Você está na página 1de 21

SPE 133452

Well Productivity Index Degradation Applied Modeling Workflow


Saputelli L., Perez J., Hess, and Chacon A., Lopez C., Patino J., Halliburton and Eggenschwiler M., Statoil USA

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers


This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 1922 September 2010.
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
Productivity index (PI) reduction is a recognized phenomenon in oil and gas production to the extent that production becomes
uneconomic. Productivity index (PI) decrease may be caused by several factors arising from reservoir, completion, and operational
issues. The reservoir-related factors include compaction, fines migration, pressure support and multi-phase fluid flow. The
completion-related issues arise from frac-pack geometry and stress-sensitivity of proppant conductivity. Finally, operational issues
such as pressure drawdown at the sandface and induced flux (the movement of fluids across the completion) may also play a large
role in PI degradation. Understanding the interactions of different parameters controlling the PI behavior and the resultant well
performance is paramount for maximizing the ultimate recovery and net-present value or NPV. PI modeling may offer several
challenges because it involves non-unique solutions for reservoirs and near-wellbore and well-completion status, in addition to
manual data entry subject to human errors, uncertainties in reservoir parameters, and poor quality field data.
This study presents a workflow for modeling well PI degradation for an over-pressured gas/condensate reservoir in deep
offshore Gulf of Mexico. An automated procedure was tailored and applied to match production history by adjusting both the
reservoir and well completion parameters. Among the reservoir parameters considered were horizontal stresses, rock
compressibility, absolute permeability, relative-permeability endpoints and curvature, porosity, stress-sensitive permeability and
porosity. The well completion parameters included fracture length, height, width, conductivity, and stress. A Tabu Scatter
Search optimizer engine (April et al., 2003) selected the optimal values of a set of input parameters to minimize the objective
function, i.e. the error between the measured and calculated PI values.
Both reservoir and well completion parameters contributing to PI degradation were identified, and compared to those obtained
by alternate methods. The relative and combined contributions of stress-sensitive reservoir compressibility, permeability, porosity,
and fracture conductivity all helped understand well performance and guide decisions towards optimum well operating envelope.

Introduction
PI degradation is a significant issue in a number of reservoirs around the world and may impair economics in dramatic ways.
When producing oil or gas from a weak reservoir, rock compaction caused by pressure depletion may occur, often with adverse
consequences. For this type of reservoir such as unconsolidated sands, rock compaction often causes permeability reduction and
rock failure that may significantly influence the well productivity to the extent production becomes uneconomic.
PI degradation evidence in deep offshore Gulf of Mexico reservoirs
Effective overburden load as a result of production in stress-sensitive reservoirs often results in a loss in productivity for a wide
range of operating conditions and reservoir properties (Raghavan and Chin, 2002). Skin factor induced by stress sensitivity
increases with increasing permeability reduction resulting in high pressure drawdowns.
PI reduction was evidenced by pressure transient analysis in the Ewing Bank Block 873 Lobster field, located 130 miles
southwest of New Orleans in 775 ft of water, which produces from Gulf of Mexico deepwater turbidities sands (Petro et al., 1997).
Most of the production is from the Pliocene age Bulminella sand. The field was discovered in 1991 and a conventional 30-slot
platform was installed in the summer of 1994. Oil production from 10 wells peaked initially at the platform capacity 48,000
STB/D. Core analysis indicated that significant permeability reduction could be expected due to compaction from reservoir

SPE 133452

depletion and suspected fines migration, which could impact long-term well productivity. Significant PI losses (approximately
70%) have been observed since the start of production (Fig. 1) which were related to near wellbore compaction and skin increase.
Other factors included relative permeability changes due to water production. To maintain peak production rates early in field life,
well drawdowns had to be continually increased to overcome the PI loss. By early 1996, the established drawdown limit of 1500
psi was reached in the majority of the wells, and from that point on field production started to decline.

Fig. 1 Field daily production rates and drawdown during 1994-1997, from Petro et al., 1997

PI degradation was also evidenced in a South Diana single-well gas condensate field in the Gulf of Mexico (Guenther et al.,
2005). The reservoir consists of unconsolidated turbidite sands separated by thin shales. Geomechanical characterization of South
Diana core revealed high rock compressibility and the potential for compaction-induced permeability reduction.
PI degradation has also been observed in the Genesis field (Pourciau et al., 2003). Some of the wells have experienced 80-95%
loss in permeability during the first fours years of production due to compaction (~20-40 microsips rock compressibility). This
decrease in permeability resulted in well PI loss and declining well rates, which ultimately delayed reserve recovery and a
decreased in ultimate recovery from natural depletion.
In summary, PI decline causes are various, from reservoir related issues (reservoir compaction, sand production, diagenesis,
fine migration, multi-phase flow), production (water chemistry compatibility, flow assurance and erosional flux rates) and
completion related issues (e.g. near wellbore damage, sand production). Completions requiring sand controls are especially prone
to overall well PI loss because of changing formation and proppant mechanical conditions (Proano et al., 2004).
Table 1 - Case History Summary
Case history

Lithology Environment

Reported PI loss causes

Lobster Field Oil, (Petro


et al., 1997).

Deepwater turbidities sands

Permeability reduction due to compaction,


relative permeability loss, and skin increase due
to fines migration

PI Loss

~70% loss in PI
South Diana Gas
Condensate, (Guenther et
al., 2005)

Deepwater unconsolidated turbidite


sands separated by thin shales

Permeability reduction due to compaction, and


skin increase due to fines migration

Genesis field, (Pourciau et


al., 2003).

Deepwater unconsolidated thick


turbidite sands separated by thin
shales

Permeability reduction due to compaction, and


skin increase due to fines migration

80-95% loss in
permeability

PI modeling is challenging because solutions are non-unique, uncertainties in reservoir parameters, and limitations in field data
acquisition. Early data capture is paramount for establishing adequate baseline for future comparison. The effect of stressdependent porosity and permeability reduction on gravel- or frac-pack completions is poorly understood and complicates the timedependent skin evaluation (Proano et al., 2004).
Understanding the causes of PI degradation provides proactive design guidelines for well placement, construction and
completion, and it is paramount for preserving the value of wells and overall asset value by determining safe operating envelopes.

SPE 133452

Objectives of this work


We propose a workflow to characterize well productivity using all available historic information (real time data, allocated
volumes, geomechanic analysis, etc.). The objective of this work is to examine the causes of PI degradation leading to guidelines
regarding well completion and depletion strategy to maximize asset value. We applied the workflow to a set of wells in a gascondensate field in deep Gulf of Mexico field. An automated procedure was tailored and applied to match both the reservoir and
well completion parameters.
A Tabu Scatter Search optimizer engine (April et al., 2003) selected the optimal values of a set of input parameters to
minimize the objective function, i.e. the error between the measured and calculated PI values.
Both reservoir and well completion parameters contributing to PI degradation were identified, and compared to those obtained
by alternate methods. The relative and combined contributions of stress-sensitive reservoir compressibility, permeability, porosity,
and fracture conductivity all helped understand well performance and guide decisions towards optimum well operating envelope.
This work shows the advantages of using an integrated multidisciplinary approach for analyzing PI degradation with a
framework that utilizes analytical and numerical modeling tools and it is based on an automated history-match workflow.
PI degradation modeling will lead to establishing proper well and field management guidelines to maximize net present value
of project.
A theoretical and literature review of PI degradation is presented. We introduce an approach to PI modeling which is
illustrated with a case history from a gas-condensate field in the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, we draw some guidelines to mitigate well
PI loss.
Theoretical Background and Literature review on the Causes for PI degradation
Well productivity index (PI) is a measure of flow rate per psi of pressure drawdown. The drawdown can be defined in terms of
pressure, in the case of oil reservoirs, or in terms of pseudo pressures, in the case of gas reservoirs (Kabir, 2006).
PI degradation may be originated by several causes. Well PI loss has been extensively described in the literature since it is one
of the most important factors affecting hydrocarbon production economics. Several ideas on PI performance have been discussed
in literature supported by industry experience, laboratory experiments and field production data. There are several reasons for PI
degradation: (1) Fines migration and deposition, (2) thermal and stress related effects (3) reservoir transient effects, (4) completion
degradation and (5) multiphase permeability changes.
Fines migration and deposition
Rock weakening and changes in its intrinsic properties during drilling, completion and production operations may lead to fines
migration: fines material (e.g. Clay) gets mobilized and/or transported within the porous media driven by fluid movement, and
usually trapped in the smaller pore throats, leading to formation damage. The mobilization can be (1) hydro-dynamically or
chemically induced, (2) generated by loading process during production, and (3) organically deposited from precipitation in-situ. A
secondary effect with fines mobilization is the increase in irreducible water saturation, which also leads to a reduction in two-phase
productivity index (PI).
Results from the Ewing Bank Block 873 field study indicated skin increases related to fines migration associated with reservoir
compaction (Petro et al., 1997). The negative effects of reservoir compaction and relative permeability on flow capacity were
anticipated. However, the observed skin increases were significantly larger than expected.
It has been observed through various frac-and-pack cases reported in the literature that well damage appear to increase
exponentially as a function of production time (Proano et al., 2004).
Thermal and Stress-related effects
Rock may also weaken due to thermal and stress changes during field operations. These effects may occur near the wellbore or
far in the reservoir. These effects are also evident in laboratory experiments which are summarized later.
Drilling and completion damage. Drilling-induced shear stress, thermal shocks and chemical reactions near the wellbore, may
trigger instantaneous damage or future PI degradation. In situ stresses may affect drilling performance and PI decline differently
depending on the relative wellbore placement and orientation in the reservoir (Ching and Ramos, 2000). The skin factors due to
formation damage and rock compaction constitute the mechanical skin (Tang et al., 2005).
In the Ewing Bank Block 873 Lobster field (Petro et al., 1997), during the development of the Bul-1 reservoir, good drilling
and completions practices lead to optimum well deliverability: (1) all production intervals were drilled with synthetic fluid to
minimize formation damage from expandable clays present within the pay sands. In addition, the synthetic fluids maximized
penetration rates; (2) frac packs or mini fracs were pumped on all well completions to ensure proper well-reservoir connectivity

SPE 133452

thus maximizing well productivity and reducing the possibility of near wellbore skin damage; and (3) a short duration pressure
fall-off acquired at the end of each frac-pack operation to evaluate the resulting completion skin.
It has also been reported that unconsolidated clastic formations can experienced substantial variations of porosity and
permeability in the near-wellbore region due to both overbalance mud circulation and use of inflatable packers (Lee et al., 2006).
Relative variations of porosity and permeability were as large as 15% and 13%, respectively. These were induced by the
overbalance mud pressures of 700 psi and wellbore pressures of 6,500 psi applied by the inflatable packers. These petrophysical
property changes were quantified from pressure-transient measurements acquired with a dual packer formation tester.
Perforation-induced damage. The compacted zone around the perforations causes additional pressure drop. The permeability
reduction in the compacted zone is induced by the high stresses created during the perforation process. Due to the high pressures
and temperatures induced by the perforation, the rock grains around the perforation tunnels are crushed. The pressure drop in the
vicinity of the wellbore because of formation damage, perforations, flow convergence, and high-velocity flow need to be
accounted in the form of a total-skin term.
High fluid flow velocities in porous media does not follow Darcys law. At these high flow velocities, the inertia pressure
gradients increase quadratically resulting in additional pressure losses in the formation. The high flow velocity additional pressure
drop is captured in the form of rate-dependent or non-Darcy flow factor. The additional pressure changes due to well completion
and geometry is quantified in terms of pseudoskin factor (Tang et al., 2005).
Many studies have looked at the effects of formation damage and high-velocity flow (non-Darcy flow). For instance, McLeod
analytical mode is widely used to account for the additional pressure drop due to formation damage and high-velocity flow. In this
model, the total skin factor is a function of the perforation pseudoskin, skin factor due to formation damage, and skin factor due to
rock compaction around the perforation tunnels. On another model, Karakas and Tariq presented a semi analytical model to predict
the pseudoskin and productivity of perforated vertical wells with formation damage. The previous two models do not address timedependent or rate dependent productivity impairment.
Rock Failure. As reservoir pressure declines with time, effective stress on porous rock increases lead to shear and plastic
failure. These events are usually measured and understood at laboratory conditions and results are scaled-up to the reservoir
conditions. Pore collapse itself does not contribute significantly to pressure support in overpressured gas reservoirs, unless it
occurs early in depletion at a relatively high pressure (Fetkovich et al., 1998).
Variations in compressibility and matrix permeability appear to be strongly influenced by stress path and by stress anisotropy
(Rhett and Teufel, 1992). It appears that in many reservoirs the direction and magnitude of maximum horizontal permeability at
any given stage in the production history of the reservoir will be largely controlled by the orientation of the maximum horizontal
stress and by the magnitude of the horizontal stress difference.
Compaction. Compaction raises at least three major concerns: seafloor subsidence, casing integrity and porosity reduction
(Ostermeier, 2001). Compaction can be a major reservoir production mechanism in many reservoirs which may increase recovery
production by squeezing oil from the rock into the wellbore, but it can also act adversely impacting production rates by reducing
permeability. Studies suggest that compaction accounts 6 to 10% of total hydrocarbon recovery (Schutjens et al., 2004).
Understanding the interplay of these effects for various production scenarios is essential for optimum reservoir management.
Pore volume compressibility in GOM turbidite sands. Laboratory measurements and field observations in of deepwater GOM
turbidite sands show that pore-volume (PV) compressibility exhibits large variations in both magnitude and stress dependence. The
key factors controlling these variations include geological age, sand morphology, and sand composition (Ostermeier, 2001).
There are two major sand members in GOM turbidite sands: one with relatively low initial compressibility (~2-3 microsips)
and one with higher initial compressibility (~30-60 microsips) (Ostermeier, 2001). The low compressibility member exhibits
monotonically decreasing compressibility with increasing effective stress. This geologically older member is characterized by
predominantly long grain contacts and has little load-bearing ductile material. The other sand member with the higher
compressibilities exhibits a softening behavior with increasing effective stress: Compressibility increases to some maximum value,
and from this point on the sand begins to harden as stress increases further. This sand typically is younger and has predominantly
point-grain contacts, and has a significant amount of load bearing ductile material
There are substantial differences in compressibility estimates from core analysis data and from observed field production
performance (Pourciau et al., 2003). While core laboratory studies suggest compressibility in the ranges of 20-25 microsips,
analysis of permeability variations may suggest compressibility in the range of 40-45 microsips.

SPE 133452

Rock mechanic properties and PI reduction. The effects of rock mechanical properties on stress-induced productivity have
been investigated (Raghavan and Chin, 2002). For reservoir rocks with permeability sensitive to effective mean stress change, the
loss in productivity is only influenced by Poissons ratio. For reservoirs rocks with permeability reduction induced by porosity
change, the productivity decreases with increases in Poissons ratio and elastic bulk modulus.
Effect of stress-sensible permeability hysteresis. Reservoir rock deforms when subject to increased effective overburden load.
The deformation is called elastic if it is reversible upon unloading and is plastic if it is irreversible or permanent. Several field tests
have been carried out to evaluate the effect of compaction hysteresis on buildup-test curves (Chin et al., 2000). Tests using the
elastic model were compared with runs using the elastoplastic model. Simulation results indicate that, regardless of stress
sensitivity, buildup-test curves from runs using the elastic model and runs using the elastoplastic model are different in shape. A
relevant conclusion of this paper suggest that: initial permeability and permeability reduction caused by the stress level appear to
be the two most important factors that govern well performance. It is important that we ascertain the influence of effective stress
on permeability as early as possible.
Permeability and porosity reduction. During production, as pore pressure declines, stress in the rock increases, causing
changes in compressibility, permeability and porosity. Stresses will change dramatically and will be larger near the wellbore where
pore pressure gradient are larger, and also anywhere in the field where differential pressures may induce strong rock stresses. As
permeability reduces, it affects PI decline in two ways: first by reduction in single phase PI, which is proportional to permeability
itself, second by increase in the well damage due to turbulent effects which in turn are a function of permeability.
Large differences in permeability prediction may exist from core data analysis and from field production estimates (Norman et
al., 2005) - Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 - Differences in core testing permeability vs reservoir interpretation (well test) permeability, (Norman et al., 2005)

A number of Gulf of Mexico turbidite samples shows oil permeability and porosity reduction with effective stress (Ostermeier,
2001). The reduction in porosity with stress is significant, but the relative reduction in permeability is about four to five times
greater (Fig. 3). As porosity reduces, irreducible water saturation increases, which leads to a reduction in two phase productivity
index (Ostermeier, 2001; Norman et al., 2005) (Fig. 4).
Productivity loss and production rates. Increases in production rate promote the effect of rock compaction on well
productivity loss. In addition to permeability anisotropy, well architecture and reservoir layering, varying production rates (varying
reservoir pressure drawdowns) have also been identified as a major contributor to productivity losses (Chin and Ramos, 2004).
Slanted wells were less sensitive to productivity reduction caused by rock compaction than vertical well: the higher the inclined
angle the lesser the impact on productivity reduction. Horizontal wells were the least sensitive to the effect of rock compaction on
productivity loss (these produced at the lowest pressure drawdowns).
Sand production. Sanding occurs when the stresses along a wellbore cause the rock to fail. Commonly, sand from the failed
rock is produced to the surface where it may cut out the choke, erode surface piping, or simply fill the separator.
Sand production occurs when the formation stresses exceed the strength of the formation (Vardoulakis et al., 1996; Pacheco et
al., 2009). The formation strength is derived from the natural cementing material that bonds the sand grains together. Sand grains
are also held together by the cohesive forces caused by the immobile formation water. The stress of the formation-sand grains is
caused by many factors, such as tectonic actions, overburden pressure, pore pressure, stress changes from drilling, and the drag
forces of the producing fluids. Sand production is rate-sensitive in that there is a rate below which no sand production occurs.

SPE 133452

In some unconsolidated sands, the cementing agent is clay and mud that forms a weak material that provides little or no
strength to withstand the formation stresses. In such a case, a wellbore might produce sand even during the production tests. Other
formations might initially produce sand-free hydrocarbon, but can later fail and begin to produce sand.
Formation will fail at some given shear stress level leading to sand production. Sand production leads to increased
compressibility, porosity and permeability, with the consequent higher well PI. If sand management is adequate and sand
production does not cause any damages in tubing and facilities then sand production could become an excellent production
mechanism. On the other hand, sand control devices which inhibit sand production may lead to frac-pack face plugging and
damage.

Fig. 3 Measured oil permeability at Swi vs Porosity,


(from Ostermeier, 2001)

Fig. 4 Measured oil permeability at Swi vs inferred Swi


(from Ostermeier, 2001)

.
Apparent PI loss due to Reservoir Transients
In the preceding discussion we addressed the causes for PI losses related to rock property changes and irreversible deformation.
In some instances, the PI degradation may be the result of reservoir transient effects in low permeability reservoirs, or transient
effects from rock and fluid expansion like in the case over pressure gas reservoirs which is the case history presented in this paper.
Initial compressibility reduction in over-pressure gas reservoirs. High pressure gas reservoirs typically have concave down
p/z vs. Gp plots which may lead to over estimating the initially gas initially in place (GIIP) and remaining reserves (Fetkovich et
al., 1997). Also, the early transient effect may lead to an apparent PI drop which is a function of the compressibility gradient at
initial reservoir pressure. A few percentages (1-5%) decline in reservoir pressure will lead a strong reduction in initial
compressibility (Poston et al., 1994). This will lead to dramatic reduction in the reservoir energy due to rock expansion, which will
cause reduction in PI.
Reservoir confinement. PI is directly related to absolute open flow potential (AOF), which is a function of pressure and
contacted reservoir volume (Kabir, 2006). This is seen in a number of analytic models that describe the ratio of drainage radius to
wellbore radius (Araya et al., 2002). For smaller reservoir compartments, PI degradation will be more accelerated since AOF is a
function of PV contacted and the reservoir energy due to rock expansion. Compartmentalization can be detected from p-q plots as
shown in Kabir and Izgec, 2006.
Completion Failure and Fracture Degradation
Near wellbore stresses are related to drawdown and reservoir pressure. Fracture permeability and width will decrease with
increasing stresses, causing irreversible reductions in fracture conductivity. As fracture conductivity declines, the PI decline will
be affected in two ways: (1) reduction on the inflow coefficient, which is proportional to fracture conductivity itself, (2) apparent
increase in well damage due to turbulent flow which also is a function of fracture permeability and width. Increasing stresses
induced by production will continuously affect well performance with decline in PI to the point of irreversible completion collapse
or proppant failure.
Well operations. Fracture conductivity and wellbore stability can also be a function of well loading operations, i.e. number of
well shut-in, ramp-up and ramp-down rate and well tests.

SPE 133452

Dominant failure mechanisms in cased-hole gravel packed (and frac packed) wells include screen erosion and destabilization of
the annular pack (also called fluidization of the granular pack), (Tiffin et al., 2003). Several authors have published their well
operating guidelines to manage production without impairing or failing sand control completions (Tiffin et al., 2003; Wong, et al.,
2003). These guidelines include maximum constraints on flow velocities through casing perforations and screen devices to avoid
these failure mechanisms. They also concluded that relying on a single maximum completion pressure drop is not effective for
predicting failure but is helpful in identifying impaired wells.
Multiphase flow in the wellbore and relative permeability reduction
Near wellbore multiphase flow and relative permeability reduction will affect PI. The workflow presented in this paper can be
applied for all types of hydrocarbon systems, but in this paper we focus on a case history involving a high pressure gas condensate
reservoir with a strong aquifer drive.
For this type of reservoirs, if gas withdrawal if sufficiently high, water encroachment will be delayed as gas mobility is much
higher that water mobility. However, after the some gas reserves are depleted with the consequent reduction in reservoir pressure,
well PI will decline due to increased near wellbore stresses, aquifer response and water encroachment will catch-up and affect the
near wellbore region, contributing to further PI degradation due to multi-phase flow.
There are robust methods for simultaneously analyzing water influx, fluid expansion and rock compressibility involving
analytical and numerical models. Roach (Roach, 1994) rearranged a material balance equation which includes the effect of
formation compressibility for an over-pressured gas reservoir. Poston et al., 1994 showed how the Roach technique could be used
for understanding past performance of aquifer influx and formation compressibility in over pressure gas reservoirs; as pore
pressure is reduced with production, the compressibility gradient may be positive or negative depending on the plastic or elastic
deformation of the formation respectively. The shape of the curves in the solution plot (Poston et al., 1994) provided clues for
discerning which of the mechanisms is prevailing, formation compressibility or water influx.
Most numerical reservoir simulation packages have capabilities for simultaneous analysis water influx, fluid expansion and
rock compressibility effects during the field production life. However, since history match may involve multiple simultaneous
solutions, engineers tend to over-simplify the PI degradation analysis by including time-dependent multipliers. This approach may
have some value in identifying the existence of PI degradation but it lacks of any predictive capability.
PI Reduction Cause-Effect Summary
In the preceding sections we have mentioned about the factors and their effects related to PI losses. But currently there is no
unified methodology to systematically analyze the PI degradation and its causes.
The approach presented in this work will allow discerning which factors influence PI degradation via a well production
diagnostics and a history-match based process. The approach is illustrated with a case history involving a gas condensate reservoir
above dew point with water influx. Fig. 5 illustrates the diagnostic process that can be applied for characterizing PI degradation for
all types of reservoirs and how it is applied for the case history presented in this paper.
The diagnostic flow chart illustrates the effects due to production, intermediate effects, rock mechanics effects and trigger
points (flux, erosion rate and effective stress). The rock mechanics dependent effects which include fines migration, shear failure,
and plastic failure can lead to formation wellbore collapse or in some cases (Atabasca Tar sands) improved absolute permeability.
Effective stresses above certain limits may lead to plastic and shear failure with subsequent formation wellbore collapse and final
well failure. The cause-effect process shown in Fig. 5 forms the basis of the diagnostics used in our PI degradation modeling
workflow.

SPE 133452

Less area open to flow

Flow per unit area

Flux
velocity
limit?

yes

Effective
Stress above
limit?

yes

Fines
Migration

yes

Shear
Failure

Reservoir
Sand
Production

Plastic
Failure

Formation
Wellbore
collapse

Sand
control
devices

Near
wellbore
skin; kro
reduction

Porosity
increase

Absolute
Permeability
increase

Trigger
cause

Producing
Rates

Effective
Stress
Increase

Compressibility
Increase

Absolute
permeability
reduction

Pore
Pressure
Depletion

Absolute permeability reduction (stress-path dependent)

Turbulent
skin
increase

Porosity
reduction

Catastrophic
Well failure

Irreversible damage near wellbore skin

Long-term
Drawdown
Pressure

Turbulent
skin
increase

Rate dependent non-Darcy skin

Sand
Erosion rate
limit?

Frac-pack,
Perforation
& Screen
failure

Catastrophic
completion
failure

Rate dependent
non-Darcy skin

PI Reduction
Water
saturation
increase

Aquifer
Intrusion

Relative permeability to oil reduction

AOF reduction; transient flow regime; pore volume contacted

Primary

Secondary

Rock
mechanics
dependent

Intermediate
effect

Final
Effect

Fig. 5 PI reduction cause-effect diagram applicable to this papers case histories.

PI Modeling Workflow
The PI modeling approach utilized in this work can be described by the workflow shown in Fig. 6. This figure describes a
workflow consisting of six steps: (1) data gathering, (2) validation and consistency check of historic shut-in pressures, flowing
pressures and rates, (3) historical PI computation, (4) PI reduction cause-effect analysis, (5) initial model calibration (6) automated
history-match process over reservoir and completion parameters and (7) recommendation and validation of well management
guidelines.

Gather data

Down hole
Gauge Data
(p,T); Surface
Gauge Data (p,
T), Well test
Data
(qo, qg, p, T),
Allocated
Volumes (qo, qg,
qw) and
Laboratory Tests
(UCS, PVC)

Validate and
check
consistency
BHP from THP,
Shut-in pressures,
skin, and
permeability from
pressure transient
analysis (k, s); flow
rates; reservoir
pressure; connected
pore volume from
transient PI & p-q
plots (PV)

Compute
historic PI
Compute PI as
gas flow rate vs
drawdown

Fig. 6 PI modeling workflow used in this work

Perform
cause effect
diagnostic
(1) Fines migration
and deposition,
(2) thermal and
stress related effects
(3) reservoir
transient effects,
(4) completion
degradation and
(5) multiphase
permeability
changes

Calibrate
base model
Initial Parameters
Selected and
base model

Perform
Automated
History Match
Parameter fine
tuning and final
Parameters
Selected

Recommend
Guidelines
Recommend well
management
strategy and
validate guidelines
in model

SPE 133452

1. Gather data. Input data consists of downhole and surface gauge pressure and temperature data, production well test data
such as gas oil and water flow rates, pressures and temperatures; allocated volumes (oil, gas and water) and laboratory tests results
from core samples (Fig. 6).
2. Validate and check consistency of historic shut-in pressure, flowing pressure and rates. Field data noise may hide
important trends which are necessary to understand PI decline. In this stage, consistency among different data sources is verified:
Downhole flowing pressure was validated from tubing head pressure, temperatures, and measured rates; stress dependent
permeability and porosity tables were obtained from core sample laboratory tests (pore volume compressibility and uniaxial
compression stresses); shut-in reservoir pressure, skin, and permeability were derived or validated from pressure transient
analysis; in addition, flow rates were re-computed using rate transient analysis and compared to those obtained by welltests and
daily allocated volumes; reservoir pressure and rates where also validated through rigorous material balance models; and
connected pore volume estimates were investigated from transient PI & p-q plots (Fig. 7). As a result, consistent historic PI values
are computed and can be used in conjunction with the numeric history match workflow.
Step 1.
Gather Data

Down hole Gauge


Data (p,T)

Surface Gauge
Data (p, T)

Step 2.
Validate and check consistency

Step 3.
Compute PI

Validate and estimate


BHP from THP, rates &
THT (Nodal Analysis)

pwf

Review PVC and UCS


from Laboratory Tests

(p)
k(p), cr

Estimate pressure,
skin, and permeability
from pressure transient
analysis

p(t), k, s

Validate and estimate


flow rates from rate
transient analysis

qg(t)

Validate and estimate


reservoir pressure from
material balance

p(t), cr

Estimate connected
pore volume from
transient PI & p-q plots

PV

Compute
historic PI

Well test Data


(qo, qg, p, T)

Allocated Volumes
(qo, qg, qw)

Laboratory Tests
(UCS, PVC)

Fig. 7 - Data gathering, validation and reconciliation

3. Compute historic PI. The historic PI in this study (overpressure gas condensate reservoir case history) is calculated as in

Eqn. 1 where J (t ) is the historic PI as a function of time in MMscf/D/psi2, Qg (t ) is the flowrate in MMscf/D, p(t ) is the

current reservoir pressure in psi and pwf (t ) is the flowing bottomhole pressure in psi. Both pressures are reported at datum. The

reservoir and flowing pressures are validated as described in Fig. 7.

J (t ) =

Qg (t )
2
(t )
p (t ) pwf
2

, ................................................................................................................................. (Eqn. 1)

4. Perform PI degradation cause-effect analysis. We do a preliminary PI reduction cause and effect assessment based on the
validated data and computed historical PIs using the process described in Fig. 5. At this stage we also gain an understanding of the
field and how the current reservoir management practices are affecting the PIs. The results of this preliminary assessment are used
to select the reservoir and well completion parameters for the initial manual history match calibration.

10

SPE 133452

5. Initial model calibration. During the initial construction of the model, the ranges of the selected reservoir and well
completion parameters are selected in such a way to minimize the mismatch or variance between observed measurements and
model response (Fig. 8).
Manual history-match is applied to obtain the initial base model. The main purpose is to validate model response to parameter
manipulation and that assumptions made on the diagnostic analysis (Fig. 5) are still valid. After a few iterations, the process
becomes tedious and difficult to sustain and achieve the global error minimization. At this point we switch to the automated
history-match task in the workflow.

Observed
rates and
pressures

Compare
simulated vs.
observed values

Manual
parameter
selection

Model Simulation

Simulated
rates and
pressures

Fig. 8 Generic history-match process block diagram

6. Perform history-match over reservoir and completion parameters. In this step, single well sector numerical models were
used to honor reservoir physics, completion details and historic behavior (Fig. 6). The scope of this effort was to history-match
near wellbore reservoir properties including discrete fracture design with conductivity degradation with stress, permeability and
porosity compaction tables.
The automated history-match process in this effort utilizes a commercial workflow engine to automate the interaction between
the reservoir simulator, an optimizer and a spreadsheet (Landmark, 2009). The optimizer offers a direct minimization technique
which includes a global, stochastic Tabu search algorithm (April et al., 2003), for minimizing errors between measured and
simulated data. The simulation optimization process seeks higher-quality solutions (solution improvement rather than an optimal
answer) in recognition that computations may not necessarily provide proof or achievement of true optimization.
Fig. 9 outlines the history-match process which is similar to any industry standard assisted history match workflow. In our
approach we also focus on the PI itself which is reflected in the objective function to be optimized. The details of the historymatch procedure are analogous to the one presented by Saputelli et al., 2010. In this paper, the objective function focused in
matching PI, BHP and average reservoir pressure, while honoring all historic rates. Fig. 9 shows the process on how reservoir and
well completion parameters are handled from the stage of the initial model calibration to the error function calculation, the
parameter selection and the interaction with the simulation model.
Workflow Engine

Constraints &
Requirements
Definition
Spreadsheet
Objective Function

Validated
history

Observed data:
- Flow rates
- Pressures
- Calculated PI

w (y
i

*
i

yi

Optimizer

Manipulated Variables:
- Aquifer Parameters
- Fracture Parameters
- Porosity
- Permeability
- Compressibility
- Relative Permeability
- Stress sensible conductivity
- Closure Stress
- Stress sensible multipliers

Reservoir and
Geomechanics
Simulation

min wi yi* yi

s.t. { process constraints }

Simulated
Results
Database

Calculated Variables:
- Flow rates
- Pressures
- Well PI

Fig. 9 History-match workflow used in this work (after Saputelli et al., 2010).

The global error function was computed for every simulation run by considering the absolute mismatch, bias errors, and signal
correlation (Saputelli et al., 2010). During history matching the following parameters were sensitized:
9 Reservoir: maximum horizontal stress, rock compressibility, absolute permeability, relative permeability end-points
and curvature, porosity, stress- sensitive permeability and porosity.
9 Completion: Fracture length, height, width, conductivity and stress degradation parameters.

SPE 133452

11

Case History Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Gas Condensate field


Case History
The case history presented in this paper was used to illustrate the causes of PI degradation, by applying the methodology described
in the previous sections, and to outline guidelines for well management.
Field Background
The field example described in this study relates to a gas condensate field consisting of multiple wells which produce from Gulf of
Mexico deepwater turbidities supported by a strong aquifer (Fig. 10). Wells (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B and 5) penetrate multiple
stacked reservoirs sands (A1, A2, B0, B1, B2, and B3) and are completed as single selectives or within one reservoir. The majority
of wells are completed in single fault blocks or tanks. The field was developed as subsea tie-backs to a producing or host facility
located several tens of miles from the wells. The surface process facilities are capable of processing up to 50,000 BOPD, 130
MMSCFD and 40,000 BWPD. Water depth is around 3,000 ft. Wells produce through two commingled lines to the remote
facility.
4A

4B

1A

2A

1B

2B

Salt

A1
B0

A1

B1
A2

B3
B2

A S

B2
B S
an

GWC

ands

ds

Fig. 10 Gulf of Mexico gas condensate field seismic section and well location schematic

Core studies
Well 4A, Sand B3. A compressibility test was carried out in a core sample from the B3 sand in well 4A. The initial rock
compressibility was 80 microsips at 18200 psi, and dropped to 40 microsips at 15000 psi pressure. The normalized porosity was
reduced by about 13% when the pressure decreased from the original in-situ reservoir pressure to about 15,000psi (Fig. 11).
90

1.00
2

Porosity ratio = 9E-09p - 0.0002p + 2.185

80

0.95

R = 0.9979
0.90
0.85

60

0.80
50
0.75
40
0.70
30
20

0.65

Porosity
Compressibility

Compressibility = 2E-06p - 0.0572p + 398.59


2
R = 0.9996

10
0
18000

0.60
0.55

17000

16000

15000

14000

Pore Pressure (psi)

Fig. 11 - Well 4A Sand B3 Pore Compressibility and Porosity vs Reservoir Pressure

13000

0.50
12000

Porosity Ratio .

Compresibility (microsips)

70

12

SPE 133452

Well 3, Sand A2. A severe permeability reduction was observed in the core sample from the A2 sand in Well 3, when flowing
isopentane (simulating gas & liquid flow). Fig. 12 shows the drop in permeability as a function of reservoir pressure depletion in
the other core samples, paratherm and synthetic oil was used. Permeability loss is irreversible, as it is shown for pressure recovery
from 10,000 to 4,000 psi in the 2010 sample data (green diamonds and green squares)
A factor contributing to the permeability reduction effect (besides porosity - from correlation of absolute permeability to
porosity) is the increase in Swi as porosity is reduced (adsorbed water volume remaining constant as total pore volume decreases.
Also, permeability was reduced 4-5 times more than porosity. As opposed to Well 4A laboratory test (Fig. 11), compressibility in
Well 3 sample is in the order of 2-4 microsips.

Measured Permeability to Initial Permeability Ratio .

1.00

A2 Sand - Paratherm (2004)


A2 Sand Iso-Pentane (2004)
A2 Sand (Oil) (2010)
A2 Sand (Brine) (2010)

0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000

-10000

-12000

Change in Pore Pressure or Change in FBHP (psi)

Fig. 12 Well 3 Sand A2 - Permeability ration vs Reservoir Pressure Change

Other past core studies include: (1) core Petrophysics (1999) in Well 3 sidewall core, which main objective was to investigate
fluid sensitivity and formation damage potential; (2) Well 3 core analysis, which main objective was to test sand control initiatives
(proppant packs; w/and w/out SandWedge additive); and (3) one in 2002 for Well 3, which main objective was to assess
geomechanical compaction.
Petrographical analysis. A petrographical analysis from the core analysis in sand A2 from Well 3 in 2004 shows that sand
reservoirs from the sample evaluated are weakly cemented, highly porous, and generally quartz rich. Reservoir sand composition is
moderately lithic/arkosic: quartz is the dominant grain type, but is accompanied by minor to moderate amounts of variably
weathered feldspar and assorted rock fragments. Framework sand is loosely cemented by localized, welded grain contacts and
associated microcrystalline quartz overgrowths, rare antigenic clay, compacted pseudo matrix, and sparse replacive carbonate
cements. Well-developed porosity includes dominant open intergranular pores, sparse dissolution pores (molds), intragranular
microfractures, and sparse intragranular or clay-hosted micropores.
Historic PI analysis
Fig. 13 shows the calculated historic transient productivity index as per Eqn. 1. Wells 1A, 2B and 3 exhibited a 30% PI decline
when reservoir pressure was depleted 500 psi. while wells 2A and 4A showed a 60% PI loss for the same reservoir pressure
depletion. Well 1A depicted a smaller PI decline initially, but after 700 psi pressure depletion the PI decline followed the same
trend as in the other wells. Well 2A exhibited the sharpest PI loss and also was the earliest well to collapse in the field. On the
other hand, Well 2B which was drilled at about 700 ft from Well 2A and completed in the same B2 sand, did not experienced the
same level of PI loss. In Well 4A, which was the only one experiencing water breakthrough from the aquifer, the PI declined faster
after water breakthrough, gas production declined, and reservoir pressure was reestablished.

SPE 133452

13

1
Well 1A

Normalized PI .

0.9
0.8

Well 2B
Well 2A

0.7

Well 3

0.6

Well 4A

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

-500

-1000

-1500

-2000

-2500

Change from Initial Reservoir Pressure (psi)

Fig. 13 - Well 1A, 2B, 2A, 3 and 4A Normalized PI vs Change from Initial Reservoir Pressure

Fig. 14 shows the PI performance in Wells 4B and Well 5, drilled in the same compartment. Well 4B was drilled first and its PI
declined almost 50% when reservoir pressure declined 300 psi. Well 5 was drilled a year later, when the reservoir pressure had
already declined from its original level, and its PI decline followed the same trend as in Well 4B. The pressure continued to drop
with increased reservoir withdrawals. With pressure depletions greater than 330 psi, we see an increase in PI from 0.5 to 0.75. For
pressure depletion greater than 450 psi, we see a decline in PI from 0.75 to 0.5 in less than 500 psi. Presumably, the effect of
aquifer made possible this PI increase.
1
Well 4B

Normalized PI .

0.9

Well 5

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

-600

-700

Initial Reservoir Pressure Change (psi)

Fig. 14 - Well 4B and Well 5 Normalized PI vs Change from Initial Reservoir Pressure

Fig. 15 shows the calculated PI vs. pressure drawdown for Wells 4B and Well 5. We can see that PI declines further with
increasing drawdowns. Since this sample data relate to a short period of time and small reservoir pressure depletion (~500psi), one
can clearly see the effect of turbulent skin in the PI computation.
Fig. 16 shows the p-q diagnostic plots for the wells presented in the case history. Well production starts at the highest normalized
downhole flowing pressure (pn); positive slope signifies the pseudosteady-state (PSS) flow period, whereas the negative slope
implies infinite-acting (IA) flow. Constant-rate production exhibits infinite slope whereas constant-pressure production produces
zero slope. Mathematical justifications for these diagnostic signatures are presented in Kabir and Izgec, 2006; however the
justifications presented in such paper were given for primary depletion only. We used the same approach by normalizing pressures
and flowrates and keeping in mind that we have a strong aquifer support.
Wells 1A, 2A, 2B and 4A have passed the onset of pseudosteady-state. However, wells 3, 4B and 5 have not achieved the
pseudosteady-state regime yet (as of May 2010). The different trends in pseudosteady-state regimes (in wells 1A, 2A, 2B and 4A)
demonstrate that wells are draining from different block compartments. Well 4B profile is suspect since it appears to be in pseudosteady state regime since the beginning of production and then goes into constrained flow rate regime. Well 2B shows a negative
slope during pseudosteady-state regime which is supported by the pressure buildup due to the low producing rates and the aquifer
response.

14

SPE 133452

0.010
Well 5 PI
0.009

Well 4B PI

PI, Mscf/D/psi^2

0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
2

10

12

14
Millions

Reservoir Drawdown (Pi^2 - BHP^2)

Fig. 15 - Well 4B and Well 5 PI vs Reservoir Drawdown

1.00
Well 1A
Well 2A
Well 2B
Well 3
Well 4A
Well 4B
Well 5

Normalized BHP

0.95

0.90

0.85

Onset of
Pseudosteady-state

0.80

0.75
0.1

1.0
Normalized Qgas

Fig. 16 - Normalized Gas flow rate vs. normalized downhole flowing pressure
Numeric Full Field Compositional Simulation model
Full field numerical simulation model. The existing numeric simulation model was built from a geologic realization created in
2005 and it was periodically updated as new production data became available. The model includes a compositional full field
history-matched near wellbore and reservoir properties with seismically tied geometry. Current field development plan and
forecasts rely on this model. One of the limitations of this model is that it used time dependent PI multipliers to match history,
which creates leads to high uncertainties in prediction mode. Future work in the full field model will focus on including the PI
degradation characteristics and full rock mechanics modeling.
Numeric Well Sector models
The numeric reservoir simulation sector models (Halliburton, 2009) used in this study considered homogeneous gas condensate
reservoir with average reservoir properties, aquifer influx, turbulence and geomechanical effects involving fracture conductivity,
reservoir permeability and porosity reduction with effective stress variation (Fig. 17).

SPE 133452

15

Reservoir &
Fracture
Geomechanics:
Stress sensitive
permeability
porosity and
conductivity

PVT: Single
Gas at
Reservoir
Conditions

Aquifer
Support:
Numerical
bottom-drive

Krs: Two
phase relative
Permeabilities

History
Match:
request to
honor rates,
pressure and
productivity
indexes
along well
history

Reservoir &
well: Layercake model
with Fractured
Vertical well

Fig. 17 - Well 4A sector numerical model workflow components

Fig. 18 shows the simulated normalized PI vs reservoir pressure depletion as a percentage of initial pressure for well 2A. As shown
previously in Fig. 13, Well 2A had the most accelerated PI loss and experienced also the earliest well collapse in the field. PI was
steady during the first 1% of reservoir pressure depletion; however the PI was reduced about 90% with only 2.5% of reservoir
pressure depletion. Results from the compaction model and variable compressibility model revealed that the PI performance was
not too sensitive to rock compaction and permeability decline effects since pressure decline was very little. Instead, an increased
mechanical skin in the wellbore and fracture conductivity degradation were required to history match the severe and irreversible PI
reduction. Simulation results also revealed that well 2A contacted a very low pore volume.
1.0
Well 2A (Sim)
Well 2A (his)

0.9
0.8

Normalized PI

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
100.0%

99.5%

99.0%

98.5%

98.0%

97.5%

97.0%

Reservoir Pressure Depletion, psi

Fig. 18 Simulated Well 2A Normalized PI vs Reservoir Pressure Depletion as a percentage of initial pressure

Fig. 19 shows the normalized PI vs reservoir pressure depletion as a percentage of initial pressure for well 2B. As shown
previously in Fig. 13, Well 2B was drilled about ~700 ft from Well 2A and completed in the B2 sand; however it did not exhibit
the same PI loss. PI declined about 90% with only 10% of reservoir pressure depletion. Results from the compaction model and

16

SPE 133452

variable compressibility model revealed that the PI performance was sensitive to rock compaction and permeability decline effects.
1.0
Well 2B (Sim)

0.9

Well 2B (his)
0.8

Normalized PI

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
100.0%

98.0%

96.0%

94.0%

92.0%

90.0%

Reservoir Pressure Depletion, psi

Fig. 19 Simulated Well 2B Normalized PI vs Reservoir Pressure Depletion as a percentage of initial pressure

Fig. 20 shows the normalized PI vs reservoir pressure depletion as a percentage of initial pressure for well 4A. PI declined about
70% with only 4% of reservoir pressure depletion. Results from the compaction model and variable compressibility model
revealed that the PI performance was sensitive to rock compaction and permeability decline effect, and also, the changes in relative
permeability change due to aquifer intrusion. The reverse in reservoir pressure depletion is explained by the low reservoir
withdrawals and aquifer outrun.
1.0
Well 4A (Sim)

0.9

Well 4A (his)
0.8

Normalized PI

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
100.0%

99.0%

98.0%

97.0%

96.0%

95.0%

Reservoir Pressure Depletion, psi

Fig. 20 Well 4A Normalized PI vs Reservoir Pressure Depletion as a percentage of initial pressure

Fig. 21 shows the sensitivity of compaction effects to PI performance match. There are six plots of PI vs time representing a
different stress multipliers (0.81, 0.83, 0.84, 0.87, 0.88 and 0.89). These stress multipliers represent the end point at 10,000 psi of
the permeability vs. pressure table in the numerical simulation.

SPE 133452

17

Fig. 21 Well 4A PI sensitivity to Permeability Stress Multiplier, historic (black) and simulated (red)

Fig. 22 shows the correlation factors to several history-match error functions used in this study: (1) Upper left: Total average
correlation is the quality measure of how good all matching functions are statistically correlated; (2) Upper right: Sum Average
Weighted absolute error is the global objective function, or sum of all errors; (3) Lower left: Bias Error on PI reflect the
difference on average of each PI performance curve, and (4) lower right: Average weighted relative error is the PI matching
objective function. We see the relative contributions and importance of each parameter towards each error. Reservoir permeability,
fracture design and stress multipliers were the most sensitive parameters to PI performance history match error.
LENGTH_AQUIFER

PORO

LENGTH

HEIGHT

PORO

PORO_STRMULT

PERM_STRMULT

LENGTH

PFOC

PERM_STRMULT

PORO_STRMULT

LENGTH_AQUIFER

HEIGHT

PFOC

ROCK_TYPE

ROCK_TYPE

PERM_AQUIFER

PERMX

PERMZ

WIDTH

WIDTH

PERMZ

PORO_AQUIFER

PERM_AQUIFER

PERMX

PORO_AQUIFER

PERMY
-0.80

PERMY
-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

-0.40

Correlation to Total Average Correlation

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

Correlation to Sum Average Weighted Absolute Error

PERMX

HEIGHT

ROCK_TYPE

PORO_STRMULT

PORO

PERMX

LENGTH_AQUIFER

PERM_STRMULT

PORO_AQUIFER

LENGTH

PERM_AQUIFER

WIDTH

WIDTH

PERMY

LENGTH

ROCK_TYPE

HEIGHT

PFOC

PERMY

PORO

PERMZ

PORO_AQUIFER

PERM_STRMULT

PERM_AQUIFER

PFOC

LENGTH_AQUIFER

PORO_STRMULT

PERMZ

-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Correlation to Bias Relative Error on PI(BOE)

Fig. 22 Correlations to Errors for Well 4A

-0.30

0.80

1.00

-0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Correlation to Average Weighted Relative Error on PI(BOE)

0.25

18

SPE 133452

Rock compaction results from numerical simulations


Results from the compaction model and variable compressibility model revealed that the PI performance was sensitive to rock
compaction and permeability decline effects. Fig. 23 shows the objective function vs. formation rock compressibility for 4
different sand groups. By visual inspection it is possible to recognize the values of compressibility that minimized the objective
function for each sand. Compressibility factor of 61-67 microsips minimized the objective function for the A1 sand (dark blue
diamond), 41-49 microsips for the A2 sand (magenta square), 90-100 microsips for the B0-B1 sand (red triangle), and 51-66
microsips for the B3 sand (green circle). The simulation results confirmed the initial expectations from core test analysis (Fig. 11)
for A2 Sand.

1.0E+00

Objective Function

1.0E-01

1.0E-02

1.0E-03
A1 Sand

1.0E-04

A2 Sand
B0-B1 Sand
B3 Sand

1.0E-05
1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

Rock Compressibility (microsips)

Fig. 23 - Compressibility results from history match objective function

Strengths and limitations in the modeling work


The work flow presented in this paper to model well PIs gives a consistent approach to assess well PI degradation and to identify
the factors affecting it. The strengths of our PI modeling approach can be summarized as follows:
1) Integrated approach for validation and reconciliation. Multiple sources of data were considered and cross-validated: (1)
Real-time flowing bottom-hole pressure was validated against tubing-head-pressure, flow rates and condensate to gas ratios, (2)
Shut-in pressure was calculate using various pressure transient methods, (3) flow rates were validated with rate transient analysis
and flowing bottom-hole pressure.
2) Permeability and porosity tables. Permeability and porosity dependence with pressure was considered and modified to
match production history which is different from previous numeric simulation models available for this field.
3) Fracture conductivity degradation. Fracture conductivity and width dependence with stress was considered and modified to
match production history.
4) Fracture properties and turbulence effects. Fracture properties such as length and initial width and reservoir turbulence
effects were considered and modified to match production history.
5) Extensive search for solutions, and non-uniqueness.. The stochastic search guarantees that sufficient variation is
considered, while selecting various alternatives for history match.
We identified some limitations in the PI modeling study presented in the paper, which can be summarized as follows:
Geomechanical stresses 3D field update. Only initial stresses are provided, and they are not updated dynamically as reservoir
pressure is reduced. This may not reflect the full physics of the near wellbore damage and may not reproduce real effects. The
mitigation strategy was to consider rock compaction tables that match production history and capture the effect of pressure
dependent properties. The approach shall be to use a fully-coupled reservoir and geomechanic simulation approach.

SPE 133452

19

Fracture conductivity degradation and well cycle. Fracture conductivity and width dependence with stress was considered and
modified to match production history. However, fracture degradation was proportional to effective wellbore stress and could not
maintain degradation after the well was shut-in several times or effective stress was reduced a later time in the well life. One
possible limitation is to consider a near wellbore region with stress dependent permeability table and hysteresis.
Sand exclusion model. Sand production model was modeled using the Wang et al., 2005 simulator that is coupled to TRS via
the Quiklook system. This model did not consider sand or fines deposition due to sand exclusion devices. This does not reflect
the full physics of wells which have frac and pack, with sand screen devices to prevent sand production. The mitigation strategy
was just to investigate the tendency for the well to produce sand if it did not have any sand exclusion device and discuss the
results.
PI degradation mitigation Strategies
The last step in the PI modeling Workflow, shown in Fig. 6, is to recommend field and well management strategies and
validate the recommended guidelines in the model. This will be the subject of future work. In this study we have illustrated the PI
modeling workflow as applied to a gas condensate reservoir case history. We have also shown how it allowed us to discern factors
influencing PI degradation and their relative impact on the PI. We now give some general strategies to mitigate PI degradation.
Reservoir drawdown guidelines are usually established from safe empirical observations from industry practices however
with little scientific prove in particular because data is limited. For GOM wells maximum drawdown has been traditionally set at
1500 psi or the equivalent to maximum flux rates of 250 BOEPD/ft (Wong et al., 2003)
A number of strategies to mitigate/delay PI degradation could be derived to improve knowledge about the degradation
phenomenon and optimize asset value. The hypotheses mentioned above can be reduced to few main questions to be solved:
1) Is it a rate dependent process (i.e. fine migration, sand production)?
2) Is it a pressure-dependent process (i.e. compaction, permeability reduction)?
3) Is it a well-location dependent process (i.e. initial stresses causing shear rate failure, aquifer location, block size)?
If the first question is true, then the mitigation strategy will be oriented to operate the well in the safe envelope, i.e. establish
the well operating envelope along the life of the well and establish some economic targets based of expected reserves recovery per
well. If the second question is true, then the strategy shall be oriented to produce the wells as fast as possible, and the production
constraint will be given by the process separator and pipeline capacities. If the third question is true, the strategy shall be oriented
to locate the well in areas less prone to shear rate failure, early water breakthrough and lesser pressure support. However, this will
only be applicable to future wells.
Drawdown guidelines. Knowledge of the nature of the PI degradation phenomenon is paramount for determining the relative
contribution of a rate-driven process. Drawdown guidelines establish minimum and maximum production allowable limits to
minimize sand production, proppant production and wellbore failure versus stress related events (rate, well cycling).
Continuous downhole and reservoir monitoring. Continuous estimation and forecast of downhole condition (flux and flowing
bottomhole pressure) is critical for understanding possible sand screen erosion and turbulence effects. Shut-in and flowing
bottomhole pressures surveillance is important for the adequate computation of actual well drawdown. If downhole measurements
are not available, there should be an effort to estimate downhole conditions continuously from valid correlations and surface
measurements. Monitoring of skin function vs time is usually helpful to understand PI evolution (Haddad et al., 2004).
Over the past few years, sand control well operating guidelines have moved away from drawdown based limits and are now
based on velocities at various locations in the completion. In particular, two recent works both offer powerful new methods for
safely operating sand control completions (Keck et al., 2005). Two velocity limits have been introduced: one is the perforation
velocity at the casing inside diameter, which leads to destabilization of the annular pack. The second is the velocity at the surface
of the screen and causes screen erosion failure (Wong et al., 2003).
Fracture geometry guidelines. If PI degradation is confirmed to be a rate-driven process, then sandface completion design will
play a role in mitigating such decline. Frac-pack with wider geometries will increase fracture conductivity and reduce drawdown
and turbulence effects to allow higher gas rates per well.

20

SPE 133452

Fracture proppant guidelines. Impregnating the frac proppant with surface modification agents (such as SandWedge
additive) is also a good initiative to reduce fracture degradation due to fines migration.
Rock strengthening & chemical consolidation. If PI degradation effect is confirmed to be a result of fines precipitation,
migration or deposition, then the mitigating strategy should be oriented to strengthen the rock through some chemical
consolidation technique in order to avoid or delay such effect.
To address fine migration a combination of hydrofluoric acid (HF) and clay acid systems (e.g. HCl based) are usually chosen.
The HF system would aid in partially dissolving fines and the clay acid would immobilize undissolved fines.
Bypass damaged zone by sidetracking. There is some evidence that PI damage occurs only in a near wellbore region, as it was
demonstrated in damaged wells replaced by sidetracks with ~700-1000ft departure where the sidetrack wells did not have degraded
PIs when initially completed. For such wells in which economic rates are no longer possible, then sidetrack is an option to
continue draining reserves from the existing main wellbore. Stimulation by re-refracturing could also be an alternative to remove
and by-bass damage.
Conclusions
An integrated workflow to analyze PI degradation was presented in this study and illustrated through a gas condensate
reservoir case history. The methodology is unique in that it included a data validation and consistency check, a PI diagnostic
process and an automated procedure to match reservoir and well completion parameters. Data validation and consistency check are
essential for establishing reservoir pressure trend, PI trends and monitoring skin.
A Tabu scatter search optimizer engine was the base of the automated history match procedure which selected the set of input
parameters and minimized the error between measured and calculated values.
The procedure allowed discerning the factors affecting PI degradation, understanding the relative and combined contributions
of stress-sensitive reservoir compressibility, permeability, porosity, and fracture conductivity all helped understand well
performance and steer decisions towards optimum well operating envelope and field management.
For the case history presented, PI degraded by reservoir compaction in some degree for all wells, and due to fine migrations
and water intrusion near the wellbore for wells 2A and 4A respectively.
Nomenclature
AOF =
BHP=
J=
p=
p (t ) =

Absolute open flow potential, MMscf/D


Bottom hole pressure, psi
Productivity Index
Pressure, psia
current reservoir pressure in psi

pwf (t ) =

PI =
Qg =
Swi =
z=

flowing bottomhole pressure in psi


Productivity index, flow units by psi
Gas rate, MMscf/D
Irreducible water saturation
Gas compressibility factor

References
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

April, J., et al (2003) Advanced Optimization Methodology in the Oil and Gas Industry: The Theory of Scatter Search Techniques
with Simple Examples, SPE 82009, presented at the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium, Dallas, TX, April 5-8.
Araya A., and Ozkan E. (2002) An Account of Decline-Type-Curve Analysis of Vertical, Fractured, and Horizontal Well Production
Data, Paper SPE 77690 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.,
29 September 2 October.
Chin L.Y., Raghavan R., and Thomas L.K. (2000) Fully Coupled Geomechanics and Fluid-Flow Analysis of Wells With StressDependent Permeability, SPE Journal 5 (1), Page 8. SPE-58968-PA.
Chin, L. Y., and Ramos G. G. (2004) Fluid flow-coupled modeling of rock compaction and its adverse effects on well productivity in
weak reservoirs. ConocoPhillips Company, Bartlesville, OK 74004, USA, 2004, ARMA 04-634.
Fetkovich, M. J., Reese, D. E., and Whitson, C. H. (1998) Application of a General Material Balance for High-Pressure Gas
Reservoirs, Paper SPE 22921 originally presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas, October 6-9, 1991. SPE J (3).
Guenther K., Perkins S., Dale b., and Wylie P. (2005) South Diana, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.: A case Study of Reservoir Management
of a Compacting Gas Reservoir, IPTC paper No 10900 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in
Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November.
Haddad S., Proano E., and Patel Y. (2004) Method to diagnose Depletion, Skin, kh and drive mechanism effects using reservoir
monitoring data, Paper SPE 90032 presented at the Annual Technical Conference in Houston, Texas, 26-29 September.
Halliburton Quiklook System, TRS/QLIII Black Oil Reservoir Simulator, version 7.3. USER GUIDE, October 2009
Kabir, C.S. (2006) What is the Real Measure of Gas-Well Deliverability Potential?, Paper SPE 84469 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 5-8 October 2003, and SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, April.

SPE 133452

21

10. Kabir, C.S. and Izgec B. (2006) Diagnosis of Reservoir Compartmentalization From Measured Pressure/Rate Data During Primary
Depletion Paper SPE 100384 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 14-17 May.
11. Keck, R.G., Colbert, J. R. and Hardham, W. D. (2005) The Application of Flux-Based Sand Control Guidelines to the Na Kika
Deepwater Fields Paper SPE 95294, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 October, Dallas, Texas.
12. Landmark, DMS - Decision Management System, User Manual, 2009. Houston, Texas, USA: Halliburton.
13. Lee, H., Torres-Verdn, C., and Sepehrnoori, K. (2006) Coupled Pressure-Transient Behavior and Geomechanical Deformation in the
Near-Borehole Region of Unconsolidated Clastic Rock Formations, paper SPE 102904 presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September.
14. Medeiros F., Kurtoglu B., Ozkan E., and Kazemi H. (2007) Analysis of Production Data from hydraulically Fractured Horizontal
wells in Tight heterogeneous Formations Paper SPE 110848 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Anaheim, CA, U.S.A., 11-14 November.
15. Norman, W.D., Pourciau R.D., Dusterhoft R., and Schubarth S. (2005) Understanding the effects of reservoir changes in sand-control
completion performance, Paper SPE 96307 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 October, Dallas.
16. Offshore magazine (2001), http://www.offshore-mag.com, Evolution of the geological model for the Lobster Field, 2001, searched
on 06-21-2010.
17. Ostermeier R.M. (2001) Compaction Effects on Porosity and Permeability: Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Turbidites, JPT Volume 53
Number (2): Pages ( 68-74). Paper SPE 66479-PA
18. Pacheco E., Soliman M.Y., Zepeda R., and Wang J. (2009) Sanding Prediction in a Gas Well Offshore Mexico Using a Numerical
Simulator Paper SPE 122962 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in
Cartagena, Colombia, 31 May3 June.
19. Petro, D., Chu, W., Burk, M., Rogers, B. (1997) Benefits of pressure transient testing in evaluating compaction effects: Gulf of
Mexico deepwater turbidite sands, Paper SPE 38938, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
20. Poston, S. W., and Berg, R. R. (1997) Overpressured Gas Reservoirs. Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas, ISBN:978-1-55563075-1. 144 pages.
21. Poston, S. W., Chen, H. Y., and Akhtar, M. J. (1993) Differentiating Between Formation Compressibility and Water Influx in
Overpressured Reservoirs, SPERE (August 1994), 183; paper SPE 25478 first presented at the 1993 SPE Production Operations
Symposium held at Oklahoma City, March 21-23.
22. Pourciau R.D., Fisk J.H., Descant F.J. and Waltman R.N. (2005) Completion and well performance results, Genesis Field, Deepwater
Gulf of Mexico, Paper SPE 84415, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5-8
October 2003. SPE Drilling and Completions (6).
23. Proano E., Patel Y., Thawer R., Al-Harthy S., Gadiyar B., John C., and Morales H. (2004) Life of the well approach for optimizing
production GOM case Histories, Paper SPE 86469 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-20 February.
24. Raghavan, R. and Chin, L.Y. (2004) Productivity Changes in Reservoirs With Stress-Dependent Permeability, paper SPE 77535,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 29 September-2 October 2002, San Antonio, Texas, then paper
88870 SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering (8).
25. Rhett D.W., and Teufel L.W. (1992) Effect of Reservoir Path on Compressibility and Permeability of Sandstones, SPE Paper 24756
presented for publication at the 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in Washington DC, October 4-7.
26. Roach, R. H., (1981) Analyzing Geopressured Reservoirs A Material balance Technique, SPE-9968, 1981
27. Saputelli L., Rudolph S., and Embser J. (2010) Integrated Production Model calibration applied to a Gulf of Mexico sub-sea field
Paper SPE 128137 presented at the SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition held in Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2325 March.
28. Schutjens P.M.T.M, Hanssen T.H., Hettema M.H.H., Merour J., Bree P. de, Coremans, J.W.A., Helliesen, G. (2004) CompactionInduced Porosity/Permeability Reduction in Sandstone Reservoirs: Data and Model for Elasticity-Dominated Deformation, SPE88441, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, (6) Pages 207-212.
29. Tang, Y., Yildiz, T., Ozkan, E., and Kelkar, M. (2005). Effects of Formation Damage and High-Velocity Flow on the Productivity of
Perforated Horizontal Wells. SPE Res Eval & Eng 8 (4): 315-324. SPE-77534-PA
30. Tiffin, D.L, Stein, M.H., and Wang, X. (2003) Drawdown Guidelines for Sand Control Completions, Paper SPE 84495 presented at
the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 5-8 October.
31. Vardoulakis, I., Stavropoulou, M., and Papanastasiou, P.: (1995) Hydromechanical aspects of the Sand Production Problem.
Transport in Porous Media 22 (2): 225244.
32. Wang, S. W., Stevenson, V. M., Ohaeri, C. U., and Wotring, D. H. (1999) Analysis of Overpressured Reservoirs with A New Material
Balance Method, SPE 56690 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, TX, 36 October.
33. Wong, G. K., Fair, P. S., Bland, K. F., and Sherwood R. S. (2003)Balancing Act: Gulf of Mexico Sand Control Completions, Peak
Rate Versus Risk of Sand Control Failure SPE 84497 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 58 October.

Você também pode gostar