Production Technology 607

Group Project
Masters of Petroleum Engineering

Curtin Offshore Field- Project Proposal

Group 5

Lecturer: Dr. Mofazzal Hossain

Due Date: 3rd November 2014
Submission Date: 3rd November 2014

Transmittal Letter
We declare that this report- Curtin Offshore Field (Production Technology Project
Proposal) is solely our own work. All references was cited and included into the
reference list. All contributions made by others have been duly acknowledged.

Name

: Rachael Lim Yiann

Student ID

: 14898406

Individual Contribution: 20%

Name

: Chong Mun Yee

Student ID

: 14357800

Individual Contribution: 20%

Name

: Leon Y J Kok

Student ID

: 17655387

Individual Contribution: 20%

Name

: Worapat Subanapas

Student ID

: 17239082

Individual Contribution: 20%

Name

: Timothy Bonavita

Student ID

: 13102054

Individual Contribution: 20%

Executive Summary
The overview and purpose of this project involved the design and analysis of
Curtin Offshore field through the aim of producing from two reservoirs, J-16 and J-18.
This involved determining the type of well and platform location, the well suspension,
completion strategy and design. Although the well completion took into account both
reservoirs, only a detailed analysis of the J-18 reservoir was done.
This task was accomplished through the utilization of the software PIPESIM to
generate the necessary data to be able to analytically determine, by using engineering
judgements, the optimum well design for producing the Curtin Offshore Field.
Initially, the first aspect of the field was a determination of well type and
location. After considering the overall reservoir lithology as well as the reservoir and
fluid properties, a vertical well completion with dual string production was established
as the best design for producing though the two intervals. Once the well completion
type was designed, an analysis of well suspension and completion had been developed.
Underlying assumptions of J-16 and J-18 concerned the field production capability and
stability. Thus, the dual string concept was adapted to be a segregated well producing
from two intervals simultaneously. Furthermore, the completion well type was also
suggested to be a cemented cased hole.
The project was then simulated through the use of PIPESIM software, namely that
of the J-18 reservoir, generating a sensitivity analysis of suitable tubing size. Through
PIPESIM analysis of varying the flow rate, water cut and GOR, the optimal tubing size
was found to be 2.922 inches inside diameter. With the selected tubing size,
operational flow at 3,303 B/D was determined.
Once the tubing size was determined an analysis was done on the effect of
wellhead pressure and casing size. Through generated graphs, the optimum wellhead
pressure was 200 psi. For the design of casing size, 9 inch inside diameter casing was
selected to incorporate both J-16 and J-18 tubing in the same well. All the PIPESIM
outputs and results of the analysis can be seen in the Appendix.
Future production analysis was theoretically evaluated as a section of the
project, and artificial lift methods and water conning preventative treatments were
taken into account. For the artificial lift system analysis, the future goals were mainly
set under production rate, GOR and water cut which would be going to influence the
whole reservoir. Through the ability to handle a variety of production rates, tolerance of
solid production, flexibilities, operational cost and efficiency, gas-lift system was the
preferred artificial lift system. Water coning prevention through the use of mechanical,
operational and chemical treatments was assessed. Although there are many technical
treatments available from the outcomes, it is suggested that maintaining production
rate coupled with cementing treatment are recommended as the most reliable
treatments.
The final aspect of the report was to develop the string completion design. In
order to do this, all the information from the analysis performed needed to be taken
into consideration when determining which components needed to be included. A basic
dual tubing segregated system was used and then adapted to suit production
requirements. The detailed design can be found in the Appendix with a detailed
analysis of the depths of equipment in the report.
From the evaluation done, a number of recommendations were made to do with
the design and running of the well system. Our overall recommendations and design
are as follows:
2

Well should be a dual tubing, segregated, cement cased well system.

The tubing size for the J-18 reservoir should be 2.922 inches inside
diameter.
Casing size should be 9 inches inside diameter.
Well head pressure should be 200 psi.
The operating flow rate is 3303 stb/d.
If an artificial lift is implanted it should be of the gas lift type.
Water coning should be controlled through operational flow rates and
downhole cementing.
The basic completion design is outlined in the appendix, figures 24 and 25
It is also strongly recommended to closely monitor the production data
from the well. This data will be essential in maintaining and controlling the
well system in order to maximise the oil produced.

Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter.............................................................................................................. i
Executive Summary......................................................................................................... ii
1.0 Background/ Introduction........................................................................................... 1
2.0 Well Type and Platform Location................................................................................ 3
3.0 Well Suspension and Completion...............................................................................3
4.0 Perforation Intervals and Location: J-18....................................................................5
PIPESIM......................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 Sensitivity Studies...................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Optimum Tubing Size.............................................................................................. 6
5.1.1 Water Cut.......................................................................................................... 6
5.1.2 Gas Oil Ratio..................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Wellhead Pressure................................................................................................... 7
5.3 Other Effects: Casing Size....................................................................................... 7
6.0 Future Production Analysis......................................................................................... 7
6.1 Artificial Lift............................................................................................................. 7
6.1.1 Recommendations............................................................................................ 8
6.2 Water Coning Control.............................................................................................. 8
6.2.1 Recommendation.............................................................................................. 9
7.0 Completion Design..................................................................................................... 9
8.0 Recommendation and Conclusion............................................................................11
References..................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix........................................................................................................................ 14

1.0 Background/ Introduction

A wide range of design applications have been technically engineered in the
petroleum industry, mainly aiming to maximize reservoir productivity under production
uncertainties and constraints as well as economic standards. Completion design
program, hardware, artificial lift methods and many series of facilities must be
analysed, as a result of a constructive decision to drive the capacity of reservoir
production.
The purpose of this case study report is to develop Curtin Offshore field by
considering the ideal type of well and platform location, well suspension, completion
strategy as well as tubing size selection in order to present a feasible completion
design by considering artificial lift method and coning control strategy. Generally,
Curtin Offshore field is sizable and consists of two main reservoirs of J-16 and J-18, the
field is situated under 250 ft. of water and will encompass a permanently manned steel
jacket platform. Additionally, other necessary field specifications are listed in the
Appendix.
The objectives of this case study are:
1. To determine a suitable type of well and platform location.
2. To select suitable perforation intervals and generate the inflow performance
relationship.
3. To recommend a well suspension option and completion strategy.
4. To determine the optimum tubing size.
5. To recommend a suitable artificial lift method coning control strategy.
6. To outline the proposed completion design schematic.
The scope of this case study report basically consists of the few areas listed below:
1. Well type and platform location
Based on the lithology and other related parameters, the ideal type of well and
platform located is specified by considering some of the issues and concerns that
are directly related to the drilling, completion and production stage by considering
the size of the well and casing. Besides, platform location is determined based on
the location of the production and injection wells.
2. Well completion systems
Provides recommendation on the bottom hole completion option and casing
strategy, depending on the lithology formation and other parameters concerning
drilling, completion procedures and production period.
3. PIPESIM multiphase flow simulation
PIPESIM multiphase flow simulation software is utilized to perform sensitivity
studies on tubing sizes, water cut, Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)/ Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) and
wellhead pressure by nodal analysis. The optimum tubing and casing size is
determined by analysing the simulation results through the generated plots.
4. Artificial lift strategy and coning control strategy
The artificial lift strategy is applied in order to improve well production. The
studies of parameters to be considered in the selection process of artificial lift is
outlined and recommendations are provided based on the applicability of strategy
to reservoirs J-16 and J-18.
5. Proposed completion design
1

Development of a completion design based on suitable components, design

features and approximate setting depths which is feasible according to
requirements of J-16 and J-18 upon determining tubing size. The types of
completion hardware are presented with justifications that are provided accordingly.
Before continuing onto a grist of the studies, some underlying assumptions and general
signposts are highlighted as below:
a) J-16 is an over saturated reservoir with initial sizable gas cap, denoting that the
reservoir initial pressure is measured below bubble point, and hence will generate
an IPR curve presenting two phase production flow rate.
b) J-18, situated at lower depth is an under saturated reservoir with no potential
existence of gas cap, the reservoir initial reservoir measured above bubble point.
Throughout the simulation techniques the reservoir will be analysed under these
solid assumptions enabling only a single phase flow rate at the bottom of the
wellbore, which generates a straight IPR curve line.
c) J-16 and J-18 intervals systematically share an infinite strong aquifer, and both
reservoir are assumed to be driven by a strong water drive mechanism.
d) Although two reservoirs are observed in the Curtin Offshore field, a detailed
analysis of J-18 will be presented in this project.
e) There are sections of shales that were defined as troublesome for drilling operators
directly above J-16 intervals.
f) Artificial lift methods and water conning control were not supplemented in
simulation program, however, comments, recommendations and the future
improvements will be theoretically stated in the respective sections.
The deliverables of the case study is provided and outlined as below:
The major analysis of the project embraces an inclusion of well suspension and
casing program, perforation intervals, the establishment of production line tubing
dimensions through sensitivity analysis and a development of completion design as
well as further improvement of possible artificial lift method and water conning control
techniques. The main outcome of the research is determined based on an economic
standard point. As such, recommendations and comments will be provided through the
expected economic outcomes and benefits.
1. To determine a suitable type of well and platform locations.
(i)
Outline of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of well.
(ii)
Consider the formation lithology, interval thickness and reservoir properties.
(iii)
Consider reservoir location to determine platform locations.
2. To recommend a well suspension option, completion strategy and completion
hardware.
(i)
Consider reservoir conditions and fluid properties.
(ii)
Production monitoring
(iii)
Consider the distance between reservoir locations.
3. To select suitable perforation intervals and generate the inflow performance
relationship.
(i)
Determine perforation intervals based on J-18 through PIPESIM simulation.
(ii)
Consider water coning control technique.
4. To determine the optimum tubing size.
(i)
Sensitivity studies on different parameters by Nodal Analysis.
(ii)
Outline the other effects (Casing size) for long term production suitability.
5. To recommend a suitable artificial lift method.
(i)
Consider parameters used in determining the type of artificial lift.
(ii)
Provide recommendations on the ideal productions improvement.
6. To recommend coning control strategy.
2

(i)
Outline possibilities of water coning
(ii)
Outline the preventive measures of water coning
(iii)
Provide recommendations on the ideal treatment option.
7. To outline the proposed completion design schematic.
(i)
Provide list of components required in the completion design.
(ii)
Provide description of the functions and features of tools for the completion
design
(iii)
Construct a basic configuration schematic at approximate setting depth.

2.0 Well Type and Platform Location

The first aspect to consider of the field is the location and type of well system
that is intended to use. In order to determine which well type would best suit the
system an analysis of the lithology and reservoir properties needed to be done. Firstly,
the lithology of J-16 and J-18 consists of consolidated, well sorted, good porosity and
permeability sandstone with minimal clay content. It also needs to be noted that J-16
has a small oil section. Although the data shows that J-16 reservoir is 100 ft thick, it also
shows that the gas oil contact (GOC) is in this section. The GOC is 85 ft from the top of
the J-16 reservoir, leaving only 15 ft of oil zone. There is also a section of 500 ft thick
shale 700 ft above the J-16 reservoir which will be troublesome for drillers.
There are three main well types that is considered, that of vertical, deviated and
horizontal. As the reservoirs are consolidated sandstone caving and sand production
should be at a minimum. This left us with two main concerns when looking at the type
of well, that of the troublesome zone and the thickness of the J-16 oil zone. As the
section above J-16 is troublesome a comparison of drilling through to drilling around
this shale needs to be considered. Troublesome shale is usually shale that is prone to
swelling. This happens through the clay in the shale absorbing the water out of the
drilling mud and swelling. This swelling can lead to a number of problems including that
of caving. There are two solutions to this problem, that of using a specialised drilling
fluid or using a deviated or horizontal well and drilling around the formation. Both
methods have their problems associated with them. However, for the horizontal well we
need to consider the thickness of the wells. As J-16 only has a 15 ft oil zone, there
needs to be a high degree of accuracy in order to place a horizontal well correctly. This
was deemed to be too problematic and as such the horizontal well was ruled out. This
left us with the choice of a deviated or vertical well.
Similarly, drilling a deviated well is more expensive and the benefits of drilling
one well are outweighed by the costs. The advantage taken into consideration of
deviated wells is the drilling of the troublesome shale intervals that is made much
easier. The main concern which separates these two wells is the drilling of the 500 ft.
thick shale interval. Due to todays drilling techniques and available technology, drilling
through the shale will not cause significant concern. This can be done by using an oil
based drilling fluid when drilling through the troublesome section or using a water
based fluid with specialised additives. Once the troublesome shale section has been
drilled the casing can be run down the well. Hence, the conventional vertical well is
selected. Drilling vertical wells has much lower cost and complexity as compared to
other types of well. Besides, vertical well has restricted accessibility of oil and gas
which immediately surrounds the end of the well. Given that the pay zone for both
reservoirs are only 15 and 60 ft. respectively, it is suggested to increase the production
rate in withdrawing the oil before water breakthrough. This method could be feasible as
both reservoirs share a common strong aquifer support.

By referring to the J-16 and J-18 reservoir schematic provided, it is suggested to

construct two platforms in which both platform will be located approximately above the
centre of each exploration wells. Based on estimations, there will not be large
separation distance between the platforms. The injection well will extend as far down
as the J-16 reservoir and is designed to inject gas into the reservoir in order to increase
production. The production well will extend further down into the J-18 reservoir, but
have perforations at two separate depths in order to produce from the J-16 and J-18
reservoirs.

3.0 Well Suspension and Completion

Beside the issues and concerns discussed earlier, the reservoir conditions and fluid
properties of both J-16 and J-18 are also being considered in determining the well
suspension option. Although both the well system shared almost all the reservoir
properties, however, J-18 can be seen to have no gas cap whereas J-16 does which
means that J-18 is undersaturated while J-16 is saturated. This plays an integral part in
deciding the completion of the well as J-18 is undersaturated means that it will flow into
the well as a single phase whereas J-16 will be in a two phase state (oil and gas).
Production monitoring is vital for both of this reservoir in order to keep the production
flowing into the well as a single phase for J-18 whereas for J-16, production monitored is
required to ensure that maximum oil can be retrieved via the gas injection as stated
earlier. This means that both wells need to be produced separately in order to control
the well dynamics and this will eventually narrow down the possible options to dual
production or a dual well system. Besides this, a dual well system is also chosen due to
the troublesome shale as drilling two separate wells at two different reservoir which
only has a separation distance of 50 ft. would not be beneficial as it would be too
troublesome and unfeasible from a cost perspective. In addition, two slant or deviated
wells are not necessary since it is possible to drill into the formation directly from
above.
For the purpose of separate production, a co-mingled tube was also ruled out and
this left a final comparison between a single tubing annular flow and a dual tubing
system. However, dual tubing system had been chosen as flow through the annulus is
not desired because the well system has corrosive elements too it. Thus, the well
suspension option will be a cased and cemented hole for J-16 reservoir and J-18
reservoir. In general, a suitable well diameter would be 12-1/4 ID and a suitable casing
size would be 9-5/8 OD / 8.5 ID respectively. Therefore, the most applicable and ideal
bottom hole completion option identified in this case would be a segregated well,
cemented cased hole with dual tubing string completed with perforation and a liner.
Casing technical data
A typical piece of casing might be described as 9-5/8" 53.5# P-110 LT&C Rg 3:
specifying OD, weight per foot (53.5 lb m/ft thus 0.545-inch wall thickness and 8.535inch inside diameter), steel strength (110,000 psi yield strength), end finish ("Long
Threaded and Coupled"), and approximate length ("Range 3" usually runs between 40
and 42 feet) (Technical Report 2008).
Considering the bottom hole completion option of open hole or cased hole
completions, it is recommended to apply cased hole completions as it is widely used
when there are several levels which can be proven in this case with J-16 and J-18
reservoir. Open hole completion is not normally preferred for oil wells as it is normally
used when there is only one zone. Besides, conventional completions with production
string (tubing) which is completely located inside the casing and that is not cemented,
therefore easy to replace is suggested in this case. Since there are two pay zones, the
usage of dual tubings are practically feasible. This is due to J-16 having a gas cap and
4

a small pay zone of 15 ft. whereas J-18 having a larger area. As the two zones are
different, there is a need to control both zones separately and in a different manner to
ensure a maximized and economical production equipped with annulus packing.
A cemented liner with perforations is suggested as it allows for the most control
of production zones. Since both reservoirs share a common strong aquifer support,
gravel packing is suggested. This is due to the inevitable water production that will
start during the lifetime of the well. As such, with increased water production sand
production subsequently increases. Gravel packing will help to minimise the problems
associated with the increased sand production.
Perforated completion is suitable when reservoir is required to be separated into
intervals due to complicated geological conditions, such as gas cap, bottom water,
water-bearing inter-bed or sloughing inter-bed (Renpu W. 2011). Furthermore, it is
applicable when reservoir requires separate-zone testing, production, water injection,
and treatments due to differences in pressure and lithology between separate zones
(Renpu W. 2011). Perforated completion can also be applied when there is low
permeability reservoir that needs massive hydraulic fracturing (Renpu W. 2011). It is
also suitable for sandstone reservoir and fractured carbonatite reservoir (Renpu W.
2011).
The parallel tubing string completion from the multiple zone conventional
completions functions as several levels produced in the same well at the same time but
separately (i.e. through different strings of pipe) (Perrin D. 1999). The parallel dual
string completion with two tubings, one for each of the two levels and two packers to
isolate the levels from one another and protect the annulus (Perrin D. 1999). The
benefits of Parallel dual tubing string completions are such as avoids problems in
operation and production due to frequent wireline jobs and problems for safety and
operation during workover (Perrin D. 1999).

4.0 Perforation Intervals and Location: J-18

Once the well system had been determined, an analysis had been constructed on
one of the reservoir systems, that of the J-18 reservoir. In the analysis of the J-18
reservoir there was a variety of parameters that needed to be met. In order to do this
analysis the program PIPESIM was utilised. Before the program could be utilised the
perforation intervals needed to be determined.
For J-18 the OWC is directly below it, meaning that there will be water coning and
hence an increasing water cut throughout the lifetime of the well. For now the well was
decided to be cement cased and perforated near the OWC zone. The area decided to be
perforate is roughly 15 ft above the OWC, placing the bottom perforation at 4375 ft
TVDSS. This was due to water coning control techniques and will be discussed in the
future production analysis section further on.
PIPESIM
For the next part of the analysis the program PIPESIM was used. For the setup of
the well to analyse J-18, it was simplified by running the analysis as if it was a single
well. Due to the chosen well completion being dual tubing segregated this was
assumed to be valid for simulation purposes. Although this made the simulation easier,
it needed to be remembered that the casing had to be large enough to account for both
J-18 and J-16 pipes. The first stage of the analysis was to enter the well data needed to
make a basic simulation. The programs inputs can be seen in detail in the appendix,
figures 1-6. There are 5 main tabs that required input as the General, Artificial lift and
Surface Equipment tabs were not used.
5

1. Tubulars
The first part required the determination of the casing and tubing length
and size. The casing and tubing length were decided to be at the bottom and top
of the reservoir respectively. This meant the bottom of the casing came to 4400
ft TVDSS and the tubing came to 4330 ft TVDSS. The size of the tubing and
casing at this stage were set to 2.992 and 7.625 inch inside diameter
respectively. These will be analysed later on.
1. Deviation Survey
The deviation survey used was that of 250 ft as the well systems that we
are analysing is 250ft under water.
2. Downhole Equipment
The only downhole equipment used for the simulation was that of a
packer, at 4330 ft TVDSS.
3. Heat transfer
The heat transfer tab require the estimation of the temperature of the soil
at the well head. This was assumed to be roughly 40F as the well is subsea.
4. Completions
As stated earlier, the perforations were assumed to be placed at 4375 ft.
This tab also required the input of fluid and reservoir properties. For the input of
reservoir properties the Darcy IPR model was chosen. This was chosen as it had
the most known parameters and would give the most accurate result. All the
parameters were given in the assignment sheet and can be seen in the
Appendix, table 1. From looking at the diagram provided and through the
information given, it was decided to use a shape factor option of 19.1, which
refers to a reservoir with strong water drive. The reservoir area of J-18 was
assumed to be the same size as reservoir J-16, and from the sketch given was
assumed to be 2200 acres. As J-18 reservoir had been chosen to analyse, the
option Use Vogel below bubble point was left unchecked. As stated early, this is
due to the system being undersaturated.

Once the reservoir properties were added in, this is continued by putting in the
fluid properties. The properties given are detailed in the Appendix, table 2. From here
an IPR curve was produced through a bottom hole nodal analysis and gave the graph
shown in the Appendix, figure 7.

5.0 Sensitivity Studies

5.1 Optimum Tubing Size
For the next part of the analysis various tubing sizes were analysed and sensitivity
studies done to determine the optimal tubing diameter. To do this a nodal analysis at
the bottom hole was first used and the outlet pressure was assumed to be 200 psi,
which would later be analysed. In the sensitivities tab the outflow sensitivity parameter
chosen was tubing inside diameter. The range was that of 0.8-4 inch which was based
on the API tubing standards available in the PIPESIM software, refer to table 3 in
Appendix for API standard sizes available. Once this was done the simulation was run
with the results are shown in figure 8 in the Appendix. From the graph it can be seen
that there is a significant change in production for the first few tubing sizes, however,
the larger tubing sizes converge at a certain flow rate. To further show the difference in
the production rate a system analysis was done. The same setup was done, varying the
tubing inside diameter and the results can be seen in the Appendix, figure 9. From the
6

results it can be seen that the increase in the size results in a smaller and smaller
increase in production rate. This means that the diameter at which the increase in the
production rate is worth the cost of the wider tubing size needs to be determined. In
order to do this the inside diameter sizes where then focussed from the 2.041 to 3.958
inch API standards and a system analysis was completed, giving the graph in figure 10.
From the System analysis 3 tubing sizes were chosen to do further analysis on, that of
2.75, 2.922 and 3.476 inside diameters. A nodal analysis for these three sizes was
completed, figure 11 in the Appendix, along with a table showing the resulting flow rate
and bottom hole pressure, table 4 in the Appendix. Once the tubing sizes were selected
2 simulations were done to see how the tubing sizes would handle an increase in water
cut and an increase in GOR.

5.1.1 Water Cut

To analyse the effect of an increase in the water cut a nodal analysis was done.
This was deemed essential as the reservoir has a strong water drive and water
breakthrough will occur during the production life. The water cut was varied in the
sensitivities tab to different intervals ranging from 0-95%. The three tubing sizes gave
the expected results through the nodal analysis, figures 12-14 in the Appendix. As can
be seen, with increasing water cut the production rate decreased. This is expected as
with an increase in the water cut the density of the solution is increased. This means
that the maximum flow rate will decrease as the pressure gradient increases, meaning
that there is less pressure differential between the top and bottom of the well system
(Mofazzal 2014). Along with the reduction in overall flow rate, the oil rate itself will also
decrease. It needs to be noted that all three tubing sizes could handle a water cut of
95%. This means that all tubing sizes will be able to handle the water increase and will
still produce at high water cuts.

5.1.2 Gas Oil Ratio

Once the water cut analysis was done a GOR nodal analysis was conducted. The
result is displayed in the Appendix, figure 15. As can be seen the tubing has an
increase in liquid flow rate with initial increase in GOR. In order to determine the
optimum GOR a system analysis was done, results are displayed in the Appendix
figures 16-18. The maximum flow rate occurs at 1000, 1200 and 1400 for the
increasing tubing sizes with liquid flow rates increasing by around 200 stb/d each. This
is helpful for future production if an artificial lift or gas injection is implemented in the J18 reservoir, details will be explained later.
From the above analysis, it was concluded that the optimal tubing diameter was
2.922 inches. This tubing size was chosen as all three tubings gave around the same
response to the varying water cut and GOR analysis. Therefore, a tubing size that was
cost effective was chosen. This was found to be the 2.922 inch tubing as it gave the
best results for future aspects of production flow rates. The operating flow rate for this
flow rate was determined to be 3303 stb/d, from figure 11.
5.2 Wellhead Pressure
The tubing size was then put into the design of the well in the tubing tab, and
then a nodal analysis was run to see the effect of changing the wellhead pressure. The
results are displayed in the Appendix, figure 19. As expected, the lower the wellhead
pressure the lower the flow rate (Mofazzal 2014). This is due to there being a smaller
differential between the top and bottom pressure, meaning that there is less driving
force. The optimum wellhead pressure is therefore the lowest pressure available which
is 200 psi.
5.3 Other Effects: Casing Size
7

There was also a simulation done on varying the casing size, figures 20 and 21 in
the Appendix. Figure 21 is a magnified view of the graph to allow better analysis of the
results. It showed that the casing has a positive effect on the flow rate up to a critical
size and then it decreases. From the graph the tubing sizes of 7-10 inches give
approximately the same results. This means that there is little difference in the flow
rates and as such the smallest of these tubing sizes should be picked for the design as
this will lower the cost. However, when considering the casing size production from J-16
via segregated well system was taken into account. This means that the casing size
must be able to incorporate both the tubing of J-18 and J-16. Assuming that J-16 has a
maximum tubing size the same as that of J-18, the casing needs to be a minimum of 7
inches. Taking this into account the tubing size is recommended to be that of 9 inches
inside diameter. This will be enough to hold both the tubings as well as leave room for
any artificial lift system that may be implemented later.

6.0 Future Production Analysis

As part of the project there was to be two future studies done, that of the use of
an artificial lift and the effect and control of water coning and water shut-off. In order to
do these studies, some theory is provided along with the recommendations. It should
be noted that at this stage, the recommendations provided are based on what is
expected to happen, however, the production data should be analysed throughout the
life of the well and actions taken accordingly.
6.1 Artificial Lift
Artificial lift is a method approached to lower the producing bottom hole pressure
(BHP) on the formation to increase production rate from the well completion. In this
case study two methods were assigned in order to provide constructive strategies to
ensure well production and future improvement. These are gas-lift and Electrical
Submersible Pump (ESP) type artificial lift systems.
Generally, the procedure of selecting the artificial lift system is prioritized on
maximum potential for developing the oil or gas field with the most economic value.
The parameters that are used are:

Geographic location
Capital cost
Operation cost
Production flexibility
Reliability
Mean time between failures

If the economic factors are not in concern the highest production value will be
selected for artificial lift method. Apart from economic issue, well design consideration
methods and factors must be taken into the account, which included reservoir
properties, well productivity and well performance (5 Step to Artificial Lift Optimization).
However, for the future improvement, the most crucial issues that have to be
considered are a decline change of the IPR curve and an increase in water cut
throughout reservoir life expectation. The decline change of IPR assists operators to set
a determined goal for future production rate and shut-in pressure. Likewise, water cut
problems would also bring sand problems to the production which is not suitable for
some types of artificial lift systems. A comparison of Gas-lift and ESP, based on J-18
actual and future predicted conditions, will be analysed as well as providing a
recommendation (5 Step to Artificial Lift Optimization).

Depth of operation: The J-18 reservoir payable hydrocarbon zone is situated at

the depth of 4375 ft. According chart provided, figure 22 in the Appendix,
determination under production depth condition would potentially lead to the utilization
of gas-lift due to the depth providing the highest production flow rate (Clegg, Bucaram,
and Hein, N.W.J, 1993).
Production flow rate: After analysing IPR curve of J-18 field the operational flow
rate was determined at 3303 B/D. As for the future analysis, one definite consideration
is a decline in IPR curve throughout the life of the field which has to be set as a crucial
goal for operators, shown in figure 23 in the Appendix. The main problem occurs when
a decline in BHP and productivity index occurs. The flexibility of gas-lift technology
exists as intermittent gas-lift has significant efficiency handling low volume of fluid with
lower production rate. Furthermore, the ESP method can lift the high volume flow rates
of the well, but at approximately 400 B/D, power efficiency drops sharply (Clegg,
Bucaram, and Hein, N.W.J, 1993).
Water cut: This is one of the most important problems encountering late life
reservoir which also eventually results in sand production in system. ESP method has
the ability to accommodate for increased water cut by pressure maintenance and
secondary recovery operations. However, this method will tolerate only minimal
percentage of solid (sand) production. Conversely, gas-lift is the best among all artificial
methods for handling solid material, but the power efficiency is relatively low for an
increase in water cut at large operating depths (Clegg, Bucaram, and Hein, N.W.J,
1993).
GOR: The gas-Lift method is widely evaluated as the most excellent method for high
formation GORs that have a strong water drive, whereas the ESP method is usually
suitable for moderate GORs reservoir (Clegg, Bucaram, and Hein, N.W.J, 1993).

6.1.1 Recommendations
The J-18 reservoir future goals were mainly set under production rate and water
cut. For the case of the J-18 reservoir the gas-lift method would be a better option due
to the ability to handle a wider variety of production rates. Furthermore, at the
determined operational depth there will not be any concern about the gas-lift not being
able to handle higher water cuts or sand production. Considering the decline in IPR in
the future, gas-lift would be the most suitable for the conditions as its flexibility
converting between continuous and intermittent type. Overall, the operational cost,
efficiency, flexibility, performance and others requirements of gas-lift are not
completely away from the justification of ESP method, but under the assigned limited
conditions gas-lift would presumably be the best option for the J-18 reservoir.
6.2 Water Coning Control
As part of the analysis, both the possibility of water coning, watered out sections
as well as prevention measurement had been considered. Generally, the main strategy
for controlling water coning and watered out sections in well completion is classified
into 3 categories, namely one short term and two long term options.

1. Operational treatment:
Usually the prevention from daily operation would be a primary strategy put into
consideration. This is because a high rate of production would eventually result in an
increased water conning problem. This comes from the viscosity force vertically
overcoming the gravity force in high production rates. This can be diagnosed in rising
9

water production and water cut at the top surface. A short term solution for limiting the
water coning issues is to reduce the production rate to limit the extent of water coning.
However, a long term solution is unavoidable to maintain production flow rate at
desirable water cut percentage (Bill, Mike, Job, Jon, Fikri, Christian, and Leo Roodhart,
2000).
2. Mechanical treatment:
The most available technology for mechanical treatment application is
implementing casing patch or an inflatable packer. These are often the solution of
choice that ensure reliable well bore water shutoff. When the well has to be produced
close to an aquifer regarding a strong water drive, such as J-18 reservoir, the casing
patch is the desired water shut-off technique (Bill, Mike, Job, Jon, Fikri, Christian, and
Leo Roodhart, 2000).
3. Chemical treatment:
Chemical treatment is a commonly used method in preventing water conning or
isolating water zones, but requires accurate fluid displacement. Cementing and
polymer gels are the key techniques used in the solution of water control. For
cementing, the cement fluid is pumped through the casing for remedial treatment.
Once the fluid sets the cement shows high compressive strength, extremely low
permeability and high chemical resistance. The well is then re-perforated at a higher
interval and the production recommences. Polymer gels are a highly effective method
for near wellbore shutoff of excess water but unlike cement, gels can be squeezed into
reservoir formation in order to provide water shut-off. Although gels can reduce water
coning substantially it is still a developing technique (Bill, Mike, Job, Jon, Fikri, Christian,
and Leo Roodhart, 2000).

6.2.1 Recommendation
Although only a few common treatments were roughly pointed out in details,
there is a variety of treatment techniques available for mitigating water conning and
zoning oil/water intervals. In the case of J-18 field, the most recommended treatment
option would be that of chemical treatment, in particular cementing. Cementing is
inexpensive compared to polymer gels and provides a more reliable solution.

7.0 Completion Design

For this part of the project, both wells need to be considered. As the well is
segregated, the simulations will run separately, however, for the design, both the
reservoirs need to be considered as they producing from the same well. During the
previous analysis the casing size, tubing size and flow rates have been stated. For this
next part a basic completion design will be determined. The basic configuration was
adapted from the lecture notes (Mofazzal 2014).
The basic completion design of a dual tubing well system is comprised of two
strings running from the surface to the first packer, that of a dual string packer. At this
packer one of the strings will end, referred to as the short string, and the other string
will continue until it reaches to the lower single string packer, referred to as the long
string. In the case of our well system the short string will end when it reaches the J-16
reservoir, at an approximate depth of 4250 ft TVDSS. The Long string will then pass by
two more single string packers, the upper and lower single sting packers, before ending
at the J-18 reservoir at a depth of approximately 4360 ft TVDSS. The single string
packers that will be used will be permanent production packers due to there being a
shale zone in between the reservoirs, providing better zonal control.

10

The dual packer will be a retrievable dual packer. The dual packer will be at a
depth of 4180 ft TVDSS which is at the top of the J-16 reservoir. The upper single packer
will be bottom of the J-16 reservoir, a depth of 4280 TVDSS, with the lower packer being
at the top of the J-18 reservoir, a depth of 4330 ft TVDSS. A sliding sleeve will be
positioned in the shale zone between the reservoirs, approximately at 4300 ft TVDSS,
as this will help circulate fluid to enable pressure control. To facilitate through-tubing
operations a wireline re-entry guide will be placed on the long string below the packer
but above the perforations, at about 4345 ft TVDSS. A no-go nipple will also be placed
below the packer but above the perforations for both J-18 and J-16, which will be utilised
for testing leaks in the tubing, at a depth of 4340 ft and 4240 ft TVDSS respectively. A
seal assembly will be used at the upper single string packer, at 4280 ft TVDSS, which
will be of the locator type. The locator assembly will provide a depth indication as well
as prevent downward tubing movement.
A travel or slip joint will also be installed to accommodate tubing movement as
well as expansion and contraction. In order to ensure maximum safety one will be
installed above the upper single sting packer, at a depth of 4280 ft TVDSS, the other
will be installed just below the surface, roughly 300 ft TVDSS. Both strings will also have
a sub-surface safety valves (SSSVs). The position of the valves needs to be a balance
of factors, it cannot be too low due to the possibility of having too much hydrostatic
pressure on it, but it needs to be away from the surface where it could potentially come
to harm. They will be in a staggered configuration to ensure that they do not interfere
with each other, with the long sting having the SSSV at 350 ft TVDSS and the short
string at 375 ft TVDSS.
A blast joint is also recommended to be positioned across the J-16 perforations.
This will help prevent possible erosion damage of the long string due to fluids and solids
produced from the J-16 reservoir. Although the depth of perforations for the J-16
reservoir was not analysed, it is assumed to be in the oil section, hence at a depth of
4265-4280 ft TVDSS. Given that an artificial lift may be implemented later on in the well
life, side pocket mandrels will be placed above the dual packer to enable such
implementation. It is recommended to stager this configuration as it will provide better
control for each of the production strings as well as avoid any string rubbing. These
mandrels will be placed approximately 1200 ft apart, with the first being placed at 400
ft. This will provide a range of depths for the artificial lift injection later in the well life. A
basic configuration schematic has been drawn up in the appendix, figures 24 and 25.

11

12

8.0 Recommendation and Conclusion

The aim of this case study report is to outline the analysing achievement of Curtin
Offshore field throughout developing learning outcomes from Production Technology
unit. Throughout the analysis of the Curtin Offshore Field there were certain
assumptions and notable points that played an integral role in the outcomes and
recommendations that we have made. These mainly are:
a)
b)
c)
d)

J-16 is an over saturated reservoir

J-18 is an under saturated
J-16 and J-18 intervals systematically share an infinite strong aquifer
There are sections of shales that were defined as troublesome for drilling
operators directly above J-16 intervals.
e) Both reservoirs were assumed to have the same properties, that of reservoir and
fluid properties.
f) The simulation of the J-18 could be run as a single well system
The first part of this report outlines the guidelines that were used in order to
determine the well type and location, as well as the completion of the well in question.
Due to the small oil zone of the J-16 reservoir and the advancement in drilling
technology, we concluded that the best well system for this field would be a vertical
well. Furthermore, due to the problematic shale it was recommended to only drill one
well which will have dual production of both the J-16 and J-18 reservoirs, namely that of
a dual tubing well. The dual tubing was deemed a necessity as the properties of the
reservoirs made the separate monitoring of the production data essential in order to
maximise the volume of oil produced.
Following the determination of the well system a detailed analysis was done of the J18 reservoir. In order to accomplish this analysis the program PIPESIM was utilised.
Using PIPESIM the first analysis that was done was the choice of tubing size with the
intention of balancing the maximisation of production flow rate with the economic cost
behind it. In order to do this the API standard tubing sizes where used and a nodal
analysis was done. The nodal point analysed was that of the bottom of the well.
Through comparing the flow rates, the tubing sizes response to an increase in water cut
and GOR, a tubing size of 2.922 inch inside diameter was chosen which will produce an
operating flow rate of 3303 stb/d.
Once the tubing size was determined an analysis of the wellhead pressure and
casing was done. The wellhead pressure response gave the expected results with the
optimum pressure being that of the lowest pressure possible. This is due to the flow
rate being directly proportional to the pressure differential, hence the larger the
pressure differential the larger the flow rate. For the casing size there were a few
aspects that needed to be considered. Firstly, when analysing J-18 reservoir, casing size
that would optimise the flow rate need to be determined. From the results it was found
that a casing size in the range of 7-10 inches inside diameter would accomplish this.
In order to determine which of these casing sizes would be ideal, the system as a
whole as well as possible future implementations need be identified. As this is a dual
tubing well, the casing size needed to be large enough to account for both the J-18 and
J-16 production strings. On top of this there was also the possibility of an artificial lift
system being implemented. Taking all this into consideration a casing size of internal
diameter of 9 inches was deemed acceptable. This was considered the smallest casing
size that will allow enough room for both strings, the possibility of an artificial lift as
well as maximising production flow rates.

13

The next stage of the report summarises the future production analysis that was
done, namely that of an artificial lift and water control. For the artificial lift analysis
there were two main types that were being analysed, that of a gas lift and an Electrical
Submersible Pump (ESP) system. From the available data, a comparison was done of
the two systems of how they would handle the future problems that may arise from the
production. Due to the likely increase in water flow, the decrease in production rates
and the depth of operation it was concluded that the gas lift system would be best
suited for the J-18 reservoir.
For the water coning and water shut-off analysis a quick comparison of available
technologies was established. There were three main treatments that were looked at,
that of operational, mechanical and chemical treatment techniques. Although there are
numerous methods within these categories, just few of the most readily available and
widely accepted techniques were looked at. From the analysis done it was determined
that the main problem for the J-18 reservoir will be that of water coning. In order to
reduce the effect of water coning it was recommended that the flow rate be controlled
in order to minimise the extent of the coning issues and when the water cut becomes
too high that cementing downhole and perforating further up is the most adequate
technique. However, as with the artificial lift systems, it is strongly recommended to
analyse that production data during the life of the well to achieve a better analysis of
the best treatment available.
The final section of this report outlined the recommended completion design of the
production string. In order to do this completion design both well systems needed to be
looked at as well as enabling any possible future operation to be achieved. The basic
design was illustrated in figures 24 and 25 in the Appendix. The main points to note in
this design are the travel joints, which are used to stabilise the strings in the well, and
the staggered configuration of the side pocket mandrels, to account for future artificial
lift systems. The rest of the completion is from a basic design obtained from the course
notes from Production Technology 607 unit. The approximate depths of these
components are detailed in the report.
Overall, through the analysis done, the well design recommendation are as follows:

Well should be a dual tubing, segregated, cement cased well system.

The tubing size for the J-18 reservoir should be 2.922 inches inside
diameter.
Casing size should be 9 inches inside diameter.
Well head pressure should be 200 psi.
The operating flow rate is 3303 stb/d.
If an artificial lift is implanted it should be of the gas lift type.
Water coning should be controlled through operational flow rates and
downhole cementing.
The basic completion design is outlined in the Appendix, figures 24 and 25
It is also strongly recommended to closely monitor the production data
from the well. This data will be essential in maintaining and controlling the
well system in order to maximise the oil produced.

14

References
5 Step to Artificial Lift Optimization. Commercial presentation, Weatherford Artificial Lift
Systems.
Houston. http://petrowiki.org/Artificial_lift_selection_methods
Bill, Mike, Job, Jon, Fikri, Christian, and Leo Roodhart. 2000. Water Control.
https://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors00/spr00/p30_51.pd
Claudio Alimonti. Well Completion Encyclopaedia of Hydrocarbon Volume 1,
Exploration, Production and Transport.
Clegg, Bucaram, and Hein, N.W.J. 1993. Recommendations and Comparisons for
Selecting Artificial-Lift
Methods. J Pet Technol 45 (12)
http://petrowiki.org/Design_considerations_and_overall_comparisons_of_artificial_lift
Eric, and Moji Karimi. 2011. How Casing Drilling Improves Wellbore Stability TESCO
Corporation.
American Association of Drilling Engineers.
Horizontal Highlights: Middle East Well Evaluation Review. 1995.
Mofazzal, Hossain. 2014. Lecture Notes - Production Technology 607 PowerPoint
lecture notes. Department
of Petroleum Engineering. Bentley, W.A: Curtin
University
Ozan Arslan. 2005. Optimal operating strategy for wells with downhole water sink
completions to
control water production and improve performance. A Dissertation
of Louisiana State University.
Perrin, D. 1999. Well Completion and Servicing. Paris: Editions Technip.
Renpu, W. 2011. Advanced Well Completion Engineering. 3 rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier
Technical Report on Equations and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe used
as Casing or Tubing; and Performance Properties Tables for Casing and Tubing.
7th ed. 2008. Washington DC: American Petroleum Institute.

15

Appendix

Figure 1. Screenshot of Tubular tab from PIPESIM software

Figure 2. Screenshot of Deviation Survey tab from PIPESIM software

16

Figure 3. Screenshot of Downhole Equipment tab from PIPESIM software

Figure 4. Screenshot of the Heat Transfer tab from PIPESIM software

17

Figure 5. Screenshot of the Heat Transfer tab from PIPESIM software

Figure 6. Screenshot of Fluid Properties window from PIPESIM software

18

Table 1. Reservoir Properties provided

J-18 Average Thickness
J-16 Average Thickness
Average Net to Gross
(all)
Porosity
Permeability
Kw/Kh
Endpoint Kro
Endpoint Krw
Sw
Initial Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Temperature
Reservoir Water Salinity

60
100
90

ft
ft
%

24
100
0.5
0.85
0.40
0.20
2000
200
60,000

%
mD

psig
F
ppm

Table 2. Reservoir Fluid Properties provided

Oil Gravity
Viscosity at reservoir
temperature
Water viscosity at reservoir
temperature
Formation volume factor

35
1.2

API
cP

0.8

cP

1.3

Solution gas oil ratio

400

H2S content

10-20

rb/st
b
scf/b
bl
Ppm

CO2

0.1

19

Figure 7. IPR graph of the J-18 reservoir.

Table 3. API tubing sizes available in PIPESIM software
API Standard Tubing Sizes
Outside
Inside
Diameter
Diameter
(inches)
(inches)
1.05
0.824
1.315
1.049
1.66
1.38
1.66
1.41
1.9
1.61
1.9
1.65
2.375
1.703
2.063
1.751
2.375
1.867
2.375
1.995
2.375
2.041
2.875
2.195
2.875
2.259
2.875
2.323
2.875
2.441
3.5
2.75
3.5
2.922
3.5
3.068
4
3.476
20

4
4.5

3.548
3.958

Figure 8. Nodal Analysis of varying inside diameter of tubing, size range 0.8-4 inches.

Figure 9. System Analysis of varying inside diameter of tubing, size range 0.8-4 inches.

21

Figure 10. System analysis of varying inside diameter of tubing, API sizes 2.041 to
3.958 inches

Figure 11. Nodal Analysis of varying inside diameter of tubing, sizes 2.75, 2.922 and
3.476 inches.

22

Table 4. Operating Flow rate and pressure for 2.75, 2.922 and 3.476 inch tubing

Figure 12. Nodal Analysis of 2.75 inch tubing with increasing water cut, 0-95%

23

Figure 13. Nodal Analysis of 2.922 inch tubing with increasing water cut, 0-95%

Figure 14. Nodal Analysis of 3.476 inch tubing with increasing water cut, 0-95%

24

Figure 15. Nodal analysis of varying gas oil ratio from 400-2000 scf/bbl.

Figure 16. System Analysis of varying gas oil ratio for 2.75 inch tubing

25

Figure 17. System Analysis of varying gas oil ratio for 2.922 inch tubing

Figure 18. System Analysis of varying gas oil ratio for 3.476 inch tubing

26

Figure 19. Nodal analysis of varying well head pressure of 200-800 psia.

Figure 20. Nodal Analysis of varying casing size from 5-12 inches

27

Figure 21. Magnified section of Nodal Analysis of varying casing size from 5-12 inches.

Figure 22. Comparison of some artificial lift systems comparing production flow rates
and depth of operation (Clegg, Bucaram, and Hein, N.W.J. 1993).

28

Figure 23. Expected trend in the IPR curve for a reservoir, showing a decrease in the
liquid production through the life of the well (Clegg, Bucaram, and Hein, N.W.J. 1993).

29

Figure 24. Basic completion diagram of the bottom of the well (Mofazzall 2014).

30

Figure 25. Basic completion diagram of the top of the well (Mofazzall 2014).

31