Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4– 7 October 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
This paper presents a study for plunger lift characteristics to dewater tight-gas wells operated in the Piceance basin of Rocky
Mountains with multiple-well pads and surface pipeline network. The wells’ TVDs are about 6000 ft with deviated paths, and
the water-gas-ratio (WGR) is 40~80 stb/MMscf. The objective is to understand the optimal operating conditions for
reasonably controlling deliquification without severe liquid surge while maintaining maximum gas production.
The IPR and reservoir depletion are based on tight gas model, which considers the transient IPR due to very low matrix
permeability, hydraulic-fractures and drainage radius. A transient dynamic multiphase flow analysis has been performed to
investigate the plunger lift effectiveness, performance and optimization for different scenarios. Simulation runs were
performed for early, middle and late field life which corresponds to different reservoir pressure and productivity index. It
shows that liquid loading becomes severe and production becomes unstable (heading) with decreased reservoir pressure and
increased water influx. Eventually the well production can stop due to liquid loading. Plunger lift helps to maintain the
production and reduce the instability. A network model with 22 wells on a pad has been built to study the interaction of the
system and the liquid surge control strategy.
Plunger-lift process for tight gas wells with liquid loading problems needs integrated dynamic modeling for both reservoir
and wellbore systems. The philosophy of optimization is that, the reservoir and wellbore system should be the "master" for
production optimization, and surface control should serve as a "slave" system.
Due to the fact that the well productivity capability declines and liquid influx increases when reservoir pressure reduces,
the wells are expected to load up with liquid because of falling below the critical gas velocity to lift liquid droplets. Lee2
(2003) indicated that tight gas reservoirs have steep IPR, react to pressure change slowly and often flow in unstable
production conditions.
Plunger-lift has been determined to be adequate dewatering method for tight gas wells. Plunger lift is a particular form of
intermittent artificial lift which makes use of a metal plunger to supply a solid interface between gas and the lifted liquid
load. It is an efficient solution for gas wells with liquid loading problems at low-medium water influx and shallower
producing wellbores. The control of time for flowing, after-flowing and shut-in determines the action of the plunger and the
wells performance.
This study focuses on a 22-wells one-pad system. There is special concern on how the plunger lift will be operated for the
system to ensure the separator capacity will not be exceeded by liquid surge. It is proposed to perform a dynamic wellbore
and surface network simulation for the system optimization. The objective of this study is to recommend an optimal
operation strategy with plunger-lift for different production stages to have the maximum gas recovery.
q g = C ⋅ (p r - p 2wf ) n
2
(1)
For a given time, assume the index of n obtained from the overall formation IPR curve will be applied to all layers. Trial-
and-error method is used to find the coefficient C for each of the layers. The layer IPRs have to be added up to be equal to the
SPE 124571 3
overall IPR, as illustrated in Fig. 11, where the red diamond dotted line is the sum results of all layers, and it matches the IPR
(blue diamond solid line) from the tight gas tank model. In this way, all layers IPRs are obtained. The same approach is used
for all stages of production life for the IPRs.
Liquid leakage is simulated in the model to consider the by-passing volumetric flow from ahead of the plunger to behind
the plunger. We consider the leakage mechanism due to slip between the plunger and the film around the plunger. For the gap
between the plunger and pipe wall, assuming laminar flow, the average film velocity is
up
uf = (2)
2
1/ 4
⎛ 40 g ( ρ l − ρ g ) ⋅ σ gl ⎞
uc = ⎜ ⎟ (4)
⎜ 0.44 ρ g2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
SPE 124571 5
In OLGA dynamic model, the complicated multiphase physical phenomenon including flow patterns, transition
mechanism, falling liquid film along the tubing, liquid droplets, slugging due to liquid accumulation at bottomhole and cyclic
behavior are all captured. The transient dynamic model is more powerful than a single point calculation of the critical
velocity.
Well heading is an oscillatory phenomenon occurring in a liquid loading well. For this case, the well heading
phenomenon can be observed when wellhead pressure increase to 250 psi, as shown in Fig. 17 where system pressure
experiences cyclic fluctuations. Well heading consists of a succession of pressure build-up phases in the casing without
production and high flow rate phases due to high pressure gas overcomes liquid loading from the casing to the tubing. The
sequence is as follows. First, liquid accumulates in bottomhole gradually, and eventually blocks gas flow. Gas in casing is
compressed to a point when pressure is sufficiently high to break through the liquid blockage and push the long liquid slug to
the surface. Accordingly, bottomhole pressure and casing pressure decrease. Then gas flow slows down, liquid loading starts
again. It was found that when WGR increases from 40 to 80 stb/MMscf with WHP=250 psi, the wells’ natural flow will stop
eventually due to liquid loading.
each cycle of plunger lift removes 2.2 bbl of water. The system repeats the process of liquid loading and unloading by
plunger lift.
In order to investigate the gas and liquid surge volume range, different simulation runs with plunger lift multi-cycles have
been performed using reservoir pressures of 3000 psi, 2000 psi, and 1600 psi, wellhead tubing pressures of 75 psi, 150 psi,
250 psi, 350 psi and 500 psi, and water gas ratio of 40 and 80 stb/MMscf. With WGR of 40 stb/MMscf as shown in Tables 4,
liquid surge rate can range from 140 to 1400 b/d in a normal cycle, and from 1300 to 4500 b/d in the first cycle (plunger lift
from long-time shut-in). For gas rate, the surge rate can range from 4 to 10 MMscf/d in the normal cycle, and from 9 to 26
MMscf/d in the first cycle. Table 5 compares the cases of WGR = 40 stb/MMscf and WGR = 80 stb/MMscf in the later life
of 1600 psi reservoir pressure. The liquid surge rate (400~1500 b/d) with WGR of 80 stb/MMscf in a normal plunger lift
cycle can be three time of the surge volume (140~500 b/d) for the case of WGR of 40 stb/MMscf .
Conclusions
A systematic analysis including tight gas reservoir IPR and wellbore transient dynamics has been performed to investigate
the plunger lift effectiveness, performance and optimization for the multiple pad wells in the Piceance basin. The dynamic
wellbore models have been built and run for different scenarios including water-gas-ratio (WGR), individual well vs. network
well pad models, and several sensitivity cases. Simulation was performed for “early”, “middle” and “late” field life which
corresponds to different reservoir pressure and productivity index values and reservoir pressures.
The IPR and reservoir depletion information are based on tight gas tank model and are benchmarked with a 3-D reservoir
simulation, which considers the transient IPR due to very low matrix permeability, hydraulic-fractures and drainage radius.
IPR with back-pressure equation and curve fitting (C & n) were performed for different production stages. Wellbore heat
transfer is considered for the 2000 ft long reservoir thickness along the wellbore configuration. The bottomhole enthalpy from
the inflow is calculated and J-T cooling effect due to significant pressure drawdown is included.
It shows that liquid loading becomes severe and production becomes unstable with higher WGR. Turner critical velocity
for liquid loading is a single point model, while the dynamic wellbore model with tight gas IPR captures the system physics.
When reservoir pressure is low (1600 psi) and WHP is high (150 psi or higher), well heading occurs, which is an unstable
phenomenon with oscillation on a liquid loading well, featuring no liquid rate for long time followed by a liquid surge for a
short time. Higher WCR (80) and high WHP (150 psi or higher) can kill gas production when reservoir pressure is 1600 psi
or less.
Plunger lift deliquification mechanism has been studied. Although there exists significant liquid falling back in the form
of liquid film on tubing wall, liquid is still produced to the surface when plunger arrives at the wellhead. The high-pressure
gas below plunger blows down quickly when plunger is captured in wellhead, which helps to carry the liquid to surface. For
individual plunger-lift well, liquid rate reaches its’ peak in a few minutes. There are two gas peaks during a plunger-lift cycle.
Gas rate decreases after plunger lift and goes to lower level.
For the given conditions, plunger-lift is not operatable with WHP higher than 350 psi and reservoir pressure lower than
1600 psi. Multiple cycles of plunger lift have been simulated to study the well production characteristics. Plunger lift helps to
SPE 124571 7
mitigate the instability problem due to low pressure and liquid loading. Simultaneous plunger-lift from shut-in conditions for
multiple-wells pad should be avoided. Otherwise, simultaneous start-up (of even 5 wells) with plunger lift from shut-in
conditions will flood the separator of 48" ID x10ft length with 26 bbl surge volume.
Through this study we want to understand how the individual well plunger performs, which is the most important part.
With that information, we can try different ways on the surface, e.g., using different separator pressures, different compressor
intake pressure, and intake sizing to serve and accommodate the well's flow behavior. The philosophy is that, the subsurface
and wellbore system should be the "master" for production optimization, and the surface control should serve as a "slave"
system.
It is worthy to couple the transient dynamic wellbore model with a 3-D reservoir simulation. Basically we found similar
results for tight gas plunger lift using the integrated transient simulation (Chears-OLGA link). The details will be discussed in
another paper.
Nomenclature
BHP = bottomhole pressure, psia
C = coefficient forgas back-pressure equation,MMscf/d/psi2
CGR = condensate gas ratio, stb/MMscf
dti = tubing inner diameter, ft
dpl =plunger diameter, ft
f1 = the linear term of viscous force, N/(m/s)
f2 = the quadratic term of viscous force, N/(m/s)2
Fo =the static friction force for plunger to move, N
fw =the wall friction coefficient to plunger movement, N/(m/s)
g = gravity acceleration, ft/s2
n = index for back-pressure equation,
p = pressure, psia
pr = reservoir pressure, psia
pwf =bottomhole pressure, psia
qg= gas flow rate, MMscf/d
qfl = volumetric flow rate due to leak
t = time, hours
Tr = reservoir temperature, R
uc = Turner critical velocity, ft/s
uf = average film velocity, ft/s
up = plunger upward velocity, ft/s
WGR = water gas ratio, stb/MMscf
WHP = wellhead pressure, psia
Greek symbols
ρg =gas density, lbm/f3
ρl =liquid density, lbm/f3
σgl = gas-liquid surface tension, dynes/cm
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Chevron Energy Technology Company for permission to publish this study. Special
thanks to following people of Chevron: Charles Walker, Lina Galvis, Robert Lestz, and Kamath Jairam for their discussion,
suggestion and reviewing of this study. I would like to give credit to Lina Gavis for her providing the IPM model results, and
Cesar Mantillia of University of Texas at Austin for his help with Chears reservoir simulation comparison. I appreciate my
colleague Philip Fader for his kind help to review and edit this paper.
8 SPE 124571
References
1. Tinker, S., and Potter, E.: “ Unconventional Gas Research and Technology Needs”, SPE 2007 Research and Development Conference,
Lexington, Kentucky, April 19, 2007 (www.aboutoilandgas.org/spe-site/spe/spe/meetings/RDC/2007/tinker.pdf)
2. Lea, J.F. et. al.: “Gas Well Deliquification-Solution to Gas Well Liquid Loading Problems”, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2003, p53,
Burlington, MA, U.S.A,.
3. Roberts, C.N.: “Fracture of Optimization in a Tight Gas Play: Muddy “J” Formation, Wattenberg Field, Colorado”, paper SPE 9851
presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium , 27-29 May 1981, Denver, Colorado
4. Thompson, J.K.: “Use of Constant Pressure, Finite Capacity Type Curves for Performance Prediction of Fractured Wells in Low-
Permeability Reservoirs”, paper SPE 9839 presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium , 27-29 May 1981,
Denver, Colorado
5. Finley, R. J.: “An Overview of Selected Blanket Geometry, Low Permeability Gas Sandstones in Texas”, Geology of Tight Gas
Reservoir: AAPG Studies in Geology No. 24 (1986) 69-85
6. Spencer, C.W.: “Review of Characteristics of Tight Gas Reservoirs in Western United States”, Bull. AAPG (1989) 73, 613-629
7. Riley, M.F.: “Finite Conductivity Fractures in Elliptical Coordinates”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., Stanford, CA, 1991
8. S. Amini, S., Ilk, D., and Blasingame, T.A.: “Evaluation of the Elliptical Flow Period for Hydraulically-Fractured Wells in Tight Gas
Sands—Theoretical Aspects and Practical Considerations”, paper SPE 106308 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, 29-31 January 2007, College Station, Texas, U.S.A .
9. Blasingame, T.A.: “The Characteristic Flow Behavior of Low-Permeability Reservoir Systems”, paper SPE 114168 presented at the
SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, 10-12 February 2008, Keystone, Colorado, USA
10. Rushing, J.A., Perego, A.D., and Sullivan, R.B.: “Estimating Reserves in Tight Gas Sands at HP/HT Reservoir Conditions: Use and
Misuse of an Arps Decline Curve Methodology”, paper SPE 109652 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 11-14 November 2007, Anaheim, California, U.S.A.
11. IPM User Manual (Ver 6.3), Petroleum Experts, 2008
12. Chears User’s Guide, , Chevron Energy Technology Company, 2008
13. Foss, D.L. and Gaul, R.B.: “Plunger Lift Performance Criteria with Operating Experience - Ventura Avenue Field”, Drilling and
Production Practice, API, (1965)120-140.
14. Hacksma, J.D.: “Predicting Plunger Lift Performance”, presented at Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 1972.
15. Lea, J.F.: “Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations”, paper SPE 10253 presented at the 1981 Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 5-7.
16. Avery, D.J. and Evans, R.D.: “Design Optimization of Plunger Lift Systems”, paper 17585 presented at the SPE International Meeting
on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1988.
17. Chacin, J., Schmidt, Z. and Doty D.: “Modeling and Optimization of Plunger Lift Assisted Intermittent Gas Lift Installations”, paper
23683 presented at the 1992 SPE Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference.
18. White, G.W.: “Combine Gas Lift Plungers to Increase Production Rate”, World Oil (Nov. 1982) 69-76.
19. Mower, L.W.., Lea, J.F., Beauregard, E. and Ferguson, P.L.: “Defining the Characteristics and Performance of Gas lift Plungers”, paper
SPE 14344 presented at the 1985 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition , Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25.
20. Brady, C.L., and Morrow, S.J.: “An Economic Assessment of Artificial Lift in Low-Pressure, Tight Gas Sands in Ochiltree County,
Texas”, paper SPE 27932 presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, 22-24 May 1994, Amarillo, Texas
21. Marcano, L., and Chacin, J.: “Mechanistic Design of Conventional Plunger-Lift Installation” paper SPE 23682, SPE Advanced
Technology Series, March 1994
22. Gasbarri, S. and Wiggins, M.L.: “A Dynamic Plunger Lift Model for Gas Wells”, paper SPE 37422 presented at the SPE Production
Operations Symposium, 9-11 March 1997, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
23. Lea, J. F.: “Plunger Lift versus Velocity Strings”, JERT (Trans., ASME), Dec. 1999, Vol. 121, No. 4, 234
24. Maggard, J.B., Wattenbarger, R.A., and Scott, S.L.: “Modeling Plunger Lift for Water Removal From Tight Gas Wells”, paper SPE
59747 presented at SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, 3-5 April 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
25. Tang, Y. and Liang, Z.: “A New Method of Plunger Lift Dynamic Analysis and Optimal Design for Gas Well Deliquification “, paper
SPE 116764 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24 September 2008, Denver, Colorado, USA
26. OLGA 2000 User Manual (4.17), Scandpower Petroleum Technology, Aug., 2005
27. Bendiksen, K.H., Malnes, D., Moe, R. and Nuland, S.: “The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application,” SPE
Production Engineering, May 1991, pp. 171-180
28. Nossen, J., Shea, R., and Rasmussen J.: “New Developments in Flow Modeling and Field Data Verification,” 2nd North American
Conference on Multiphase Technology, Banff Canada, 21-23 June 2000, BHR Group.
29. PVTSim User Manual (Ver. 15), Calsep A/S, 2005
SPE 124571 9
Table. 4 Gas and liquid surge rates for individual well plunger lift, WGR = 40 stb/MMscf
Table. 5 Comparison of gas and liquid surge rates, individual well plunger lift, WGR = 40 vs. 80 stb/MMscf
Fig. 3 Concept of linear and elliptical and pseudo-radial flow behavior in tight gas (Thompson and Robert, 1981)
12 SPE 124571
Fig. 4 IPM model for Piceance tight gas pad wells system
3500 3.5
B H Pressure
pr Gas Rate
2500 2.5
Pressure, psig
1500 1.5
1000 1
qg
500 0.5
pwf
0 0
Fig. 5 Tight gas reservoir tank model: production prediction (IPM) (30 years)
FRACTURE K 12md
kf w 128md × 1 ft
Cf D = = = 150
xf k 169.6 ft × 5 × 10 −3 ft
Fig. 6 3-D Simulation model (Chears) for Piceance tight gas reservoir (single well model)
SPE 124571 13
Tight Tank
2.5
Regular tank
Chears
Gas Rate (MMSCFD)
2
1.5
1
regular tank model
3500
Tight Tank
3000 Regular Tank
Reservoir Pressure (MSCFD)
Chears
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time, day
No packer
in annulus
Gas
Liquid
Plunger at
Tubing-shoe
3500
Pr=2900 psia
3000 Pr=2074 psia
Pr=1621 psia
Pr=2900 psia-fitted
2500 Pr=2074 psia-fitted
Pr=1621 psia-fitted
Pressure (psig)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Qg, (MMscf/d)
3500
Pressure (psig)
Layer-2
Layer-3
2500 Layer-4
Layer-5
Layer-6
2000 Layer-7
Layer-All
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 70
Wellhead
-1000 60
-2000 50
Inclination, deg.
-3000 40
Depth, ft
inclination
-4000 30
-5000 20
tubing shoe
-6000 10
bottomhole
-7000 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Horizontal length, ft
BH-tubing-shoe
Casing annulus
tubing
Fig. 13 Wellbore pressure gradient profiles (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)
16 SPE 124571
BH-Tubing-show
tubing
J-T cooling due to
Casing annulus
reservoir fluid entry
Fig. 14 Wellbore temperature gradient profiles (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)
WGR=80 stb/MMscfi
WGR=40 stb/MMscfi
Fig. 15 Unstable liquid production: WGR=40 vs. 80 stb/MMscf (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=150 psi)
Fig. 16 Unstable gas production: WGR=40 vs. 80 stb/MMscf (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=150 psi)
bottomhole
Tubing shoe
Wellhead
Casing
Wellhead tubing
Fig. 17 System Pressure with well heading (Pr=1600 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf, WHP=250 psi)
SPE 124571 17
1 min.
2 min. 3 min.
Fig. 18 Tubing pressure profile at different time of plunger lift (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)
Fig. 19 Gas and liquid rates during plunger lift, single cycle (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)
Opening 45 min.
Plunger
velocity
One cycle
SI production
BHP
Fig. 21 Gas, liquid rates and BHP during plunger lift, multiple cycles
(Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf) (45 min. opening and 30 min. shut-in)
Deliquification
by plunger-lift
Liquid
accumulation Liquid rate
in tubing
Manifold
Gas rate
Liquid rate
Fig. 24 Gas and liquid rates without plunger lift , 22 wells in a pad
Gas rate
Liquid rate
Fig. 25 Gas and liquid rates with plunger lift in 7 low pressure wells, 22 wells in a pad
50 100000
7-wells plungers are
7-wells plungers are arriving WH
arriving WH from the shut-
at normal operation conditions.
40 in conditions. 10000
Surge Volume, bbl
30 1000
20 100
10 10
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, hrs
Fig. 26 Liquid surge rate and volume, 5 wells plunger lift simultaneously from shut-in, 22 wells in a pad