Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Spe 19827

    Uploaded by

    danonnino
    21 views6 pages
    Sap

    Original Title

    _SPE_19827

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Sap

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    21 views6 pages

    Spe 19827

    Uploaded by

    danonnino
    Sap

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    Oi Recovery by Gravity Drainage Into Horizontal Wells Compared With Recovery From Vertical Wells Herman Dykstra, SPE, Consultant, and Wade Dickinson, SPE, Petrolphysics Inc. ‘Summary. Gravity drainage sa significant factor in many BOR projects, particularly those involving steam stimulation and extended recovery from depleted reservoirs. Ths paper compares the effect of dip, reservoir thickness, ol mobility, and well spacing on produc- tion from horizontal vs, vertical wels. Total production from vertical and horizontal wells as a function of time also is compared ‘The basie physical concept involved inthis stidy is the constriction coefficient. For a horizontal well, the constriction coefTicient is Jager than that for a vertical well atthe start of drainage but that difference decreases with time Introduction ‘The drilling of horizontal, or radial, wells has expanded rapidly during the last few years.{ The advantage of horizontal wels vs. ‘vertical wells is that horizontal wells canbe drilled parallel to bed ding planes and along a formation strike, thus opening up more ‘of the formation to the wellbore. Joshi? provided an extensive lst of references on horizontal well technology and presented equations of steady-state flow for multi- ple radials at one or more elevations. Joshi® also summarized the {evelopment of Borsov’s* equations for steady-state flow into horizontal, or radial, wells and presented the results of calculated horiontai/vertical-wel PI ratio for a constan-pressure outer bound ary, The ratios were determined as functions of well spacing, fo mation thickness, and length of the horizontal well, for ‘ertical/horizonal permeability ratios of 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 ‘Buller and Stephens’ and Joshi and Threlkeld® described the ap- plication of horizontal wells in thermally stimulated heavy-ol reser- ‘ors. Both works present the resls of calculations and experiments ‘on gravty-drainage oil recovery ito horizontal wels stimulated by steam injection ‘We present calculations of gravity-drainage oil recovery from vertical and horizontal wells and compare these recoveries to de> termine the ratio of horizontal/verical-well flow rates a cries, Four cases were run, Two were for heavy-il recovery from felatvely lat beds that were thermally stimulated by steam injec tion to lower the oll viscosity, and two were for light-il recovery from dipping formations to determine the advantage of horizontal wells in fields that may already be producing by gravity drainage. Gravity Drainage From Flat Formations Inthe caleulation of heavy-cil recovery, Case 1 was fr radial low ito a vertical well and Case 2 was for flow into a horizontal well, a the base of the formation. Fig. 1 shows the two cases stiemati- cally, wit isometric views of one-quarter ofthe areas being drained ‘We assumed thatthe reservoir had low pressure and that a sub- stantial portion ofthe volume around the vertical well, or above the horizontal well atthe base ofa bed, was heated by contingous seam injection. The heated oi, with its much lower viscosity, can then flow predominantly by gravity into the wellbore.” ‘Because our main interest isto determine the relative flow rates in horizontal and vertical wellbores, we simplify the process by assuming uniform mobility (permeability viscosity ratio) through ut the formation. This may bea serious assumption, as far as rates fare concerned, because not all the formation Will be heated from 8 steam-timulation job, nor is the rato of verica/horizontal per. :meabilty nity for ll reservoirs, These two factors, however, af- {ect vertical and horizontal wells in somewhat the same manner and so may have only aminor effect onthe rate rato. simulation ‘study is required to determine the actual effects For Case 1, we used Lefkovitz and Matthews’ method to cal- culate the gravity-drainage rat for radial low into a vertical well- ‘bore. The inital fuid head was assumed to equal the formation ony 1092 Sty a Pavan Engnere SPE Formation Evaluation, September 1992 ‘thickness. The calculations were made for low from a cylinder with the same area as the well spacing of a square aray of wells For Case 2, we used Cardwell and Parsons"? method, as de- seribod by Dykstra, to calculate the gravity-dreinage rate in a horizontal wel atthe base ofa formation. The horizontal wells taken tobe atthe formation bottom inthe center of a square being. drained and is parallel 19 one of the sides. Its length is equal © the spacing between wells. ‘Because flow is constricted in the wellbore, it was necessary to calculate @ constriction coefficient for flow into a slotted liner}! Dykstra! describes the constriction coefficient and how it is cal- culated. As these authors. indicat, the constriction to flow de- pends on the length ofthe flow path from the outer boundary to the sloted liner. For Case 2, we assumed thatthe length of the flow path was the distance between the gas/oil interface and the wellbore. Because this distance decreases with time asthe inter- ace drops toward the wellbore, it was necessary to calculate a changing constriction coeficient with time to calculate the gravity- drainage cate ‘Data for Case 1 and 2 calculations were based on the Poter zone of the Midway Sunset field onthe west side of the San Joaquin v ley in California? This zone has a gross interval of as much 25. ‘500 ft. Many pats ofthe zone have very good vertical permeabil- ity over intervals of almost 400 Rt. The zone ranges in drilled depth from about 00 ft and has a low dip. The reservoir temperature varies with depth and ranges from 75 to 95°F. The oil has a n row oll-gravity range and averages at 12°API. At 90°F, the reser- voir oil viscosity i 11,000 ep, and at 200°F, itis 95 ep. ‘We used the following Muid and reservoir properties in the cal- ‘culations: oil permeabilities of 100, 300, and 1,000 ma; oil vi sity of 100 ep; porosity of 0.38; connate water saturation of 0.30; initial gas saturation of 0.05; inital ol saturation of 0.65; residual oll saturation of 0.15; vertical wellbore radius of 0.542 ft; and horizontal wellbore radius of 0.167 f. ‘Calculations were made for spacings of 0,625, 1.25, 2.5.5, 10. and 20 acres and formation thicknesses of 50, 100, 200, and 400 ft For the vertical well, the uid levels in the wellbore were based ‘on formation thickness and ranged from Sto 30 ft above the base ofthe formation. ‘Table I shows the effect of mobility on calculated flow rates and ‘on the ratio of horizontal/vertical well rates for 2.5-acre spacing, ‘ith an inital uid head of 200 ft, and for Sacre spacing, with an intial uid head of 100 f Fig. 2 is a plot ofthe ratio vs. time. Results of the calculations indicate that mobility has ony a small effet onthe rate ratio at early times but has a slightly greater ef- fect with time at higher mobilities. “Table 2 shows th effect of formation thickness, or inital uid head, h, on calculated rates and ratios for 2.S-acre spacing and a mobility of 3 md/cp. Fig. 3 is a plot ofthe ratio of horizontal vertical well raes asa function of time. As can be seen the initial uid height (formation thickness) has a strong effect onthe ratio, but time has only a minor effect. For h=300 and 400 f, the rato is below 1.0; ie., a vertical well will produce ata greater rate than ‘ horizontal well. For h=100 and 200 f, the opposite is true. ass ASE 2 HORIZONTAL WELL ma Fig. 1—Horlzontal and vertical wells, Cases 1 through 4. ‘The same type of relation holds for other well spacings. Because time has ony a small effect on the ratio of horizontal/vertical well ‘ates, cumulative prodyctin a the end of 2 years can be compared. ‘Table 3 gives the calculated cumulative production and ratios, and Fig. 4 shows the ratio asa function off Fig. 4 shows that when ‘his less than the well spacing (about 0.85 times distance between wells), a horizontal well will perform better than a vertical well, and when h is greater than the well spacing, a vertical well will perform beter. These results can be used as criteria to decide ‘whether a horizontal wells justified over a vertical wel in a field ‘where low-gravity ol sto be produced and a substantial portion ofthe formation is tobe heated by steam stimulation. These re- “ss are also inline with Borisov,* who stated dat when the length ‘ofthe horizontal wells less than the formation thickness, the “rill ing (of] horizontal wells becomes senseless.” Gravity Drainage From Dipping Formations ‘The situation is substantially different for drainage downdip in a vertical or horizontal well from a formation at an angle to the horizontal. For these cases, oil moves parallel tothe dip, with a flow area that is based on formation thickness and: well spacing, jn contrast to the previous cases where the flow area was based fon well spacing only For economic gravity-drainage flow rates from a dipping for- mation, the mobility must be much higher than forthe cass dis- 256 ‘cussed above, To got suficient mobility generally requires an oll With a high enough gravity to have sufficiently low oil viscosity atthe prevailing reservoir temperature. For determination of re: ‘quired values of oil density and viscosity, an oil gravity of 40° API Was chosen, We used the following fuid and reservoir properties in the calculation: oil permeabilities of 30, 60, and 120 md; oil viscosity of 1.98 cp: porosity of 0.25; connate wate saturation of 0,25; inital gas saturation of 0.05; inital oil saturation of 0.70; residual oil saturation of 0.125; wellbore radius of 0.25 ft, and dip angle of 30°. ‘Case 3 results are fora vertical well, and Case 4 results are for ‘horizontal well drilled in the center ofthe formation atthe same location asthe vertical well, with a length equal tothe well spac- ing. Fig. 1 shows the two cates schematically. As with Case 2 above, Dykstra's!9 method was used to calculate the gravity: drainage flow rate. “Table 4 shows the effect of formation thickness on flow rates and on rato of horizontal/vertical well rates over 15 years of pro- ‘duction for 40-acre spacing and a mobility of 20 md/ep. As ex- pected, the calculations. show that the flow rate is directly ‘proportional tothe formation thickness. Fig. 5 isa plot of the ratio ‘of horizontal vertical well rates for h=20 and 100 f. Fig. 5 indi- ‘ates that formation thickness has only a small effect onthe rate ratio. The rato starts at about 2.5 and increases slowly the frst 4 years, then decreases to less than 1.0 after 12.5 years of pro-

    You might also like