Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Просмотров: 16

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- #8 Digital Energy Journal - September 2007
- Oral Presentation 2012
- 03-Petroleum Recovery Processes
- Edited Eclipse
- 175940 (1)
- 07 Well Testing
- Application of an ICD on Reducing Water Production
- A Simulation Approach for Optimization of Gas Lift Performance and Multi-Well Networking in an Egyptian Oil Field by Mostafa S. Yakoot, Shedid a. Shedid, Mahmoud I. Arafa.
- Oil Drilling
- Drilling Optimization in Deep Horizontal Wells
- Best Practices for Exploring and Producing Oil and Gas From Fractured and Weathered Basement - Examples From Asia
- 242427793-P1R8789A-Well-Completion-Workover-Manual-Volume1.pdf
- Soal Internal Competition_kunci Jawaban
- SPE-74391-MS
- 10
- MPHIL Dissertation_ March, 2019
- Osha Rode 2010
- Paper Awang Satyana
- Abstract -Water Shutoff
- SPE 53379, Wettability and Saturation in Abu Dhabi Carbonate Reservoirs, Marzouk, Feb 1999

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

N.M. Quy

a

, P.G. Ranjith

b,

, S.K. Choi

c

, P.H. Giao

d

, D. Jasinge

b

a

Technology Research and Development Dept, Vietnam Petroleum Institute, Vietnam

b

Rock Mechanics Division, Monash University, Australia

c

CSIRO Petroleum, Clayton, Australia

d

AIT, Thailand

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 31 January 2007

Accepted 25 December 2008

Keywords:

horizontal well

vertical well

oil recovery

production rate

efciency

well length

Nowadays, improved oil recovery (IOR) becomes much needed in eld development planning, and is one of

the main concerns for engineers in many reservoir management projects. Among IOR methods, horizontal

wells have been widely applied in the world, and proved to be a promising technique. However, prudence is

required in order to ensure maximum economic benet in applying the technology.

In this study, the applicability of horizontal well in the South-East Dragon eld, which is a small fractured

basement reservoir in the southern offshore of Vietnam, was assessed. An overview of the SE Dragon

reservoir characteristics was provided. The potential performance of horizontal wells was analyzed using

analytical approaches, and the performance was compared with that predicted for vertical wells. Sensitivity

study was conducted to investigate the effect of horizontal well length on well performance. The results of

this study showed that, instead of a 350 m vertical well, drilling of a 400 m horizontal well at the same

location could produce an additional 3,658,166 bbl of oil after 20 years. The efciency increased

proportionally with horizontal well length. The actual production rate can however be lower than predicted

because of the assumptions used in the analysis.

2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction

Horizontal wells have been successfully applied to enhance

production from steeply dipping reservoir (Gangle et al., 1995) and

heavy oil reservoirs (Catania, 2000). Horizontal wells can provide

signicant improvement of production over vertical wells (Soliman

and Boonen, 1999). However, success in applying the technology

requires careful consideration of a number of factors. Some of these

factors have been discussed by, for example, Zhang et al. (2006).

Gangle et al. (1995) compared the eld results of horizontal wells

with the conventional wells in a steeply dipping Stevens sand

reservoir in the Elk Hills eld in California. They observed higher

rates, lower draw downs, and lower gas/oil ratio which will extend

the life of the project and result in higher recovery. Catania (2000)

compared the actual cumulative and daily oil production with the

predicted values from the Joshi's equation. According to their results,

shorter wells (b1000 m) showed average daily production closer to

actual values, whereas long wells (N1000 m) showed predicted results

higher than observed. An increase of the percentage difference was

observed in daily production and cumulative productionwith increase

in well length (20% to 40% and 70% to 130% respectively). Predicted

and actual oil production observed showed a signicant divergence

after 24 months of production. The discrepancy between predicted

and observed results could be due to signicant pressure drop along

the well due to the high viscosity of the heavy oil being produced.

Soliman and Boonen (1999) discussed the fracturing in horizontal

wells. With the use of basic rock mechanics principles, reservoir

engineering and operational strategies, transverse and longitudinal

fractures in horizontal wells have been discussed. Also, they outlined

the advantages and disadvantages of each type (transverse and

longitudinal) of fractures.

Stability of boreholes is quite important to gain the advantage of

horizontal wells. Zhang et al. (2006) developed a wellbore model

based on dual-porosity poroelasticity theory taking into account the

impact of solid deformation and uid ow. According to their studies,

the stress concentration and stability of horizontal wells strongly

depend upon the in situ stress regime and direction of drilling.

This work mainly focuses on the analytical assessment of

horizontal well efciency in comparison to conventional wells, with

special reference to potential improvement in oil recovery from the

South-East Dragon oil eld in the southern offshore of Vietnam. The

South-East Dragon eld is a small fractured basement reservoir

located in the Cuu Long Basin, offshore of southern Vietnam, about

20 km to the south of White Tiger eld (Fig. 1). It was put on

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: ranjith.pg@eng.monash.edu.au (P.G. Ranjith).

0920-4105/$ see front matter 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2008.12.020

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ pet r ol

production in 1996, and it is now at the development phase with six

vertical wells, including ve production and one injection wells

(Vietsovpetro, 1999). A full eld development planning is required to

obtain an optimum production strategy. Horizontal well was

considered because of the many advantages in term of IOR. Horizontal

wells have higher productivity and pay contact per well compared to

vertical wells, thereby reducing the number of wells required to drain

the reservoir. Horizontal wells enable operators to take advantage of

highly heterogeneous reservoirs, especially those with fractures, or

water and gas coning problems (Joshi, 1991). To support the decision

of selection between conventional and horizontal well in the newwell

drilling program, an assessment of horizontal well efciency has to be

conducted. The main objectives of this study include a review of

existing analytical solutions of ow towards a horizontal well and

application of some suitable analytical solutions to the assessment of

horizontal well efciency through the study of the following

parameters: drainage area, productivity and cumulative oil production

of the well.

1.1. Drainage area

1.1.1. Drainage area of the vertical well

The original oil in place (OOIP), based on the drainage area of the

well, can be volumetrically calculated using (in SI unit), (Dake, 1978):

OOIP =

Ah/ 1 S

wi

B

o

1

where A is the drainage area (m

2

), h is the reservoir thickness (m), is

the porosity (fraction), S

wi

is the initial water saturation (fraction) and

B

0

is the oil formation volume factor (m

3

/m

3

).

For single-phase ow, another form of the material balance

equation that can be used to calculate OOIP is (Reisz, 1992):

OOIP =

N

t

P

1

Q

t

Q

i

_ _

R

F

2

where N

t

P

is the cumulative oil production (m

3

) at time t, Q

t

is the oil

rate (m

3

/day) at time t, Q

i

is the initial oil rate (m

3

/day) and R

F

is the

recovery factor (fraction).

From Eqs. (1) and (2), the drainage area of an existing vertical well

can be obtained:

A =

N

t

P

B

o

1

Q

t

Q

i

_ _

R

F

/h 1 S

wi

: 3

1.1.2. Drainage area of a horizontal well

If assuming the horizontal well drainage area is rectangular and in

a horizontal plane, then (Reisz, 1992):

(1) Rectangular width, a

h

, is equal to the width of the drainage area

of the vertical well, a

v

(2) The drainage length, b

h

, is equal to the horizontal well length, L,

plus drainage radius of the vertical well, r

ev

, at each end of the

horizontal wells.

Thus,

a

h

= a

v

b

h

= 2r

ev

+ L

:

_

4

Fig. 1. Location of the Dragon eld.

76 N.M. Quy et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

1.2. Productivity of the wells

In this study, the reservoir is assumed to be producing under

pseudo-steady state condition, i.e. the average reservoir pressure will

decrease with time. The pseudo-steady state solution was used to

calculate the productivity of the vertical and horizontal wells.

1.2.1. Pseudo-steady state productivity of a vertical well

The pseudo-steady state productivity of a vertical well in oil eld

unit can be calculated using Eq. (5), (Dake, 1978):

J

v

=

7:08410

3

4h

k

x

k

y

_

o

B

o

ln

0:565

ab

p

r

w

0:75

_ _ 5

where J

v

is vertical well productivity (bbl/day/psi), k

x

is the

horizontal permeability (mD) in x direction, k

y

is the horizontal

permeability (mD) in y direction,

o

is the oil viscosity (cP), a and b

are drainage width and length (ft) and r

w

is the wellbore radius (ft).

1.2.2. Pseudo-steady state productivity of a horizontal well

For a horizontal well, there are several solutions available in the

literature to calculate the pseudo-steady state productivity such as:

Babu and Odeh's method (Babu and Odeh, 1988), Mutalik's method

(Mutalik et al., 1988), and Kuchuk's method (Kuchuk et al., 1988). Eqs.

(6)(18) were taken from the book Horizontal Well Technology by

Joshi (1991).

Kuchuk et al. (1988) expressed the horizontal well productivity by

Eq. (6), using approximate innite conductivity solution. Average

pressure value of the uniformux solution along the length of the well

was used to obtain the constant wellbore pressure.

J

h

=

k

h

h= 70:6

o

F + h= 0:5L

k

h

= k

v

_

s

x

6

where J

h

is horizontal well productivity (bbl/day/psi), F is a

dimensionless parameter which is a function of y

w

/2y

e

, x

w

/2x

e

, L/

4x

e

and (y

e

/x

e

)

k

x

= k

y

_

, x

w

is the distance from the horizontal well

mid-point to the closest boundary in the x direction, y

w

denotes the

distance from the horizontal well to the closest boundary in the y

direction, x

e

is half length of side of square drainage area in x direction

and y

e

is the half length of side of square drainage area in y direction,

k

h

is the horizontal permeability (mD) and k

v

is the vertical

permeability. Value s

x

can be calculated as follows:

s

x

= ln

r

w

h

_ _

1+

k

v

k

h

_ _

sin

z

w

h

_ _

_ _

k

h

k

v

2h

L

_ _

1

3

z

w

h

_ _

+

z

w

h

_ _

2

_ _

where L is the length of horizontal well (ft) and z

w

is the vertical

distance between the horizontal well and the bottom boundary.

Mutalik et al. (1988) expressed the horizontal well productivity by

Eq. (7). According to Mutalik et al. (1988), when the drainage area

ratio (2x

e

/2y

e

) is between 1 and 20, the shape factors and the

corresponding equivalent skin factors s

CA,h

for a horizontal well

should be used.

j

h

=

0:007078kh=

o

B

o

ln

AV=

p

r

w

_ _

A

0

+ s

f

+ s

m

+ s

CA;h

c

0

+ Dq

7

where s

m

is the mechanical skin factor (dimensionless), s

f

is the skin

factor of an innite conductivity fully penetrating fracture of length L,

s

f

=ln[L/(4r

w

)], s

CA,h

is the shape related skin factor, c' is the shape

factor conversion constant (1.386) and A' is the drainage area factor. A'

equals 0.75 for circular area and 0.738 for square (and rectangular)

drainage area.

Babu and Odeh (1988) used the method of separation of variables

and Fourier series to solve the governing 3D ow equation. The

solution for a horizontal well, which is of similar form to that for a

vertical well, is given by the following equation:

J

h

=

7:08410

3

b

k

x

k

y

_

B

o

o

ln

A

0:5

4

r

w

+ lnC

h

0:75 + S

r

_ _ 8

where A

(ft

2

), C

h

is the shape factor of horizontal well and S

r

is the pseudo skin

factor due to fractional penetration. Among these methods, Babu and

Odeh's method was most often used by engineers to calculate the

productivity of a horizontal well.

The geometric factor C

h

can be calculated using the following

equationwhich is given in the original work of Babu and Odeh (1988):

lnC

h

= 6:28

a

h

k

y

k

x

1

3

x

o

a

+

x

o

a

_ _

2

_ _

ln sin

180

o

z

o

h

_ _

0:5ln

a

h

k

z

k

x

_ _

1:088

9

where x

o

and z

o

are positions of horizontal well in x and z direction,

respectively.

The pseudo skin factor, S

r

, can be calculated for the following two

different cases.

Case 1.

a

kx

p z

0:75 b

ky

p N N

0:75 h

kz

p

where k

z

is the permeability in z direction (mD).

S

r

= P

xyz

+ PV

xy

:

Here, P

xyz

component is a result of the degree of penetration (the

value of L/b), and the P'

xy

component is a result of the well in the xy

plane, and they are given by:

P

xyz

=

b

L

1

_ _

ln

h

r

w

+ 0:25ln

k

x

k

z

ln sin

180

o

z

h

_ _

1:84

_ _

10

P

0

xy

=

2b

2

Lh

k

z

= k

y

_

F

L

2b

_ _

+ 0:5 F

4y

mid

+ L

2b

_ _

F

4y

mid

L

2b

_ _ _ _ _ _

11

where y

mid

=0.5(y

1

+y

2

) and y

1

and y

2

are the coordinates of the two

ends of the horizontal well in the y direction.

F x = x 0:145 + lnx 0:137 x

2

_ _

Case 2.

b

ky

p z

1:33 a

kx

p N N

1:33 h

kz

p :

In this case:

S

r

= P

xyz

+ P

y

+ P

xy

where,

P

y

=

6:28b

2

ah

k

x

k

z

_

k

y

1

3

y

mid

b

+

y

2

mid

b

2

_ _

+

L

24b

L

b

3

_ _

_ _

12

and

P

xy

=

b

L

1

_ _

6:28a

h

k

z

= k

x

_

_ _

1

3

x

o

a

+

x

2

o

a

2

_ _

: 13

1.3. Cumulative oil production

1.3.1. Cumulative oil production of a horizontal well

The cumulative oil production of a horizontal well can be

calculated using the semi-analytical solution developed by Plahn

et al. (1987) for predicting horizontal well performance in solution gas

77 N.M. Quy et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

drive reservoirs. Their graphical correlations of the average results are

as shown below for critical gas saturation between 6% and 10%

log N

D

=1:2504 0:3903 log t

D

4

_ _

0:1097 log t

D

4

_ _

2

For log t

D

4

V 1:9496

_ _

14

log N

D

= 1:6663 + 0:03701 log t

D

4

_ _

For log t

D

4

z 1:9469

_ _

15

where, t

D

: dimensionless producing time in oileld unit:

t

D

4

=

0:00633kk

roi

r

w

Lp

i

t

8/

oi

hx

3

e

16

where k

roi

is the relative permeability of oil at initial oil saturation, p

i

is

the initial pressure (psi) and

oi

is the initial oil viscosity (cP).

N

D

: dimensionless recovery

N

D

=

N

P

N

m

4100 17

where N

p

is the cumulative oil produced at time t.

N

m

: the original movable oil in place

N

m

=

2x

e

2

h/ S

oi

S

or

5:615B

oi

18

where S

oi

is the initial oil saturation (fraction), S

or

is the residual oil

saturation (fraction) and B

oi

is the initial oil formation volume factor

(RB/STB).

2. Analytical assessment of horizontal well efciency

In this study, the performance of a horizontal well will be analyzed

and compared with a particular existing vertical well in the SE Dragon

eld. The solutions are limited to a single phase systemwith constant

reservoir properties and without any compositional effect. Analysis

was conducted on a single well model with the assumptions that there

is no interaction between wells and the reservoir is producing under

pseudo-steady state condition, with no supplemental energy. The

parameters of an existing vertical well will be calculated and

compared to that of a proposed horizontal well, which is assumed

to be drilled at the same location with this vertical well. Both wells,

therefore, have the same initial reservoir conditions.

2.1. Reservoir characteristics

The South-East Dragon reservoir is a small reservoir with the size

of 8x7 km

2

, where the oil is produced from a naturally fractured

basement. The porosity of the basement rock is related to fractures

and cavities caused by, for example, cooling-crystallization, weath-

ering, hydrothermal action, and tectonic activities. Cavity and fracture

caused by hydrothermal action is an important porosity type of the

Dragon granitoid-basement reservoir (Vietsovpetro (2003, 2004)).

The fracturing and weathering characteristics of the basement rocks

vary over the area and depth of the eld. The model of the basement

rock can be described as a combination of two components:

(1) The matrix part is consolidated granitic and granodioritic

blocks with negligible porosity and permeability, i.e., bb1%,

Kbb0.1 mD.

(2) The main storage capacity includes large fractures, which were

developed by tectonic activities, the caverns and dense micro-

fractures due to hydrothermal activities, and they are devel-

oped along macro-fractures.

The maximum porosity is 10% and the minimum porosity is 0.1%.

The mean porosity is 1.6%. Porosity decreases with depth. High

porosities can only be found at a depth of 100200 m from the

basement surface. At greater depth, the rock is usually more intact

with low porosities.

The permeability of the basement rock varies from 5 to more than

1000 mD. The mean value is 209 mD. These values are obtained by

measurements on core samples taken from the existing wells.

The oil, gas and water samples had been taken from existing wells

for PVT analyses in the laboratory. The results show that the crude oil

has density of 852 kg/m

3

, and the saturation pressure (bubble point

pressure) is at 1160 psi.

2.2. Reservoir production status

The SE Dragon eld was discovered in 1994 by Vietsovpetro and

put on production from 1996. Five production wells, named as P1, P2,

P3, P4, and P5, were drilled and put on production during 19962000.

In 2001, an injector (I1) was drilled and put on operation for the

purpose of supplementing reservoir energy. The overall eld produc-

tion rate is given in Fig. 2. In 2000 when all ve wells were put on

production, the production rate increased to a peak of 610 m

3

/day.

Several well testing and well production analyses were conducted

for the production wells. The results of the well testing show that the

initial average reservoir pressure was 3973 psi. The formation damage

factor or skin factor varies from 0.197 to 1.854. The results of the well

testing are summarized in Table 1.

2.3. Field production data

The reservoir characteristic data required for analytical solutions

were collected and summarized in Table 2 (Vietsovpetro, 2004).

Fig. 2. Overall eld production rate.

78 N.M. Quy et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

Among 5 existing production wells, the vertical well P1 is selected

for assessment because of its longest production history (It has been

producing oil continuously since 1998) with a relative stable

production rate (see Table 3), and its longest well length of about

350 m, compared to the others, is equal to the average thickness of the

SE Dragon eld.

Because the analytical solutions are limited to single-phase system

(no water injection), hence, only the production data of the well P1

during 1998 to 2000, when the reservoir was produced under natural

depletion, were used in this study.

2.3.1. Drainage area

2.3.1.1. Drainage area of the vertical well. The drainage area of an

existing vertical well can be obtained by Eq. (3). The recovery factor of

the SE Dragon eld up to the year 2020, the estimated abandonment

date of the reservoir under the natural depletion mode, was estimated

to be about 0.16 (Vietsovpetro, 2003). This number was used as the

recovery factor (R

F

) for well P1 in this study.

The production data of well P1 are taken from Table 3. Other

parameters required for calculation such as B

o

, , S

wi

are taken from

Table 2.

Thus, the drainage area of well P1 is:

A =

N

t

P

B

o

1

Q

t

Q

i

_ _

R

F

/h 1 S

wi

= 2; 998; 995m

2

32; 280; 909ft

2

_ _

:

If assuming the vertical well drainage area is rectangular then the

relationship between the dimensions of the rectangle (a

v

and b

v

) and

the permeability components (k

x

and k

y

) can be represented by the

following equation:

b

v

a

v

=

k

y

k

x

:

For a simple case when the permeability of the naturally fractured

reservoir in all directions is equal, k

x

=k

y

=k

z

, then well P1 can be

assumed to produce oil in a square area which has dimensions of:

a

v

= b

v

= sqrt A = 1; 732 m 5; 682ft :

The radius of the equivalent circular drainage area of the vertical

well is:

r

ev

= sqrt A= = 977 m 3; 206ft :

2.3.1.2. Drainage area of the horizontal well

2.3.1.2.0. For horizontal length of 400 m (1,312ft). From Eq. (4),

obtained:

a

h

= a

v

= 1; 732 m 5; 682ft

b

h

= 2r

ev

+ L = 2; 355 m 7725ft :

Drainage area:

A

h

= a

h

4b

h

= 4; 077; 565 m

2

43; 890; 547ft

2

_ _

:

Similar approach was applied for other horizontal well lengths. The

results of drainage area calculation are given in Table 4 and Fig. 3.

2.3.2. Productivity of the well

2.3.2.1. Pseudo-steady state productivity of the vertical well. The

pseudo-steady state productivity of a vertical well in oil eld unit was

calculated by using Eq. (5). The dimensions of the rectangular

Table 1

The well testing results of the Dragon Oil Field.

No Parameters No of measured

well

Measured

value range

Average

value

1 Initial reservoir pressure,

kg/cm

2

5 256.4319.9 274.8

2 Reservoir temperature, C 4 85.296.7 87.22

3 Geothermal gradient,

C/100 m

4 3.8 3.80

4 Oil production rate, m

3

/day 4 68.51316 456.10

5 Gas production rate,

10

3

m

3

/day

4 1.348.4 11.46

6 Gas oil ratio, m

3

/m

3

4 4124.1 26.01

7 Permeability, D 4 0.00550.9305 0.21

8 Skin factor 4 0.1971.854 0.57

Table 2

Reservoir data collected for analytical solutions.

Parameter Notation SI unit Oil eld unit

Average reservoir thickness h 350 m 1148 ft

Average reservoir porosity 0.016 0.016

Average reservoir permeability k 209 mD 209 mD

Initial reservoir pressure p

i

27.48 MPa 3984 psi

Oil formation volume factor B

o

1.46 m

3

/m

3

1.46 RB/STB

Initial oil saturation So

i

0.66 0.66

Irreducible water saturation Sw

i

0.34 0.34

Residual oil saturation So

r

0.31 0.31

Relative permeability of oil at initial

oil saturation

kr

oi

0.7 0.7

Skin factor S 0.57 0.57

Total compressibility C

t

3.510

3

MPa

1

5010

6

psi

1

Viscosity of oil at p

i

o

1.05 cp 1.05 cp

Wellbore radius r

w

0.1 m 0.33 ft

Table 3

Production history of well P1.

Date Oil rate Cum. oil Date Oil rate Cum. oil

11/30/1998 768.2 23,047.15 2/28/2001 504.3 504,215.3

12/31/1998 762.4 46,680.74 3/31/2001 457.6 518,401.4

1/31/1999 709.6 68,678.16 4/30/2001 395.7 530,270.9

2/28/1999 727.2 89,039.41 5/31/2001 504.3 545,905.5

3/31/1999 727.2 111,582.2 6/30/2001 469.2 559,980.1

4/30/1999 697.9 132,518.2 7/31/2001 446.3 573,816.6

5/31/1999 680.3 153,606.6 8/31/2001 451.6 587,814.9

6/30/1999 645.1 172,959.2 9/30/2001 439.8 601,009.9

7/31/1999 604 191,684.3 10/31/2001 439.8 614,644.6

8/31/1999 604 210,409.3 11/30/2001 428.1 627,487.7

9/30/1999 619.6 228,997.2 12/31/2001 422.2 640,577.1

10/31/1999 656.5 249,350.2 1/31/2002 451.6 654,575.4

11/30/1999 635.7 268,421.3 2/28/2002 457.4 667,383.3

12/31/1999 604 287,146.4 3/31/2002 424.1 680,531.3

1/31/2000 574.7 304,962.5 4/30/2002 510.2 695,837.4

2/29/2000 562.8 321,283.1 5/31/2002 452.4 709,860.4

3/31/2000 545.4 338,190.2 6/30/2002 424.9 722,606.1

4/30/2000 539.5 354,376 7/31/2002 543 739,440.5

5/31/2000 527.8 370,737.7 8/31/2002 586.4 757,620.2

6/30/2000 504.3 385,867.9 9/30/2002 576.7 774,920.2

7/31/2000 504.3 401,502.5 10/31/2002 586.4 793,099.9

8/31/2000 492.6 416,773.4 11/30/2002 574.7 810,341.3

9/30/2000 440.8 429,997.7 12/31/2002 572.4 828,084.7

10/31/2000 486.7 445,086.8 1/31/2003 568.8 845,719

11/30/2000 510.2 460,392.9 2/28/2003 563 861,482.5

12/31/2000 453.8 474,459.3 3/31/2003 537.2 878,135.1

1/31/2001 504.3 490,093.8 4/30/2003 574.7 895,376.5

5/31/2003 563 912,829

79 N.M. Quy et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

drainage area (a and b) are taken from the previous result. Other

parameters needed for the calculation are taken from Table 3.

Thus, the productivity of the vertical well P1 is:

J

v

= 129 STB= day= psi:

2.3.2.2. Pseudo steady state productivity of the horizontal well. The

Babu and Odeh's method was used to calculate the productivity of a

horizontal well.

2.3.2.2.0. For a 400 m horizontal well. The results of drainage area

calculation show that a horizontal well with length L=1312 ft

(400 m) has a box-shaped drainage volume with dimensions of

a=5682 ft (1732 m), b=7725 ft (2355 m), and h=1148 ft (350 m).

For simplicity, the well location is assumed to be along the y direction

in the middle of the box, i.e., the well lies between y

1

=3206 ft

(977 m) to y

2

=4519 ft (1377 m). The x

o

and z

o

coordinates of the well

are 2840 ft (866 m) and 574 ft (175 m), respectively. Other parameters

needed for the calculation are taken from Table 2.

By substituting the required parameters to Eqs. (8)(13), the

productivity of a 400 m horizontal well was obtained:

J

h

=

7:08410

3

b

k

x

k

y

_

B

o

ln

A

0:5

v

r

w

+ lnC

h

0:75 + S

r

_ _ = 132 STB= day= psi:

Similar approach was applied for other horizontal well lengths. The

results are summarized in Table 5 and Fig. 4, respectively.

In the calculations, wellbore damage was ignored and permeability

is assumed to be isotropic. It was also assumed that the condition for

innite conductivity holds, i.e., the pressure drop along the well can be

ignored. However, the actual production length of the horizontal well

may be shorter than the physical length if the ow rate is very high.

2.3.3. Cumulative oil production

The cumulative oil production of the vertical well P1 and the

alternative case of horizontal well were calculated up to the year 2020

when it is estimated to be the end of the life of the reservoir under the

natural depletion mechanism.

2.3.3.1. Cumulative oil production of the vertical well. The OOIP can

be calculated using Eq. (1), where drainage area, A

v

, was obtained in

previous section, thus:

OOIP =

Ah/ 1 S

w

B

o

= 7; 591; 975m

3

:

At the abandonment time Q

t

=0, the cumulative oil production of

vertical well P1, from1998 up to 2020, can be calculated using Eq. (2):

N

p

= OOIP4R

F

= 1; 214; 716 m

3

or 7; 640; 334 STB :

2.3.3.2. Cumulative oil production of the horizontal well. The

cumulative oil production of the horizontal well over 22 years

(8030 days) was calculated in the same way as that for the vertical

well P1 by using Plahn's method (Eqs. (14) and (15)).

2.3.3.2.0. For a 400 m horizontal well. The Plahn's method is for

square drainage area so it is needed to transform the dimension of

Fig. 3. Drainage area calculation results.

Table 4

Results of drainage area calculations.

Drainage dimensions Drainage area, A A

H

/A

V

Width Length

SI unit

(m)

Oil eld unit,

(ft)

SI unit

(m)

Oil eld unit

(ft)

SI unit

(m)

2

Oil eld unit

(ft)

2

Vertical well 1732 5682 1732 5682 2,998,995 32,280,909

Horizontal well L=400 m 1732 5682 2355 7725 4,077,565 43,890,547 1.36

L=600 m 1732 5682 2555 8381 4,423,917 47,618,651 1.48

L=800 m 1732 5682 2755 9037 4,770,270 51,346,754 1.59

L=1000 m 1732 5682 2955 9693 5,116,622 55,074,857 1.71

L=1200 m 1732 5682 3155 10,350 5,462,974 58,802,960 1.82

L=1400 m 1732 5682 3355 11,006 5,809,326 62,531,063 1.94

L=1600 m 1732 5682 3555 11,662 6,155,678 66,259,166 2.05

L=1800 m 1732 5682 3755 12,318 6,502,030 69,987,269 2.17

L=2000 m 1732 5682 3955 12,974 6,848,382 73,715,372 2.28

80 N.M. Quy et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

rectangular drainage area calculated in the previous section to that of

an equivalent square drainage area. Other data required for the

calculation are taken from Table 2.

The dimensionless producing time:

t

4

D

=

0:00633kk

roi

r

w

Lp

i

t

8/

oi

hx

3

e

= 0:002287:

The critical gas saturation of the SE Dragon eld is 7%, and:

logt

4

D

= 2:64b 1:9469:

The correlation given by Eq. (14) was used to calculate the

dimensionless recovery factor, N

D

.

Finally, one obtained:

N

D

= 32:8

N

m

=

2x

e

2

h/ S

oi

S

or

5:615B

oi

= 34; 427; 817 STB:

The cumulative oil production of horizontal well, N

P

:

N

p

= N

D

4N

m

= 100 = 11; 298; 500 STB or 1; 796; 318 m

3

_ _

:

Similar approach was applied for calculating the cumulative oil

production of the horizontal well with other well lengths. The results

are given in Table 6 and Fig. 5.

3. Results and discussion

Horizontal well can improve well productivity and consequently

oil recovery by a variety of mechanisms. The most basic mechanism is

the increased drainage area associated with the longer completion

interval of a horizontal well. The drainage area increases proportion-

ally with horizontal length (Table 4 and Fig. 3) when the pressure drop

along the well is not signicant. Fig. 4 shows that when length is

increased, A

H

/A

V

will keep on increasing. A 400 m horizontal well has

a drainage area of 1.36 times more than that of a 350 m vertical well,

while it is 2.28 for the 2000 m horizontal well. Because of the larger

drainage area of horizontal well, fewer wells are needed to achieve

similar eld efciency.

The productivity of the horizontal well increases proportionally

with length. As can be seen in Fig. 4 and Table 5, by increasing

horizontal well length from 400 to 2000 m, productivity could be

improved from 1.12 to 4.38 times that of a 350 m vertical well.

However, the actual rate of increase may decline when the well is very

long and/or the owrate is very high, and the pressure drop along the

well can no longer be ignored.

Having higher drainage area and higher productivity will conse-

quently increase the cumulative oil production of the horizontal well.

The efciency is also proportional to horizontal length. The results of

the calculation given inTable 6 and Fig. 5 showthat a 400 mhorizontal

well could give an additional oil recovery of 581,602 m

3

compared to a

350 m vertical well, while it is 2,201,474 m

3

for a 2000 m horizontal

well.

The analytical results might be considered to be optimistic because

the approach used a single well model with limitations of closed

drainage volume and single phase system. In reality, the production of

the well could be affected by a variety of rock properties, by multi-

phase ow related problems such as water coning and gas break

through, or by ow resistance in the well, which were not able to be

taken into account in the analytical approach. Neglecting the friction

loss of ow from reservoir to wellbore and along well length could

Table 5

Results of pseudo steady state productivity calculations.

Productivity, J J

H

/J

V

SI unit

(m

3

/day/kg/cm

2

)

Oil eld unit

(STB/day/psi)

Vertical well 298 129.76

Horizontal well L=400 m 303 131.48 1.02

L=600 m 442 191.73 1.49

L=800 m 574 249.09 1.95

L=1000 m 701 303.95 2.39

L=1200 m 822 356.59 2.81

L=1400 m 939 407.25 3.22

L=1600 m 1052 456.09 3.62

L=1800 m 1160 503.26 4.00

L=2000 m 1266 548.89 4.38

Table 6

Results of cumulative oil production calculations.

Cumulative oil

production, N

P

Incremental N

H

/N

V

SI unit

(m3)

Oil eld unit

(STB)

SI unit

(m3)

Oil eld unit

(STB)

Vertical well 1,214,716 7,640,334 0 0 -

Horizontal

well

L=400 m 1,796,318 11,298,500 581,602 3,658,166 1.48

L=600 m 2,048,236 12,883,015 833,520 5,242,681 1.69

L=800 m 2,268,691 14,269,637 1,053,975 6,629,303 1.87

L=1000 m 2,473,892 15,560,315 1,259,176 7,919,981 2.04

L=1200 m 2,670,422 16,796,446 1,455,706 9,156,112 2.20

L=1400 m 2,861,485 17,998,196 1,646,768 10,357,862 2.36

L=1600 m 3,048,836 19,176,599 1,834,120 11,536,265 2.51

L=1800 m 3,233,518 20,338,214 2,018,802 12,697,881 2.66

L=2000 m 3,416,190 21,487,187 2,201,474 13,846,853 2.81

Fig. 4. Well productivity calculation results.

81 N.M. Quy et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

result in overestimation of well productivity and the drainage area of

the well. Also, wellbore damage is ignored in the calculations.

However, it is likely that the effect of damage on well productivity

for a horizontal well is smaller than for a vertical well because of the

lower rate of uid entry into the wellbore per unit length for a

horizontal well. On the other hand, the longer time that is required to

drill a horizontal well can lead to greater degree of formation damage.

Also, the horizontal well is located in a fractured basement reservoir.

Both of these factors may lead to a signicant reduction in the actual

producing length of the horizontal well.

4. Conclusions

From the result of this study, improved oil recovery in the SE

Dragon oil eld could be expected with the use of horizontal wells.

With a horizontal well length of 400 m, an additional 581,602 m

3

of oil

could be produced. The efciency of horizontal well will increase with

increase in length. However, there is practical limitation on the length

achievable due to the limitation of current drilling technology,

especially drilling in fractured basement rock. Taking also into account

the possible effect of very long well and high ow rate on friction loss

along the well on well productivity, a maximum horizontal length of

800 m is proposed as the most promising option for the SE Dragon

eld.

Acknowledgement

The rst author would like to thank the Asian Institute of

Technology (AIT) and Petrovietnamfor providing budget that enabled

him to pursue this study.

References

Babu, D.K., Odeh, A.S., 1988. Productivity of a horizontal well. SPE reservoir engineering,

pp. 373382. November.

Catania, P., 2000. Predicted and actual productions of horizontal wells in heavy-oil

elds. Appl. Energy 65 (1), 2943 Jan, 2000.

Dake, L.P., 1978. Fundamentals of reservoir engineering. Elsevier scientic publishing

company. Book.

Gangle, F.J. (U.S. Dep of Energy); Schultz, K.L.; McJannet, G.S.; Ezekwe, N. (1995)

Improved oil recovery using horizontal wells at Elk Hills, California, SPE Drilling and

Completion, v10, n1, Mar, p27-33.

Joshi, S.D., 1991. Horizontal well technology. Pennwell Publishing Company, Tulsa,

Oklahoma USA.

Kuchuk, F.J., Goode, P.A., Brice, B.W., Sherrard, D.W., Thambynayagam, R.K.M., 1988.

Pressure transient analysis and inow performance for horizontal wells. SPE Paper

No. 18300, October.

Mutalik, P.N., Godbole, S.P., Joshi, S.D., 1988. Effect of drainage area shapes on horizontal

well productivity. Paper SPE 18301, October.

Plahn, S.V., Startzman, R.A., Wattenbarger, R.A., 1987. A method for predicting horizontal

well performance in solution-gas drive reservoirs. Paper SPE 16201, Oklahoma,

March.

Reisz, M.R., 1992. Reservoir evaluation of horizontal Bakken well performance. SPE

Paper No 22389, pp. 1934.

Soliman, M.Y., Boonen, P., 1999. Rock mechanics and stimulation aspects of horizontal

wells. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 25, 187204.

Vietsovpetro, 1999. Dragon Field Outline Development Planning Report. Vung Tau.

Vietsovpetro, 2003. Dragon Field Development Planning Report. Vung Tau, 2003.

Vietsovpetro, 2004. Dragon Field Annual Production Report. Vung Tau, 2004.

Zhang, J., Bai, M., Roegiers, J.C., 2006. On drilling directions for optimizing horizontal

well stability using a dual-porosity poroelastic approach. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 53, 6176.

Fig. 5. Cumulative oil production calculation results.

82 N.M. Quy et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 66 (2009) 7582

- #8 Digital Energy Journal - September 2007Загружено:Adam Marmaras
- Oral Presentation 2012Загружено:Lem Fei-Bronjul
- 03-Petroleum Recovery ProcessesЗагружено:magdy1991
- Edited EclipseЗагружено:Mohamed Sadek
- 175940 (1)Загружено:kapereshem
- 07 Well TestingЗагружено:geber39
- Application of an ICD on Reducing Water ProductionЗагружено:Wasin Saengnumpong
- A Simulation Approach for Optimization of Gas Lift Performance and Multi-Well Networking in an Egyptian Oil Field by Mostafa S. Yakoot, Shedid a. Shedid, Mahmoud I. Arafa.Загружено:Bagga Basheer
- Oil DrillingЗагружено:Stein Hjalmar Hansen
- Drilling Optimization in Deep Horizontal WellsЗагружено:Yt Yt
- Best Practices for Exploring and Producing Oil and Gas From Fractured and Weathered Basement - Examples From AsiaЗагружено:Francisco Javier
- 242427793-P1R8789A-Well-Completion-Workover-Manual-Volume1.pdfЗагружено:e_syarief
- Soal Internal Competition_kunci JawabanЗагружено:Mahasinul Fathani
- SPE-74391-MSЗагружено:David Montoya
- 10Загружено:Yamal E Askoul T
- MPHIL Dissertation_ March, 2019Загружено:ibrahim adesokan
- Osha Rode 2010Загружено:Ahmed Ali Alsubaih
- Paper Awang SatyanaЗагружено:Fikri Mafazi
- Abstract -Water ShutoffЗагружено:Mahesh Meena
- SPE 53379, Wettability and Saturation in Abu Dhabi Carbonate Reservoirs, Marzouk, Feb 1999Загружено:JeffGreen
- 04 Models.ppt [Read Only]Загружено:dxdiag97
- Paper Group 14 - Prediction of Critical Oil Rate Using 6 Different Methods to Avoid Water and Gas Coning in Veritcal WellsЗагружено:Fadhilah Nur. I
- video_4Загружено:Ridho Apriansyah
- TOPEJ-8-29.pdfЗагружено:ipali4christ_5308248
- Http Www.ciosummits.com Pdfconv.php Url=Http Www.ciosummits.com Agendas Ogafrica1 Agenda 2012-04!16!12!38!14Загружено:Anyak2014
- US Gamerules 2018Загружено:Ahmed Saeed
- Optimization of CO2 Sequestration and IORЗагружено:Alicia Aguirre
- BJP83-616-1-PBЗагружено:Abdullatife Azouz
- A New Solution to Restore Productivity Os Gas Wells With CondensateЗагружено:Bruno Rocha
- alwehaibi2016.pdfЗагружено:husseinhsh

- ICPMS IntroductionЗагружено:Billy Iberico Castro
- Comer 2015Загружено:Anonymous thkT4j
- RTMST-2013Загружено:palpandi.m
- Chapter 21 the Kinetic Theory of GasesЗагружено:Neil de Dios
- Water (H2O) Data Page - WikipediaЗагружено:dillan.aryian
- Basf Masterbrace FibersЗагружено:widayat81
- Analysis and Design of Flat Slab and Grid Slab and Their CostЗагружено:Nayan K. Giri
- Distillation PrinciplesЗагружено:Melania Grigore
- a-matlab-toolbox-for-thermodynamic-property-evaluation.pdfЗагружено:วรศิษฐ์ อ๋อง
- floroЗагружено:sayar_kyee
- Air Pollution 2Загружено:Rajeshwar Pratap Singh
- Influence of TiO2and ZnO Nanoparticles on Properties of Waterbornepolyacrylate Coating Exposed to Outdoor Conditions_INGЗагружено:Kidung Tirtayasa Putra
- 02 Impulse & MomentumЗагружено:Nico Urieta De Ade
- gas laws practiceЗагружено:api-243473105
- Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C201 Buckling Strength of Platted Structures Oct 2002Загружено:Ferry H Sitohang
- Forging InspectionЗагружено:arshia123
- Physical Chemistry New Gyan SutraЗагружено:Satyam Jaiswal
- Presentation ReportЗагружено:Pawan Kumar Yadav
- AN OXIDATION BEHAVIOUR OF DISSIMILAR WELDMENTS IN THE PRESENCE OF MOLTEN SALTS AT 1123KЗагружено:TJPRC Publications
- Culvert Hydraulics and Culvert DataЗагружено:Paul Marion Demapelis
- EHB en 7.4 Sizing According to ASME Code Sect VIII and API RP 520 and API 521Загружено:electron84
- Electrical Propulsion History}Загружено:Carlos Bueno Boj
- application of momentum equationЗагружено:api-286406608
- 2530 Orifice Meter API Ansi_SЗагружено:Avik Bhai
- Study of Stresses and Loads on Double Shear Lug Joint...Загружено:Chris
- Pumps LectureЗагружено:Richard Manongsong
- Uniform Circular MotionЗагружено:Allen A Espinosa
- 2005-02-fws-ch18Загружено:bananananananaaa
- Septorini 2006Загружено:didirooscote
- IJSO-Plus[1]Загружено:jassyj33