identify gas well deliquification topics for collaboration ... · identify gas well deliquification...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Identify Gas Well Deliquification Topics for Collaboration Introduction & Results
8th European GWD Conference & Exhibition
Breakout Sessions – Groningen, 15-16 October 2013
2
Contents
History of WIEN collaboration
Objective
GWD collaboration projects
Highlights & learnings
Plan for breakout sessions
Populate questionnaires
Identify collaboration topics
Form collaboration groups
3
WIEN Collaboration Objective
Overcome well intervention barriers
Improve selection: know what works
Improve design: know how to execute
Reduce uncertainty: know what to expect
Reduce cost: grow market, promote competition
Through collaboration
Share how to recognize locked-in potential
Share how to select appropriate technology
Identify need for new technology, join efforts to obtain
Share how to design and execute treatments
Share results of treatments
Share plans to grow market
Share resources to reduce cost
4
WIEN Collaboration Projects
Mobile wellhead compression (11 participants)
Multiple onshore & offshore applications within 2-4 years
Applied GWD screening tools to candidate wells of other operators
Identified three distinct categories of compressor specifications
Foam in subsea wells (3 participants)
Applications within 1-2 years
Screened foam chemical and prepared programme for batch foam jobs in 3 wells: 1 well done, 2 wells await execution
Pumps (with SSSV) (9 participants)
Onshore & offshore application within 3-5 years
Considering joint development & testing of new pump type(s)
Sharing SSSV solutions
Sharing SSSV rules & regulations
5
Breakout Sessions
Tuesday 3-5PM: populate questionnaires, identify & discuss collaboration topics
Questionnaires and possible collaboration topics are collected on flip charts, moderators will be assigned to each flip chart Prepare your response up front to leave more time for discussion
Collaboration topics must address tangible, planned activities and must include time specific targets
Wednesday 8-10AM: feedback results, agree collaboration scope, populate collaboration groups & assign leaders
Participants must share, support and execute
Collaboration kick-off requires up-front face-to-face framing session, progress meetings can be by telecon
Leader needs to spend 2-4 hours per month to keep momentum
6
Questionnaires
Method
Note down answers to survey questions and potential collaboration topics on flip charts #1-#9
Discuss results and collaboration topics, note down your support of collaboration topics on flip charts #1-#9, please coordinate your response within your companies
Flip chart themes
Predict liquid loading
Predict deliquification gains
Recognize liquid loading
Intermittent production
Assess deliquification feasibility
Select deliquification
Compression
Velocity string and choke
Foam lift
Plunger lift
Gas lift
Pumping
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
7
Moderators
Predict liquid loading
Predict deliquification gains
Recognize liquid loading
Intermittent production
Assess deliquification feasibility
Select deliquification
Compression
Velocity string and choke
Foam lift
Plunger lift
Gas lift
Pumping
#1, Nicolaas Boot, Total
#2, Stephen Paige, Centrica
#3, Vitaly Elichev, Wintershall
#4, Pasquale Imbo, ENI
#5, Ewout Biezen, NAM (Shell)
#6, René Mulder, TAQA
#7, Kees Veeken, Shell
#8, James Donald, NAM (Shell)
#9, Russell Fulks, ExxonMobil Germany
8
Predict Liquid Loading – Q&A – Nicolaas Boot, Total
#1 – How do you predict liquid loading rate?
Turner 14
Prosper (or equivalent)
11
Offset well 3
#2 – How accurate is your LL rate prediction? Pretty good vs data quality?
+/- 10%
1
+/- 20%
11
+/- 50%
1
#3 – Do you want to improve your LL rate prediction?
Yes
12
No
1
Maybe
3
#4 – How do you predict date of onset of liquid loading?
Decline curve
9
Material balance
2
Gap (or equiv.)
5
#5 – How accurate is your LL date prediction? Good enough?
+/- 1qtr
0
+/- 1yr
11
+/- 4yrs
0
#6 – Do you want to improve your LL date prediction? Improve your understanding?
Yes
16
No
1
Maybe
0
9
Predict GWD Gains – Q&A – Nicolaas Boot, Total
#1 – How do you predict GWD gain? Decline curve
6
Material balance
2
Gap (or equiv)
6
#2 – What is typical uncertainty in predicted GWD gain?
+/- 20%
1
+/- 40%
8
+/- 60%
0
#3 – Do you account for baseline IP without GWD?
Yes
6
Sometimes
2
No
0
#4 – What is your experience? Prediction optimistic
5
Prediction pessimistic
2
Prediction OK
0
#5 – How do you label GWD gains? New reserves
9
Existing reserves
0
Acceleration
4
10
Recognize Liquid Loading – Q&A – Stephen Paige, Centrica
#1 – How do you recognize liquid loading? Gas trend
17
Temperature trend
10
Liquid trend
2
#2 – How much reduction of gas rate do you observe?
<50%
14
50-90%
5
>90%
2
#3 – Do you carry out dedicated surveillance to diagnose LL?
Pressure gradient
11
Pressure buildup
16
Well test
2
#4 – Do you match your well and reservoir model?
Yes
8
Sometimes
7
No
1
#5 – How long does LL go unnoticed? Acceptable if time to implement is 1+ years
1mon
6
1qtr
8
1yr
3
#6 – What percentage of wells is currently liquid loading?
<10%
4
10-30%
5
>30%
9
#7 – What is awareness level in your company?
Poor
1
Fair
3
Good
14
11
Intermittent Production – Q&A – Stephen Paige, Centrica
#1 – What uptime do you achieve directly after onset of LL?
>80%
2
50-80%
5
<50%
8
#2 – What percentage of LL wells is currently on active IP?
<30%
9
30-70%
1
>70%
4
#3 – What parameter do you use to control shut-in?
Gas rate
11
Temperature
4
Timer
5
#4 – What parameter do you use to control start-up?
Wellhead Pressure
14
Casing pressure
2
Timer
6
#5 – By how much does active IP increase uptime?
<10%
0
10-30%
3
>30%
5
#6 – What type of IP do you use? Manual
9
Automated local
0
Automated remote
4
#7 – What percentage of active IP wells are candidates for GWD?
<30%
0
30-70%
0
>70%
13
12
Assess Technical Feasibility – Q&A – Vitaly Elichev, Wintershall
#1 – What approach do you use? Detailed review
11
Offset experience
8
Trial and error
4
#2 – What kind of technical assurance do you use?
Field trial
11
Lab/yard trial
10
Vendor input
5
#3 – Do you consider new technology? Develop
4
Test
13
Follow
3
#4 – Any technique ruled out due to SSSV? Pump
6
Plunger lift
12
Other
0
#5 – What technique ruled out due to horizontal?
Pump
0
Plunger
3
Cont. Foam : 1
Vel string: 1
#6 – What technique ruled out due to liquid?
Plunger
0
Velocity string
2
Other
0
#7 – What technique ruled out due to temperature?
Foam
0
Pump
0
Other
0
13
Select Deliquification – Q&A – Vitaly Elichev, Wintershall
#1 – What selection parameters do you use?
Profitability
14
Incremental production
8
Strategic fit
5
#2 – What is your key uncertainty? Installation cost
2
Operating cost
2
Production
16
#3 – How do you select? Well level
12
Field level
4
Area level
4
#4 – What is your key reservoir parameter? Size
5
Inflow
12
Other
4 (no details)
#5 – What is your key well parameter? Tubing size
10
Wellhead pressure
10
Area level
2
14
Compression – Q&A – Pasquale Imbo, ENI
#1 – Is compression considered as part of original FDP?
Yes
10
Sometimes
2
No
3
#2 – Where are your compressors located?
Central processing
9
Satellite
5
Wellhead
6
#3 – What compressor types do you operate?
Centrifugal
10
Recip
8
Screw
0
Wet gas
1
#4 – What minimum wellhead pressure do you plan to achieve?
<2 barg
6
2-10 barg
9
>10 barg
2
#5 – Do you consider sand risk a potential blocker?
Yes
5
Sometimes
3
No
6
#6 – Do you take synergy into account with other GWD?
Gas lift
1
Plunger lift
0
Velocity string
11
#7 – How many surface jet pumps have you installed?
<5
13
5-50
1
>50
0
#8 – What source of power gas do you use for jet pump?
Compressor ullage
2
HP well
4
Other
2
15
Velocity String and Choke – Q&A – Ewout Biezen, NAM #1 – Is velocity string considered as part of initial well proposal?
Yes
4
Sometimes
2
No
6
#2 – How many VS did you install? <5
6
5-50
5
>50
0
#3 – What percentage of VS were successful? <30%
0
30-70%
0
>70%
8
#4 – Do you take future inflow risks into account (sand/water)?
Yes – Opex to pull
1
Yes – Risk Production
8
No
1
#5 – How do you install? Rig/HWU – dead well
5
HWU – live well
3
CTU – live well
4
#6 – What VS material do you use? Corrosion resistant
1
Carbon steel with CI
3
Carbon steel
1
#7 – Do you straddle section above SSSV? Yes
1
Sometimes
3
No
7
#6 – What is minimum VS ID that you install? Made entry for Vermilion 1”-1.5”
<1”
0
1”-1.5”
1
>1.5”
9
#7 – What problems have you experienced? Integrity
1
Intervention
4
Other
2
#8 – What is your mean-time-between-failure (MTBF)?
<2yr
0
2-5yr
1
>5yr
6
#9 – Have you used choke to stabilize production?
Yes –Success
3
Yes- Failure
0
No
5
16
Foam Lift – Q&A – René Mulder, TAQA #1 – Is foam lift considered as part of initial well proposal?
Yes
3
Sometimes
3
No
6
#2 – How many batch foam jobs do you execute per year?
<10
8
10-100
4
>100
2
#3 – What percentage of batch foam lift was successful?
<30%
3
30-70%
5
>70%
4
#4 – How many continuous foam installations do you operate?
<5
7
5-50
3
>50
1
#5 – What percentage of continuous foam lift was success?
<30%
2
30-70%
3
>70%
4
#6 – What reduction of critical gas rate do you achieve?
<30%
1
30-70%
8
>70%
0
#7 – How do you select foam chemical? Field trial
5
Lab test
12
Vendor info
3
#8 – What is target foam concentration? Target should be less is better?
<1000 ppm
0
1000-10,000 ppm
6
>10,000 ppm
0
#9 – How do you dispose produced water? Surface – As usual
0
Surface – Treatment
8
Downhole
8
#10 – What do you consider potential blockers for foam lift?
CGR
7
Temperature
3
CI
3
#11 – What problems have you experienced? Corrosion
2
Blockage
3
Carry over
6
#12 – What is your mean-time-between-failure (MTBF)?
<1yr
1
1-3yr
2
>3yr
1
17
Plunger Lift – Q&A – Kees Veeken, Shell #1 – Is plunger lift considered as part of initial well proposal?
Yes
2
Sometimes
1
No
7
#2 – How many plungers did you install? <5
5
5-50
1
>50
3
#3 – What percentage of plungers were successful?
<30%
1
30-70%
3
>70%
3
#4 – Do you consider SSSV as a blocker? Yes
9
Maybe
0
No
0
#5 – How do you model plunger lift? Foss & Gaul, Lea
3
Virtuwell
1
Other
2
#6 – What type plunger do you install? Bar stock
2
Padded
6
Continuous
2
#7 – Who optimizes plunger cycle? Operator
6
Vendor
2
Automated
2
#8 – What do you consider potential blockers for plunger lift? What selection criteria do you use?
Solids
3
Deviation
4
Pressure buildup
2
#9 – What problems have you experienced? Solids
4
Control
3
Stalled
4
#10 – What is your mean-time-between-failure (MTBF)? What is required mean-time between-inspection to prevent failure = 3-4 months
<1qtr
1
1qtr-1yr
6
>1yr
0
#11 – Are you considering plunger for GWD? Yes
4
Maybe
2
No
0
18
Gas Lift – Q&A – James Donald, NAM
#1 – Is gas lift considered as part of FDP and initial well proposal?
Yes
4
Sometimes
0
No
10
#2 – How many gas lift did you install? <5
10
5-50
3
>50
1
#3 – What percentage of gas lift was successful?
<30%
0
30-70%
0
>70%
6
#4 – What type of gas lift geometry? Annulus
7
Concentric
2
Mixed
2
#5 – Do you use unloading valves? Yes
5
Sometimes
2
No
0
#6 – What is your source of lift gas? Local
6
Remote
1
HP well
1
#7 – What problems have you experienced?
Scale
5
Control
0
Other
2 (no details)
#8 – What is your mean-time-between-failure (MTBF)?
<1yr
0
1-3yr
0
>3yr
6
#9 – Are you considering gas lift for GWD? Yes
8
Maybe
3
No
1
19
Pumping – Q&A – Russell Fulks, ExxonMobill
#1 – Is pump considered as part of FDP and initial well proposal?
Yes
4
Sometimes
3
No
4
#2 – How many pumps did you install? <5
6
5-50
3
>50
1
#3 – What percentage of pumps was successful?
<30%
0
30-70%
2
>70%
3
#4 – What type of pump did you install? Piston
2
PCP
2
ESP
5
#5 – Do you consider SSSV as a blocker? Yes
9
Maybe
4
No
1
#6 – What do you consider potential blockers for pump?
Solids
6
Deviation
3
Gas separation
5
#7 – What problems have you experienced?
Gas
2
Control
1
Other
3
#8 – What is your mean-time-between-failure (MTBF)?
<1y
0
1-3yr
3
>3yr
2
#9 – Are you considering pump for GWD? Yes
9
Maybe
1
No
3
20
Predict Liquid Loading – Topics – Nicolaas Boot, Total
Improve (steady state) flow correlations (Prosper not good enough)
Given other constraints (lead time of equipment etc.) how much do we need/want to improve our understanding of liquid loading? ExxonMobil: no priority, foam buys time
TAQA: no priority, liquid loading will happen anyway
Being better at understanding liquid loading seems to be more a “nice to have”
Who’s task is it to improve the tools? Should be driven by software companies (like Petex)?
Potential participants: Total, Shell, ....
Kick-off requires transient rather than steady state modeling
RAG: would like to share transient modeling results
Potential participants: RAG, Shell, ....
21
Predict GWD Gains – Topics – Nicolaas Boot, Total
Predict instantaneous gains
Usually nodal analysis and system modelling will do
Question was related to foam, where gains are less easy to predict, and hence the investment decision is more difficult to make (as well as choice between lower cost batch foam and higher cost continuous foam)
Participants: ….
22
Recognize Liquid Loading – Topics – Stephen Paige, Centrica
Diagnose liquid loading caused by inflow problem (scaling, water)
Potential participants: Total, Shell, ….
Real-time surveillance by using downhole P&T
Potential participants: Schlumberger, ....
23
Intermittent Production – Topics – Stephen Paige, Centrica
….
Potential participants: ....
24
Assess & Select GWD – Gaps – Vitaly Elichev, Wintershall
Expertise & training
Impact of H2S, impact of WGR (uncertainty), impact of completion
Uncertainties
Production, WGR, production issues, performance of new techniques.
Assess & select
No systematic approach for selection
No clarity about right balance between short & long term issues – life time planning is missing in many cases
No managing of uncertainties and risks
Limited consideration of economics
25
Assess & Select GWD – Topics – Vitaly Elichev, Wintershall
Develop systematic approach to gas well: consider full life cycle, capture & manage uncertainties, include economics, compare new vs proven technology
TNO developed tool as part of JIP
Potential participants: Wintershall, RAG, BasNIPIneft, ….
Sour GWD
Potential participants: ....
Offshore GWD
Potential participants: ....
26
Compression – Topics – Pasquale Imbo, ENI
Single well compact (offshore) compressor.
Solutions exist (but expensive).
Presence of liquid important!
Potential participants: ENI, RAG, Total, Shell, ExxonMobil, ....
27
Velocity String and Choke – Topics – Ewout Biezen, NAM
Select velocity string setting depth
Potential participants: Maersk, ….
Sacrifice stimulation/intervention options post VS installation
Potential participants: RWE-DEA, ….
Annular flow (dead string) (transient) flow modeling (OLGA?)
Potential participants: Shell, ....
Share experience with installation of used CT string (work string)
Potential participants: Shell, ....
28
Foam Lift – Topics – René Mulder, TAQA
Develop high CGR foamer(s)
Potential participants: Maersk, ConocoPhilips, Shell UK, Baker Hughes, Nalco Champion, ENI, RAG, ....
Evaluate produced water treatment
Potential participants: Brilliant Water, PWA, ....
Expand offshore platform application
Potential participants: ....
Expand subsea application
Perenco can share experience with subsea batch foam treatments
Potential participants: TAQA, Shell, Perenco, ....
29
Plunger Lift – Topics – Kees Veeken, Shell
EU: lack of experience, NA: lack of quality control
Communication and training are key
Packer requires higher gas rate (up to 5x), annulus volume should be 3x tubing volume for maximum benefit
Remove TR-SSSV nipple profile to allow running plunger to surface, avoid tree ID much larger than tubing ID
Install deep velocity string with smooth ID and SSSV, need to straddle tree
Potential participants: Shell, ExxonMobil, ....
30
Gas Lift – Topics – James Donald, NAM
Retrofit insert strings in wells with SSSV
Large investment
Barrier philosophy
Potential participants: Shell, Schlumberger, Maersk, ....
Improve gas lift efficiency by combination with plunger (also applies to oil wells)
31
Pumping – Topics – Russell Fulks, ExxonMobill
Develop, test, prove pump with following characteristics
20-200 bpd, variable liquid content (slugs)
Low cost e.g. wireline retrievable
Maintain SC-SSSV
Deploy through 2-7/8” tubing/profile
Potential participants: ExxonMobil, RAG, Cormorant, Schlumberger, ZiLift, Perenco, Total, Shell, ....
32
Generic – Topics
Achieve economic limit of 1000 Sm3/d stable gas production
Potential participants: Shell, ....
