Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(1)
P . At that
the iteration procedure is implemented and actual and
calculated pressure at dynamic level
P are
compared.
The algorithm for definition of pressure at the
pump run-in depth is the following.
1. The following initial data are put in:
Q
- fluid flow rate under standard conditions,
m
3
/day;
P - annulus pressure,
MPa;
- formation pressure, K;
c
L - well depth
(vertical), m;
d - tubing ID,
m; d - tubing OD, m; D - production casing ID, m;
- dynamic viscosity of
degassed oil under standard conditions, mPa s;
P -
bubble point pressure at formation temperature, MPa;
0
G - GOR of oil in place (gas-oil ratio) under normal
conditions, m
3
/m
3
;
- water
density under standard conditions, kg/m
3
.
Numerical calculation of equation (1) is presented as following
( )
L
g d D
d D Q P
+
) ( 785 , 0
) ( 785 , 0
2 2
2 2
(3)
P - pressure stepping, Pa; L - length delta, m.
2. Pressure stepping taken and the sequential pressure values are identified for various
depths. For that the general pressure variation range ) (
P is divided into several intervals,
i.e. under condition
), ( 05 , 0
P P P = (4)
where
=
=
N
i
i i
P P
1
(5)
3. The temperature distribution in producing well bore is defined [2].
With known formation temperature the temperature at the pumps run-in depth
(calculation bottom-up) is calculated thru equation
d
h
St t h t 1 ) ( (6)
To calculate the temperature distribution above the pump intake it is necessary to know
the wellhead temperature (calculation top-down):
3
d
H
St
t
H t
=
1
) ( (7)
In equations (6) and (7)
t t , - formation and wellhead temperatures accordingly,
; h -
vertical depth, measured from bottom-hole, m; H - vertical depth, measured from wellhead, m;
St - non-dimensional Stanton number.
Dependence of Stanton number on mass well flow rate is represented as:
, 10 202 , 0
) 40 ln(
10 763 , 1
4
4
q
St (8)
where
F w
Q
0
0
7 , 0 1+
=
; (9)
at the sucker-rod pump intake
F w
Q
0
0
05 , 1 1+
=
; (10)
at the electrical submersible pump intake
'
75 , 0 1
0
0
f w
Q
+
=
, (11)
where
0
- free gas separation ratio with zero feed/delivery mode
2
0
1
=
D
d
(12)
Here
/ 02 , 0 5 , 0
0
= ; w
/ 17 , 0 5 , 0
0
= > ;
F - cross sectional
area of production casing, m
2
; '
+
= and for the temperature
1
T . Here you can see that at numerical integration of
equation (1) the implemented calculations are one step behind in temperature. But it appears that
calculation error with such approximation is very minor. The volume of gas flow going into
annulus is calculated for taken
i
and
i
:
i
i
i
i
T P
T P
z
z
Q Q
= , (14)
where
Q
- volume of gas flow in annulus under pump intake conditions, m
3
/s;
P ,
T - taken
pump intake pressure and calculated temperature correspondingly;
z ,
i
z - correspondingly the
supercompressibility ratios for the pump intake conditions and set
i
and
i
.
When calculating the density of three-phase mix in the annulus additional complications
occur due to necessity to account for dissolved gas liberating from crude.
If we presuppose there is no mass exchange/transfer between the fluid in the annulus and
the fluid going to the pump intake, then the presence of free gas phase in the annulus will be
determined only by the separation at the pumps intake. Then fluid density
in equation (3)
will be equal to oil density
i
at set
i
and
i
.
In reality there is a constant mass transfer/exchange process between the fluid in the
annulus and the fluid going to the pump intake. Accounting for fluid density change in the
annulus due to dissolved gas liberating from crude is done using the following correlation:
) 1 (
i i
+ = , (15)
where
i
- oil density in the annulus fluid at
i
and
i
, kg/m
3
;
i
- gas liquid mix density
from crude and gas liberated from it as part of the annulus fluid at
i
and
i
, kg/m
3
;
-
volume ratio of oil degassed at
i
and
i
(without consideration for free gas phase liberated in
conditions of pump intake).
It is easy to see that
i i
+ = ) 1 ( , (16)
( )
( ) 1 ) , ( ) , (
) , ( ) , (
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
+
=
T P
T P
T P z G T P G
T P
T P
T P z G T P G
i
i
i i i i
i
i
i i i i
, (17)
i i i
i
T P T P z
T P
0
0 . .
) , (
= (18)
Here
Q
Q Q
, (19)
where
Q
- volumetric gas flow in the annulus in conditions of pump intake, m
3
/day;
Q
.
-
volumetric oil flow in conditions of pump intake, m
3
/day;
Q
- volumetric gas liquid mix
flow in conditions of pump intake, m
3
/day.
Acquired values
i
Q
and
+
= etc.
Thus the sequential/step-by-step calculation is implemented till the vertical depth
i
h is
decreases or equalizes the value of well dynamic level
h , i.e.
i
h h .
Pressure
i
P at the last calculation sequence/step is defined for certain depth
i
h , and not
for
h . To determine pressure
h h
P P h h
P P
1
1
1
) )( (
(20)
8. Pressure
P and actual
zT
h
P P
03415 , 0
= , (21)
where
P pressure and
temperature.
To correct the pump intake pressure the following procedure is used:
if % 5 % 100
| |
P
P P
and
P
P P
and
P
P P
is
fulfilled.
6
During the implementation of iteration procedure the situation might occur when as a
result of numerical integration of equation (1), at the depth significantly lower than dynamic
level the calculated value of pressure appears to be close to atmospheric and lower. It happens
when initially setting the overrated pressure value
2
1
349 25 20,6 236 1,45 0,42 808 832 5 0,85 0,75
7
Initial data for calculation of pump intake pressure and actual values
Table 2
Well # Field,
formation
Pump set
depth, m
Dynamic
level, m
Annular
pressure,
Mpa
Fluid flow
rate,
m
3
/day
Watercut,
%
Borehole
deviation,
degrees
Pump
intake
pressure,
Mpa
Pump type
1587 350 0,9 144,0 80,0 30 8,4
5-
160-1750
1587 785 2,3 144,0 80,0 30 7,1
5-
160-1750
1263
1587 842 2,45 144,0 80,0 30 6,8
5-
160-1750
883
Varyogan,
formation
2
8
1610 106,5 0,84 82,4 0,0 29 5,8
5-
80-1700 with
gas separator
1200 530 0,8 33,0 0,0 0 4,8
7476
Samotlor,
formation
1
1
1200 344 0,66 36,0 0,0 0 6,5
29866
Samotlor,
formation
1-
2
1528 1266 1,6 58 28 0 2,9
5-30-
1800 with gas
separator
61503
Samotlor,
formation
8
1683 403 2,2 222 5 0 11,9
5-
400-1250
29970
Samotlor,
formation
8
2011 633 1,2 81 5 0 9,7
-5-60-
1700 with gas
separator
21109
Samotlor,
formation
8
2029 564 1,4 114 5 0 9,5
5-
160-1750 with
gas separator
61803
Samotlor,
formation
8
1808 701 1,8 440 5 0 5,2
5-
500-1250 with
gas separator
Samotlor,
formation
1
1987 1513 1,4 36 5 0 3,4
5-50-
2000 with gas
separator
51118
Samotlor,
formation
1
2182 1313 1,6 36 10 0 6,7
5-50-
2000 with gas
separator
594
VKY,
formation
2
1
2200 270 1,4 226 5 0 6,1
DN-1750 with
gas separator
550
VKY,
formation
2
1
2030 135 0,8 146 48 0 6
DN-1300 with
gas separator
Comparison of calculated and actual pressures for reviewed wells
Table 3
Calculated pressure (MPa) and divergence from actual (%) at
(MPa)
Well
1263 883 7476 29866 61503 29970 21109 61803 51118 594 550
Actual
pressure,
MPa
8,4 7,1 6,8 5,8 4,8 6,5 2,9 11,9 9,7 9,5 5,2 3,4 6,7 6,1 6
Calculated
pressure,
MPa
8,28 7,27 7,04 5,69 4,68 5,89 3,41 12,03 9,69 8,96 5,36 4,16 6,87 6,19 6,43
Absolute
divergence,
MPa
0,12 -0,17 -0,24 0,11 0,12 0,61 -0,51 -0,13 0,01 0,54 -0,16 -0,76 -0,17 -0,09 -0,43
8
As seen from results, given in table 3, divergence of calculated from actual pressures
does not exceed 0,76 MPa, it shows relatively high accuracy of proposed methodology. Besides
the degree of reliability of individual initial datum leaves much to be desired.
Application of Well analyst software allows to implement a fairly correct estimate of
well potential when selecting the downhole equipment, as well as using the more correct
calculated BH pressure values when adapting 3D hydrodynamic models.
Bottom-hole pressure calculation
Lets now review the peculiarities of calculating the pressure distribution within the
interval pump intake bottom-hole, as well as BH pressure.
Calculation methodology is based on numerical calculation of the following differential
equation for gas liquid mix flow, assuming the negligibly small inertial loss,
dH
dP
g
dH
dP
+ = , (21)
where
dH
dP
- summarized (total) pressure gradient during flow of gas liquid mix in lift, Pa/m;
dH
dP