Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Annular-Pressure Buildup
A.R. Hasan, SPE, U. of Minnesota-Duluth; B. Izgec, SPE, and C.S. Kabir, SPE, Chevron*
Summary
Increased tubinghead temperature with increased rate may induce
pressure increase in the annuli for the trapped fluid. Managing
annular-pressure buildup (APB) for sustaining well deliverability
is particularly crucial in subsea wells, where intervention is complicated. Ordinarily, a multistring casing design accommodates
anomalous pressure rise from the standpoint of well integrity.
However, management of day-to-day operations presents challenges when APB occurs. This study presents mechanistic models
for understanding and mitigating APB during production. By
preserving mass, momentum, and energy in the wellbore, we
developed two approaches involving semisteady-state and transient
formulations. The intrinsic idea is to mimic the physical process
with minimal input parameters to estimate pressure buildup in the
annuli. Our model formulation handles the mechanisms of fluid
expansion and fluid influx/efflux quite rigorously. This approach
appears to be quite sufficient because we account for most of the
cases of APB encountered.
Introduction
Historically, production and reservoir engineers seldom probed the
root causes of APB, perhaps because tubular design with implicit
APB control has been in the domain of drilling engineers. But the
advent of continuous monitoring of pressure and temperature at
the well bottom, tubinghead, and annuli presents the opportunity
for real-time production and reservoir management within the
safe operating limits of the system. Pressures measured at the
tubinghead and bottomhole with the corresponding flow rate are
the most sought after data in production-engineering calculations.
Rate validation in integrated-asset modeling is a case in point. In
contrast, temperature measurements have not found routine usage,
but are gaining increased attention in connection with transientpressure testing (Sui et al. 2008; Duru and Horne 2008; Izgec
et al. 2007; Hasan et al. 2005; Kabir et al. 1996), downhole flow
profiling (Wang et al. 2008; Nath et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2006;
Ouyang and Belanger 2006), and flow-rate estimation (Izgec et al.
2009; Kabir et al. 2008). This paper shows that both pressure and
temperature responses at the tubinghead and annuli are strongly
related to flow rates and that these measured values can be used
to alert the operator of possible APB. Naturally, clarity in understanding the interrelationship of wellhead temperature with flow
rate and pressure is imperative for sustaining long-term wellhead
deliverability without compromising well integrity.
Fluid production in a typical production string may conceivably impact pressures in production and surface casings. Generally
speaking, only the shallowest casings are cemented from bottom
to the top, whereas the others are cemented at the bottom, and the
annuli contain mostly drilling fluid. Producing fluids in the tubing
string transmit heat to the liquid-filled annuli, thereby triggering
pressure increase. APB is not associated only with fluid production; fluid circulation during drilling may also induce the same, as
reported by Pattillo et al. (2006). Accessible wellheads in typical
land and offshore dry-tree wells allow the operator to monitor
and bleed off all annuli as needed. However, subsea wells present
l
1
1
T
Va +
V , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
T
T Va
T Vl l
where T is coefficient of isothermal compressibility, l is coefficient of thermal expansion, Vl is the volume of annular liquid, and
Va is the annular volume. The first term implies liquid expansion,
the second term accounts for volume change in the annulus owing
to tubular buckling, and the third term includes liquid influx (Vl
positive) or efflux (Vl negative) in the annulus. Because the first
term, or the liquid expansion, is by far the most dominant in a
sealed annulus, accounting for well more than 80% of pressure
increase in most cases (Oudeman and Kerem 2006), our modeling
approaches center around this term. In the following, we describe
the development of two methods for estimating APB. In both
methods, we adapt the first term in the Oudeman-Bacarreza model
and integrate it over the entire wellbore.
Semisteady-State Approach. In this approach, we treat uid ow
to be occurring at steady state while the consequent heat exchange
with the formation is in transient mode. This treatment implies
that except for well startup or shut-in when the uid ow occurs
at unsteady state, the use of this method is justied.
195
ProductionTubing casing
fluid
fluid
4
Fluid (Mud)
2
Cement
In Eq. 5, U1t is the coefficient for heat transfer between the tubing
and the first annular fluid and is detailed in Appendix A. Assuming
the tubing-fluid temperature, Tf , and the heat-transfer coefficients
to be invariant with time makes Eq. 5 a first-order linear-differential equation, with the following solution for the annulus-fluid
temperature, T1, as a function of time:
A A
T1 = T10 e Bt ,
B B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
where
d U T + LR1Tei
A = ti 1e f
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
Mc p1
d U + L R1
B = t1 1e
T1o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
Mc p1
( V /T ) p
dT = ( / ) dT .
( V /p)T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
3
T f
Formation
wc p LR
(T
mc (1 + C )
ei
Tf +
T f
g sin
+
.
mc p (1 + CT ) z
C p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
wc p
= gG sin e ( z L ) LR , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
where
Fig. 1Well sketch showing various concentric annuli in a
typical well construction.
196
= gG sin +
g sin
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
cp
May 2010 SPE Production & Operations
220
220
Bottomhole
Temperature, F
Temperature, F
Tubinghead
180
Annulus-1
140
Annulus-2
100
180
Midpoint
140
100
Wellhead
60
60
50
100
150
200
250
Time, hr
Fig. 2Time-dependent temperature trace in various annuli
at surface.
and
dp
v dv
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
CJ
dz
c p Jgc dz
a=
wc p
mc p (1 + CT )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
g sin
= aLRTei aLRT f + a gG sin e ( z L ) LR +
.
t
C p
T f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
Integrating Eq. 16, we obtain
T f = Tei +
1 e aLR t
1 e ( z L ) LR , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
LR
where
LR =
2
wc p
rtoU to ke
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
ke + rtoU toTD
0.4
0.6
0.8
Radial Distance, ft
Fig. 3Radial-heat transmission at various points in the wellbore.
0.2
1 e aLR t
1 e ( z L ) LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
LR
q (STB/D)
5,300
3,000
L (ft)
12,000
k (md)
50
L (ft)
14,000
k (md)
700
h (ft)
500
(fraction)
h (ft)
(fraction)
0.2
API Gravity
38
API Gravity
25
Tei (F)
Tei (F)
220
222
ke (Btu/hr-ft-F)
ke (Btu/hr-ft-F)
1.5
1.5
cpe (Btu/lbm-F)
0.625
0.012
cpe (Btu/lbm-F)
0.625
gT (F/ft)
gT (F/ft)
0.011
Tubing OD (in.)
4.5
Tubing OD (in.)
3.5
Tubing ID (in.)
3.96
26
Tubing ID (in.)
2.992
kt (Btu/hr-ft-F)
kt (Btu/hr-ft-F)
30
kc (Btu/hr-ft-F)
kc (Btu/hr-ft-F)
26
30
0.1
ka (Btu/hr-ft-F)
ka (Btu/hr-ft-F)
0.1
kf (Btu/hr-ft-F)
kf (Btu/hr-ft-F)
0.34
(hr/ft )
0.34
(hr/ft )
0.038
0.04
1,400
Annulus Pressure, psig
1,200
300
0.15
1,000
800
600
400
200
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
170
0
0
1,200
25,000
180
190
200
210
220
Tubinghead Temperature, F
related to the rise in wellhead tubing temperature, which is triggered by increasing flow rate. Fig. 6 captures the essence of what
is shown in Fig. 4.
In 2005, some annular liquid was bled off to relieve pressure. As
a consequence, higher producing rate was restored while the annulus
pressure decreased (Fig. 7). This bleedoff volume was not reported,
however. When we used a bleedoff volume of 79 gal, the model was
250
1,400
1,200
1,000
200
800
600
150
400
200
Data
Semisteady-state model
100
0
0
400
800
Time, hr
1,200
Tubinghead Temperature, F
Fig. 4Increasing production rate causes increased heat transfer, leading to APB.
1,600
1,200
Annulus
bleedoff
800
400
0
5,000
10,000 15,000
Oil Rate, STB/D
20,000
25,000
1,400
210
205
1,200
200
1,000
195
800
600
400
0
190
Temperature data
Pressure data
Semisteady-state
1,000
2,000
185
180
3,000
4,000
5,000
215
Annulus Pressure, psig
215
Tubinghead Temperature, F
210
205
200
195
185
Data
Semisteady-state
Transient
180
0
Producing Time, hr
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Producing Time, hr
Fig. 9Comparing tubinghead-temperature predictions in 2006.
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
Data
Semisteady-state
Transient
600
400
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Tubinghead Temperature, F
1,600
Annulus Pressure, psig
190
Producing Time, hr
180
170
160
150
140
200
400
9,500
L (ft)
14,100
k (md)
34
h (ft)
350
(fraction)
0.15
API Gravity
37
Tei (F)
225
ke (Btu/hr-ft-F)
1.5
cpe (Btu/lbm-F)
0.625
gT (F/ft)
0.011
Tubing OD (in.)
4.5
Tubing ID (in.)
3.96
kt (Btu/hr-ft-F)
26
kc (Btu/hr-ft-F)
26
ka (Btu/hr-ft-F)
0.1
kf (Btu/hr-ft-F)
0.34
(hr/ft )
0.04
1,000
1,200
q (STB/D)
800
600
150
900
130
110
700
o Annular pressure
Tubinghead temperature
Model temperature
Model pressure
500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
90
70
Tubinghead Temperature, F
1,600
50
2,500
Time, hr
Kabir, C.S., Izgec, B., Hasan, A.R., Wang, X., and Lee, J. 2008. Real-Time
Estimation of Total Flow Rate and Flow Profiling in DTS-Instrumented
Wells. Paper IPTC 12343 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 35 December. doi: 10.2523/12343-MS.
Loder, T., Evans, J.H., and Griffith, J.E. 2003. Prediction and Effective Prevention
Solution for Annular Pressure Buildup on Subsea Completed WellsCase
Study. Paper SPE 84270 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, 58 October. doi: 10.2118/84270-MS.
Nath, D.K., Sugianto, R., and Finley, D. 2007. Fiber-Optic DistributedTemperature-Sensing Technology Used for Reservoir Monitoring in
an Indonesian Steamflood. SPE Drill & Compl 22 (2): 149156. SPE97912-PA. doi: 10.2118/97912-PA.
Oudeman, P. and Bacarreza, L.J. 1995. Field trial results of annular pressure
behavior in high pressure/high temperature well. SPE Drill & Compl
10 (2): 8488. SPE-26738-PA. doi: 10.2118/26738-PA.
Oudeman, P. and Kerem, M. 2006. Transient Behavior of Annular Pressure
Buildup in HP/HT Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 21 (4): 234241. SPE88735-PA. doi: 10.2118/88735-PA.
Ouyang, L.-B. and Belanger, D. 2006. Flow Profiling by Distributed Temperature Sensor (DTS) SystemExpectation and Reality. SPE Prod &
Oper 21 (1): 269281. SPE-90541-PA. doi: 10.2118/90541-PA.
Pattillo, P.D., Cocales, B.W., and Morey, S.C. 2006. Analysis of an Annular
Pressure Buildup Failure During Drill Ahead. SPE Drill & Compl 21
(4): 242247. SPE-89775-PA doi: 10.2118/89775-PA.
Sathuvalli, U.B., Payne, M.L., Patillo, P., Rahman, S., and Suryanarayana,
P.V. 2005. Development of a Screening System to Identify Deepwater Wells at Risk for Annular Pressure Build-Up. Paper SPE 92594
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 2325
February. doi: 10.2118/92594-MS.
Sui, W., Zhu, D., Hill, A.D., and Ehlig-Economides, C.A. 2008. Model for
Transient Temperature and Pressure Behavior in Commingled Vertical
Wells. Paper SPE 115200 presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, 2830 October. doi:
10.2118/115200-MS.
Vargo, R.F. Jr., Payne, M., Faul, R., LeBlanc, J., and Griffith, J.E. 2003.
Practical and Successful Prevention of Annular Pressure Buildup on the
Marlin Project. SPE Drill & Compl 18 (3): 228234. SPE-85113-PA.
doi: 10.2118/85113-PA.
Wang, X., Lee, J., Thigpen, B., Vachon, G., Poland, S., and Norton, D. 2008.
Modeling Flow Profile Using Distributed Temperature Sensor (DTS) System. Paper SPE 111790 presented at the Intelligent Energy Conference and
Exhibition, Amsterdam, 2527 January. doi: 10.2118/111790-MS.
2 ke
(Twb Tei ) , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
TD
where TD is given by
LR1 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
ke + ( r1oU1eTD )
Eq. A-2 is then rewritten as
Mcp1(dT1/dt) = (d1o)U1i (Tf T1) LR1(T1 Tei). . . . . . . . (A-8)
In Eq. A-8, U1e represents the overall coefficient for heat transfer
from the first annular fluid to the wellbore/formation interface.
Because heat transfer is more dominant in the radial direction
than in its vertical counterpart, one can treat the resistances to heat
flow in series. Therefore, for heat transfer from Annulus 1 fluid
to the wellbore/formation interface, these resistances include those
offered by (1) Annulus 1 fluid, (2) any insulation around the tubing,
(3) Casing 1 material, (4) Annulus 2 fluid, (5) Casing 2 material,
and (6) the cement sheath, assuming no other annulus. Therefore,
we estimate U1e by inverting the sum of the resistances offered by
all the elements, which is given by
r ln ( rins /r1 ) rto lnn ( r 1o / r 1i )
1
r
r
+
+ to
= to + to
k1
r2 i ha 2
kins
U 1e r1o h1
. . . . . . (A-9)
r to ln ( r 2 o / r 2 i ) r to ln ( r cemo / r 2 o )
+
+
kc 2
kc 2
Eq. A-9 is a general expression. Not all elements, such as tubing
insulation represented by the second term of the right side, may
be present in a given wellbore. Note that all overall-heat-transfer
coefficients in this work are expressed in terms of the tubing outside diameter. Similarly, U1t in Eq. A-2 (and Eq. 5 in the text) is
the coefficient for heat transfer between the tubing and the first
annular fluid. In terms of annular- and tubing-fluid heat-transfer
coefficients, h1 and ht, and tubing conductivity, kt, U1t is given by
r ln ( rto /rti ) 1
1
r
+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-10)
= to + to
r
h
kt
ht
U 1t
1o 1
Appendix BSolution of Transient Formulation
The wellbore is represented by cylindrical grids in the z-direction
to calculate heat and mass flow during production and shut-in. The
heat flow from tubing fluid into the formation can be accounted
for by generating radial grids around each cylindrical element and
solving for the conduction equation.
The radial grids around the wellbore are generated logarithmically (Fig. B-1). Heat conduction in an unsteady-state radial
system may be evaluated by performing an energy balance for a
volume element. Using Fouriers law of heat conduction for volume element i, the final form of the equation is given by
Ti n1+1 Ti n +1
T n +1 Ti n +1
+ 2 ki ri h i +1
ri
ri +1
. . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1)
n +1
n
Ti
2 Ti
= c p r h
t
2 ki 1 ri 1h
201
. ... . . .
the formation, and the top of cement occurs inside the annulus of
the previous casing. When the wellhead is sealed, an isolated volume of liquid is created or trapped. Second, a temperature increase
must take place resulting from either production or drilling operations. When the fluid is heated, it begins to expand and can produce
a substantial increase in pressure, which can be compounded if
more than one annulus is isolated.
Basically, the pressure at a specific depth in a trapped column
of liquid is determined by the average annulus temperature, the
volume of annulus, and the amount of fluid trapped. The following
expression for a change in pressure in a contained annulus can be
written by recalling Eq. 1 of the text:
p =
In Eq. B-1, the first term represents the heat flux into a volume
element, the second term implies the heat flux out, and the last term
on the right side suggests the heat-accumulation term.
Defining,
TW =
2 ki 1 ri 1h
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
ri
TE =
2 ki ri h
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-3)
ri +1
= c p r 2 h , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
Ti n +1 Ti n
. . . . . . . . (B-5)
t
Upon manipulation, the matrix form is given by
TW Ti n1+1 Ti n +1 + TE Ti +n1+1 Ti n +1 =
t
t
Defining,
TC = TW TE + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)
t
n
Ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-8)
t
This equation is implicit, which can be solved in matrix form. For
a cylindrical wellbore element with four radial grids, the matrix
from is given by
TW Ti n1+1 TC Ti n +1 TE Ti +n1+1 =
T1n +1
1
TW
TC
TE
TW
TC
TE
TW
TC
T2n +1
T3n +1
T4n +1
Tt n
=
n
T2
. . . . . . . . . . . . (B-9)
t T3n
T4n
The first temperature value on the right side is specified and provided by the analytic temperature solution given in the text.
Appendix CPressure in Multiple Annuli
For a well to experience APB, two conditions are prerequisite.
First, a sealed annulus, or annuli, must exist. In general, a drilled
formation is isolated in a cased well. Cement is circulated above
202
l
1
1
T
V +
V ,
T
T Va a T Vl l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-1)
l
T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-2)
T
T =
p T
T p
Using the definitions of coefficient of thermal expansion and coefficient of isothermal compressibility, Eq. C-4 can be rearranged
for pressure as
( V /T ) p
T = ( /T ) T .
( V /p)T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-7)
Note that Eq. C-2 is the finite-difference form of Eq. C-7. Along
with the annular-fluid temperature, fluid properties ( and T) will
change with depth. For example, near the bottomhole, the annular-fluid temperature is high and the temperature increase around
that region with producing time, hence p, is likely to be small.
However, near the wellhead, the annular-fluid temperature is initially low, and may rise substantially over a period of production.
Fig. 3 illustrates this point. Therefore, direct use of Eq. C-7 will
give inaccurate results. To account for the changes in volume of
trapped fluid as a function depth, one needs to use the following
expression:
( V /T ) p
T = ( /T ) T
( V /p)T
.
( M / 2 ) ( /T ) p T {V }bv
=
( M / 2 ) ( /p )T
p =
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-8)
In Eq. C-8, the summation is taken over the total number of grids
in the simulation model, and M is the mass of trapped fluid for
each grid cell of a given annulus. M can be calculated using the
following expression:
M r 2 /144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-9)
The amount of fluid taken out of the system by bleeding off at any
timestep is represented by the term (V )bv. Note that Eq. C-8 requires
a relevant temperature profile for each annulus at each timestep.
203