarbon Effective Permeability
Initial Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Boundaries
Heterogeneity
Water/Gas Contacts
Well Condition.
Skin Factor including pseudo skin
Fracture Length and Conductivity.
By creating multi-discipline groups, the stakeholders in the
project can determine the interaction between distinct
geosciences associated with petroleum exploitation and can
create values for the new reservoir. Unfortunately, the worlds
hydrocarbon reserves have dropped as a consequence of the
economy, however the energy demand has grown. Thus, the
need to look for new petroleum fields while maintaining
economical constraints have shown that careful reservoir
evaluation, especially in exploratory wells, is critical to
successful field development.
In the search for new reserves, operators also must address
a variety of different well conditions such as those in deepwater development, which depend upon the reservoir
conditions present and certain unusual rock properties that

traditional technologies are not capable of addressing. The

new methodologies must enable a thorough evaluation of the
reservoir to minimize operational risks and optimize platform
time, and this evaluation can only be made as a result of high
quality acquisition of the reservoir data.
The Evolution of the DST
Historically, successful drill stem testing has been faced with
many new challenges as exploration has ventured into deeper,
more hostile conditions. These continually changing needs
have triggered the revisiting of improvements in DST
technology. Below is a description of the various
methodologies, best practices, and tools required to satisfy the
new exploratory challenges that have surfaced:
1) OpenHole DST Evaluation. Traditionally, openhole
evaluation has presented high risks because of the
possibilities of sand production, water breakthrough,
production net pay, production uncertainty, test packer
leaks, cross flow, etc. Now, better methods to control the
risks and obtain better evaluations have been developed.
These best practices include:
a. setting the packer in the last casing string
b. integrating geosciences and best practices to
determine the best intervals for evaluation
c. reducing the open hole section
d. using the newly developed state-of-the-art tools
now available that can evaluate the reservoirs
and control risk while obtaining high-quality
results from the DST.
2) High Pressure/high Temperature (HPHT) conditions. A
new generation of specialized evaluation tools and test
packers, pressure gauges for extreme conditions, and
safety procedures have been introduced to the industry
that permit evaluating high pressure/high temperature
reservoirs. In fact, the testing string can allow hydraulic
fracturing to be performed in extremely low permeability
reservoirs to increase hydrocarbon flow for conducting
the DST.
3) Unconsolidated formations. It is possible to evaluate this
type of reservoir but success depends on selecting the
method depending on the source of the problem and the
well condition at the time of the test. In some cases, it is
necessary to use screen technology in the DST string, and
for other cases, run a sand-control completion before
running the DST string. When a mechanical solution is
not sufficient to control sand production, it may be
necessary to minimize the drawdown during the flow
period so that the reservoir conditions will not be
destabilized. The test can also be run with special fluid
pumping that can help to cement the sand grains.
4) Unnatural Flow. Some depleted reservoirs or those with
abnormally low pressures will require artificial lift during
the DST evaluation. An electric-submersible pump (ESP)
system, a jet pump, a gas-lift pump, a progressive cavity
pump (PCP), or a coiled tubing (CT) unit to inject gas or
fluids at the bottom hole as an artificial lift method can be
used.
5) Highly deviated or horizontal wells. Many wells are
perforated to increase the reservoir drainage area or multistage hydraulic fractures are conducted; DST can be

SPE WVS 041

executed in this well condition.

6) Offshore. DSTs can be used to perform evaluations with
DST strings in offshore environments. Very often, this
type of test is used to search for new hydrocarbon
reserves and to select the best fields for new well
development. There have been successful DST tests run
in multiple deepwater conditions.
Deep and Ultra Deep-Water Environments
Deep and ultra-deep water environments are the most
challenging play to test, as they are associated with high
operative costs and additional risks. The DST technique used
must integrate new technologies, knowledge, and experience
from other areas and disciplines to focus on safety and reduce
rig time. DST evaluation is one of the most important tests
that can be run since the information obtained can help
determine and optimize the final completion and production
strategies chosen.
Considering the complexity of these offshore wells, the
higher operative risks and the type of fluid that may come
from the targeted reservoir, it is critical that all factors that can
affect the DST evaluation results be studied as well as how
any detrimental conditions can be overcome.
Geothermal Temperature Profile. One of the most important
factors to consider is the static behavior of the temperature in
the well, including the temperatures above the seabed. The
temperature profile range expected in deep water is from 4.5
to 11C. See Figure 2.
Low temperatures in deep water can cause changes in
drilling, cementing, testing, completions, and stimulation.
However, some of the newly developed well testing
technologies and current best practices have enabled
successful testing to be conducted in this type of environment,
but the testing design will still depend on the activities being
undertaken.
In the case of the DST, the cooling effect over the fluids
that are coming from the reservoir is one of the most critical
problems that can occur during the test. It can affect the
viscosity of the oil and/or generate hydrates into the tubing
during production; therefore, it is very important that the DST
design consider these conditions carefully in ultra deepwater
conditions to minimize risks and assure stable production.
Subsea Safety Systems. When the BOP is at the depth of the
seabed, it is necessary use a subsea safety system with the
DST string. See Figure 3. This system has the capability to
close the subsea safety system valves, and in the case of an
emergency, assure the safety of the well at the seabed. The use
of a subsea safety system makes the operation more complex,
because it is necessary to run the string first for correlation,
and then, second for setting the packer and tubing-conveyed
perforating equipment at the depth for which it was designed.
New technologies in subsea safety systems are capable of
disconnecting in seconds in case of any emergency.
High Operative Costs. A semisubmersible platform is used for
most deep-water needs. This choice is very expensive, because
the conditions in which it must work are extreme; therefore,
the operation must be designed with much consideration given

SPE WVS 041

to the amount of time for the test. By optimizing the test, it is

possible to reduce significantly the operational cost for the
test. Although a DST is an excellent source for obtaining
reservoir/well information, the time spent in each evaluation
interval will have an influence on the decision of whether to
evaluate additional zones or reduce the number of intervals
tested. Therefore, the test design must consider use of any new
technology that can optimize the test time required, and
subsequently, reduce costs.
BOP Cans or pierced slick joints in the string. Depending on
the characteristics of the well and reservoir, it is necessary to
use ESP pumps or electronic tools that require wireline in the
annulus or an injecting sub that will use a capillary line in the
annulus. If these items are required, the string should include a
pierced slick joint that allows the capillary line and wireline to
pass through it but also allow the subsea tree rams to be closed
off and seal effectively.
Gas Reservoirs in Deep and Ultra Deep Water
Usually gas and water will intermingle in the reservoir. It may
be possible to reduce some of the water but some could flow
with the gas into the tubing. Water and gas flowing into the
tubing causes one of the greatest operative risks during a DST
test, because it can generate hydrates that can plug the tubing.
This plugging will require additional operative costs. Figure 4
illustrates the gas envelope curve when a critical hydrate
formation zone is seen.
The point of temperature and pressure for different depths
inside the wells should be out of the critical hydrate zone;
otherwise, water presence will increase the risk of hydrate
formation inside the tubing.
In order for hydrates to form, three conditions must be
present; i.e., high pressure, water, and low temperature.
Tubing Pressure. Mixed fluid density into the tubing depends
on several factors. The most important relates to the gas
hydrostatic pressure being low, while high pressure exists at
the seabed and above. Reservoir parameters also affect
pressure in the well; low permeability creates high drawdown.
Bottomhole pressures might be low, but that means that the
gas flow rate is decreasing the temperature. Low reservoir
static pressure can generate low bottomhole pressure, but in
exploratory wells, gas reservoirs usually will have high static
pressures. When good permeability is present, high flowing
pressure will result.
Water presence. Water flowing with gas that is exposed to
high pressures and low temperatures has a high risk of
generating hydrates. Usually, if the total water rate is not more
than 100 bbls/day, glycol injected below the critical hydrate
formation zone (below seabed) could inhibit the hydrate
formation. In the case of water coming from some aquifer or
another zone, and rates are usually higher than 120 bbls/day,
the Glycol injecting system will not have the capacity to
inhibit the hydrate formation. Therefore, it is very important to
have an excellent cement seal behind the casing to avoid water
coming from upper and lower zones that have not been
perforated.

Well Temperature Profile. When the seabed is deeper, the

zone will have a 4.5C geothermal decrease, and the cooling
effect on production fluids will increase the possibility of
forming hydrates. The following are the tips to minimize or
avoid hydrate formation:
During the openhole log evaluation, is important consider
running a formation tester or Mini-DST to record the
farthest point in the wellbore in order to have a good
dynamic and static wellbore characterization that will
allow accurate estimating of the water saturation and
where the free water zones are located. This is essential in
order to select the best layer for evaluation without water,
minimum mobile water saturation, and assure that the
perforated area will be as far as possible from the water
contact. This kind of test represents significant cost and
time, and the operating company might consider this
unnecessary, since the DST will be run after the casing is
placed. However, when the costs associated with the
hydrate formation are reviewed, and the risks for the well
that hydrate plugging could cause, the necessity to do this
extra step can be seen.
If the intervals selected for perforation and evaluation
show low permeability, the operator should stimulate the
formation after setting the packer and before production
commences to assure high flow rates during the DST.
This will increase the flowing temperature profile, and
help avoid the hydrate critical zones inside the gas
envelope curve. The maximum rate should be dependent
on how consolidated the formation is, because if the rate
is too high, it could destabilize the rock and produce
sands in the case of sandstone formations. If the reservoir
is a carbonate, it can support higher drawdown during the
production.
Some DST procedures include circulating a lighter fluid
replacement for the control fluid in order to create a
pressure underbalance for perforating. The authors
suggest that if coiled tubing will be used for the
perforating operation, the downhole shut-in valve should
be closed before starting the perforating process. If the
gas and water flow together, there is a good possibility
that a hydrate formation exists, which could trap the unit.
The best practice would be to use a circulating valve in
the DST string, which not only saves platform time, but
also, is safer.
When the gas flow through the choke generates extremely
low temperatures, it is very important have a heater and
its backup in order to avoid freezing and hydrate
formation.
Subsea safety systems must include the special BOP
pierced slick joints discussed earlier to allow pass through
of the capillary injection lines and wireline used for realtime data collecting systems.
Pressure/temperature real-time monitoring at different
depths in the string including bottom hole, seabed, and
surface require greater care to acquire information when
the well is opened for the first time. Thus, the BOP must
allow pass-through of wireline in order to monitor below
the seabed. By analyzing pressure behavior in those
depths, it may be possible to determine if a hydrate plug is

starting to be created. This information will enable the

decision of whether or not to shut in well and re-plan the
test to avoid formation of a total plug to be made.
A modern pre-design hydrate control workflow has been
created to optimize the test and minimize the risks involved so
that the primary focus of obtaining high quality reservoir
information can be accomplished. (See Figure 5)
1. Initial Information: first stage of this workflow consists of
acquiring all information concerning the zone candidates
for evaluation. The information can include openhole log
interpretation results, drilling information, well
correlation information, permeability estimates, static
pressures, temperatures, pressure/volume/temperature
(PVT) samples, well geothermal temperature profiles, etc.
2. Productivity analysis: This consists of forecasting the
production by simulating the testing conditions, building
an inflow performance relationship (IPR) plot that
considers bottomhole or surface flowing pressure vs.
production rates for each choke by using the initial
information and productivity computer software.
Permeability is one of the more critical parameters that
can affect the results of the productivity analysis;
openhole logs corrected by formation tester results can
provide an approximate permeability profile.
3. Well Flowing Pressure and Temperature Profile
Calculation: By using stress analysis software, it is
possible reproduce all operative scenarios that will occur
during the DST, including flow periods with all chokes
(generated in the previous productivity analysis stage),
and also, input of the flowing pressure and rates
forecasted. These profiles correspond to the fluid flowing
pressure and temperature profile for the chokes from the
bottom to the surface. (See Figure 6.)
4. PT Hydrate Curve: A point of pressure and temperature
exists at each depth; these points are introduced into the
gas envelope of methane if the phase into the reservoir is
dry gas. The idea of this part of the workflow is to predict
if some pressure/temperature groups of points will be
located in the critical hydrate zone and optimize the
testing design considering this risk condition.
In some cases, all points are located outside of the critical
hydrate zone so regardless of the water rate there is no risk of
hydrate formation. The following is an example of this kind of
analysis and its results.
After flow periods, the well is shut-in to start the BuildUp. Therefore, it is very important to select the best option
for this operation in order to avoid hydrate formation.
Shutting-in the well at surface is the most unsafe method,
because the water is going to segregate, temperature will
decrease significantly, and the pressure system will increase at
its maximum value (Figure 7a). The best practice consists of
shutting-in the well at the bottom hole using the test valve, and
immediately decreasing pressure above the downhole shut-in
valve until 0 psi appears at surface (Figure 7b).
After the well is shut in at the bottom hole, and there is no
flow, the best practice would still be to inject MethanolEthylene-Glycol (MEC) above the shut-in valve in order leave
an interface between gas (below valve) and water segregated
(above MEC). Once the shut-in valve is opened again, this

SPE WVS 041

interface will avoid a mixture of water and gas. That works

with MEC because it has a density heavier than water.
Figure 7a indicates that conditions exist from 944 m to
surface to generate hydrate in water presence both with 3/16in. and 3/8-in choke. In this case, the well will be produce with
a minimum of 1/2-in. to minimize risk.
5. Water Production vs. Glycol Injection Relation: Figure 8
shows that hydrate formation can be inhibited by injecting
glycol, but current technologies limit injection to no more
than 800 ltrs/hr; therefore, for water production above 120
bbl\day, it will be very difficult inhibit hydrate formation.
Figure 8 shows a case of water breakthrough where water
rates are higher, or communication behind casing with a
water free zone was not perforated.
This hydrate control pre-design workflow can help to
minimize operative risk, reduce operative costs, and evaluate
the reservoirs so that the resulting data is of the quality
necessary to obtain the objectives proposed for the DST.
Heavy Oil Reservoir in Deep and Ultra-Deep Water
The high-density characteristic of heavy oil requires artificial
lift to produce; when considering the evaluation, a temporary
production string must be used, making it a more complex
test. The low temperature at seabed in deep water and the low
flow rate for heavy oil create many challenges for a DST.
Density could range between 10 to 20API for heavy oil
and less than 10API for extra-heavy oil; viscosity can range
from 100 cp to up to 10,000 cp at reservoir conditions. The big
challenge for heavy oil consists of producing the well in view
of the hostile condition of low temperature that impacts
viscosity, decreasing its mobility for flow into the tubing. This
problem can generate high operative risks; because flow could
stop such that the production could solidify, also making it
difficult to perform kill operations. Again, this kill problem
can significantly impact cost, and even worse, there will be no
reservoir data!
Viscosity is affected by temperature and pressure;
therefore, when considering the pvt properties with heavy oil,
increasing pressure into the tubing is very difficult. For that
reason, the authors feel that temperature and artificial lift
methods should be the primary focus for resolving this type of
problem.
When the oil moves from the reservoir to the well, its
temperature is higher so its viscosity is reduced, and this
allows it to flow more easily, but when production is closer to
the sea bed, viscosity is increased. This effect makes
production unstable, or in some severe cases the oil cannot be
produced. The first step in resolving this situation would be to
try to increase the production rate in order to keep the oil
temperature higher so that it will flow into and through the
tubing. The next important consideration is the DST design,
which must consider the issues for this type of fluid in deep
and ultra deep water:
a) Oil Mobility in the reservoir: mobility depends on
permeability and viscosity (k/), in cases where k is low,
the best practice is to stimulate the reservoir.
b) Artificial Lift Methods: combining the DST string with an
ESP pump is the traditional method used to assure
production, because it is possible to produce with a high
stable rate that will minimize heat loss. This method has

SPE WVS 041

been used traditionally, but using this method requires a

long period of testing that results in high operative costs
and risks, considering the complexity of this type of
system. At times, the oil density is more than 12 to 14
API and the temperature is relatively high in the
reservoir, making it possible to use coiled tubing to inject
diesel or another type of fluid using an artificial lift
method.
New technologies are now being developed in which the
designers are studying the possibility of using special fluid in
the riser to minimize heat transfer from water surface to sea
floor and using coiled tubing to inject hot fluid to produce the
well. These innovative ideas are focusing on the reduction of
the testing time and risks. Other artificial lift systems such as
the progressive cavity pump (PCP) and jet pump could be
used during the DST test in some cases. Chemical injection
though the bottom injecting sub could also be considered to
help reduce the oil viscosity.
c) Re-circulate above bottom shut-in valve: When Build-Up
starts, the oil at sea bed and above has a cooling effect,
which increases its viscosity. As discussed earlier,
depending on the depth at sea bed, the oil can become
almost solid, making it very difficult to perform a kill
operation. For this reason, the best practice is to shut-in at
bottom of the well, and immediately re-circulate the oil
above the shut-in valve with the bottom circulating test
valve and leaving the control fluid ready for well control
when the reservoir evaluation is finished.
d) Representative Oil Samples: Because the mix between oil
and chemical diluents for optimizing production
efficiency is not representative when the pvt sample is
taken from the surface, the authors suggest acquiring a
bottom pvt sample with the DST string.
e) Oil Rate Measurements: Considering the high viscosity
and that there is no gas associated the heavy oil, a special
surface well testing system that has several separator
stages, diluent injection capability, and a heater that
allows fluid to flow through this system, measure it, and
burn it with high accuracy is needed.
f) Bottom Real-Time Monitoring: Because this type of
reservoir has high transmissibility, the answer response
during the build-up test is slow and requires a long period

of time, the well shut-in investigation ratio will be very

short. Therefore, by monitoring the bottomhole pressure
in real-time, the decision as to whether to finish the test
once the reservoir gives the basic information as to
permeability, skin, and static pressure, or stop the test can
be made more quickly. This will save platform rig time.
Conclusions
Hydrate Control Pre-Design Workflow for a DST test
is a way to minimize operative risk and obtain
representative reservoir quality data in gas and
deepwater reservoir environments.
The success of deep and ultra deep-water DSTs will
depend on the previously run integral analysis or predesign analysis that considers the type of fluid and
reservoir, geothermal temperature profile, and
operative conditions.
Heavy and ultra-heavy oil can be tested in deep and
ultra-deep water with a DST test. These types of tests
are expensive but necessary.
The DST could be combined with artificial lift
methods such as ESPs, PCPs, jet pumps, and coiled
tubing to facilitate acquisition of the required data in
testing heavy oil.
References
1. Earlougher, R. J.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Second
Printing. AIME (1977).
2. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir,
Trans., AIME (1954).
3. Soliman, M.Y.: Well Test Analysis, Halliburton (2000).
4. Wendler, C. and Mansilla, C.: Options and Special Considerations
for Successful Deep-Water Well Testing of Heavy- and LowPour-Point Oils Case Histories, SPE (Marzo, 2004) 86944.
5. Wendler, C. and Mansilla, C.: Deep Water Well Testing for
Heavy- and Low-Pour-Point Oils Issues, Options, Successful
Methodology: Case Histories paper OTC 15279 presented at
the 2003 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
U.S.A., May. 5-8, 2003

Figure 1- DST Test

WELL HEAD CONTROL PRESSURE

CHOKE MANIFOLD.

SURFACE WELL TESTING .

PRESSURE
GAUGE

BURNER.
DST/TCP
STRING.
RESERVOIR

Temperature (C)
10
15

20

25

Surface
Thermoclinal
Termoclinal

Depth (m)

500

1000

Deep Water

DST String
Subsea Safety System

1500

Subsea Tree

2000

2500

Figure 2- Ocean Temperature Profile

Figure 3- Sea Bed Configuration with one DST String

SPE WVS 041

Gas Envelope Curve

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

Temperature (C)

Figure 4 - Typical Gas Envelope Curve

Inflow/Outflow Plot

10000

1/8

1/4
3/8
1/2

8000

5/8
3/4
(psig)

FLOWING BTM PRES

Pressure (PSI)

Critical Hydrate
Formation Zones

6000

(39.34 MMPCD, 6111 psi)

4000

2000

0
0

10

20

30
FLOW RATE

Inflow
Outflow
Whdchk ID = 64.00

INTERVAL (m)

4803-4895

Outflow
Whdchk ID = 32.00

DATUM Py DATUM (psi)

4849

8135

4803-4895

4849

8135

4803-4895

4849

8135

4803-4895

Outflow
Whdchk ID = 8.000

4849

8135

CHOKE
1/2"
5/8"
3/4"
1"

40

50

(MMscfd)

Outflow
Whdchk ID = 16.00

Outflow
Whdchk ID = 24.00

Qg (MM PC/D)

Outflow
Whdchk ID = 40.00

Outflow
Whdchk ID = 48.00

Pwf @ NMDD (psi) Psup (psi)

P total (psi)

26.44

7153

4424

982

32.79

6684

3423

1451

36.37

6387

2651

1748

39.34

6111

1681

1681

Figure 5- Hydrate Control Pre-Design. Productivity Analysis

SPE WVS 041

Internal Pressure - 4" x ... Production Tubing

Tubing Temperature - 4" x ... Production Tubing

42.3 C
17.65 MMPCD

1000

Initial Conditions

Initial Conditions
Cierre en Superficie

53.5 C
32.79 MMPCD

Cierre en Superficie
Produccion 3/8"
Produccion 1/2"
Produccion 5/8"
Produccion 3/4"
Produccion 1"

250

Produccion 3/8"
Produccion 1/2"
Produccion 5/8"

500

Produccion 3/4"
Produccion 1"

53.8 C
39.34 MMPCD

500

3/4

750

5/8

50.8 C
26.44 MMPCD

1000

54.1 C
36.37 MMPCD

1500

1/2
3/8

1250

1500

1750

Sea bed

2000

2000

MD (m)

2500

3/8

2500

2750

1/2
3000

3000

5/8

3250

3/4

3500

3500

3750

4000

4000

4250

4500

4500
4750

5000

5000
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

120.0

4500

5000
5500
Internal Pressure (psig)

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

Tubing Temperature (deg C)

Figure 6- Hydrate Control Pre-design. Well Flowing Pressure

and Temperature Profiles
16000
16000

14000

Curva de Envolvente
Envelope
Curve

CRITICAL
HYDRATE
FORMATION ZONE

14000

1668 m

CRITICAL
HYDRATE
FORMATION ZONE

Cierre en Superficie
Bottom
hole Shut-in
Red 3/16" Qgas= 6.44 MMPCD
Red 3/8" Qgas= 20.54 MMPCD
Red 1/2" Qgas= 27.45 MMPCD
Red 3/4" Qgas= 32.68 MMPCD

12000

944 m

12000

10000

10000

438 m

Presion (PSI)

Presion (PSI)

MD (m)

2250

8000

6000

8000

6000

4000

4000
Curva
de Envolvente
Envelope
Curve
Cierre
Superficie
Surfen
ace
Shut-in
Red 3/16" Qgas= 6.44 MMPCD

2000

2000

Red 3/8" Qgas= 20.54 MMPCD

Red 1/2" Qgas= 27.45 MMPCD
Red 3/4" Qgas= 32.68 MMPCD

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Temperatura (C)

Figure 7a- Gas Envelope with Shut-in at Surface

80.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Temperatura (C)

Figure 7b- Gas Envelope with Shut-in at Bottom hole

10000

SPE WVS 041

1000
900
(20 bls/MMPC)

Inyeccin
de Glicol(ltrs/hr)
(ltrs/hr)
Glycol
Injection

800
700
(15 bls/MMPC)

600
500
(10 bls/MMPC)

400
1 Lower Injection Sub

300

(5 bls/MMPC)

200
126 BLS/D

100

37 BLS/D
(1 bls/MMPC)

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Produccin
de Agua (bpd)
Water
Production
(bpd)

Figure 8- Hydrate Control Pre-Design. Operative Glycol Injecting Capacity

140

160