WELL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS USING WELLFLO

(DAM 5163 PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND COMPLETION DESIGN)

By
Loh Chun Liang G 03498
Leong Sau Hong G 03406
Ong Chong Yew G 03499
Lek Chun Hou

G 03493

Project submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
MSc in Drilling Engineering
(Petroleum)

August 2016

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar
Perak Darul Ridzuan
i

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT

..........1

CHAPTER 1: METHODOLOGY
1.1

Well Performance Modal

...............2

1.2

Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) Data Match

...... 2

1.3

Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) and

Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) Match

.....4

CHAPTER 2: PARAMETER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

.5

2.1

Water Cut

2.2

Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)

2.3

Pressure Depletion

.7
.9

CHAPTER 3: RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

3.1

Matrix Acidizing

3.2

Gas Lift

...11

...13

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1

Conclusion

...16

4.2

Recommendations

.......17

REFERENCES

...18

ABSTRACT
An oil field located in offshore Malaysia was developed by drilling 10 wells. This oil field has
reached peak production in year 2000. Since then, oil production has decreased rapidly due to an
increase in water production. Production performance analysis on well X was performed in this
case study. An economic limit of 1500 STB oil/day/well was premised; i.e. production rate lower
than that is not economical. Various sensitivity analyses, namely water cut, gas oil ratio, and
reservoir pressure depletion were conducted, as well as proposal of production maintenance
methods, in order to prolong the economical production period of well X. Rock and fluid
property data was obtained from seismic and exploration well. Nodal analysis was conducted
using WellFlo in order to calculate the flow potential of well X, design well completion of a well
and model the sensitivity of a well design to different factors that may affects it in the longer
term (Brown & Lea, 1985). Three different reservoir parameters sensitivity analysis were
investigated including water cut, gas oil ratio and pressure depletion in order to identify the
effects to the oil production rate. Subsequently the development plan and options needed to be
conducted to encounter the problems arising from the changes of these reservoir parameters as to
ensure the production rate is above the economic limit. Gas lift was chosen and identified as the
most suitable artificial lift to boost the oil production as the reservoir pressure continuously
depleted. The changes in gas injection rates leaded to different increment in oil production rate.
4MMscf/d was the optimum and recommended injection rate provided that the well was
producing almost similar amount of gas which can be used as the gas course. Gas lift was
strongly recommendation to be conducted.

CHAPTER 1

METHODOLOGY

1.1
Well Performance Model
Firstly, the well completion data, well deviation data and equipment data were entered, the well
design of Well X is as follows:

Figure 1: Completion String Design in Texts and Icons

The reservoir pay zone depth is between 6400ft TVD to 6500ft TVD below RKB, measuring
100ft thick. Water depth is 250ft and the Christmas-Tree is installed at the seabed, which is 350ft
TVD below RKB.
1.2

Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) Data Match

Secondly, PVT data were entered and the following parameters were matched with the actual
well characteristics in order to ensure the validity of the well performance model in WellFlo.

The figure above showed that the bubble point pressure calculated by Wellflo matches exactly
with the actual data (Pb = 2030psia). In addition, oil formation volume factor (Bo) and oil
viscosity (Uo) also matches exactly with the actual PVT data at 1.27bbl/STB and 0.66cp
respectively.

In addition, the productivity index is matched with the actual well productivity index at 12.36
STB/day/psi.

1.3

Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) and Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) Match

Figure 2: IPR and VLP for Base Case

Operating
Pressure
(psia)

Liquid Rate
(STB/d)

Oil Rate
(STB/d)

Water Rate
(STB/d)

Gas Rate
(MMscf/d)

Water Cut
(%)

GOR
(SCF/STB)

2140.62

6877.67

4814.37

2063.30

2.65

30

550

Subsequently, IPR and VLP curves are plotted in Wellflo. According to the operating condition,
the oil rate is 4814.37 STB/day, as compared to the actual well oil production rate at 4730
STB/day, the percentage error is acceptable, i.e. 1.8%.

CHAPTER 2
2.1

PARAMETERS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Water Cut

Nodal analysis for well X has been carried out to determine its optimized production ability by
doing a sensitivity analysis on the water cut. A range of water cut from 10% to 99.999% has
been taken into consideration to check if the oil production rate was still economic to be
produced from the reservoir. By following the given economic limit of 1500 STB/day, it could
be observed that beyond a certain amount of water cut, the economics did not deem to be feasible
anymore.
The results of the well performance analysis (Nodal analysis) were been tabulated below
and plotted in Figure 3. By using all the input parameters provided and fixing the GOR at 550
SCF/STB, the results showed that well X was producing at a very good oil rate of 9261.923
STB/day with 10% water cut until it reduced down to 1580.339 STB/day at 50% water cut. At 60%
water cut, the oil production rate was no longer economic to be produced because the oil
production rate was only 358.202 STB/day. Above 60% water cut, no operating points could be
found when there were no intersection points between the inflow and outflow curves. These
meant that well X will not be able to produce any oil at all if the water cut exceed 60%. Well X
will not have sufficient energy to lift the liquid when water cut exceeded 60% because there was
no drawdown in the wellbore.
With the present reservoir pressure of 2800psia, drawdown between the reservoir
pressure and the operating pressure (flowing bottom hole pressure) was needed for the well to
produce. When water cut was high, the water moved into the wellbore via a different route from
the oil such as, cross flow, high-permeability water channels and water coning. When these
happened, the drawdown pressure in the wellbore will be greatly reduced due to the effect of the
pressure support from the water. Hence, a lower drawdown pressure will be anticipated which
lead to a lower and eventually, no production rate at all from the well.
=

Table below shows the effect of water cut on oil production rate:
Operating
pressure
(psia)

Liquid
Rate
(STB/d)

Oil Rate
(STB/d)

Water Rate
(STB/d)

Gas Rate
(MMSCF/d)

Water
Cut (%)

GOR
(SCF/STB)

1916.17

10291.03

9261.92

1029.103

5.09

10.00

550.00

2017.88

8606.22

6884.978

1721.244

3.79

20.00

550.00

2140.62

6877.67

4814.37

2063.302

2.65

30.00

550.00

2283.25

5123.13

3073.88

2049.251

1.69

40.00

550.00

2465.42

3160.68

1580.34

1580.339

0.87

50.00

550.00

2701.29

890.50

356.20

534.302

0.20

60.00

550.00

70.00

550.00

80.00

550.00

90.00

550.00

99.99

550.00

No Operating Point

Figure 3: Sensitivity of Water Cut Percentage to Oil Production Rate

2.2

Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)

Gas-oil ratio (GOR) was another limiting factor that will have direct impact on the oil production
rate. Different GOR operating conditions were being put input into the Wellflo software to check
whether well X will produce oil within the economic limit of 1500 STB/day. The water cut of
30%, which was the current reservoir condition, was being remained as a constant figure while
different GOR values of 100 SCF/STB to 1100 SCF/STB were being manipulated.
The results of the GOR sensitivity on oil production rate were being tabulated below and
plotted in Figure 4. At a low GOR of 100 SCF/STB, there was no operating point for Well X to
produce the oil from the reservoir. While the oil production rate of 1012.137 STB/day was below
the economic limit when the GOR was 300 SCF/STB. Above GOR of 300 SCF/STB, the oil
production rate was gradually increasing until 7649.803 STB/day when the GOR was 1100
SCF/STB. As the GOR decreases, the operating pressures of Well X could be seen as increasing.
This trend was not wanted as increasing operating pressures meant that the pressure drawdown
was decreasing until there was no operating point for GOR of 100 SCF/STB.
The reason behind the decrease in operating pressure when the GOR increase was that
GOR will increase the pressure drop of the well. High GOR can be correlated to a smaller
hydrostatic column of pressure because the density of the oil was lowered when more gas was
present. Therefore, the operating pressure (bottom hole flowing pressure) was decreased as the
hydrostatic pressure exerted in the well was reduced by the high GOR.
=
= + +

Table below shows the effect of Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) on oil production rate:
Operating
pressure
(psia)

Liquid
Rate
(STB/d)

Oil Rate
(STB/d)

Water
Rate
(STB/d)

Gas Rate
(MMSCF/d)

No operating point

Water
Cut (%)

GOR
(SCF/STB)

30.00

100.00

2634.42

1445.91

1012.14

433.77

0.30

30.00

300.00

2140.62

6877.67

4814.37

2063.30

2.65

30.00

550.00

1941.28

9684.72

6779.30

2905.42

4.75

30.00

700.00

1726.74

10068.80

7048.16

3020.64

6.34

30.00

900.00

1631.84

10928.29

7649.80

3278.49

8.42

30.00

1100.00

Figure 4: Sensitivity of GOR to the Oil Production Rate

2.3

Pressure Depletion

Reservoir pressure depletion is the drop in average reservoir pressure due to the fluid production.
All bounded reservoirs have pressure depletion (a drop in average reservoir pressure) associated
with fluid production. The effect of pressure depletion can be countered or slow down by the
support of aquifer and gas cap.
The effect of the reservoir pressure depletion on the production of well X was studied by
doing a sensitivity test of the reservoir pressure ranged from 1600psia to current reservoir
pressure, which was 2800psia. The sensitivity test was done under the assumptions of constant
water cut and GOR which was 30 % and 550 SCF/STB respectively. The results of the
sensitivity test were tabulated below and plotted in Figure 5.
By observing the Inflow/Outflow curve of Figure 5, as the reservoir pressure depleted,
the inflow curve of IPR of well X moved downward indicated the drop the potential of the
reservoir. The drop of the reservoir caused the decrease of the drawdown that was required to
flow the hydrocarbon to the wellbore. Consequently, the hydrocarbon had less energy to be able
to flow from the wellbore to the surface. Based on the well model, the current reservoir pressure
which was 2800psia still able to support a decent oil production in well X, which is 4815.371
STB/day. But as the reservoir pressure depleted, the oil production rate decreased. As the
pressure dropped to 2000psia, the well no longer had enough energy to produce the fluid to the
surface and artificial lift option should be considered if the well reached this stage. Table below
shows the operating condition for sensitivity of pressure depletion:
Inflow
Pressure
(psia)

Operating
Pressure
(psia)

Liquid
Rate
(STB/d)

Oil Rate
(STB/d)

Water
Rate
(STB/d)

Gas Rate
(MMSCF/d)

1600.00

No operating point

2000.00

No operating point

Water
Cut
(%)

GOR
(SCF/STB)

2400.00

2120.93

2948.38

2062.46

883.91

1.13

30.00

550.00

2800.00

2140.62

6877.67

4814.37

2063.30

2.65

30.00

550.00

Figure 5: Inflow/Outflow Curve for Sensitivity of Pressure Depletion

10

CHAPTER 3
3.1

RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

Matrix Acidizing

Matrix acidizing refers to one of two stimulation processes in which acid is injected into
the well penetrating the rock pores at pressures below fracture pressure. Acidizing is
used to either stimulate a well to improve flow or to remove damage. During matrix
acidizing the acids dissolve the sediments and mud solids within the pores that are
inhibiting the permeability of the rock. This process enlarges the natural pores of the
reservoir which stimulates the flow of hydrocarbons.
A matrix treatment restores permeability by removing damage around the
wellbore, thus improving productivity in both sandstone and carbonate wells. The effect
of damage on well productivity and flow is illustrated in Figure 6. Because of the small
flow area in near wellbore area, any damage to the formation at that point may account
for most of the total pressure drop (drawdown) during production and, thereby, dominate
well performance.
Shallow damage

Deep damage

Figure 6: Effect of damage zone on flow for shallow and deep damage (McLeod, 1986)
The benefit of matrix acidizing on well X was studied by a sensitivity test of the
improve skin or permeability of the well. The production of well X was studied with
different skin ranged from the original skin, which was 2.92, to a negative skin of -0.49.
The results of the test are tabulated and plotted in table and figure below respectively:

11

Permeability
(md)

Skin

Operating
Pressure
(psia)

Liquid
Rate
(STB/d)

Oil Rate
(STB/d)

Water
Rate
(STB/d)

Gas Rate
(MMSCF/d)

Water
Cut
(%)

GOR
(SCF/STB)

100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00

2.92
0.79
0.08
-0.28
-0.49

1908.57
1978.78
2013.42
2035.62
2049.17

9298.09
10655.48
11109.50
112895.87
11412.66

6508.66
7458.84
7776.65
7907.11
7988.87

2789.43
3196.65
3332.85
3388.76
3423.80

3.58
4.10
4.28
4.35
4.39

30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00

550.00
550.00
550.00
550.00
550.00

Figure 7: Inflow/Outflow Curve for Development Option of Matrix Acidizing

With the remove of damage and improve permeability, the hydrocarbon able to enter
wellbore with a smaller drawdown thus enhance the productivity of well. Based on the
results, as the permeability improved, the productivity of well X increase. But the effect
of the stimulation was relatively less significant as the permeability improved to more
than 300 md from the initial 100md. With the increase of permeability from 100 md to
200 md and 200 md able to improve the oil production by 14.6 % and 19.5 %. But with
the permeability of 500 md only increase 22.7 % of production.

12

3.2

Gas Lift

Gas lift is a method of artificial lift that uses an external source of high pressure gas for
supplementing formation gas to lift the well fluids. The principle of gas lift is that gas
injected into the tubing reduces the fluid average density of the fluids in the tubing and
thus the hydrostatic load on the formations is reduced in order to boost the commercial
hydrocarbon volumes to be displaced to the surface. Meantime, the average specific
gravity of the fluid is decreased and eventually, both factors give the result in lowering
the flowing bottom hole pressure at the bottom of the tubing.
In our case study, the current production rate is approximately 4814 STB/d with
the reservoir pressure at 2800psia and 30% water cut condition. However, the increase in
percentage of water cut from our reservoir had significantly affects the well performance
as the oil production has decreased rapidly. In addition to that, the sensitivity analysis of
the reservoir pressure depletion clearly indicate that no operating point when the
pressure has depleted to less than 2400psia. Hence, the major issue for our case is high
water production which leads to well killing and reduction in an economical production
period. With the increment of water production or decrease of reservoir pressure,
reservoir pressure drawdown reduces which causes reduction in oil production rate. To
preserve the reservoir production, gas lift is proposed to increase the reservoir pressure
and preventing water source invasion. After modelling of gas lift design, the figure is
plotted and the table is extracted as shown below:
Gas
Injection
Rate
(MMscf/d)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Operating
Pressure
(psia)

Liquid
Rate
(STB/d)

Oil Rate
(STB/d)

Water
Rate
(STB/d)

Gas Rate
(MMscf/d)

2008.75
1908.57
1859.91
1841.19
1832.58
1829.81
1830.71
1833.68
1837.41
1841.67

8253.17
9298.09
9805.63
10000.97
10090.93
10119.59
10110.25
10079.25
10040.39
9995.92

5777.22
6508.66
6863.94
7000.68
7063.85
7083.71
7077.18
7055.47
7028.27
6997.14

2475.95
2789.43
2941.69
3000.29
3027.28
3035.88
3033.08
3023.78
3012.12
2998.78

3.18
3.58
3.78
3.85
3.89
3.90
3.89
3.88
3.87
3.85

13

Water
Cut
(%)

GOR
(SCF/STB)

30

550

Valve
No.

MD (ft)

TVD (ft)

1
2
3

3275.87
4407.68
5087.27

3275.87
4407.68
5087.27

Unloading Casing
Pressure
(psia)
1284.33
1266.77
5087.75

Objective Tubing
Pressure
(psia)
774.00
938.851
1053.24

Temperature
(degree F)
146.43
148.42
149.22

Figure 8: Position of Gas Lift Valves Corresponding To the Tubing Pressure

Figure 9: Sensitivity of Injection Rate on Oil Production Rate for Gas Lift Design

14

The depth and number of gas lift valves had been studied and calculated before being
modelled with different scenario correspond to the total depth of the wells. For instant,
the top gas lift valve should be located at the maximum depth that permits U-tubing the
load fluid from this depth with the available injection gas pressure. When the well is
loaded to the surface with a kill fluid, the depth of the top valve can be estimated with
the following equation:
1 =
Where:

1 = depth of top valve, ft

= Surface kick-off or average field injection gas pressure, psig
= Surface wellhead U-tubing (unloading) pressure, psig
= Static load kill fluid pressure gradient, psi/ft

Range between 1-10 MMscf of gas injection rate is modelled for our reservoir
condition with 30% water cut and 550SCF/STB gas oil ratio. From the sensitivity chart
above, oil production rate increases with the injection rate and then decreases back. By
amount of only 1MMscf/d gas injection, oil production is able to increase up to 20%.
However, by increasing amount of gas injection to 7MMscf/d, it has the small effect on
oil production that its the characteristic point called economical optimum point. The
optimum rate is renowned as over injection. After this point well fluid density reduction
due to higher amount of injection gas is equal to friction force increase due to higher
amount of passing fluid volume through tubing. As the rate of injection rate increases,
friction force has more predominant effect than hydrostatic pressure reduction. At this
point, the maximum amount of well production decreases until in a special injection rate,
that is if the gas increases, the effect on production will be inversed. In addition to that,
the oil production rate only have a slightly increment from 4MMscf/d onward which
does not give a significant contribution economically. Hence, the recommended
injection rate for gas lift operation is only at 4MMscf/d which is able to give a
production rate of 7000STB/d.

15

CHAPTER 4
4.1

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

Well X was successfully modelled using the Wellflo software to identify and analyse the
well performance in order to make sure the production rate is able to achieve above
economic limit. The parameters which had been taken into account for the model
including water cut percentage, GOR and pressure depletion.
The water cut played an important role in operating a field because it determines
the pressure drawdown of a well which could determine the performance of a well
production. Low water cut is always preferable in this case as the oil production rate
increases as a result of a lower operating pressure. Nevertheless, GOR in a well can has
an adverse effect on the well performance as well, as the hydrostatic pressure of oil
column in the well is been altered. The higher the GOR of a well, the lower the
operating pressure (flowing bottom hole pressure) of a well because the hydrostatic
column has been reduced by the GOR effect. The reservoir pressure depletion is an
important issue in maintaining the productivity of the well. As the pressure deplete, the
well has no longer has enough energy to produce the to A proper pressure maintenance
need to be considered in order to improve or maintain the productivity of well X.
Eventually, few development options were being studied based on the suitability
and characteristics of the reservoir to encounter the change of parameters above as to
increase back the production of the reservoir. Matrix acidizing able to improve the
productivity of well X by removing the near wellbore damage which will improve the
permeability. But the improve percentage of the production should be considered when
designing the acidizing job. Moreover, gas lift is selected as the only artificial lift that
suitable to boost the production when the natural drive energy of the reservoir
continuously depleted along with the increasing water cut. The major reason lead to this
decision because the gas produced from the reservoir is sufficient to use as the injected
gas for the gas lift and subsequently will help in reducing cost. Compare to other type of
artificial lift, gas lift is the lowest cost in operating and maintenance with a great positive
impact to the production rate.

16

4.2

Recommendations

Run a Production Logging Tool (PLT) to check which zone is contributing a

lot of the water production and potentially well intervention by plugging off
the watered out zone in the reservoir to prevent high water-cut during oil
production.

Produced to the maximum GOR which the upstream facilities can handle.

Water injection or gas injection to counter the reservoir pressure depletion or

to maintain the reservoir pressure.

Acidizing is not recommended for well X as the field already reached its
peak production 16 years ago and the acidizing only improve 14 22 % of
oil production depending on the size of the acidizing jobs.

Gas lift should be introduced as the artificial lift to provide external energy to
boost the hydrocarbon to the surface in a pressure depleted reservoir.

17

CHAPTER 5

REFERENCES

Brown, K.E. and Lea, J.F. 1985. Nodal Systems Analysis of Oil and Gas Wells. J Pet
Technol 37 (10): 1751-1763. SPE-14714-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14714-PA.
Jahn, F., Cook, M., & Graham, M. (2008). Hydrocarbon exploration & production (Vol.
55). Elsevier.
McLeod, H. O. (1986). Matrix Acidizing to Improve Well Performance. Short Course
Manual. Richardson, Texas: SPE.
Moshfeghian, M. Impact of Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) on Crude Oil Pressure Drop in
Gathering Systems.
Parker, E. (2013). Effect Of Gas-Oil-Ratio On Oil Production.

18