Date post: | 14-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alvin-preston |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
8
be dynamic
Impact of Dynamic Modelling on The Optimum GL Implementation ScheduleImpact of Dynamic Modelling on The Optimum GL Implementation ScheduleContent
1. Dynamic Simulation2. Dynamic Well Modelling3. Optimum Gas Lift Implementation Schedule
ALRDC – 2004 Spring GAS LIFT WORSHOP
byby Juan Carlos Mantecon Juan Carlos Mantecon
www.scandpowerpt.com
12
Dynamic Engineering
APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT LIFE-CYCLE
FIRST OIL
DETAILEDDESIGN
PRODUCTION
CONCEPT/FEED
OPERATIONS
SCREENING• Fluid Properties• Production Profiles• Well Locations• Pipeline Routings• Process Options
AS-BUILDING• As-built Profiles• Tuned Models• Capacity Constraints• Prod. Optimisation• Troubleshooting
SIMULATION• Operating Procedures• Pipeline Management• Well Management• Training Simulators• On-line/Off-line
INTEGRATION• Field Layout• Well Allocations• Pipeline Data • Process Scheme• Control Scheme
13
ROUTINE CONSIDERATION OF TRANSIENT EVENTS
Hydrate Inhib.
Wax / Corrosion
Slugging
Pigging
Rate Changes
NORMALPRODUCTION
START-UP
Start-up Pressurisation
Steady State
PLANNED SHUTDOWN
Short Term
Inhibitor
Displace
Long Term
EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN
Short Term
Inject Inhibitor
Blowdown
Cooldown
14
ProductionProfile
Development Plateau Decline
PerformanceMeasures
CAPEXWell Cost
Rate of Completion
Well UptimeProduction Volume
Incremental Production
OPEXData Quality
Safety & Environment
BusinessDrivers
Early ProductionCAPEX Minimisation
Maximise Total Production Reduce Production Decline
Minimise OPEX
28
Dynamic Simulation
Goals Alignment
Why use a transient simulator?• Normal production
– Sizing – tubing / pipeline diameter, insulation requirement
– Stability - Is flow stable? How to achieve stable production
– Gas Lifting / Compressors
– Corrosion
• Transient operations
– Shut-down and start-up, ramp-up (Liquid and Gas surges)
– Pigging
– Depressurisation (tube ruptures, leak sizing, etc.)
– Field networks (merging pipelines / well branches with different fluids)
• Thermal-Hydraulics
– Rate changes
– Pipeline packing and de-packing
– Pigging
– Shut-in, blow down and start-up / Well loading or unloading
– Flow assurance: Wax, Hydrate, Scale, etc.
17
Unstable vs. Stable flow situations
• Pipeline with many dips and humps:– high flow rates: stable flow is possible– low flow rates: instabilities are most likely (i.e. terrain induced)
• Wells with long horizontal sections – Extended Reach• Low Gas Oil Ratio (GOR):
– increased tendency for unstable flow
• Gas-condensate lines (high GOR):– may exhibit very long period transients due to low liquid velocities
• Low pressure – increased tendency for unstable flow
• Gas Lift Injection– Compressors problems, well interference, choke sizing, etc.
• Production Chemistry Problems– Changes in ID caused by deposition
• Smart Wells – Control (Opening/Closing valves/sliding sleeves)
Multiphase Flow is Transient !Well Production is Dynamic!
P/T Development – Flow Assurance
Oil
Gas Condensate
Pre
ssu
re
Temperature
LIQUID
GAS
GAS + LIQUID
Typical phase envelopes
Gas OilReservoir Temperature
70 -110 oC /160 - 230oF
Emulsion 40oC/104o
F30oC/86oF
20oC/68oF
WaxWater
HydrateHydrate
< 0oC/32oF(Joule Thompson)
~ +4oC/39oF
Temperature effects
OLGA OLGA
OLGA RESERVOIRSIMULATOR(ECLIPSE)
OLGA/ D-SPICE
Time (min.)
LIQUID FLOW INTO SEPARATOR(m / s)3
SLUG FLOW
Front Tail Front
Separated flow Dispersedbubble
20
Dynamic Well Modelling
Especially suited for:
• Start-up and shut down of production
• Production from several reservoir zones
• Reservoir injection• Analysing cross flow
between reservoir zones• Flow from multilateral wells• Smart Wells• Gas Lifting• Well testing – Segregation• Gas/Condensate Wells - Dewatering• Simulation of fluid flow in
conventional and underbalanced drilling operations
• Blowout simulations
21
Advanced Well Module
IPR models in OLGA 2000
– Constant Productivity Index
– Forcheimer model– Single Forcheimer model
(High Pressure Gas Wells)
– Vogel equation– Backpressure equation
(Gas Wells)
– Normalized Backpressure (Saturated Oil Wells)
– Tabulated IPR curve
22
Advanced Well Module
• The reservoir can be divided into multiple zones with differences in properties and IPR models
• Properties can be defined as time series (well’s life cycle) for each zone:– Reservoir pressure
– Reservoir temperature
– Gas fraction / GOR
– Water fraction / Water cut
– Drainage radius
– Skin
– Fracture pressure
23
Productivity Index in OLGA
• The following equations are used to calculate the PI for the oil, water and gas to be used by OLGA. The PI in OLGA is the TOTAL PI (the associated gas must be added to the given PIProsper): The GOR is given in standard cubic feet per standard barrels, the densities as kilograms per cubic meters and the water-cut in fraction
689536002429.6
)1(Pr
OILosper
OIL
WCPIPI
689536002429.6Pr
WATERosper
WATER
WCPIPI
6895360024315.35
)1(Pr
GASosper
GAS
GORWCPIPI
Advanced Well Module
24
PHASE = GAS - = STDFLOWRATE
The following equations show how the total mass flow is calculated in OLGA when Watercut, GORGOR and Volume flow are known
• The properties at standard condition are taken from the PVT table.
))1
(11
(ST STw
STo
STggtot wc
wc
GORGORQm
STgQ
PHASE = LIQUID - = STDFLOWRATE
STliqQ
))1()1((ST STg
STo
STwliqtot wcGORwcwcQm
Advanced Well Module
Mass Sources
25
PHASE = OIL - = STDFLOWRATE
The following equations show how the total mass flow is calculated in OLGA when Watercut, GORGOR and Volume flow are known
• The properties at standard condition are taken from the PVT table.
PHASE = WATER - = STDFLOWRATE
SToQ
)1
(ST STw
STg
STootot wc
wcGORQm
STwQ
))1
(1
(ST STg
STo
STwwtot wc
wcGOR
wc
wcQm
Advanced Well Module
Mass Sources
26
Advanced Well Module
Annular flow
• In annular flow there will be a higher wetted surface area compared to the flow area
• In OLGA 2000 a single pipeline with corresponding flow area is assumed
• The wall interfacial friction is calculated based on a hydraulic diameter, Dh:
tch D - DS
4A D
27
Advanced Well Module
Gas lift
• No library of commercial gas lift valves– OLGA is reasonably effective at simulating the unloading operation
• Specific valve characteristics or controller routines can be defined:
– The LEAK command coupled with the CONTROLLER command provides a means of reasonably accurate representation of an unloading valve
• Casing and/or Tubing sensitive valves
• Concentric casing or parasite string injection– Well kick-off – Continuous GL to reduce static pressure
• Riser gas lifting– To reduce static pressure– To reduce / avoid slugging
• Stability prediction with Slugtracking
ProductionFluids + GL
Gas Lift
Production
Fluids + GL
28
Advanced Well Module
Gas lift
• The OLGA bundle can be use to calculate a source temperature at injection point– e.g. gas flowing in the annulus of
the CARRIER
• Annulus flow model with normal OLGA Branch features gives very exact countercurrent heat exchange
• It is possible to combine various branch models with the BUNDLE, the SOIL and FEM-Therm
Branch = “GASINJ”
Branch = “WELLH”
Node
Branch = “WELLB”
Gas Injection
Production
Casing
29
Advanced Well Module
Gas lift Unloading (Duals, Check Valve Wash-out, etc.)
• The “Annulus’ keyword is used to model the GL annulus with a number of ‘Leaks’ installed to provide communication between the well annulus and the tubing
– Each ‘Leak’ is then assigned a GLV to control the opening and closing of the valve
• The GLV operation is simulated using a combination of cascade and PID controllers
– e.g. Pdome is modified based on temperature and depth. The output is then used to determine the Ptbg at which the GLV will open based on the local Pcsg. This is compared against the actual Ptbg to determine if the GLV is open
ACPC
PT
PD
AD
AT
ANNULUS
TU
BIN
G
ACPC
PT
PD
AD
AT
ANNULUS
TU
BIN
G
ACPC
PT
PD
AD
AT
ANNULUS
TU
BIN
G
ACPC
PT
PD
AD
AT
ANNULUS
TU
BIN
G
ACPC
PT
PD
AD
AT
ANNULUS
TU
BIN
G
ACPC
PT
PD
AD
AT
ANNULUS
TU
BIN
G
31
• OLGA is a powerful tool for establishing the watercut limits for which the well would not produce at steady state and where it would not kick off – investigate a future kick-off problem
– Gas Lift will be required at some time in the future in order to kick-off the wells
– Wells will encounter kick-off problems at a lower watercut than their their natural flow limit
– Determining the kick-off limits is a key issue for determining the optimum gas lift implementation schedule
• The installation cost of a GL system to support the kick-off of the well is high and deferring this expenditure is of high NPV ($MM).
• On the other hand, the inability to kick-off the well has a high impact cost in terms of deferred production ($100MM).
– Watercut limits may increase with increasing Reservoir pressures– Watercut limits are more sensitive to FTHP and PI.
• The matrix of results (dynamic sensitivity runs) will determine at what point in the future the well will need GL to overcome the impact of fluid segregation on kick-off (and optimum GL volume)
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
32
• Elevation Profile vs. Horizontal and Tubing Length– Model from Reservoir to Christmas tree – number of pipes =F(trajectory), pipe is divided into 50m section lengths
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Well #SPT69
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Position [m]
Ele
va
tio
n
[m]
Horizontal Length Pipeline Length
Top of tubing Top of tubing
Reservoir
33
• Productivity Index and Oil Rate vs. Water Cut– The reservoir fluid PVT is critical to the model results– The time at which the well will not naturally kick-off is dependent on PI, Reservoir Pressure and Watercut.
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Well SPT69 - FTHP = 500 psia
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Watercut [%]
Oil
Ra
te
[ST
B/D
]
2500 psia 3000 psia 3500 psia 3600 psia 3800 psia
Well SPT69
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Watercut [%]
Pro
du
ctio
n I
nd
ex
[b
bls
/d/p
sia]
34
• Watercut Limits – Steady State – OLGA vs. Prosper– The watercut limits at steady state may be found using OLGA (Transient) and Prosper (Steady State) software. Differences for the particular study case are shown below – WC
predicted by Prosper are lower than predicted by OLGA
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Well SPT69 - FTHP = 500 psia
27 31
39
47
54
28
36
44
52
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700
Reservoir Pressure [psia]
Wa
ter-
cu
t [%
]
Prosper OLGA 2000
35
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– This well will only kick-off for 20-26% lower watercuts (absolute) than it will produce at steady state (this may increase with R pressure)
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Well SPT69 - FTHP = 500 psia
28
36
44
52
62
0
10
24
32 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2500 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700
Reservoir pressure [psia]
Wa
terc
ut
[%]
Steady state Kick-off
36
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Roughness and U-value sensitivities– Low (half), Base and High (double) Overall transfer Coefficient
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure
46 44 44
26 24 24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.0006 0.001 0.002
Roughness [inch]
Wa
terc
ut
[%]
Steady state Kick-off
Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure
44 44 44
24 24 22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Low Base High
U-value
Wa
terc
ut
[%]
Steady state Kick-off
37
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– FTHP and PI sensitivities– Watercut limits increase a little with increasing PI– Watercut limits are more sensitive to FTHP changes
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure
40 44
48
20 24
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Low Base High
Productivity Index
Wa
terc
ut
[%]
Steady state Kick-off
Well SPT69 - 3000 psia reservoir pressure
60
44
28
38
24
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
500.00 700.00 900.00
FTHP [psia]
Wa
terc
ut
[%]
Steady state Kick-off
38
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Temperature profiles at different points in time – base case
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Well SPT69 at 3000 reservoir pressure and 20% WC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Pipeline length [m]
Te
mp
era
ture
[C
]
Steady state 1 hour after shut-in 3 hours after shut-in 6 hours after shut-in 12 hours after shut-in 24 hours after shut-in
39
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Segregation during Steady State before Shut-in – Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Steady state
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
40
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Segregation during Shut-in – Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia– The apparently sudden changes in O,W & G hold-up are due to the graphs being plotted as TVD rather than along the hole.
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
6 min after shut-in
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
1 min after shut-in
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
41
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Segregation during Shut-in – Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
24 hours after shut-in
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
WATER
OIL
GAS
1 hour after shut-in
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
42
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Segregation during Start-up – Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
1 min after start-up
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
5 min after start-up
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
43
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Segregation during Start-up – Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
18 min after start-up
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
36 min after start-up
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
44
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Steady State after Start-up – Watercut = 20%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Steady state after start-up
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
45
• Watercut Limits – Steady State vs. Kick-Off– Steady State after Start-up – Watercut = 26%, Reservoir Pressure 3,000 psia, FTHP = 500 psia
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
Steady state after start-up
-2700
-2200
-1700
-1200
-700
-200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fraction [-]
Ele
vati
on
[m
]
Water Oil Gas
46
Dynamic Wells ModellingWatercut Limit for Kick-off / Shut-in Segragation
• OLGA is a powerful tool for establishing the watercut limits for which the well would not produce at steady state and where it would not kick off – investigate a future kick-off problem
– Gas Lift will be require at some time in the future in order to kick-off the wells
– Wells will encounter kick-off problems at a lower watercut than their their natural flow limit
– Determining the kick-off limits is a key issue for determining the optimum gas lift implementation schedule
• The installation cost of a GL system to support the kick-off of the well is high and deferring this expenditure is of high NPV ($MM).
• On the other hand, the inability to kick-off the well has a high impact cost in terms of deferred production ($100MM).
– Watercut limits may increase with increasing R pressures– Watercut limits are more sensitive to FTHP and PI.
• The matrix of results (dynamic sensitivity runs) will determine at what point in the future the well will need GL to overcome the impact of fluid segregation on kick-off (and optimum GL volume)