Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
and are perforated at the top of the producing zone. Fig. 3 the completion becomes “flooded” into water, which results in
shows the reservoir system including the properties rapid increase of water-gas ratio.
and dimensions.
A pressure drawdown needed to generate the same static water Discussion of Gas-Water and Oil-Water System’s
cone and the fluid rate for each System was calculated. For the Sensitivity to Water Inflow
system of oil and water and a cone height of 20 ft, we need a We compare water sensitivity of the two systems for two
pressure drawdown equal to 2 psi, and the oil production rate different scenarios, reservoir pressure exceeding normal
6.7 STB/D. In case of gas-water system, for the same 20 ft pressure, and smaller than the normal pressure.
height of water cone we need 8 psi pressure drop, and the gas When reservoir pressure exceeds hydrostatic pressure of
production rate of 1.25 MMSCFD. water, the oil-water system, would produce both fluids to the
From this first simple analysis we conclude as follows: surface without artificial lift. The amount of each fluid that
It is possible to have a stable water cone of any given can be produced would depend on the well geometry (depth,
height in the two systems (oil-water and gas-water). tubing’s ID), operational parameter (tubing head pressure,
For the same cone height in vertical equilibrium, pressure frictional pressure lost), and the fluids properties. Also, the
drop in the gas-water system is four times grater than the gas-water system would naturally produce both fluids to the
pressure drop in the oil-water system. surface. Even if the well is “loaded” in the water. However, at
There is a big difference in the fluids production rate for high reservoir pressure, the gas rate is grater than critical rate,
gas-water and oil-water system, for the same water cone the well is unloaded from water. Thus, gas wells are less
height. It is economically possible to produce gas-water sensitive than oil well to water inflow when the reservoir
systems at the gas rate below critical. However, in most cases pressure is higher than the normal pressure.
it is not economically possible to produce oil-water systems When reservoir pressure drop below normal pressure, the oil-
without water breakthrough. water system would tolerate would tolerate water cut only
until the bottom hole flowing pressure reaches the reservoir
Analytical Comparison of Water Coning in Oil and pressure. Then the oil well would need artificial lift. Thus oil
Gas Wells After Water Breakthrough water system is capable of producing with high water cut
The objective is to compare the shape of oil-water and using artificial lift. For the gas-water system, however, it is not
gas-water interfaces at the wellbore after water breakthrough. possible to produce any more gas when bottom hole flowing
After the water breakthrough, there is a stratified inflow of oil pressure equals the reservoir pressure. The well must be
or gas with the water coveting the bottom section of the well unloaded to resume gas production. Also the gas rate is
completion. Again, two systems having the same reservoir smaller than the critical rate.
properties, and thickness, are compared – oil-water and gas- In short, under the same conditions, less amount of water is
water. Both systems are totally penetrated. An equation needed in the oil system to block the oil’s natural flow to the
describing interface shape was derived using the assumptions surface. However, production may continue using artificial
of Muskat(1). Appendix-A gives the derivation and lift. On the other hand, when water stop the natural flow of gas
mathematical computations. In reality the resulting equations to the surface, almost always it is not possible to produce
will not describe perfectly the inflow at the well. However, more gas.
they are useful to compare the coning phenomenon in oil- From this analysis we can conclude that gas wells are less
water and gas-water system. sensitive than oil wells to water when reservoir pressure is
Fig. A-2 shows the resulting profiles of the fluid interface in higher than the normal pressure. Moreover, gas wells are more
gas-water and oil-water systems. After breakthrough, the oil- sensitive than oil wells to water when reservoir pressure is
water interface at the well’s completion is horizontal, while lower than the normal pressure.
the gas-water interface tends to cone into the water. This observation has an important practical implication since
From comparison of water coning in gas-water and oil-water gas reservoirs are produced best at lowered reservoir pressure
systems, we can conclude that in gas wells, water cone is by coproducing water [Arco and Bassiouni(7)]. However, at
generated in the same way as in the oil-water system. When low-pressure even small water inflow would kill the gas well.
the water comes to the bottom of the well completion, a small
inverse gas cone is generated locally around the completion. Specific Mechanisms of Water Coning in Gas Wells
This inverse cone restricts water inflow to the completions. We selected mechanism –specific for gas wells– that
Also, the inverse gas cone inhibits upward progress of the might potentially enhance early water production in these
water cone. In the result, after the water cone breaks to the gas wells. The mechanisms investigated are vertical permeability,
completion, it cannot “take over” the completion so it remains Non-Darcy flow effect, and density of perforations.
at the completion’s bottom providing small water inflow. Effect of Vertical Permeability. It is postulated here that
Thus, the completion remains open to the gas inflow for most high vertical permeability should generate early water
of the production time. Eventually, the water cone gains so production in gas reservoir with bottom water-drive. Vertical
much body (most due advancement of gas-water contact) that permeability accelerates water coning because high vertical
permeability would reduce the time needed for a water cone
to stabilize.
SPE 75720 SEVERITY OF WATER CONING IN GAS WELLS 3
A commercial numerical simulator, shown in Fig. 4, was Skin factor representing perforation density(11):
adopted to evaluate the effect of vertical permeability in gas
wells. Two values of vertical permeability, 10 md and the
S
hg ln(r / r )
k
g
k g …….………………(8)
dp
L n dp p k k d
other one 50 md, were considered. The results are shown in p p dp
Figs. 5 and 6. Fig. 5 depicts water saturation in the reservoir
after 760 days of gas productions for vertical permeability 10 Skin factor due to partial penetration (12):
md. The initial water-gas contact was at 5100 ft. The top of h hg kH
the cone is at 5060 ft after 760 days of production. The water S pp g 1ln 2 (9)
h per r
cone is still below the completion and there is no water w kV
production. Fig. 6 shows water saturation in the reservoir after
760 days of gas productions for vertical permeability 50 md Non-Darcy skin around the well(9):
and the same depth of initial water-gas contact, 5100 ft. After 2.22 *10 15 g k g r ............................................................
760 days of production, the top of the cone is at 5025 ft. The D r (10)
water cone has reached the completion, resulting in water g ghrw
production inflow to the well. 2.33*10 1
Non-Darcy Flow Effects on Water Coning. Non-Darcy 0 …………………….……..…...(11)
flow generates an extra pressure drop around the well bore r 1.2
k g
that could intensify water coning. Non-Darcy flow happens at Non-Darcy skin in the crashed rock around the perforation
high flow velocity, which is a characteristic of gas converging tunnels(11):
k h
D p 2.22 *1015 2 dp
near the well perforations.
The extra pressure drop(8)is a kinetic energy component in the
Forchheimer’s formula , g g g ……………..…...(12)
n L2 r
p p p g
dp
v 2 ......................................................................... (1) 2.6 *1010
dL dp ……………………..…………(13)
k dp
The Non-Darcy effect was studied analytically for two cases
of well completion, complete penetration of the gas and water
zones, and penetration of the gas zone. In the second case the The results of the study are shown in the Figs. 8-10. Fig. 8
well perforated in only the gas zone. Fig. 7 illustrates the demonstrates the “delayed” effect of water in a gas well
completion schematic and the production system properties. completed in gas and water zone (a worst possible
The analytical model of the well inflow comprises the completion). Not only the problem occurs after 80% of gas
following components: recovered but also WGR, is independent of pressure
drawdown and production rates.
Fig. 9 indicates that combined effects of skin and Non-Darcy
Gas inflow model: flow would strong stimulate water production in gas wells.
Also, WGR increases with increasing pressure drop across the
1.422T g Zqg
P 2 P2
e w
k g hg
ln(r / r e w
) S Dq
g (9) ................
(2) skin.
Figs. 10 shows WGR histories for a gas well penetrating only
the gas column. Reducing well completion to the gas column
Where: S S d S dp S pp .................................................................................(3) does not change WGR development; the WGR history is
and D Dr D p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) almost identical to that for complete penetration. Interestingly,
although the completion bottom is at gas-water contact the
Water inflow model: production is practically water-free for almost half of the
recovery. This finding is in agreement with the analytical
analysis of gas-water interface and the inverse internal cone
0.00708kwhw (Pe Pw)
qw (9)
…………………………….(5) mechanism presented in previous sections.
wB [ln(r
w /e rw ) S ] From this study we conclude as follow:
Where: S S d S dp S pp .................................................................................. (6) Non-Darcy and distributed mechanical skin increase
water gas ratio (WGR) by reducing gas production rate, and
Skin factor representing mud filtrate invasion (10): increasing water inflow, and the two effects accelerate water
breakthrough to gas well.
(rd rw )
hg kg
S 1 0.2 1 ln(r / r ) ................... (7) It does not make much difference how much of the well
d d w
h per h per k d completion is covered by water as long as the completion is in
contact with water.
The above observations regarding distribute skin and Non-
Darcy effects have been based on a simple analytical
modeling. The results are partially verified with a commercial
4 M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ SPE 75720
numerical simulator for the well-reservoir model shown production and is 8 feet taller than the one with no skin effect.
in Fig. 4. From the Non-Darcy flow's study we can conclude as follow.
Unfortunately the commercial simulator used for this study
does not simulate the distributed skin and wall Non-Darcy Effect of Perforations on Water Production. The next step
flow effects around the well. Instead, it applies these effects for this study was to investigate how density of perforation
merely at the wellbore wall. In the results, simulated values of affects water production in gas well. Specifically, we studied
pressure in the reservoir at the bottom of well completion behavior of the water-gas ratio. Perforations concentrate gas
increases with increasing input value of skin (Non-Darcy plus inflow around the well, increase flow velocity and further
mechanical). This leads to incorrect physical behavior in amplify the effect of Non-Darcy flow. The effect is examined
where water coning reduces with increasing skin here using the modified analytical model from the previous
pressure drop. section (Figs. 7). We used similar calculation procedure
We demonstrate the correct physical behavior analytically. An including skin and Non-Darcy effect, and two values of
additional pressure drop around the well caused by Non-Darcy density, 4 shoots per foot to 12 shoots per foot. The results are
flow is modeled by modifying the Forchheimer equation. The shown in Fig. 14.
solution to Forchheimer equation for steady state, radial flow, There is a 40 percent reduction in water-gas ratio resulting
isotropic formation, constant density and viscosity is(13): from a three-fold increase in perforation density. Shows in Fig
14 is the effect of decreased pressure drawdown that
zTq 1 1
2
p 2 p 2 1424zTq g ln(r1 / r2 ) 3.161*10 g
12 significantly reduces WGR. Thus, well perforations enhance
g
2
p = pressure, psia 9. Beggs H.D.: Gas Production Operation, Oil and Gas
Pe = reservoir pressure at the boundary, psia. Consultants International, Inc, Tulsa, Oklahoma, (1984).
Pw = flowing bottom hole pressure, psia. 10. Jones, L.G. and Watts, J.W.: “Estimating Skin Effects in a
Qg = gas flow rate, MSCF/day Partially Completed Damaged Well,” JPT (Feb. 1971) 249-52;
Trans., AIME, 251.
Qw = water flow rate, barrel/day 11. McLeod, H.D. Jr.: “The Effect of Perforating Conditions on
qg = gas flow rate, MSCF/day Well Performance,” JPT (Jan. 1983) 31-39.
qw = water flow rate, barrel/day 12. Saidikowski, R.M.: “Numerical Simulations of the Combined
rd = altered reservoir radius, feet Effects of Wellbore Damage and Partial Penetration,” paper SPE
rdp = crashed zone radius, feet 8204 presented at the 1979 Annual Fall Technical Conference
re = outer radius, feet and Exhibition, Nevada, Sep 23-26.
rp = radius of perforation, feet 13. Katz D.: Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill
rw = wellbore radius, feet Book Company, New York, (1959).
14. Dake L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier
S = skin factor
Sd = skin factor representing mud filtrate invasion Scientific Publishing Company, New York, (1978).
15. Golan M. and Whitson C.: Well Performance, Prentice-Hall
Sdp = skin factor representing perforation density
Inc., New Jersey (1991).
Spp = skin factor due to partial penetration 16. Craft B.C. and Hawkins M.F.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir
T = temperature, oR Engineering, Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1991).
v = velocity, ft per second
y = gas-water or oil- water interface thickness, feet
ye = water thickness at the boundary, ft
Z = gas deviation factor
= turbulent factor, 1/ feet APPENDIX - A
r = turbulent factor for reservoir, 1/ feet Analytical development for comparison of water coning in
oil and gas wells after water breakthrough
dp = turbulent factor for crashed zone, 1/ feet
= density, lbm/ft3
wel
p = pressure derivative, psia
r = radius derivative, feet
= porosity
g = specific gravity of gas
= viscosity, centipoises
g = viscosity of gas, centipoises
oil / gas
w = viscosity of water, centipoises
h Pw
Pe
References
1. Muskat, M.: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids, International Human
2.
Resources Development, Boston (1982).
Timble, A.E., DeRose, W.E.: “Field Application of Water-
ye y=? water
Conning Theory to Todhunters Lake Gas Field,” paper SPE
5873 presented at the 1976 SPE-AIME 46th Annual California r
Regional Meeting, Long Beach, April 8-9. r
3. Muskat, M. and Wyckoff, R.D.: “An approximate Theory of
Water Coning in Oil Production,” Trans., AIME (1935) 114, Fig A-1 - Theoretical model used to compare water coning in oil
144-163. and gas wells after breakthrough.
4. Arthur, M.G.: “Fingering and Coning of Water and Gas in
Homogeneus Oil Sand,” AIME (1944) 155, 184-199. Assumptions: radial flow, isothermal conditions, porosity and
5. Kabir, C.S.: “Predicting Gas Well Performance Coning Water in permeability are the same in the gas and water zone, and
Bottom-Water Drive Reservoirs,” paper SPE 12068 presented at steady state conditions.
the 1983 SPE 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco, Oct 5-8.
For gas-water system:
6. McMullan, J.H., Bassiouni, Z.: “Optimization of Gas-Well
Completion and Production Practices,” paper SPE 58983 2r(h y)kp p .................................................
Qg (A-1)
presented at the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference g r
and Exhibition, Mexico, Feb 1-3.
7. Arco, D. P. and Bassiouni, Z. A.: “The Technical And Economic
Feasibility of Enhanced Gas Recovery in The Eugene Island 2ryk p
Qw ………………………………………(A-2)
Field by Use a Coproduction Technique,” JPT (May 1987). w r
8. Lee J. and Wattenbarger R.: Gas Reservoir Engineering, Society
of Petroleum Engineering, Richardson, Texas, (1996).
6 M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ SPE 75720
Qg
R w (h y) p ……………………………….(A-3) From equation (A-4):
Q y Q g g 1 ( y e / h) a
w g ………………………(A-16)
Qw w ( ye / h) p e
b
Qg w Pe (1 ( ye / h))
At re R …………...(A-4) The ratio (1/b) could be found from equation (A-14) at the
Qw g ( y e / h) well bore (r = rw p = pw):
re
Rearranging equation (A-1):
1 w ln r
Q g g p p (A-17)
rhp ryp ………………………….…(A-6) b a ln p e (a / b)
2k r r ( p p )
w
e
b p w (a / b)
Rearranging
Qw w equation
p (A-2):
..............................................................
ry (A-7) Finally, y may be solve from equation (A-3) and (A-15):
Q g g (h y) p a hp.....................
2k r y (A-18)
Qw w y b (a / b) p
Substituting (A-7) in (A-6):
Q g g rhp p Qw w p.............................................. (A-8)
Repeating the same analysis for oil-water system:
r
2k 2k
Q .............. 2r(h y)k p ....................................................
Qo (A-19)
Let us define some constants: a g g
(A-9) o r
2kh
Qw w .......................
b (A-10) 2ryk p ............................................................
Qw (A-20)
2kh w r
re
r b r r b p
(a / b)p pp r
pe
(1 / b)
………………..………..(A-13)
1
r b p e p
p r
...............................................
The solution for (A-13) is: ln e (A-24)
r a
re 1 a p e a / b 1
b
ln p e p ln ……..……….. (A-14)
p a / b
r b b h ...............................................
Solving for y: y (A-25)
The ratio (a/b) may be found dividing equations (A-9) by a
equation (A-10): b 1
Qg g
a …………………………………………(A-15)
b Qw w
SPE 75720 SEVERITY OF WATER CONING IN GAS WELLS 7
1 4
the following example. 0.031
b 2000 500
(2000 1700)
8 M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ SPE 75720
FIGURES
9,000 140
400 30.0
8,000
350 120
Water-Gas Ratio (STB/MMSCF)
0 0.0 0 0
314 345 376 404 435 465 495 521 551 573 600
2 29 60 91 119 149 177 197 223 254
Time (days)
Time (Days)
Fig. 1 – Water gas ratio and gas recovery factor for well CC-1
(field data) Fig. 2 – Gas and Water production rate for well CC-2 (field data)
well Well
100 of 1 ft 50 ft
K= 100 md 20 ft layers 100 ft
=0.2 Oil Gas
P=2000 psi 50 ft
= 1.0 cp 0.017 cp Gas
T= 112 oF
= 0.8 gr/cc 0.1 gr/cc
w=0.56 cp water
9 of 10 ft, and
one 110 ft 200 ft
w= 1.02 gr/cc layers
Water
5000 ft
re= 1000 ft
Swept Zone
Swept Zone
2,100
rw= 0.5 ft
1,500
K= 100 md
P=2500 psi 1,200
T= 120 oF Gas
40 ft
Kh / Kv = 10
900
600
300
w=0.56 cp
w= 1.02 gr/cc
K= 100 md 0
40 ft
Bw= 1 0 rb/STB Water 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fig. 7 – Analytical model used to investigate the effect of Non- Fig. 8 – Water-Gas ratio versus gas recovery factor for total
Darcy in water coning. penetration of gas and water columns and without skin and Non-
Darcy effect.
3,000
2,700
1,800 1,800
1,500
1,500
1,200
1,200 900
900 600
300
600
0
300 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Recovery Factor (%) Pressure Drawdown = 100 psi Pressure Drawdown = 300 psi Pressure Drawdown = 500 psi
Pressure Drawdown = 100 psi Pressure Drawdown = 300 psi
Pressure Drawdown = 1000 psi Pressure Drawdown = 1500 psi
Pressure Drawdown = 500 psi Pressure Drawdown = 1000 psi
Pressure Drawdown = 1500 psi
Fig. 9 – Water-Gas ratio versus gas recovery factor for total Fig. 10 – Water-Gas ratio versus gas recovery factor for well
penetration of gas and water columns skin and Non-Darcy effect completed only through total perforation the gas column with
included. combined effects of skin and Non-Darcy.
900
850 m2
800
Pressure (psia)
750 Q= 20 MM SCFPD
700
Irreducible Water
650 Saturation
600 m1
550
500
0.1 1 10 100 1000 1000
Swept Zone
Radial Distance(ft)
Fig. 11 – Pressure distribution in the reservoir using Modified Fig. 12 – Distribution of water saturation after 1124.4 days of gas
Forchheimer model of Non-Darcy flow. production; Qg = 13 MMscfpd. Low-pressure (Non-Darcy) zone
near the well bore is not included.
10 M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ SPE 75720
1,600
1,200
1,000
800
200
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fig. 13 – Distribution of water saturation after 1124.4 days of gas Fig. 14 – Effect of perforation density on water-gas ratio for a well
production; Qg = 13 MMscfpd. Low-pressure (Non-Darcy Effect) perforating in the gas column skin and Non-Darcy effect included.
zone near the well bore is included.