Gas Well Dewatering - ALRDC - Homealrdc.com/workshops/2010_2010GasWellWorkshop/Private/VII ---...

Gas Well Deliquification Workshop

Gas Well DewateringPetrom Romania – Member of OMV Group

William Hearn, Weatherford

Vasile Stanculescu, Petrom Romania

Nicolae Gheorghe, Petrom Romania

Feb. 22 - 25, 2010 2010 Gas Well Deliquification WorkshopDenver, Colorado

2

Presentation contents

Background

Selection criteria

Lifting methods

History

Application results

Operational challenges

Summary of results

Conclusions


3

Background – As Related to Gas WellDewatering

Petrom is the Largest Producer of Oil and Gas in South EasterEurope

In 2004 a 51% Acquisition of shares by OMV occurred

In February 2007 a Service Company was approached byPetrom to discuss Dewatering Options for approximately 100gas wells

April 2007 Initial Data was captured indicating that there was asolid opportunity for Gas Well Dewatering

In June 2007 a Test Contract was signed

During the 4th Quarter of 2007 Designs were completed andfirst installations occurred


4

Initial Well Evaluations

– Signs of liquid loading:

• high differential casing-tubing pressure between 9 -20 bars

• decreasing liquid production

• decreasing gas rate

• not constant/rather fluctuating gas and liquid production

– Evaluation

• Initial evaluations were completed to determine optimal lifttype and uplift potential

• The optimal lift type was chose based on economical andtechnical (pressure, rate, tubulars, perforated interval, watercut…) criteria


5

Lift Methods EvaluatedMost Common

Dewatering Methods– Velocity Strings– Foamer Application

• Batch• Continuous

– Capillaryinjection

– Injection inannulus

• Soap Sticks– Plunger Lift– Compression

Less commonhowever still appliedwith larger volumes

– Gas Lift– Rod-Pump

Other Forms of Liftalso used forDewatering in specificcases– Hydraulic Lift– Progressive Cavity

Pump– Electric Submersible

Pump


6

Continuous Foam Injection

Annulus Injection– Advantages:

• Cheap/Easy to Install• requires no batch treating or shut-in time

– Disadvantages:• Not applicable in wells with packer

Capillary Injection– Advantages:

• Applicable in Packer completions and in deep applications– Disadvantages:

• Costly compared to Annular injection• Emergency Shut down options/Wellbore Access


7

Plunger Lift System

Advantages:– Requires no outside energy source;– Rig not required for installation– Keeps well clean of paraffin deposits– Low-cost artificial lift method– Handles gassy wells– Good in deviated wellsDisadvantages:– Specific GLRs to drive system:– Solids– Requires surveillance to be optimized– Requires ID tubular to be constant (Major Issue)

LubricatorCatcher

SolarPanel

Controller

Dual“T” PadPlunger

BumperSpring


8

History

– In 4th Q of 2007 and 1st Q of 2008, 6 wells in one of thePetrom fields, were analyzed and installed withdewatering methods:

• 4 continuous foam injection in the annulus

• 1 capillary injection banded

• 1 plunger lift


9

Pilot Test - Results

– In 4th Q of 2007, 3 wells were equipped with foaminjection method resulting in a gas rate of 33000Sm3/day.

– At the 1st Q of 2008 after installing the other 3wells Petrom obtained a total increase of 49000Sm3/day; an average of 8300 Sm3/day/wellequipped


10

Pilot Test - ResultsPilot Test Contract

100000

110000

120000

130000

140000

150000

160000

170000

180000

190000

200000

1-Oct-07

21-Oct-07

10-Nov-07

30-Nov-07

20-Dec-07

9-Jan-08

29-Jan-08

18-Feb-08

9-Mar-08

29-Mar-08

Gas

Rat

e[S

m3/

day

]

Gas Rate Before Installation Gas Rate After Installation


11

Q2 –Q3 of 2008

– In 2nd and 3rd Q of 2008 the main focus was:

• maintaining the increase obtained for the wellsin the pilot test

• gathering information for the new wells andanalyzing them for future installation

• preparing the new Dewatering Contractbetween Petrom and Service Company

– In the last part of 3rd Quarter the first 5 wells fromthe Dewatering contract, have been installed(continuous foam injection into annulus)

End of Q3 2008Wells installed at end of 3rd Q 2008

60000

65000

70000

75000

80000

85000

90000

1-Apr-08

1-May-08

1-Jun-08

1-Jul-08

1-Aug-08

31-Aug-08

1-Oct-08

31-Oct-08

Gas

Rat

e[S

m3/

day]


The total increase of gas production for these 5 foaminjection methods was 18300 Sm3/day; an average of3700 Sm3/day/well


13

Q3 of 2008 – Detailed Results W1-Field 3 – Results

Well description:

• This well was a Gas Lift well which was receiving12000 Sm3/day of injection gas per day to lift. GasProduction from formation was 3000 Sm3/day with0.2 m3/day of oil and 0.5 m3/day of water

– Objective:

• reducing costs with gas injection

• obtaining a constant gas rate as high as possible


14

Q3 of 2008 – Detailed Results W1-Field 3 – Results

– Results:

• well was equipped with continuous foam injection inthe annulus

• by the end of 4th Q of 2008 the gas injection rate wasdecreased from 12000-15000 Sm3/day to 6000 Sm3/day

• the reservoir gas rate increased from an average of3000 Sm3/day to a constant gas rate of 4000 Sm3/day

• in April 2009 it was decided to stop gas injection andto produce the well only with foamer injection. The gasrate remained at the same value of 4000 Sm3/daysurveillance


15

Well W1-Field 3 –- Gas Lift Well/Converted to flowing Gas Well

W1 Real Results

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

11-Mar-08 30-Apr-08 19-Jun-08 8-Aug-08 27-Sep-08 16-Nov-08 5-Jan-09 24-Feb-09 15-Apr-09 4-Jun-09

Gas

Rat

e[S

m3/

day

]

0

5

10

15

20

25

Liq

uid

rate

[m3/

day

]

Reservoir Gas Rate Injection Gas Rate Liquid Rate

Installation ofcontinuous

foam injection inthe annulus

Injection ratewas dropped to6000 Sm3/day

Injection ratewas dropped to

0 Sm3/day


16

In 4th Q of 2008, 26 wells were installed, resulting in anincrease of gas production of 105000 Sm3/day, an averageof 4300 Sm3/day/well installed

Q4 of 2008

Wells Installed in 4th Q 2008

300000

320000

340000

360000

380000

400000

420000

440000

460000

480000

500000

1-Jul-08

21-Jul-08

10-Aug-08

30-Aug-08

19-Sep-08

9-Oct-08

29-Oct-08

18-Nov-08

Gas

Rat

e[Sm

3/day

]

Gas Rate After Installation Gas Rate Before Installation


17

Q4 of 2008 - Detailed ResultsW2 Field 2 – Results– Well description:

• During the previous year the well productiondecreased from 50000 Sm3/day to 18-23000Sm3/day.

• casing-tubing differential pressure, increased from 10bars to 23 bars

• liquid production decreased from 30 m3/day to 15m3/day


18

Q4 of 2008 - Detailed Results– Objective:

• maintaining gas rate to a value of 28000 Sm3/day andavoiding well from lost production

– Results• well was equipped with continuous foam injection in the

annulus• first month after installation the gas rate increased from

18000 Sm3/day to 46000 Sm3/day• water rate increased from 18 m3/day to 30 m3/day


19

W2 Field 2 – Real ResultsW2 Real Results

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

3-Mar-08 22-Apr-08 11-Jun-08 31-Jul-08 19-Sep-08 8-Nov-08 28-Dec-08

Gas

Rat

e[S

m3/

day

]

-4

6

16

26

36

46

56

Tu

bin

gP

ress

ure

,Cas

ing

Pre

ssu

re[b

ars]

;L

iqu

idR

ate

[m3/

day

]

Gas Rate Tubing Pressure Casing Pressure Liquid Rate

The well started to load up

Installing ofcontinuous

foamerinjection


20

Q4 of 2008 - Detailed Results

W3 Field 2 – Result– Well description:

• Well has an fluctuating production with gas fluctuationsbetween 17000 Sm3/dy and 27000 Sm3/day

• 4-5months before installation soap sticks have been usedas treatment but even with this method well continued tohave:

– High differential casing-tubing pressure of 15-18 bars– Fluctuating gas rates between 17000-27000 Sm3/day– Fluctuating liquid production


21

Q4 of 2008 - Detailed Results

– Objective:• maintaining gas rate to a constant value of 27000 Sm3/day

– Results:• well was equipped with continuous foam injection in the

annulus• first month after installation the gas production was

increased to 37000 Sm3/day


22

W3 Field 2 – Real ResultW3 Real Result

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

29-Feb-08 19-Apr-08 8-Jun-08 28-Jul-08 16-Sep-08 5-Nov-08 25-Dec-08

Gas

Rat

e[S

m3/

day]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tubi

ngP

ress

ure,

Cas

ing

Pre

ssur

e[b

ars]

;Wat

erR

ate

[m3/

day]

Gas Rate Tubing Pressure Casing Pressure Liquid Rate

Performed soapstick treatment

Installing ofcontinuous

foamerinjection


23

Challenges During Operations

– Condensate Production – Production figures provided werenot always accurate due to inconsistent measurements. Insome cases this made optimization difficult

– Holes in Tubing – Initially major issues were found with un-diagnosed holes in the tubing. Solution was to requireEchometer tests as part of evaluation process

– Flow Line Pressure – Significant difference in flow linepressure during Summer and Winter changed the impact ofthe lift method applied

– Choke Size Limitations – Wellhead chokes sizes if notproperly modeled, may only result in higher flowing tubingpressure with minimal increase in production


24

Challenges During Operations

– Tubing Conditions – Major issue with consistent ID’s intubulars

– Operational Issues – New Technology requires significanttime spent on Education and Optimization

– Well Access Issues – Road Conditions can be Challenging– Theft


25

Overall View - Dewatering Project in2008

– At the end of 2008 have been installed 35 wells• 1 plunger technology• 1 capillary banded technology• 4 continuous foam injection through capillary technology• 29 continuous foam injection in the annulus technology

– Total increase of production obtained was 125000 Sm3/day,an average of 3500 Sm3/day/well installed

– Other benefits :• Corrosion Problem

– applying chemicals reduced corrosion problems significantly• Paraffin Problems

– applying plunger reduced the paraffin and scale problems


26

Overall view regarding Dewatering in2008

Overall View - 2008

500000

550000

600000

650000

700000

750000

1-Oct-07

15-Dec-07

28-Feb-08

13-May-08

27-Jul-08

10-Oct-08

24-Dec-08

Gas

rate

[Sm

3/d

ay]



27

Conclusions

The results of the application of modern dewateringmethods, increased the average gas production ofequipped wells by 22%.

The success is based on a good cooperation betweenPetrom and Service Company.

Petrom will continue and expand the application of gasdewatering methods in it’s operations.


28

Thank you!


2929

QUESTIONS?


30

Copyright

Rights to this presentation are owned by the company(ies) and/orauthor(s) listed on the title page. By submitting this presentation tothe Gas Well Deliquification Workshop, they grant to the Workshop,the Artificial Lift Research and Development Council (ALRDC), andthe Southwestern Petroleum Short Course (SWPSC), rights to:

– Display the presentation at the Workshop.

– Place it on the www.alrdc.com web site, with access to the site to beas directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.

– Place it on a CD for distribution and/or sale as directed by theWorkshop Steering Committee.

Other uses of this presentation are prohibited without the expressedwritten permission of the company(ies) and/or author(s) who own itand the Workshop Steering Committee.


31

DisclaimerThe following disclaimer shall be included as the last page of a Technical Presentation orContinuing Education Course. A similar disclaimer is included on the front page of the Gas WellDeliquification Web Site.

The Artificial Lift Research and Development Council and its officers and trustees, and the GasWell Deliquification Workshop Steering Committee members, and their supporting organizationsand companies (here-in-after referred to as the Sponsoring Organizations), and the author(s) ofthis Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Training Course and their company(ies),provide this presentation and/or training material at the Gas Well Deliquification Workshop "as is"without any warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the information or theproducts or services referred to by any presenter (in so far as such warranties may be excludedunder any relevant law) and these members and their companies will not be liable for unlawfulactions and any losses or damage that may result from use of any presentation as a consequenceof any inaccuracies in, or any omission from, the information which therein may be contained.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in these presentations and/or training materialsare those of the author and not necessarily those of the Sponsoring Organizations. The author issolely responsible for the content of the materials.

The Sponsoring Organizations cannot and do not warrant the accuracy of these documentsbeyond the source documents, although we do make every attempt to work from authoritativesources. The Sponsoring Organizations provide these presentations and/or training materials asa service. The Sponsoring Organizations make no representations or warranties, express orimplied, with respect to the presentations and/or training materials, or any part thereof, includingany warrantees of title, non-infringement of copyright or patent rights of others, merchantability, orfitness or suitability for any purpose.

Date post:	13-Aug-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vothu
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Gas Well Dewatering - ALRDC - Homealrdc.com/workshops/2010_2010GasWellWorkshop/Private/VII ---...

Documents