ANALYSIS OF SICK WELLS - A SYSTEM APPROACH

Oil and gas production, in broad sense of word, can be

subdivided into three or more separate fields of science and
technology.

- Production process in the reservoir:

 Geosciences and Reservoir Engineering

- Production of oil and gas from the well:

 Reservoir and Production Engineering

- Surface gathering and transportation:

 Production Engineering

Therefore it is quite evident that in the context of well or

reservoir analysis, knowledge of geosciences, production as
well as reservoir engineering is equally important
TYPE OF WELLS

1) Oil wells: Exploratory / Development.

- Self flow.
- Having influx, but no flow to the surface.

2) Gas wells: Exploratory / Development.

- Low pressure
- High pressure

3) Injection wells: Gas / water

SYSTEM APPROACH

- WHAT IS A SICK WELL?

A well is termed as “sick” when it is proved or indicative of

hydrocarbon bearing but having little productivity or
producing with excessive quantity of unwanted fluids.

Similarly, an injection well (either drilled as an injector or

converted) is considered to be sick when its intake is low.
Based on the performance, it is an accepted practice to keep
such wells under sick category.

This approach provides first guidelines towards further action.

However, the above concept does not speak anything about the
real potential of the well. Hence, a better yardstick would be
to compare the present performance of a well with its best
known producing /intake capacity.

- THEREFORE
In the truest sense, a well can be considered as ‘sick’ when its
performance is appreciably different from its best-known
capacity.

Once, this definition is agreed to, it may delete or add a few

more wells,as sick, based on the present performance only.

But a closure look into this definition will reveal that it has got
its own limitation regarding data gap. To adopt such practice,
it is essential to have a reference parameter.
The parameter, which is widely used to rate a well, is known
as ‘Productivity Index’ for producing well and “Injectivity
Index” for an injector.

Throughout the producing history of a well, Productivity Index

measurement can be used in determining, if the well is
producing without any damage. In case of abnormal deviation
remedial measure can be taken.

But in real field situation this parameter is often missing,

especially for the wells, which have never flowed.

Sick well analysis is a continuous process, which updates the

present scenario. Regular studies are carried out as a routine
within a organization from time to time at different levels. An
example may give some idea about the kind of study which
can be taken up.
Salient features of one such study are discussed in brief.

ON SHORE VI PLAN VIIPLAN VIIIPLAN

Total number of
Wells at the
Beginning 6 325 464

No. of wells fallen

Sick during the period 933 2485 3822

No of wells available
For liquidation 1379 2810 4286

No of wells liquidated
During the period 1054 2346 3224

Findings of another study carried out in one of the Operating

Regions revealed that nearly 2500 tons per day of oil production is
feasible if all the wells are worked over successfully.

Both studies together have come with interesting observations.

- There is increasing trend of sick wells with time.

- At a given time, percentage of sick wells can be as high as
20 to 30 % of total operating wells
- Appreciable quantity of oil is blocked behind idle wells
 Planning,
 Execution
 Monitoring
 PLANNING

Step 1: Identify the wells on the basis of present performance

Step 2: Data collection

Nature of data Source

-Geological/Reservoir

 Model/map Seismic ,Log, drilling

 Formation Type Core, Log, Well cutting.

 Pay thickness (Iso- pay Map) Log
 Porosity (Iso-porosity map) Core, Logs.
 Permeability (Iso-permeability map) Core, Well tests.
 Pressure (Iso-bar map) Well tests, DST.
 Temperature Well tests, Logs
 Formation Volume factor PVT,Correlation
 Viscosity/Sp.Gravity Lab.Sample analysis.
 Compressibility Core,Correlation
 - Well Details

 Well completion: Drilling Records.

 Well Construction: Well data sheet

Casing /Tubing
Packer
Lift system
Wellheads

 Productivity Index (Iso P.I map) Well Tests, DST.

 Skin (Damage / Improvement) Well Tests, DST.

 Flow Efficiency: Well Tests, DST.

-Production

 Rate of Production Well Tests, Separator.

 Gas oil ratio Well tests,

 Water cut Sample analysis

- Environmental

 Logistic Local Administration

  Society

 Safety

- Financial

 Financing Cost.

 Operational cost Local Finance

 Statutory obligations

 Price of produced fluids

Step III: Carry out technical analysis.

 Probable causes of sickness
 Diagnostic tools.
 Remedial measures
The most frequent problems in a producing field in respect
of well performance are

- Poor production
- High water or gas production

 Probable reason(s) for poor production

- Low reservoir energy.

- Low reservoir permeability.
- High viscosity of the fluid.
- Damage to well bore.
- Inadequate lift mechanism
- Mechanical trouble.
 - Unknown problems

 Wells with high water or gas production

The common reason for excess water or gas production is

 Rise of oil- water contact or expansion of gas oil

contact.
 Coning of water or gas.
 Preferential movement of water or gas through high
permeable streaks or fractures.
 Leakage behind or through casing.

 Rise of oil water contact:

This phenomenon is observed for a water drive reservoir.

‘Water drive’ term is used in designating a mechanism which
involves movement of water into the reservoir as oil and
gas are produced. Water influx into a reservoir may be edge
water or bottom water, the latter indicating that a water zone of
underlies the oil sufficient thickness so that water movement is
essentially vertical The natural source of water drive is the
result of expansion of water and rock in the aquifer. However it
may result from artesian flow also.
As the water encroaches either for bottom or edge water drive,
there will be increasing volume of water produced and
eventually water will be produced in all the wells.

 Expansion of gas-water contact

Where there is an initial gas cap, oil is saturated and there is no

liquid expansion Energy. In this situation the energy stored in
the dissolved gas is supplemented by the gas cap. In case of
gas cap drive, as production proceeds and reservoir pressure
declines , the expansion of gas cap displaces the oil down
 wards. This results increase of gas oil ratio (GOR) in
successively lower wells.

 Coning of water /gas

Water cone forms where oil is underlain by water and the well
completed in oil zone only. When well starts flowing, it creates
a lower pressure zone near the well bore due to draw-down.
The water underlain tries to flow upward. The movement of
water is controlled by the vertical permeability of the producing
strata.

Similarly, gas coning occurs when gas oil contact is within well
and the well is completed in the oil zone .Similar mechanism as
that of water coning work for movement of gas in downward
direction.
Height of the cone will increase with the magnitude of pressure
drawdown

 Preferential movement of gas /water.

This is observed when the reservoir is heterogeneous in respect

of permeability and the oil is considerably more viscous than
water. Many producing zones are having different permeability
in horizontal and vertical direction. Zones of lower or higher
permeability are often found to exhibit continuity through out a
reservoir or portion there of. Where such stratification exists, the
displacing water (either injected or natural influx) sweeps faster
through more permeable zones so that much of oil in the lower
permeable zones must be produced over a longer period of time
at high water cut.
Water cut in the producing well, at any time, depends on the
capacity i.e. kh of the producing well formation and the
capacity (kh ) of the of the zone which has broken through
water production.
 Given a series of beds with thickness h1, h2 ......hn and the
permeability k1, k2 . ......kn the surface water cut can be
expressed as

fw = Qw/ Qw + Qo =

( 1.127 Whkw hw / uwL

---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
( 1.127 W p k w hw) / uw L + (1.127 W p k o  h) / uo Bo L

However, it is not easy to calculate water cut theoretically

as most of the time, required data will not be available.
The diagnostic tool, which have been proved to be quite
successful in the field is “ Production Logging”

Step IV: Conclude studies. Suggest further action plan. The

conclusions can be listed as follow

 Group of wells A: Problems identified.

- Natural
 Live with the situation
 Delete from the list

 Group of wells B: Problems and remedial measures are

identified
 Resources are available.
 Techno-economically viable.
 High priority
 Group of wells C: Problems and remedial measures
are identified.
 Resources are not available within
organization. Need to purchase
or hire technology from out side.
 Techno economically viable.
 Low priority.
 Group of well D: Problems and likely solutions
are identified.
 Resources are not available within
organization.
 Remedial measures have got
limited success as per available
case history.
 Recommended to refer Central
committee for Expert advice.
 Group of wells E: Problems identified.

 Wells are beyond repair.

 Recommended to be deleted from
sick well list.

 Group of wells F: Data insufficient.

 Plan to acquire data

Step IV: Carry out Financial Analysis
Step VII: Priority
The results of analysis are the first lead for priority assignment.
However apart from techno economical superiority a few more
factors are important for execution schedule as follows.

- Specific need of the organization

 Oil well
 Gas well
 Injection well.

-Potential of the well

 Average output with routine work over.
 Substantial gain with major work over.
- Environment
 Logistic and Social
EXECUTION

A flow chart of work over operation is presented here. The chart

shows the relevant connection between Planning and Execution.
The project coordinator has a very important role to play in the
management. He is the key person between various groups. The
working style of a coordinator is discussed here.

- Review of a project is a continuous process .A PERT (Project

Evaluation and Review technique) is convenient tool for day-to-
day monitoring, as it breaks down all the direct and hidden
activities within a time frame. Alternately a bar chart also can be
used form the same purpose.
- Frequent meeting should be held involving all concerned
people. Working site is a convenient place to hold such
meeting. Every one should be made aware about the common
goal.

It is not a secret that operators tend to incline towards softer

option and the planners are rigid about their decision. The
coordinator must find a solution for such conflicts without
sacrificing the objective.

It has been observed that any failure (either in planning or

execution) has tremendous negative impact in the minds of the
concerned people. The coordinator must keep the moral and the
spirit of the people high. Mid course correction plan should be
discussed and be implemented.
Sometimes, same nature of job creates monotony in a person
resulting loss of interest in the work. The coordinator should try
to rotate people. How ever it should be done judiciously
avoiding any possibility of a misfit.
-Post operational appraisal of any work over is an important
aspect especially in case of unsuccessful attempts. After a
project is concluded a detailed evaluation both from engineering
and economic point of view. Sometimes the apparent success
may not reflect the real achievement An unbiased appraisal only
will say if the work over was really profitable and if not “why”?
The appraisal can be based on some frequently asked questions

- Did the work over go as per planning? If not why?

.. Inadequate planning?
.. Unforeseen problems?
.. Uncontrollable environment?
. Attitude of the people?

- Is the objective fulfilled? How the result compares

with expectation? If not why?
.. High expectation? Data quality?
.. Lack of knowledge?
.. Resources constraint?
..Too many compromise?
- Was the work over really profitable? If not why?
.. Did the cost of material go up?
.. Did the price of the produced fluids reduced?
 .. Is there change in tax structure?

.. Were there excess of breakdown?

- What can be done?
..Carry on with the present set up but with
more meticulous attitude?
.. Hire an expert for constant guidance?
.. Recommend for a technology provider?
In a total flow system (from reservoir to the well bore and from
well bore up to the gathering point) different nodes are
involved. These nodes can be broadly identified as

- Reservoir
- Well bore
- Casing and completion (packer etc)
- Tubing
- Well head.
- Gathering system

For the performance analysis of any well all these nodes are to
be thoroughly examined before coming to any conclusion. Apart
from the history of the well, to gather additional information,
two tests are very handy to start with

- Production logging
- Well testing

However, before recommending to carry out either test objective

must be very clear and it should be ensured that the well is
made ready to carry out the test.
-WHAT IS PRODUCTION LOGGING?

Production logging consists of running Geophysical instruments

called logging tools, into a well to measure various parameters.
These logs are run in producing as well as injection wells.
They can be under dynamic (flowing) or static (shut in)
conditions.
Production logging is one of the most important aspects of oil
field management. It provides an insight into the type and rates
of fluid flow in reservoir and well. It helps in problems like

 Water entry location and sources

 Non-performing perforations
 Flow behind casing or tubing
 Cross flow identification
 Leaks in the tubing, casing or packer
 Lost circulation zone

There is a family of tools provided by Schlumberger which is

intended primarily for measuring the performance of producing
and injecting wells. The tools include
 Thermometer
 Gradiometer
 Continuous flow meter
 Manometer
 Caliper
Thermometer: Measure the temperature of well bore fluid
under either shut in or flowing conditions. Particularly useful in
detecting flow in casing annulus.

Gradiometer: Measure the difference in pressure over 2 feet

of well bore, which is related to the mean density of the well
bore fluids In some cases it may be affected by the hole
deviation or friction component.

Continuous flow meter: With a spinner velocimeter it

measures the velocity of the fluid, which is related to the
volumetric flow rate. Primarily the tool should be used
essentially
for monophasic flow regimes.

Manometer: Measure the pressure of the well bore fluid.

Helpful in determination of productivity index for gas as well as
oil wells.

Caliper: Measure the diameter of the casing or the hole.

Temperature logs : The temperature response can be seen

as a function of depth, flow rate, and time of injection in an
injection well in the following fig.
Similar relationship controls the temperature in producing wells,
but the flow rates are usually lower. Difference between
injection and producing wells is that the temperature in the latter
group is commonly higher than the geothermal profile. A typical
plot is shown

Case Histories:
Anomalous fluid flow behind the casing: The shut in and
flowing Temperature on a water injection well is shown in the
figure ( ). A continuous flow meter log indicated that there was
no downward flow of fluid in the casing below 600 ft. Yet both
the shut in or flowing temperature logs indicated that the water
is being injected into the formation opposite the perforations.
The flowing Temperature Log follows the classic pattern
described in the literature. Below 3000 ft the slope of the
Temperature Log approaches the slope of the geothermal profile
down to the top of the zone where the water is being injected.
Then below the zone of water injection, the temperature quickly
returns to the geothermal profile. It is to be noted that just above
the zone of water injection the injected water is more than 200 C
cooler than the geothermal gradient even though the water
injected from the surface is quite hot. The shut in
Temperature logs also follow the classic pattern. After the well
has been shut in for 20 hours, the temperature is approaching
the geothermal profile.(except in the water injection zone)
Evidently, this is a very unusual case, the injected water is
leaving the casing at 600 ft, traveling down to the annulus, and
entering the desired zone.
The necessary remedial actions are to cement off the casing the
casing leak at 600 ft, and if necessary re perforate the zone at
3200 ft. Here, a single Production Log would have given the
misleading information.

Leakage through casing:

Routine pressure measurement in one of the gas wells in a gas
field showed much lower pressure than earlier recorded,
although the well was not on production. There was no surface
leakage also. To ascertain the cause, a temperature survey was
carried out. The temperature log shows a drop in temperature
around 700m. This was interpreted as movement of gas through
damaged casing and being lost in the upper zone. The casing
was perforated at the top and bottom of the suspected damaged
zone and cement squeeze job was carried out. Again a
temperature survey was carried out which shows no anomaly
proving the job to be successful.
Though the interpretation of the temperature survey proved to
be correct, but similar indication could have been due to tubing
leakage as well. But the pressure recorded indicated some
movement of gas. A spinner survey might have helped to
confirm the cause of anomalous pressure. Unfortunately this
was not available and decision had to be taken based on the
temperature and pressure reading