You are on page 1of 9

.

— ..——

‘Gii?a
aoctotY
A
m

of mrolsum Endnssr$

SPE29913
A PRODUCTION ALLOCATION METHOD FOR COMMINGLED GAS COMPLETIONS

H. S. Prabowo”, and M. Rinadi*, VICO Indonesia



SPE Members

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a method to approximatethe ratio of Correct production allocation for each commingled
fluw rate and cumulative productionfor each resewoir in a resewoir is, therefore, very important as it affects gas
commingledgas completion.Numekal reswvoirsimulation resetvesassessmentand future resenmirdevelopment.
was used to describe flow rate and pressure response of ProdurAonloggingcan be used to estimate the correct
wells completed in mutiple producing resewoirs without productionallocation but the allocation obtahwd from
,—.——.. ... .
mer-myerCrossfiow.Tine use of the method is illustratedto sucha testis onlyvalidfor constantresewoir condtions.
compare the resultsof simulated and field data. During normal resemmir depletion the parameters
affecting production allocation change with time
dependingonthe diversityof size, pressureand physical
INTRODUCTION propertiesof each individualreservoir.
We studied the simulated cases for homogeneous
VICO lndoneaia/Petimina operatesmajorgas fields in East multilayer systems with unequal initial resefvoir
Kalimantan, two of which are named Badak and Nilam. pressures and properties. The layers are not in
These fields provide an average daily supply of mmmunicationwith each other (no-crossflow)and gas
approximately 1.5 Bscf to the Bontang LNG plant and productionfromthe Iayetswas at a constant bottomhole
Kaltim Fertilizer plants. The gas resewes are located in a flowingpressure.
geologically complex deltdc environment. There are in
excess of 1,000 indtiual gas reswvoirs, rangingin depth
from4,000 feet to 15,000 feet with a wide range of size and Wf AVIOR OF INDMDU AL RESER VOIRS IN A
resewoir propwties. ~ CMPN
In most cases the deeper reservoirs have poor sand
development and lower productivitymaking commingled Reservoir rnode!!ingw_s perfwrmd tc dascribe the
completions economically justified for the development. behavior of individual resmoira exhibiting various
reservoircharacteristicsin a commingled completion.The layers during production. F~ure 8 shows that at the
model used in th~ study was a rectangular three- economic limit, Layer 1, which is the lowest
dimensional grid system with each layer assumed to be transmissibilii layer, had the lowest contributionfrom
homogeneous, isotropicand filled with a single-phasegas the total cumulative productioneventhough thii layer
as shownin Fgure 1. The studieswere made by varyingthe had the h~heat initialreaewoir pressure in the system.
transmiasibilii factor, initialpressureand resewoir size for Forthisrun,Layer1, whichhad a ratioof transmiasibilii
each layer; in all cases the wells were produced at a to the total transmissibilityof 0.0008, contributed4.8%
constant bottomhole pressure of 750 peiato an emnomic of the total cumulativeproduction.
limitof 100 Macf/D.

To formulate the relationshipbetween layer propeties


FQure2, an emmple of a two-layerrun, showsthe gas flow and their behavior in a commingled completion, a
rate and pressure response for each layer. In thii case, mathematical development was carried out to model
Layer 2 at 3000 psia in~al reservoirpressure had 5 times the behaviorof each layer, particularlythe performance
the tranamissibiliiof Layer 1 wtich had 2000 psia reservoir of production rate and cumulative producdon ratios
pressure,all other propetiea were the same in both layers duringthe life of the well.
(Table 1). Layer 2 initiallyproduced at a much h~her rate
and contributed almost all of the total cumulative
prodi~n, .A-fter2 rnQntiSon production;Layer 1 began to Production RateRatio
contribute significantlyto the total productionas Layer 2
began to deplete rapidly. Assuming Darcy flow pseudo-steady state gas flow
Figure 3 shows the rate and cumulative productionratios condtions, the rateltime ratio, Rq, for indtiual layers,
withreapecttothe total commingled systemfor each layer. j, with n number of mmmingled layers can be
At the economic limit Layer 1 contributed48% of the total expressed~
cumulative produdon.
To determine the minimum transmiasiiii for a iayer to
contribute production to a commingled completion, a [CM (p:-p:J /pz],
R%= ~ . . . . . ...(1)
sens.tivily analysis was made by varying one layer
transmissibilitywhile the other layer properlieawere held ~ [ah (P:-P:f) /pzl~
constant. FQure 4 is a plot of the percent of cumulative j-l

production contributed by the low transmissibiiii layer


(Layer1) as a functionofthe ratioof Layer 1 transmissibility Where
tototaltrsnsmiasiMly
.. of the system. F~ure 4 showsthat at
equal inilialpressure,the ratioof the Iow-permeabilii-layer 0.703
c=
transmiaaibilii to the total transmiasibilii must be greater T[ln(rJrJ -1/2+s]
than 0.00011 for thii layer to contribute 5% of the total
cumulative production.
Constant, C, can be eliminated from Eq. 1 if all layers
are assumed to have the same T, r’, rW,and skin.
Simulate d Five-Lav er Case

Table 1 indicatescertain propertiesof individuallayera in a Cumulativ e-Production Ratio


fnre-layersystem that are typicalfor Badak and Nilam gas
wlla. Propertiesnot specifiedwre the same for all layers. From the derivationof material-balance eqution for n
Fuurea 5 to 8 ahowtie simulated behaviorof the indiiual number of commingled volumetricgas reaefvoka, the
. .

cumulatkeproductiodtimeratio, RQ, can be approximated sands.


withthe followingequation: The @UdOll log interpretationindicatedthat to@iw~ii
productionisentirelyfromthe E-15 sand. Table 2 showa
the well propwties and the comparison between log
[v/T(pi/zi-pr/zr)
],
RQ4= . . . ...(2) interpretationand the calculated rate allocation.
Jn
More importantlythe simulated productioncontribution
~ [V/T(P,/Z,-Pr/ZJ 1~ to the economic limitfor the E-22 sand which had no
j-l
piOdUdOfi Cmitdbution during iogging,is calculated to
be 17% from the total well cumulative production.This
MPLE APPLICATIONS discrepancy demonstrates the danger of using PLT
results to allocate future productiondue to changing
Simulated Cases reswoir condtions.

As a test of the veliiity of the proposedequations,we ran


examplesimulationscase studiesof bothtwo-and We-1ayer c. Mutti-Lsyer Field Case: GasWell C
Sys-kwns.
Reseivoir date used in the resewoir model and pressure Since the well productivityof gaswellC, completed in
responseof each layer for everytimestep obtahed during the E-24 sand, declined rapidly,several potential gas
the simulation run were used to calculate the production sands below the E-24 sand were through-tubing
rateand cumulative-production ratios,Fiimes 9 to 11 show p~tioRAed to kWfMS~ the ‘-ii WMUCMY, Foiiowing
the agreement between the ratiosobtained from resetvoir perforating, the well productivityincreased threefold,
modelling and ratioscalculated usingEqs. 1 and 2. from 2239 Mscf/Dto6102 Macf/D.
To determine the flow profile of the well, a production -
log was run during shut-in and flowing periods.
Fieid Cases Productionlog data obtainedduringshut-inshowed an
upwardcrossflowcomingfrom the newly perforated F-
a. Two-Layer FmldCase: GasWellA 14 sand flowing into the E-24 sand. With the well
flowing, the F-14 sand proved to be the only sand
Gas well A, a commingled reswvoir completionin the F-9 contributing to production, while some crossflow
and F-12B sands, was productionlogged to determine the continued to the E-24 sand. Table 3 shows the
ratecontributionof each sand. During loggingthe well was agreement of the phenomenon between the obsetved
teated at a rate of 3740 Mscf/D, 60 BCPD and 7 BWPD at and calculated allocationfor each layer.
825 psig FTHP. The productionlog obtainedwtMe flowing
indicatedthat from the total productionrate the F-9 and F- Fmld Wide Applications
12B sandsconbibuted61% and 39%, respectively.Table 2
showsthe well propertiesand the comparisonbetween the As morethan60% ofthe existingproduang gaswellsin
production logging interpretation and calculated rate Bedakand Nilamare comminglecompleted, in order to
allocations. have manageable calculations,an in-house computer
At the economiclimit,the simulated cumulative-production program has been developed and linked to reeenmk
allocation for the F-9 sand is 48% and 52% for the F-12B and productiondatabase. The resultsof the production
sand. allocationsare then stored in the database for resewes
accountingand served as data for future field depletion
b. Two-LayerFieldCase: GasWell B planningstudii.

During flowing at a rate of 5400 Mscf/D, 84 BCPD and 6


BWPDat1115 peig FTHP, a productionlog was run in the
gas well B whiih was completed in the E-15 end E-22

263
CONCLUSIONS
Subscript
The rasullsfromthii studysuggestseveral conclusionsthat j = indtiual-layer prope*
are useful for practicalfield applications n = number of layers
r = currentcondition
1. Production rate allocation obtahwd from production
logging is only valid for constant reservoircondtions.
During normal resmoir depletkm, production rate ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
allocation changes withtime.
We acknowledge our supervisorswho made the time
2. since the economiclimitof a well is based on wellhead available for us to finish thii study. We also
production,the ultimate recoveryof each layer will be acknowledge S. E. Heitzman for his re@aw and the
dependentuponthe performance of the other layersin managementof VICO Indonesiaand Pertamina-BPPKA
the system. for their permissionto pubiii thii paper.

3. The equations can be useful to predkt future layer


productivity and the occurrence of bottomhole REFERENCE s
crossflowbetweenlayersin a mmminglad completion.
Ahmed, U., Crary, S.F., and Coates, G.R., 1989.
4. For Badak and Nilam gas fields, when all layers are FemeaM&Esfhndbn: 7he Wrious Soumes and 7heir
iniiliy at equal pressure,the layer transmisaibilii must Mem#ionship papar SPE 19804.
be greater than 0.01% to the total transmissibilii in
order to contribute5% of the total production. Cm B.C. and Hawldns,M.F., 1959. A@ied Peiro/eurn
Resewoir Ehgim”ng. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englawood
Clii, New Jersey.

Ctilow, H. B., 1977. Ikfo&n Resemoir Engineering -


a- . . ..
AppmadI. Freniice-iiaii, inc., Engiawood
A W7)U18UOf)
h . formfion
~lckness, fi Cliffs, New Jersey, 298-303.
k = permeabilii, md
pti = abandonment resetvoirpressure,psia Ehiii-Economides, C.A., Joseph, JA. and Spath, J.B.,
R = initialresewoir pressure, psia 1990. M&?I Oiagnosisfbr Layered Resem”m. paper
p, = resenroirpressure, psia SPE 20923.
~ = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
p= = pressure at standard condition,psia Fetkovitch,M.J. et al., 1990. Dep/efion PerlWnmce of
q = flow rate, Macf/D LapmciReservoh Wfhouf CmsMow. WE Formation
Q . cumulative production, Mscf
Evaluation,September, 310-318.
r- = drainage radius,ft
. -Ilk.. u I-A.,.
- WWIIWI ausuu,
*?t . .... . - ---- -
~w IIW, A.u., 1sm. -“uchn Logg”ng--7heoAicai and
Rq= productionrate ratio hlferpmtiveElemenh. SPE Monograph Vol. 14.
RQ. ~mula~produ~on rstio

s = skin factor Johnston, J.L. and Lee, W.J., 1992. k#erWcafhn of


T = rese~ir tempe~~re, “F P~_ h~m
——=-. - m LowwBW@bi!.& ‘@S ‘@!!$.
T= = tempe~re at ~ndard condiion, ‘F
Journal of Petroleum Technology, November, 1240-
V = rese~ir volume, cufi
1248.
Z = gas deviationfactor
P = gas viscoaiiy,cp

284
.

Mattax,C.C. and Dalton, R.L., 1990. Resetvoir Sinuktion.


SPE Monograph Vol. 13,74-86.

. . . . ..
Raghavan, R., 1W9. i5enavi”oror wells Compieted in
Mu@la f%ddngzbnas. SPE FormationEvaluation,June,
219-230.

265
1 1 2 1 2 3. 4 .5,
k md 1 10 0.1 1 10 5 15
h, ft 20 10 5 20 15 10 25
Vol, 1000 Cuft 761 381 285 1142 857 571 1249
pi, psi 2000 3000 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000
psi
pab, 992 750 2299 931 750 750 750
kh ratio 0.17 0.83 0.0008 0.0336 0.2519 0.084 0.6297
Prd contribution
to Ec. Limit 48% 52% 5% 47% 28% 11% 9%

Vol, 1000 Cllft 11481 10164 3295 1204


~, & ~~7 ~~~ ]g~ ~~:
pr, psi 2560 3121 3410 2438
pwf,psi 1662 1697 2051 2084
pab, psi 871 1000 880 1031
M ratio 0.79 0.21 0.97 0.03
Rate Allocation 70% 30% 99% 1%
PLT Allocation 61% 39% 100% o%
Prd. con~”bution
to Ec. Limit 48% 52% 83% 17%

WELL-C
E-24 F-1 F-13A F-14 F-ltlR IM9A
k, md 29.6 7.4 5.4 36.6 1.2 2.1
h>ft 40 5 4 13 5 5
Vol, 1000 Cuit 64142 3054 2601 20996 2895 3145
T, OF 229 230 244 246 252 253
pr, psi 1000 1728 1774 4363 5036 5091
pwf, psi 1764 1772 1855 1868 2010 2037
pab,psi 665 500 949 999 867 1100
M ratio 0.68 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.01
Rate Allocation -1.27 -0.00 0.00 2.18 0.U3 &06
PLT Allocation -1.10 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.00 0.00
Prd. conm”bution
to Ec. Limit 20% 3% 2% 57$$ 9% 9%

266
.

!4

i f

ac-

14- ‘+4— ‘-+


.

268
. . .

0 I
a.ml w] al 1 10 la
Tune,yem
~ C&u&td clmdam—F’ducbm IMO
,Cakwked Flowsate MKl

Fwse9- Snnuked Two-hyerC#se CamPWCIBeiHQObmvad


aldcdcukcdFklwRJtcaIulc wl@we-FrduMllhtlo8

‘~
at

a6
x

a4

az Y Y k’ “ v

0
3 0 0

I
0 . . . . ..-.
aw am *1 1 ..
u ..
am.
Time,v
~cdcuhtd F1OuR9t4rhtkl

F&e 10- SiFive-Lqa Case: Gampium Betwum Ohwrvd


mdcdouhld FIOwI&Ie RBlioa

as

t
0.4 L-j

“1
~
2
.-.
u.wf,
---
u.”, G.i i 33
iw
Timq v

~ CAukd cl80ulmitt-
Fm&Etim
RA

FiIFUE 11- SimuMed


Five-Lqcr
Cne:Cax#mn BehvanCbsan.d
mdcakuMdclmdde- Rducaimmtios
269

You might also like