Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

IPTC-18754-MS

Downhole Water Sink Technology Improves Recovery and Rates from


Strong Water Drive Reservoirs in North Kuwait – A Pilot Case Study

E. Anthony and S. Al-Mosaileekh, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2016, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 14-16 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Maximizing recovery from strong water drive, permeable reservoirs in North Kuwait usually require a
combination of approaches. Implementing partial perforating techniques across the oil column above the oil/
water contact and installing tubing sizes that secure maximum natural flow life cycle are presently utilized
to extend the natural flow life cycle in strong bottom- and edge-water drive reservoirs. Limiting production
rate at or below critical coning rate, and conversion to Artificial Lift when the water cut increase forces
cessation of natural flow, further improve the ultimate recovery of oil from these reservoirs.
In pilot Well-A, approximately 55% of the oil column above the Oil/Water contact was perforated on
initial completion. Within 6 months from initial completion, the Watercut increased from 0% to 53%, then
gradually increased to 74% over the next four years of natural flow life. Before the natural flow ceased
completely, the well was worked over to install the innovative Downhole Water Sink completion. This
completion design comprised of a very short perforated interval at the original depth of the Oil/Water
contact and with another perforated interval across a highly permeable aquifer below the layer of interest. A
shrouded ESP with Y-tool assembly was then installed, able to generate a drawdown just below the original
OWC that is greater than the drawdown across the originally perforated interval.
This pressure sink created at the OWC controls the further development of the water cone around the
wellbore thereby increasing the maximum coning rate, in addition to accelerating and increasing the ultimate
recovery from this water-drive completion. The excessive water that is usually produced to surface, and
processed along with the oil, is now significantly reduced since most of it is now re-directed to a deeper
non-oil-producing aquifer. Though the watercut is never eliminated at the oil perforations, the natural flow
life cycle is extended, and thereby the ultimate recovery considerably improved. Actual % improvement is
yet to be determined since the watercut of the produced fluid at surface has not yet risen to the level that
causes cessation of natural flow.
This pilot application of the Downhole Water Sink technology to this North Kuwait water-drive reservoir
opened up immense opportunities for comparable recovery improvements in similar and even larger water-
drive reservoirs in other Assets within the company. Where reservoir pressures are insufficient to maintain
natural flow, a dual ESP system is already designed to lift the oil column using the same Downhole Water
Sink principle.
2 IPTC-18754-MS

Introduction
The North Kuwait Asset comprises of several reservoirs, two (2) of which have very active bottom and edge-
water aquifers supporting reservoir pressure. As with most aquifer-driven hydrocarbon reservoirs, water
breakthrough, and associated Oil production loss, is a major economic concern, requiring prudent reservoir
and facility management. Though the higher the reservoir permeability, the higher the production rates for
an equivalent pressure drawdown, there is the simultaneous potential for earlier water breakthrough, and
consequent significant oil production loss. Every oil producing company faces this dilemma whether the
underlying aquifers are strong, medium, or weak. A myriad of studies and field tests have been conducted
to find solutions to increasing the production rates and increasing the total recoverable reserves, while
minimizing the produced water in aquifer-driven reservoirs with various levels of success.
In these reservoirs, stringent management of the production rate within the Critical Coning Rate (CCR)
to delay the onset of water breakthrough has been the most widely applied method of maximizing the
recoverable reserves. This method however, though proven effective both theoretically, and in the field,
loses its economic benefit with increasing depth. The greater the depth of the target reservoir, the higher the
capital investment to get to the reserves, and consequently the higher the required production rate necessary
to achieve a decent Return on Investment (ROI). This method is implemented by partially perforating the Oil
column overlying the aquifer, and subsequently producing at a rate that retards the establishment of a water
cone around the wellbore. Regardless of the rate of oil production through the partially perforated interval,
a water cone will develop. The challenge, therefore, is to select the optimum perforated interval length, shot
density, and pressure drawdown that will slow down the water cone development, while simultaneously
producing at a rate that will generate an acceptable ROI.
Too often, this rate is economically intolerable, especially at zero watercut, and the temptation to increase
production cannot be resisted. These decisions inevitably lead to an accelerated water breakthrough and
a further, irretrievable loss of revenue when the watercut increases exponentially. The preferred path for
the underlying water is established by in-situ relative permeability conditions, and once the cone has been
initiated, there is no immediate reversal. Subsequently reducing the total fluid rate may temporarily reduce
the watercut, but will equilibrate at a higher watercut even at the lower rate. Depending on reservoir
pressure, oil API gravity, solution gas/oil ratio, tubing size, and tubing head pressure, natural flow can be
sustained even at watercuts exceeding 50%. Expanded produced water handling and disposal facilities are
now required with the associated capital and operating costs. Where aforementioned conditions do not exist,
and natural flow ceases, production is restored via artificial lift with its associated capital and operating
costs. If water handling and disposal facilities are inadequate, significant producible reserves are either
abandoned or deferred, in preference to exploitation of other reservoirs with less risk of water production. If
facilities are not expanded to accommodate increased water production, the economics of recompleting or
redrilling to recover those deferred reserves becomes less attractive, and may be permanently abandoned.
In 2012, a paradigm shift was made with respect to the development of strong aquifer reservoirs.
Horizontal wells were drilled and completed with passive Inflow Control Devices (ICD) in the upper
segment of the oil column. Maximum reservoir contact coupled with ICD's to balance the drawdown across
the length of the lateral, yielded significantly reduced pressure drawdowns per foot of net pay on the
reservoir. However, though higher initial oil production rates were achieved, which did offset the significant
increase in drilling and completion costs, extended dry production was not achieved as expected. In many
cases, the watercut increased almost as quickly as in the vertical completions with the corresponding
substantial loss in oil production. Sustained low-watercut production was not achieved (Fig. 1).
IPTC-18754-MS 3

Figure 1—Typical Watercut trends of several Horizontal ICD completions in Water Drive reservoir

For this reason, the Downhole Water Sink technology, using subsurface drainage, was pursued which
is capable of minimizing the water produced at surface, while simultaneously allowing the completion to
produce from the oil column at rates exceeding the Critical Coning rate.

Reservoir Simulation
A Single Well Radial Reservoir model was built to estimate the Production/Reserves benefit of creating a
pressure sink just under the OWC with the intent on controlling the further development of a Water Cone.
The parameters assumed for this model are summarized in the table below:
4 IPTC-18754-MS

Table 1—Summary of input Parameters into Single Well Radial Reservoir Model

The model structure of the Oil rim underlain by a strong aquifer is shown in Fig. 2 where the producer
in the oil rim is perforated in Layers 1 to 4, and the water producer perforated in Layers 10 to 20.

Figure 2—Downhole Water Sink Single Well Radial Model Structure

Scenarios considered are as follows:


Case A: Production from the oil rim only
Case B: Production from the oil rim + Production from the water zone
The sweep efficiency and cone development are represented in Fig. 3, showing a superior sweep and
reserves recovery when there is a concurrent pressure sink below the OWC.
IPTC-18754-MS 5

Figure 3—Cone Development & Sweep Comparison - With vs Without Pressure Sink

Simulation results (Fig. 4) clearly demonstrated that total recovery within a three (3) year period using the
DWS technology significantly exceeded that achieved with the conventional production from the partially
perforated Oil rim only. Recovery almost doubled in that 3-year period, as did the actual production rates.

Figure 4—Comparison of Cumulative Oil Produced – With vs Without Pressure Sink


6 IPTC-18754-MS

Candidate Selection
As a first application, the candidate required the following:

• Single partially-perforated interval

• Potential for Natural Flow production

• >3 years production history showing increasing Watercut(WC) trend

• Existing WC >70%

• 9⅝" production casing to accommodate Y-tool completion

• Disposal Aquifer or Injection Zone

• Adequate distance between Sink Perfs and Disposal Aquifer/Injection Zone to accommodate ESP/
Y-tool completion with packers
• >10ft between bottom of Oil Production Perfs and top of Sink Perfs to accommodate the ESP packer

Well LB-1 met all the above criteria with only one disadvantage, 55% of the original oil column
above the Oil/Water Contact (OWC) was perforated initially. This perforated interval grossly exceeded
the recommended 30% maximum for optimum recovery of reserves (Fig. 5). This extra perforated length
resulted in two (2) disadvantages:

Figure 5—Perforated Interval vs. Original Oil Column encountered

i. The ESP packer setting depth, and thereby the Sink perforations, are forced much further below the
Water Cone than is optimal, and
ii. The increased distance between the top of the existing Water Cone and the Sink perfs, thereby
significantly reducing the effectiveness of the Pressure Sink, and allowing excessive water to
continue to be produced through the Oil perforations to surface
To avoid changing too many parameters simultaneously, the DWS completion was run with no adjustment
to the initial Oil perforation interval. With this accommodation, the reduction in WC was not expected to
be significant, but noticeable. The WC of LB-1 at the time of selection was 74% with a naturally flowing
wellhead pressure (FWHP) of 470 psi on a 32/64" choke. The well had been on continuous natural flow
production for approximately 48 months.
IPTC-18754-MS 7

Injection Zone Selection


At the location within the structure, no opportunities for Pressure Support Injection below the target
production reservoir was identified, therefore disposal to a zero-oil-saturated permeable aquifer was selected
by default. To ensure maximum and sustained injectivity, 30ft of a permeable (>1000mD) water-saturated
sandstone aquifer was perforated for disposal of produced water from below the original OWC. Though
productivity from these aquifers commonly exceed 5bpd/psi/ft of perforation, injectivity, however, has been
found to be <0.1*Productivity. Fines production from the Sink perforations were expected to be minimal,
owing to the history of negligible to zero sand production from these water-drive reservoirs.
An estimated ESP completion length 120ft required a minimum distance between Sink perforations and
Disposal Aquifer perforations of 170ft (Fig. 6). Fortunately, there was an abundance of clean, permeable
aquifer to select 30ft of perforations in this pilot well.

Figure 6—Production, Sink, and Disposal Aquifer Perforations

Selection of ‘Sink’ Perforations


The Downhole Water Sink technology is based fundamentally on Cone control more than Cone reversal.
This Cone control can only be effected after the formation of a Water Cone around the wellbore, from
the regional OWC to the production perforated interval. Of major concern in this technology, is how to
conclusively determine if OIL is being disposed simultaneously with the water from the Sink perforations.
8 IPTC-18754-MS

Subsurface disposal does not allow for surface sampling of the disposed water to monitor the Oil-in-Water
(OIW) content, therefore, a process must be implemented to ensure zero OIW from the Sink perforations.
This can only be assured by allowing the Water Cone to develop and grow up to the Oil interval, and then
control it to achieve a minimum, manageable WC value in that interval. It is therefore highly unlikely to
have water coning into the oil production interval, and simultaneously coning oil into the Sink perforations.
Therefore, maintaining a minimum WC in the Oil production interval ensures that no oil is being ‘reverse
coned’ into the Sink perforations.
Factors affecting the Sink perforation interval length are as follows:

• Maximum drawdown (ΔP) expected across the Oil Production perforations

• Maximum disposal flow rate achievable by the ESP system

• Estimated Productivity Index of the Sink perforations

• Difference between the ESP Intake Pressure [PESP(Intake)] and Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (FBHP)
at the Oil perforations [PWF(oil)]
Surrounding well data indicates Productivity Index (PI) of 100% water from the clean, permeable water-
drive reservoirs is approximately 5 bpd/psi per foot of perforated interval. Maximum flow rate of the
shrouded ESP system with Y-tool was 4000 bpd. At this rate, the ΔP achieved at the Sink perforations can
be controlled by adjusting the perforated length. For maximum control of the Water Cone, the ESP Intake
pressure should exceed the FBHP at the Oil perforations by 50 – 100 psi.
The regional OWC around the pilot well, LB-1, most certainly would have risen above its original depth.
Therefore, the Sink perforations were selected at 11ft below the bottom of the existing oil production
perforated interval. This depth allows for 1ft clearance above the 8ft ESP packer, and 2ft clearance below
the ESP packer to accommodate for the mandrel extension below the main packer body (Fig. 7). Blast joints
are required immediately above and below the ESP packer to prevent excessive wear against the tubing
directly across the production & Sink perforations. The heavy-walled blast joints will assure longevity of
the completion by having sufficient metal on the tubing wall to withstand the erosive effect of the high-
velocity fluid from the both the Oil Production and Sink perforations.

Figure 7—Sink Perforations below estimated OWC (after 48 months production)

Completion Design and Equipment Selection


A unique completion was designed which allows for the achievement of the desired goal of proving this
concept. This design enabled the utilization of equipment that were available in the current Electrical
Submersible Pump (ESP) contract, and avoided delays that would occur if new equipment designs needed
to be added to the contract.
IPTC-18754-MS 9

The proposed flow path of Sink water would allow produced water from below oil-water contact to be
injected to a lower water injection zone by reversing flow from ESP, through a Y-Tool, then down the bypass
pipe.
Major Well completion equipment are as below (Fig. 8),

Figure 8
10 IPTC-18754-MS

– Sliding sleeve
– Landing nipple
– ESP packer
– Y-tool with bypass tubing
– Downhole Check Valve
– ESP Pump
– Adaptor from pump to intake
– ESP Shroud with perforated joint
– ESP Intake
– ESP Protector
– ESP Motor
– ESP Sensor
– Pump support sub assembly
– Hydraulic Packer
– Pump-out plug with Wireline Entry Guide
Main component with features of this completion:
a. Sliding sleeve
The main purpose of this equipment is to allow an inlet to naturally produced fluid (above OWC)
to the tubing until surface.
b. Landing nipple with plug
A Landing nipple with plug has been utilized in this completion to isolate the natural flow from
the oil production zone above the ESP packer, from the Sink water flowing below the ESP packer.
c. ESP Packer
An ESP packer has been positioned at a depth near the oil-water contact. This creates an isolation
barrier inside the casing to separate the natural flow (oil) from the produced water below the oil-water
contact. Further, it is appropriately ported to accommodate the ESP cable penetrator.
d. Y-Tool with bypass tubing
The Y-tool allows a return path for the produced fluid to be injected into a lower water injection
zone. Basically, removing the blanking plug from the bypass section and adding the above-mentioned
landing nipple/plug prevents the flow from the ESP from heading upward & reverses the flow
downwards through the bypass tubing.
e. Downhole check valve
In order to set hydraulic packer below, this check valve is required to isolate the ESP assembly
while pressuring up the tubing
f. ESP Shroud with perforated joint
As the source perforations of this Sink completion are above the ESP, a shroud is needed to redirect
fluid flow alongside the electric motor before reaching the intake. Without this shroud, Sink water
with flow directly from Sink perforations to ESP intake, effectively bypassing the electric motor, and
preventing the necessary cooling.
g. Pump-Shroud support sub assembly
A Pump-Shroud support sub assembly is utilized in this completion for two purposes:

◦ To transfer any compressive or tensile loading exerted on the ESP to the bypass tubing.

◦ To provide support to the shroud's perforated joint on the ESP side.


IPTC-18754-MS 11

h. Seal Bore Packer


A hydraulic packer is utilized to isolate the Sink perforated zone from the injection zone.
i. Pump-out plug with Wireline Entry Guide
This tool is used to set both the ESP packer (hydraulic-set) and the lower Hydraulic packers
simultaneously. Setting pressure for the shear disc will be set much higher than the pressures observed
during the subsequent ESP function test
Advantages of this completion design are:

• No additional Surface facility (flow-line) required with this completion.

• Allows slickline/wireline access to lower completion, if required

• No dual completion with associated complexity necessary

• Flow rate of Sink water can be checked periodically using conventional PLT suite, if absolutely
necessary
• All components are Off-the-Shelf ESP equipment, and readily available

Limitations of this completion are:

• Minimum Casing size: 9-5/8"

• Inability to conclusively test the ported ESP Packer and conventional hydraulic packer

• Flowrate: Bypass velocity through the clearance between the electric motor and shroud ID is
limited to water-to-metal erosional velocity as designated by the ESP provider
• The reverse fluid flow through the Y-tool is a potential location for accelerated erosion/corrosion,
and eventual system failure

Workover Procedure
As mentioned earlier, the original oil production perforations were not changed for two (2) main reasons:
i. Reducing the original perforated interval could have a WC reducing consequence of its own, and
possibly mask the effect of the Pressure Sink established by pumping away the water from just
below the OWC, and
ii. The conclusions drawn from the pilot results could be diluted if too many parameters are changed
simultaneously
The following is the generic workover procedure that is required to guarantee operational success of the
Reverse-Flow Y-tool completion:
1. Bleed off any entrapped pressure, reverse circulate through annulus filtered Brine and kill the well.
2. Nipple down X-mass tree, install BOP & test same.
3. Pull out original completion assembly
4. RIH Bit & Scraper to bottom of well. POOH.
5. Install new Electrical Feed-Thru Tubing Head Spool (EFT-THS).
6. Rig up Wireline unit and run Cased-hole reservoir saturation log across target reservoir and Injection
reservoir (Aquifer). POOH.
7. Run in with casing guns and Perforate Dynamic Underbalanced as follows:
12 IPTC-18754-MS

Perforated Interval Footage SPF

Sink Perforations X High shot density

Aquifer Perforations 15*X High shot density

8. RIH Bit & Scraper to bottom of well. Circulate out any residual fill from hole.
9. Assemble and run Downhole Water Sink ESP completion as detailed in attached Well Schematic,
using GR/CCL log to land ESP packer between Oil production perforations and Sink perforations.
10. RIH with the required tubing joints to the desired depth clamping ESP cable as per ESP provider
11. Run GR/CCL Correlation log, to correlate ESP Packer depth.
12. Pick up appropriate Pup Joints and space out as required.
13. Splice lower pigtail and land hanger. Secure same with tie-down bolts. Pressure test tubing hanger
seals to 1,500 psi.
14. N/D BOP, N/U X-mas tree and test bonnet to max rated pressure. Test X-mas tree body to Max rated
pressure.
15. R/U Portable flow-test unit. Connect power cable.
16. Energize cable and record BH temperature and pressure (static) at pump depth.
17. Adjust surface production choke to facilitate start-up operations and ensure all valves connecting
tubing to flow line are wide open. Do not open Casing valve!
18. Push Button and start the well. Check pump intake pressure and temperature and verify correct
rotation.
19. Conduct ESP Function test (Table 02) until the well flows satisfactorily with stable intake pressures.
Note:
i. Initial Pump Intake Pressure (PIP) will reflect both Sink & Aquifer contribution and combined
Productivity Index
ii. As ESP Function test progresses, both hydraulic packers may start setting owing to the
pressure differential across the ESP, and the PIP may decrease to reflect the contribution from
the Sink perforations only.
iii. After lower packer sets sufficiently, adjust surface choke to lower and higher settings and
record corresponding PIP's for later reference
20. R/U Slickline unit, RIH & remove blanking plug from Y-tool.
21. Pressure up the tubing string to Packer-setting pressure, hold it for 10 min to fully set both packers.
Increase pressure to Pump-out plug release pressure, as specified.
22. Pump down tubing and monitor Casing annulus for returns (If any returns are observed, both packers
are leaking). If leaking, POOH ESP completion & re-run as before with new packers.
23. R/U Slickline unit, RIH & set plug in L/Nipple between SSD & ESP Packer. This plug effectively
isolates the Oil production from the Sink Water production.
IPTC-18754-MS 13

Table 02—ESP Function test results

Post-Completion ESP Operation


Owing to the very advanced stage of the Water Cone development in the subject well (Fig. 9), the ESP was
energized for 2 weeks in order to initiate some measure of cone reversal.

Figure 9—Water Cone Development in Pilot well LB-1

During this period, the master valve remained closed to prevent any flow from the original Oil
perforations. The period of this initial Sink-only disposal is based on an estimate of the volume of the cone
around the wellbore. This estimate is purely at the discretion of the Operator, and the period of Sink disposal
with zero surface flow depends on the volume calculated, and the pump rate determined from the stabilized
PIP. In the subject well, the drawdown across the Sink perforations seldom exceeded 200 psi (Table
Sink disposal rate can be estimated from either of two (2) methods:
14 IPTC-18754-MS

i. During the ESP function test (water flow at surface), a Productivity Index from the Sink perforated
interval was calculated when both packers were confirmed set. Using this PI, and the drawdown
(ΔP) at the Sink perfs (Pstatic – PIP), the flow rate can be calculated.
ii. During the ESP function test, records of Pintake / Pdischarge / Current / Flow rate at various choke sizes
were taken (Table 02). These records were correlated to match a specific ESP curve (Fig. 10) that
will be used for estimating the ESP flow rate. With this match, ESP flowrates can be estimated at
various operating frequencies

Figure 10—ESP curve that matches the function test performance

Post-Completion Well performance


After the 2-weeks of Sink-only disposal, the upper Oil interval was activated to natural flow using
compressed Nitrogen (N2) in Coiled Tubing. For the following post-completion eleven (11) months, ESP
Intake & Discharge pressures, Upper Interval Production rates, Wellhead Pressures (WHP), and WC's were
monitored frequently to determine the performance of the upper original Oil perforated interval as the ESP
continues to create a counteractive ΔP below the OWC.
The following were observed:
i. WC's consistently decreased from the post-completion WC of 80%, to a stabilized 70% (Fig. 11)
ii. WHP's increased during the same period (Fig. 12). With no change in static pressure in this strong
aquifer-driven reservoir, this clearly indicates a reduced WC in the production stream to surface.
iii. During one flow test, FBHP's and PIP's were simultaneously monitored with the result summarized
in the plot in Fig 13. The Pump intake pressure across the Sink perforations is seen to be 50 psi
less than the FBHP across the Oil Production perforations, in the same layer. This condition is what
controls/partially reverses the water cone to reduce the WC in the Oil Production stream. It is to be
noted again, that the original perforated interval was intentionally not reduced in order not to mask
the effect of the Pressure Sink under the OWC.
IPTC-18754-MS 15

If the ESP rate could have been increased, there would have been an even greater cone-reversal effect.
However, this could not have been achieved owing to the limitation of the bypass velocity within the Shroud/
Motor annulus.

Figure 11—Liquid rate and WC trends – Before and After installation of DWS Completion

Figure 12—WHP & WC trend, post installation of DWS completion

Figure 13—FBHP performance – With ESP Pressure Sink vs Without ESP Pressure Sink
16 IPTC-18754-MS

Conclusions & Way Forward


The following can be concluded from this Downhole Water Sink Pilot:
❖ Creating a Pressure Sink under the OWC in a strong aquifer-driven reservoir, arrests, if not reverses,
the further development of the Water Cone, and thereby facilitates increased OIL flow rates above
Critical Coning Rate, and increased Ultimate Recovery
❖ Post-Installation Production Flow tests confirm the reduction of the Watercut in the Oil production
flow stream above the ESP packer
❖ Increasing and stabilized Wellhead Pressures throughout the productive period post-installation of
DWS completion, clearly indicates decreased water in the fluid hold-up in the tubing
❖ Drawdown at the Sink Perforations must exceed the Drawdown at the upper Oil perforations in order
to arrest/reverse the Water Cone development
❖ For a more effective WC reduction in the oil perforations, the following adjustments are required:
i. Oil perforated Interval must not exceed 30% of the original Oil column encountered
ii. ΔP across the Sink Perforations must be increased
iii. Alternate ESP configuration required to achieve higher Flow Rates and Drawdowns at Sink
Perforations

Acknowledgements
The Authors would like to express sincerest thanks to the management of the North Kuwait Asset at the
Kuwait Oil Company for encouraging the application of this revolutionary technology. Sincere appreciation
to the Well Surveillance and Drilling & Workover teams at Kuwait Oil Company who ensured seamless
collaboration that resulted in the success of this pilot. Kuwait Oil Company is truly grateful for the excellent
support of the local & global technical teams within Schlumberger Artificial Lift Division for working
closely with the DWS project team in developing this unique completion, never before applied globally.

References
1 Davies, D.R., Narayanasamy, R., Kristensen, B., Somerville, J.R.; "Analysis of Possible
Applications of Dual ESP's – A Reservoir Engineering Perspective;" SPE-99878-MS; SPE
Europec/EAGE, Vienna, Austria; June 12-15, 2006
2 Kabir, C.S., Dashti, Q., Al-Shammari, O.; "Understanding Coning Performance in a High-
Anisotropy Reservoir: The Burgan Reservoir Case Study;" SPE-62993; SPE-ATCE, Dallas, TX,
Oct 1-4, 2000
3 Yang, W., Wattenbarger, R.A.; "Water Coning Calculations for Vertical and horizontal Wells;"
SPE-022931; SPE-ATCE, Dallas, TX; Oct 6 – 9, 1991

Вам также может понравиться