University of Tripoli

Faculty of Engineering
Petroleum Engineering Department

Production Optimization for Some Wells in

Gailo Field

Prepared by:

Maram Younes Gergab

Supervisored by
Dr. Mohammed El-Huni
31-Mar-19 Fall-2018
Outline

Introduction

 Study Objectives

Artificial Lift Methods

Reservoir Descriptions

Case Study

Conclusions

Recommendations
 Introduction

• By nature crude oil is a limited resource. Nevertheless, the amount

of crude oil available has to meet the worldwide demands.
• From time to time, oil production has been intentionally reduced,
and this has resulted in serious oil crises accompanied by a general
increase in the oil price.
• The analysis of a petroleum production system was needed to be
optimization because the risk behind exploration a new fields, they
need to exhaust all possibilities within the existing reservoirs
became urgent.

3
Recovery Mechanism
Primary

Natural Flow Artificial Lift

Secondary

Water Flood Pressure Maintenance

Tertiary

Chemical Miscible Thermal Other

4
 Study Objectives

1. Gialo Paleocene reservoir E93 and E326 wells were considered

as a case study which they lay in the main Pool E southeast of the
Field.

2. The object of the study is to design an acceptable and suitable

artificial lift method for the E-93 and E-326 wells with minimum
expenditures, to gain maximum revenue and optimum profit
indicators using Analytically Method (By Hand) and IPM-
Prosper Software.

5
 Artificial Lift

• Artificial lift is a method used to lower the producing bottom hole

pressure (BHP) on the formation to obtain a higher production rate
from the well.
• Types of Artificial Lift
1. Sucker-rod (beam) pumping
2. Electrical submersible pumping (ESP)
3. Gas lift and intermittent gas lift
4. Jet hydraulic pumping systems
5. Progressive cavity pumps (PCP)

6
 Artificial Method: ESP Pump
• The electrical submersible pump, typically called an ESP, is an efficient and
reliable artificial-lift method for lifting moderate to high volumes of fluids from
wellbores.
• Electrical submersible pumps used in oil wells are multistage centrifugal pumps
driven by an electric motor.
• ESP’s can be used to produce oil from sub-hydrostatic reservoirs or to increase
production in wells limited by inflow performance or tubing pressure losses.
• ESP's add energy to the fluids to lift them to surface, they don’t lower the
hydrostatic of fluids – as in Gas Lifting.
• ESP's can also be used in injection wells to provide the required wellbore
pressure.

7
 Artificial Method: ESP Pump

• When ESP Pump Used:

1. For Volume Wells (>600 BOPD)
2. For High Water Cut Wells
3. In vertical or horizontal wells.

4. For water supply wells.

• The ESP’s main components include:

1. Multistage centrifugal pump
2. Surface controls
3. Three-phase induction motor
4. Power cable
5. Seal-chamber section
8
 Artificial Method: ESP Pump
• Advantages:
1. Designed to pump at very high flow rates (up to 10,000 BPD)
2. Low bottom hole pressures can be achieved
3. Surface equipment small
4. Can be used in deviated wells

• Disadvantages:
1. Relatively expensive
2. High repair costs & pump life is critical to economics
3. Pump efficiency is low when handling much gas
4. Especially sensitive to solids
5. ESPs have a very narrow operating range and are the most unforgiving Artificial
Lift method

9
 Artificial Method: Gas Lift

• Gas lift is a method of artificial lift that uses an external source of

high-pressure gas for supplementing formation gas to lift the well
fluids.
• The principle of gas lift is that gas injected into the tubing reduces
the density of the fluids in the tubing, and the bubbles have a
“scrubbing” action on the liquids.
• There are two basic types of gas lift in use today:
• Continuous Gas Lift Flow.
• Intermittent Gas Lift Flow.

10
 Artificial Method: Gas Lift
• Advantages:

1. Gas lift is the best artificial lift method for handling sand or solid materials.

2. Gas lift permits the concurrent use of wireline equipment, and such

downhole equipment is easily and economically serviced.

3. High-formation GORs are very helpful for gas-lift systems but hinder other

artificial lift systems.

4. Well subsurface equipment is relatively inexpensive

5. Intermittent gas lift has the ability to handle low volumes of fluid with

relatively low production BHPs.

11
 Artificial Method: Gas Lift

• Disadvantages:

1. Relatively high backpressure may seriously restrict production in

continuous gas lift.

2. Adequate gas supply is needed throughout life of project.

3. Operation and maintenance of compressors can be expensive.

4. There is increased difficulty when lifting low gravity (less than 15°API)

crude because of greater friction, gas fingering, and liquid fallback.

5. Intermittent gas lift is limited to low volume wells.

12
 Reservoir Descriptions

• The Gialo Field is located in the southeast part of the Sirte Basin, producing

from the Upper Paleocene Zelten and the Eocene Gialo Formations

• The Gialo Paleocene reservoir consists of three oil accumulations.

• The largest pool was E-Pool and considered as the main pool in the Gialo.

located in the southeast and was discovered in 1961. 44 wells have penetrated

the accumulation and 33 are still completed in the reservoir.

• The second oil accumulation, the 4E Pool, was discovered in 1973.

• A small accumulation between the Main E and the 4E Pools was discovered in

1985 with the drilling of well E289.

13
 Reservoir Background

Properties Value Symbol

Porosity 25.2% φ

Permeability 18 md K

Fluid Properties Symbol Value

Oil Gravity @60F API 39 deg

Initial reservoir Pi 2726 psi

pressure
Saturation Pressure Pb 927 psi

Oil Formation Factor Bo 1.282 Bbl/STB

Gas Oil Ratio GOR 300 Scf/STB

Oil Viscosity μo 0.68 cp

14
 Case Study: Data Required

• Physical Well Data

1. Casing size
2. Tubing size
• Produced Fluid Data
3. Depth of perforations or Liner 1. Water specific gravity
4. Pump seating depth 2. Oil API gravity
3. Gas specific gravity
• Production & Reservoir Data 4. Bubble point pressure
1. Productivity Index 5. Oil formation volume factor (Bo)
6. Water formation volume factor (Bw)
2. Desired fluid rate
3. Wellhead pressure
4. Test production rate
5. Static BHP or static fluid level
6. Flowing BHP or producing fluid level
7. Bottom hole temperature
15
 Case Study: Methodology
• This study conducted on some wells in Al-Wafa oil field in order to
design artificial lift methods “ESP and Gas Lift”. The methodology of
these study was
1. Collect the production data from the selected wells.
2. Analyze production data well by well to estimate optimum production
conditions using prosper software.
3. Built a Prosper model to design artificial lift method and to obtain results.
• The collected wells were 3 wells from Wafa field named as A52, A53 and
A54.

16
 Case Study: Prosper Model

• The single well model will be built step by step and each step any
test or production data available will be used to validate model.
• The single model was divided into five categories:
1. Basic Model.
2. PVT Data.
3. Equipment Data.
4. IPR & VLP Data.
5. ESP/ G.L design.

17
 Case Study: Basic Model

18
Case Study: PVT Data

19
 Case Study: Equipment Data

20
Case Study: IPR Data

Well # Flow Rate, BOPD Pressure, Psi

A-52 2800 1250

A-53 540 600

A-54 1025 900

21
 Case Study: IPR Data Result

IPR Data For Well A-54

IPR Data For Well
AOFP=1615 A-52
STB/Day
IPR Data For Well A-53
AOFP=6366STB/Day
PI=1.82
AOFP=657 STB/Day
PI=6.41
PI=0.716

22
Case Study: VLP Calculation

VLP Cal For Well A-52

VLPCal
VLP CalFor
ForWell
WellA-54
A-53
Oil rate=2650 STB/Day
Oilrate=700
Oil rate=280STB/Day
STB/Day
Pressure=1300
Pressure=1400
Pressure=1310

23
 Case Study: ESP Design, Well A-52

Pump Power required 124.5 Hp

Pump intake pressure 1173 Psig
Motor power required 80 Hp
Surface voltage 2238.12 Volts
Pump discharge pressure 2054 Psig
Surface KVA 88.5
Free gas in pump 0.35 Fraction
Downhole rate 3560 STB/Day
Pump Type Reda D3400N
24
Case Study: ESP Design , Well A-53

Pump Power required 25 Hp

Pump intake pressure 978 Psig
Motor power required 30 Hp
Surface voltage 518.9 Volts
Pump discharge pressure 2016 Psig
Surface KVA 31.7
Free gas in pump 0.66 Fraction
Downhole rate 528 STB/Day
Pump Type Reda D 475 N 25
 Case Study: ESP Design, Well A-54

Pump Power required 37 Hp

Pump intake pressure 1089 Psig
Motor power required 43.5 Hp
Surface voltage 576.6 Volts
Pump discharge pressure 2020 Psig
Surface KVA 51.7
Free gas in pump 0.52 Fraction
Downhole rate 1025 STB/Day
Pump Type Reda D 950
26
 Case Study: Gas Lift Design , Well A-52

Valve Valve Depth Tubing Casing Temp Opening Closing Port

## Type Pressur Pressur Pressur Pressur R Size

## Ft Psi Psi F Psi Psi # #

1 Valve 2718 415 1381 150 1381 1341 0.042 8

2 Valve 4708 633 1300 188 1301 1272 0.042 8

3 Valve 6215 847 1315 214 1315 1296 0.042 8

4 Orifice 7229 1015 1323 229 / / 0.042 8

27
 Case Study: ESP Design, Well A-54

Pump Power required 37 Hp

Pump intake pressure 1089 Psig
Motor power required 43.5 Hp
Surface voltage 576.6 Volts
Pump discharge pressure 2020 Psig
Surface KVA 51.7
Free gas in pump 0.52 Fraction
Downhole rate 1025 STB/Day
Pump Type Reda D 950
28
 Case Study: Gas Lift Design , Well A-52

Valve Valve Depth Tubing Casing Temp Opening Closing Port

## Type Pressur Pressur Pressur Pressur R Size

## Ft Psi Psi F Psi Psi # #

1 Valve 2718 415 1381 150 1381 1341 0.042 8

2 Valve 4708 633 1300 188 1301 1272 0.042 8

3 Valve 6215 847 1315 214 1315 1296 0.042 8

4 Orifice 7229 1015 1323 229 / / 0.042 8

29
 Case Study: Gas Lift Design , Well A-53

Valve Valve Depth Tubing Casing Temp Opening Closing Port

## Type Pressur Pressur Pressure Pressur R Size

## Ft Psi Psi F Psi Psi # #

1 Valve 2733 364 1398 122 1398 1354 0.042 8

2 Valve 4907 531 1326 166 1326 1292 0.042 8

3 Valve 6700 727 1334 203 1334 1308 0.042 8

4 8007 900 1326 230 1326 1309 0.042 8

5 Orifice 8450 962 1490 236 / / 0.042 8

30
 Case Study: Gas Lift Design , Well A-54

Valve Valve Depth Tubing Casing Temp Opening Closing Port

## Type Pressur Pressur Pressur Pressur R Size

## Ft Psi Psi F Psi Psi # #

1 Valve 2728 434 1395 128 1395 1355 0.042 8

2 Valve 4707 611 1315 168 1315 1285 0.042 8

3 Valve 6266 776 1316 200 1316 1293 0.042 8

4 Valve 7398 919 1301 222 1301 1285 0.042 8

5 Valve 8127 1020 1274 234 1274 1264 0.042 8

6 Orifice 8450 1067 1285 238 / / 0.042 8

31
 Conclusions

The following conclusions has been with draw from this study:

1. In-flow Performance Relationship “IPR” indicate the AOFP for the wells and
the productivity Index, for well A-52 the AOFP equal 6235 BOPD and the
productivity 6.4 STB/Day/Psi, well A-53 equal 657 BOPD and 0.71
STB/Day/Psi, well A-54 |equal 1615 BOPD and 1.82 STB/Day/Psi.

2. The production conditions for the selection wells was estimated using
production optimization principle.

3. Well A-53 have a bad production conditions “q= 280 BOPD and P=1280 Psi”
but the other wells has a good production condition. A-54 “q= 700 BOPD and
P=1300 Pai” and A-52 “q= 2650 BOPD and P=1400 Psi”.

32
 Conclusions

4. In ESP design the large size of production tubing reduced the number
of pump stage and motor horse power requirement.

5. In gas lift design the best design for well A-52 and A-54 was a
continues gas lift due to good production but for well A-53 an
intermittent design was calculated due bad production condition.

6. The best lift for the wells according to the results was using gas lift
method because the reservoir pressure below bubble point pressure and
the availability for the gas in the wells.

33
 Recommendations
1. Its recommended using result obtained from this study “Production
Conditions and Lifting Design” in simulation model to approve lifting method
for these wells.
2. Gas lift optimization need to be run many times to adjust well performance Vs
the change in the reservoir behavior, i,g water cut BHP..ect.
3. Run quarterly flowing pressure build up test an all producing wells an
installing multi sensors and develop inflow performance from each test.
4. Monitor the results carefully aiding in projecting future In-flow Performance
Relationship (IPR) to improve the selection of lifting method.
5. It's better to use lifting method and more recommended using gas lift than all
system does the significant increase in production and gas availability in the
reservoir.
34
Thank You