SPE 128344

Encouraging Experience in the Use of Permanent Downhole Gauges

for Well and Reservoir Management

Igbokoyi A.O, SPE and Afulukwe C.R, SPE; SPDC Nigeria

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

well intervention. Various applications of downhole
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 33rd Annual SPE International permanent pressure gauges have been
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 3-5, 2009.
demonstrated by many authors (Gringarten, A. C.
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
et al, 2003, Kuchuk, F. J. et al, 2005 and
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Chorneyko, D. M., 2006).
Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject
to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. The business benefits depend on the analysis and
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum utilization of the data acquired. Well and reservoir
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
performance indicators such as productivity index,
contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was permeability impairment, drive mechanism, influx
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. of water or gas into the wellbore at the expense of
oil can easily be detected. For example, the
continuous evaluation of the productivity index can
Abstract trigger off further analysis, which might require
This paper illustrates how pressure data acquired pressure build-up data for better understanding of
from permanent downhole gauges in a shallow a well performance. Overlay of several build-up
water offshore field are analyzed to provide insight analyses of a well on the same graph gives an
into well performance and reservoir monitoring idea of the time-line condition of the drainage area
required for key business decisions. A continuous as the reservoir’s depletion progresses. Some of
productivity index is generated to analyze the these benefits have been captured in a shallow
progressive well performance. Near wellbore water offshore field in the Niger Delta.
damage or water influx into the wellbore in the
Seven permanent downhole gauges were installed
case of unfavourable mobility ratio is easily
to monitor the pressure decline and reservoir
flagged off. Combination of productivity index,
performance as part of the Well and Reservoir
bottomhole flowing pressure and production data
Management in the field. Static bottom hole
provide robust analysis of the well performance
pressures are also acquired from the gauges at
based on which quicker decisions can be made on
any operational shut-downs. This eliminates
whether a remedial intervention is required or not.
running of routine bottom hole static survey in the
Where the right remedial interventions are made,
wells with downhole gauges. Continuous
for example when no stimulation is carried out
evaluation of the productivity index based on
because variation in productivity index is due to
average reservoir pressure is performed to track
increasing water influx and not near wellbore
the individual well performance. The composite
damage, the derivable benefits are sustained oil or
productivity index based on total liquid is
gas production, optimisation of recovery, reduction
compared with the one based on oil only to identify
of operational expenditure, all leading to
any likely near wellbore damage. Build-up analysis
maximised life cycle economics for the well.
was not carried out at smaller time steps because
the database as at the time of writing this paper
only contained one data per day. This coupled
Introduction
with the missing data from the beginning of
Deployment of downhole gauges in wells is production limited complete reservoir analysis.
continuing to gain popularity in the oil and gas Skin damage was only inferred based on the
industry because of its real time application in nature of the productivity index decline.
quality decision-making concerning well and
reservoir performance and economic impact on
2 A.O. Igbokoyi and C.R. Afulukwe SPE 128344

Theoretical background behaviour of both water and gas can be linked to

The theoretical background is based on the fact the relative permeability curves to estimate the PI
that the pseudo steady state behaviour of a with equation 2. Analysis of the most current build-
horizontal well in the reservoir during multiphase up data from the downhole permanent pressure
flow can be described by the following equation: gauge is needed to provide the skin factor.
In this presentation, the productive index is
( ( ) )
141.2 qo Bo + qw Bw + 1000qq − qo Rs Bg ⎧ 3 ⎫
estimated based on the surface liquid rates only
ΔP = ⎨ln reD − + St ⎬ since gas coning is not apparent. The pressures
⎛ kro krg krw ⎞ ⎩ 4 ⎭
kh⎜ + + ⎟ measured at the downhole gauge are converted to
⎜ μo μ g μ w ⎟
⎝ ⎠ (1) the reservoir datum subsea depth before
computing the PI. Where possible, (1) the static
Thus, the composite productivity index becomes: bottomhole pressures measured at various dates
are curved fitted to generate continuous stream of
⎛k k krg ⎞ 1 average reservoir pressure data. This is used in
PI = kh⎜ ro + rw + ⎟ generating a continuous PI data with equation 3 or
⎜ μo μ w μ g ⎟
⎝ ⎠ 141.2⎧⎨ln reD − 3 + St ⎫⎬ 5. Well rates are allocated rates based on
⎩ 4 ⎭ (2) producing days and assumed to have produced at
such rate throughout the month.
However, the productivity index (PI) for the During pseudo steady state flow in the reservoir,
purpose of well monitoring can be computed as the pressure drop at the wellbore can be
follows: described as:
For the composite PI:
3
PD = 2πt DA + ln reD − + St
qT 4 (6)
PI =
P − Pwf (t )
By using average reservoir pressure, equation 5
(3) can be written as:

where qT is the total fluid flow in barrel given by 3

equation 4 below: P D = ln reD − + St
4 (7)
qT = q o + q w + q g
(4) PD − P D = 2πt DA (8)
(4)
For the oil rate only:
Equation 8 in field unit is:
qo
PI =
( )
0.234qBt p
P − Pwf (t ) Pi − P t p =
(5) φhct A (9)
(5)
The PI at the reservoir level can be computed with
equations 3-5. This requires accurate PVT data Equation 9 is only valid for a single-phase flow in
from the reservoir fluid. For a monitoring purpose, the reservoir. According to L. P. Dake (Dake, L. P.,
the surface production data can be used without 1997), below the bubble point pressure gas will be
losing the trend behaviour. However, equation 2 liberated from the saturated oil and free gas
provides better understanding of the reservoir saturation will develop in the reservoir. To a first
behaviour of the PI. The composite productivity order of approximation the gas compressibility
index (Wade, J. M. et al, 1998) decreases with factor is cg~1/P. This value is far greater than the
increasing skin factor or decreasing total fluid oil, water and formation compressibility. Therefore,
mobility. Total mobility does change as rapidly as when the reservoir is producing below the bubble
oil mobility alone since the other flowing phases point pressure, the compressibility factor in
are included in the total mobility term. This makes equation 9 can be replaced with 1/P. Hence,
the composite PI plot a useful tool for monitoring equation 9 becomes:
wells for any change in their performance. A rapid
drop in composite PI can be flagged, and then
analyzed to determine if it is a function of mobility ( )
Pi − P t p =
0.234qBt p P
φhA
or increasing skin. The reservoir fractional flow (10)
3 Encouraging Experience in the Use of Permanent Downhole Gauges for Well and Reservoir Management
The drainage area at anytime is then computed
as:
0.234 qBt p P
A=
( )
φh Pi − P (t p )
(11)
The drainage area at anytime can also be
estimated from equation 2 if all other parameters
are known. Caution is advised in using equation
11 since it only applies to a depletion type of
reservoir or a closed system. Evidence of free gas
flow in the reservoir will render it inapplicable.
Field Applications
Well A
Well A which did not log a gascap is completed in
the second sub-unit of a reservoir complex made
up of 3 sub-units. One other drainage point exists
in the second reservoir sub-unit with Well A, while
the first and third sub-units have one drainage
point apiece. Figure 1 shows the plots of the
flowing bottomhole pressure and temperature data
from the downhole gauge. The consistency in the
temperature data is indicative of reliable pressure
data. The production data of the well does not
show any mobile gas in the reservoir. However,
the depletion is well below the bubble point
pressure. Evidence of depletion type of reservoir
can be deduced from the pressure plots in Figure
1. Figure 2 shows the productivity index and oil
flow rate with the latter showing a continuous
increase while the former declines gradually to
stabilization towards the end of the second quarter
of 2004. The first PI data point was during the
build-up conducted at the initial cleanup and
production test. The second data point is higher
than the other two. It is suspected that the
reservoir pressure may not have stabilized during
the shut-in. This can give a higher false PI. Water
production during the period covered by the PI
curve is zero. Even though near wellbore damage
is a logical conclusion, there is no build-up data for
analysis to confirm any possible damage. Since
the PI is still above the initial value, no further near
wellbore damage during the production history can
be inferred.
The static pressure obtained from the downhole
gauge during a shut down in April 2005 was 2478
psi. Estimated cumulative oil production at this
period was 4.54 MMstb while the average
production rate during the month was 7618.2
bopd. The equivalent production time is 595.79
SPE 128344
(10)(FVF) at the
days and the formation volume factor
shut-in pressure from the PVT data is 1.43
rbbl/stb. Therefore the drainage area is:
0.234 × 7618.2 × 1.43 × 24 × 595.79 × 2478
A= = 389 acre
0.28 × 68 × (2758 − 2478)× 43560
(11)
Well B
Well B producing from the same second reservoir
sub-unit was shut-in for static survey in June
2005. The static pressure obtained was 2458 psi.
Estimated cumulative oil production at this period
was 5.045 MMstb while the average production
rate during the month was 6498 bopd. The
equivalent production time is 776.43 days. The
equivalent drainage area is:
0.234 × 6498 × 1.43 × 24 × 776.43 × 2458
A= = 400 acre
0.28 × 68 × (2758 − 2458)× 43560
The drainage area estimated for each well may be
overstated most especially when the reservoir has
a partial aquifer support. Since the estimated
drainage area for both wells are almost equal, it
can be concluded that the two wells will drain the
reservoir in equal ratio.
Well C
Well C is the only well completed in the reservoir.
Figure 3 shows the plots of the flowing bottomhole
pressure and temperature data from the downhole
gauge. Again, the consistency in the temperature
data is indicative of reliable pressure data. The
pressure plots indicate pressure support from the
aquifer. The pressure depletion at the time of last
survey was about 3.5 % and the cumulative oil
produced was about 37 % of the original oil in
place (STOIIP). The sudden pressure drop during
the last quarter of 2005 cannot be due to phase
change around the wellbore since the water
production is very minimal. Towards the end of
2004, the choke was increased with no
appreciable gain in production. At the same time,
there was a slight upward shift in bottomhole
flowing pressure, which must have led to the
upward shift in the PI trend. The PI based on the
total liquid rate was computed to diagnose the well
performance. The decreasing trend remained the
same as shown in Figure 4. This phenomenon is
better understood with the support of build-up
analysis. On the other hand, the last two PI data
points show a stable performance. However, a
continuous computation provides a better
understanding of the well performance.
4 A.O. Igbokoyi and C.R. Afulukwe SPE 128344

Acknowledgments

Well D The authors wish to thank the management of

SPDC Asset Development and Petroleum
Well D is one of two drainage points producing
Engineering Discipline Teams for granting the
from a reservoir with viscosity of about 3 cp, which
permission to publish this paper.
is three times the viscosity of water in the water
leg. With this unfavourable viscosity ratio, early
water breakthrough is expected. With the inflow of
less viscous fluid, the pressure drop at the Nomenclature
wellbore is expected to decrease. This must have P pressure drop, psi
led to the increase in bottomhole flowing pressure PD dimensionless pressure drop
as shown by the downhole gauge pressure data in Pi initial reservoir pressure, psi
Figure 5. The onset of the increase in PI (See
Figure 6) also coincides with the water break P average reservoir pressure, psi
through time. However, it is suspected that water q flow rate in stb/day for liquid and Mscf/day
allocated to this well is less than the actual for gas
production. B formation volume factor rbbl/stb for liquid
and rbbl/scf for gas
reD dimensionless reservoir radius based on
wellbore radius
Well E
Rs solution gas oil ratio, scf/stb
This well is producing from a reservoir with two k permeability, md
other drainage points. Figure 7 shows the kr relative permeability
pressure plot and indicates moderate aquifer viscosity, cp
support. The PI remained fairly constant as shown h formation thickness, ft
in Figure 8. Well oil rate and choke size were also A area, ft2
fairly constant during the production history. porosity, fraction
ct total compressibility, psi-1
Computation of PI based on average reservoir tp production time, hr
pressure is the most ideal. This requires that the tDA dimensionless time based on area
well be shut-in to acquire static bottomhole
pressure. The PI can also be computed based on Subscript
the initial reservoir pressure. A trend will be
established as shown in Figure 9. Any change in o oil
the trend is enough to flag off investigation into the w water
well performance. g gas
T total

Conclusions
The analysis of the pressure data acquired from
the downhole gauges provided timely
understanding of the well and reservoir
performances.
Productivity index as a key factor for gauging well
performance can be computed on continuous
basis. This can be used to flag off any possible
near wellbore damage in a timely manner.
Productivity index computed with the input of
average reservoir pressure requires that the well
be shut-in for static pressure measurement.
However, the PI computation can be carried out
with initial reservoir pressure to establish a trend.
Any change in the trend is sufficient to trigger off
timely intervention on the well performance.
References
1. Chorneyko, D. M.: “Real-Time Surveillance
Utilizing Permanent Downhole Pressures – An
Operator’s Experience”, paper SPE 103213,
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas,
U.S.A., 24-27 September 2006.
2. Dake, L. P.: “Fundamentals of reservoir
engineering”, Published by Elsevier Science B.
V. Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1997 Edition.
3. Gringarten, Alain C., Thomas von Schroeter,
Trond Rolfsvaag and John Bruner. “Use of
Downhole Permanent Pressure Gauge Data to
Diagnose Production Problems in a North Sea
Horizontal Well”, paper SPE 84470, presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
 5 Encouraging Experience in the Use of Permanent Downhole Gauges for Well and Reservoir Management SPE 128344

Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5-8

October 2003.
4. Kuchuku, F. J., Hollaender, F., Gok, I. M. and
Onur, M.: “Decline Curve from Deconvolution of
Pressure and Flow-Rate Measurement for
Production Optimization and Prediction”, paper
SPE 96002, presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
Texas, U.S.A., 9-12 October 2005.
5. Wade, J. M., Hough, E. V., Harrington, T. R.,
Valda J. and Pederson, S. H.: “Case History of
Oil Performance Monitoring and Production
Optimization in the Eldfisk and Ekofisk Fields,
Norwegian North Sea”, paper SPE 48847,
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Beijing, China, 2-6
November 1998.
 6 A.O. Igbokoyi and C.R. Afulukwe SPE 128344

2800 200 3000 200

180

2800 160
2600 150
140
Press ure - psia

P r e s s u re - ps ia
2600 120

P I & FB H T
FB H T o F
2400 100 100

2400 80

60
2200 50
2200 40
All pressure data All pressure data
@ datum @ datum 20
2000 0 2000 0
01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005 10/10/2006 01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005 10/10/2006

DHG FBP DHG Static FBHT

DHG FBP DHG Static FBHT

Figure 1: Pressure and temperature plots from Figure 3: Pressure and temperature plots from
the downhole gauge in Well A the downhole gauge in Well C

500 10 100 20
P I ( B a s e d o n a v e ra g e re s e rv o ir p re s s u re )
PI (Based on average reservoir pressure)

400 8 80
15

O il & W a t e r ra t e s
60
300 6
Oil rate

10

40
200 4

5
20
100 2

0 0
0 0 01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005
01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005
PI Stb/psi (Based on Oil only) PI (Based on Oil & Water rate) Spot PI Stb/psi

PI Stb/psi Spot PI Stb/psi Well rate (Kbopd) Well rate (Kbopd) Water rate (Kbw pd)

Figure 2: Surface oil rate and PI plots in Well A Figure 4: Surface oil rate and PI plots in Well C
 7 Encouraging Experience in the Use of Permanent Downhole Gauges for Well and Reservoir Management SPE 128344

1800 160 2000 160

P I (B a s e d o n In itia l P r e s s ur e ) & F B H T
140 140

PI (B ased o n In itial Pressu re) & F B H T

1900
1700 120
120
1800
P r e s s ur e - p s ia

100

Pressu re - p sia
100
1600 1700 80
80
60
1600
60
1500 40

All pressure data 40

1500
All pressure data @ datum 20
@ datum
1400 20 1400 0
01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005 10/10/2006
01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005 10/10/2006

DHG FBP DHG Static FBHT

DHG FBP DHG Static FBHT

Figure 5: Pressure and temperature plots from Figure 7: Pressure and temperature plots from
the downhole gauge in Well D the downhole gauge in Well E

60 10 70 10
PI (Based on average reservoir pressure)

50 60
PI (Based on average reservoir

8 8
50
40
Oil & Water rates

Oil & Water rates

6 6
pressure)

40
30

4 30
4
20
20
10
2
2
10
0 0
01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005 0 0
01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005
PI PI Stb/psi (Based on Oil & Water rates)
Spot PI Stb/psi Oil rate (Kbopd) PI Stb/psi Spot PI Stb/psi Oil rate (Kbopd) Water rate (Kbw pd)
Water rate (Kbw pd)

Figure 6: Surface oil rate and PI plots in Well D Figure 8: Surface oil rate and PI plots in Well E

100
PI Stb /psi (Based on O il rate on ly)

80

60

40

20

0
01/09/2002 28/06/2003 23/04/2004 17/02/2005 14/12/2005

PI (Average Res. Press) Spot PI (Average Re. Press.) PI (Initial Res. Press)

Figure 9: Comparison of PIs based on average and

initial pressures in Well E