improved field management - neftemer · petronas results –well#3s test 2 test 3 test 4 test 5 0...

2020 ALRDC Artificial Lift

WorkshopCox Convention Center, Oklahoma City, OK

February 17 – 20, 2020

Improved Field Management and

Production Optimisationby

Continuous Monitoring of Wells

Presented by

Andrew Jamieson

Technical Director, Neftemer Ltd

2020 ALRDC

Artificial Lift Workshop

Presentation points

⚫ Conventional well test methods

➔ do not give accurate estimates of well production

⚫ Continuous well monitoring

➔ is a recognised better alternative

⚫ Demonstrable benefits are:

➔ Optimised Production, Predictive Well Maintenance,

Increased Revenue

⚫ However, there is little apparent interest

➔ from the industry worldwide

⚫ Why is there this evident inconsistency?

Neftemer Ltd

2020 ALRDC


Why consider continuous

well monitoring?

⚫ Serious challenges to oil industry

➔ In monitoring and measuring oil well production

• More difficult fluid properties and locations

⚫ Reasonable estimates are essential

➔ Updating reserves

➔ Planning field extensions

➔ Deciding when to apply enhanced recovery

processes

⚫ Better assessment and optimisation of wells

➔ Increased revenue

➔ Less chance of breakdowns

2020 ALRDC


Why NOT continuous

monitoring?

⚫ Conventional approach (for > 100 years!)

➔ Intermittent testing for a few hours per month

• Using fixed or moveable test separators

• Or more recently multiphase meters

⚫ Strong resistance to doing anything else

➔ If it was good enough in the past, it’s still good!

• Continuous monitoring dismissed as “far too expensive”

➔ Changing oil industry mind set is DIFFICULT!

⚫ However

➔ More and more there is open acknowledgement

• Intermittent measurement CANNOT estimate production from

many wells reasonably

2020 ALRDC


NEL and OGA view?

2020 ALRDC


Issues with intermittent

measurements

⚫ Wide range of fluid mixtures and flowrates

➔ Over field lifetimes

⚫ Proper design, operation and maintenance?

➔ In current cost cutting environment?

⚫ In many parts of world

➔ Assets split up among several new operators

⚫ Allocation of oil among new operators

➔ Relatively high accuracy required

➔ Often dependent on unreliable well information

• Former operator did not install high quality systems!

2020 ALRDC


Does current practice

control assets adequately?

⚫ Current well monitoring practice

➔ Well testing only several hours per month

• Fixed or mobile test separators

• Mobile multiphase meter assemblies

• More attention to problem wells?

2020 ALRDC


Answer almost always “No!”

⚫ Key assumptions

➔ Wells produce in a stable manner

➔ Production unchanged when on test

➔ ASSUMPTIONS SELDOM VALID

➔ Later slides will demonstrate this

⚫ Continuous monitoring

➔ Key to optimising production

• Needs cost effective well measurements

2020 ALRDC


Downhole centrifugal pump

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

03.июн 03.июн 04.июн 04.июн 05.июн 05.июн 06.июн

Де

би

т п

о ж

ид

ко

сти

, О

бв

од

не

нн

ос

ть

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Ра

сх

од

га

за

Дебит по жидкости (т/сут) Обводненность (%) Расход газа (м3/сут)Liquid flowrate (T/day) Watercut (%) Gas flowrate (m3/day)

Liq

uid

flo

wra

te,

Wate

rcut

Gas flo

wra

te(m

3/d

ay)

3 June 3 June 4 June 4 June 5 June 5 June 6 June

Скважина 3026 (ЭЦН 80-1400)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

03.июн 03.июн 04.июн 04.июн 05.июн 05.июн 06.июн

Де

би

т п

о ж

ид

ко

сти

, О

бв

од

не

нн

ос

ть

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Ра

сх

од

га

за

Дебит по жидкости (т/сут) Обводненность (%) Расход газа (м3/сут)Liquid flowrate (T/day) Watercut (%) Gas flowrate (m3/day)

Liq

uid

flo

wra

te,

Wate

rcut

Gas flo

wra

te(m

3/d

ay)

3 June 3 June 4 June 4 June 5 June 5 June 6 June

Скважина 3026 (ЭЦН 80-1400)

2020 ALRDC


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

04.июн 05.июн 06.июн 07.июн 08.июн 09.июн 10.июн 11.июн

Дебит по жидкости (т/сут) Обводненность (%) Расход газа (м3/сут)

Скважина 8331 (НН2Б 44-30)

Liquid flowrate (T/day) Watercut (%) Gas flowrate (m3/day)

JuneJuneJuneJuneJune JuneJuneJune

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




Liquid flowrate (T/day) Watercut (%) Gas flowrate (m3/day)

JuneJuneJuneJuneJune JuneJuneJune

Beam Pumped Well

2020 ALRDC


Well production fluctuates!

y = 1,0978x + 84,949

R2 = 0,2833

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Время (дни)

Де

би

т ж

ид

ко

сти

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Об

во

дн

ен

но

сть

, Р

ас

хо

д

га

за

, В

ре

мя

вы

хо

да

на

за

ме

р

Дебит жидкости (т/сут) Обводненность (%) Расход газа (м3/сут) Время выхода на замер, мин Тренд (Дебит жидкости)

Translation

Top heading: - Liquid Flow rate (t/day): Water cut (%): Gas Flow Rate (m3/day):

Measurement update time (min): Trend (Liquid Flow Rate).

X-axis: Time in days Left Y-axis: Liquid Flow Rate

Right Y-axis: Water cut, Gas Flow Rate, Measurement update time

2020 ALRDC


Typical Nigerian 24 hr

production example

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 5 10 15 20 25

Liquidrateinbarrels/day

Timeinhours

LiquidrateVersusTime

2020 ALRDC


Petrobras Campos Basin Well data 1:

Density vs. time (5 hours)

2020 ALRDC



Density vs. Time (8 hours)

2020 ALRDC



Density vs. Time (3 hours)

2020 ALRDC


Petrobras Campos Basin

well profile

PETRONAS RESULTS – Well#3S

Plot shows 24 hours data

• Large density variation – from 100 kg/m3 to 650 kg/m3• Liquid variation from 1250 to 2000 bpd (~23% variation)• Discontinuous Readings – though trend was visible

Liq Flow Rate; Gas Flow Rate; Density; Water Cut

Avg Liq Rate: 1600 bpd

Avg Liq Rate: 1300 bpd

2020 ALRDC


Production optimisation

⚫ Is this an important aim?

➔ If “No”, what are we here for?

➔ If “Yes”, continue!

⚫ Measure all phases (oil, water, gas)

➔ Into and out of ground

⚫ Many (most?) wells do NOT produce steadily

➔ Continuous measurement gives obvious benefits

➔ Major upset to a 150 year tradition

2020 ALRDC


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Ch

ok

e S

ize /6

4"

Wate

r Cu

t (%)

Oil

/ L

iqu

id r

ate

(B

PD

)P

ressu

re (

Psi)

Well Test History

THP

Oil

ChokeSize

Example well test history - 1

2020 ALRDC


Example well test history - 2

⚫ From June ‘09 – Nov ’11 about 900 days

➔ Well could have flowed at 1000 bbl./day

➔ At $50/bbl., value of production $45 million

• (900 x 1000 x 50)

⚫ Actual production from well over 900 days

➔ about ½ x 1000 bbl./day (estimate area under graph)

➔ Serious lack of optimisation!

⚫ Well could have produced twice what it did

➔ The operator lost $22.5 million in production

PETRONAS RESULTS – Well#3S

Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Liq

uid

Rate

(b

bl/d

ay)

Injected Gas Rate (mmscfd)

Gas Lift Optimization - Verification

• A Gas Lift optimization

exercise was conducted

to test the sensitivity of

meter and prove the

future usage

• (Red Dot) was the

actual Gas Injection

Rate which Field P field

was injecting

• The exercise verified

with actual relative

values that the current

Gas lift injection was an

optimum injection

Findings for A4

• For low gas injection (less than 20 Ksm3/d)- significant risk of flow shut down

• Increasing gas injection rate leads to gradualreduction of liquid production

• average density of multiphase flow goes downwith more gas injected- increasing liquid velocity does not compensate

Recommendation for A4

• We recommend to keep gas injection rate as lowas reasonably possible keeping in mind the riskof flow shut down at the gas injection rates lessthan 20 Ksm3/d

20 30 40 50 60 70 80220

230

240

250

260

270

280

Gas injection, Ksm3/d

Liq

uid

flo

w r

ate

, t/

d

A4 Multi rate test

Lift gas rate used

2020 ALRDC


Increased production from

injection of light oil into wellСкважина, оснащенная установкой НН2Б-70-30

Реакция прибора Нефтемер (оперативные значения массового расхода жидкости) на промывку (прокачку) скважины легкой

нефтью агрегатом АДП.

Liq

uid

flo

w r

ate

(m

3/d

ay)

Time (Hours)

2020 ALRDC


Russia - Recent well

optimisation by about 40%

2020 ALRDC


Stages in Field Life

2020 ALRDC


Field Management

⚫ Field life stages and departments in charge• Exploration (Drilling)

• Development (Project)

• Production (Operations)

• Improvement (another project?)

• Rundown and decommissioning (????)

⚫ Measuring and monitoring• Require reasons, information and equipment

• All change for different stages

• Not usual to keep track of these

• Installed equipment only works for part of field life

⚫ Flexible measurement equipment important

Production Reporting Requirements

Allocation and Sales Agreements

Safety, Environmental and Operational Requirements

Local

Processing

Secure

Data link

Office

Processing

Secure

Data link

Further

Processing,

Reporting

INFORMATION

Packaging:

e.g. land,

offshore,

subsea

Comms link

e.g. wire,

radio,

microwave

Packaging

Comms link

e.g. wire,

radio,

microwave

PackagingMECHANICAL

Data Integrity checks

Process simulation models

Calibration information

CONTRACTUAL

LEGISLATIVE

BUSINESS NEEDS

Sensors

Sensor

packaging

and

installation

FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS OF MODERN METERING,

MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING SYSTEMS

2020 ALRDC


6. TEST OF MULTIPHASE METER ON PPM-1

The multiphase meter Neftemer was tested in

the month of May on wells PM-50 and PM-11

and showed satisfactory results. The meter

was capable of measuring simultaneously

the flow of gas, oil and BS&W. After analysis

in the Test Centre of Petrobras (NUEX) in

Aracaju a report will be issued with the

results achieved and the final conclusions.

The meter had a lot of attention in ATP-C

department of Petrobras, as it was the first

top-side meter with a nucleonic source, but

after intervention of the measuring teams

(Cenpes, ATP-C/EE, ENGP/EE) and SMS with

a presentation of conscientiousness, all the

work force was in agreement with the

planned tests. The operations team showed

confidence in the performance of the meter

in the task of monitoring the wells and have

great expectations that multiphase meters

will assist them, in the near future, to adjust

the essential parameters to maintain and

even increase production in the wells of the

unit.

Petrobras

Newsletter

2020 ALRDC


Expense and manpower

⚫ Take oil well + completion cost at $12 million

➔ Produces for, say, 10 years at 1000 bbl/day

• 3.6 million bbl, at $50/bbl results in $180 million

⚫ Cost of monitoring over 10 years

➔ Say equipment $1 million, manpower $100,000/yr

• Total cost easily less than $2 million; 40 days production.

⚫ Cost of poor or non-existent monitoring

➔ Example showed this as easily half of the production

➔ In 2004 Shell overestimated reserves by 20%

• Huge costs and litigation lasting years

⚫ Continuous monitoring is CHEAP; a no-brainer

2020 ALRDC


Recent comments

⚫ Major North Sea company

➔ We install multiphase meters on all our wells

• gives 1 – 2% improvement in the reserves

• It improves our competitive position – we don’t shout about it!

⚫ Director of ANP Brazil, Décio Oddone

➔ Improving reserves recovery factor is top priority

• 1% improvement means 2 billion barrels of oil

Note: at $50 per barrel, this equates to $100 Billion

⚫ Several operators

➔ Process or petroleum engineers in metering positions

• Much more interested in optimising wells and fields

2020 ALRDC


A way forward?

⚫ New mind set of continuous well monitoring

➔ Dramatically assists well production optimisation

• Better Field Management a direct consequence

⚫ Large scale field deployment practical

➔ Starts with two meters on one facility

• Extend to more facilities and so the whole field

⚫ Training of oil and service companies’ staff

➔ Gradual deployment allows excellent training

• Requires close collaboration between departments

⚫ Timescale

➔ Not so long, once benefits are recognised!

Copyright

Rights to this presentation are owned by the company(ies) and/or author(s) listed on the title page. By submitting this presentation to the Artificial Lift Strategies for Unconventional Wells Workshop, they grant to the Workshop, the Artificial Lift Research and Development Council (ALRDC), and the Southwestern Petroleum Short Course (SWPSC), rights to:

▪ Display the presentation at the Workshop.

▪ Place it on the www.alrdc.com web site, with access to the site to be as directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.

▪ Place it on a CD for distribution and/or sale as directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.

Other use of this presentation is prohibited without the expressed written permission of the author(s). The owner company(ies) and/or author(s) may publish this material in other journals or magazines if they refer to the Artificial Lift Strategies for Unconventional Wells Workshop where it was first presented.

322020 ALRDC Artificial Lift Workshop

Oklahoma City, OKFeb. 17 - 20, 2020

Disclaimer

332020 ALRDC Artificial Lift Workshop

Oklahoma City, OKFeb. 17 - 20, 2020

The following disclaimer shall be included as the last page of a Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Course. A similar disclaimer is included on the front page of the Artificial Lift Strategies for Unconventional Wells Web Site.

The Artificial Lift Research and Development Council and its officers and trustees, and the Artificial Lift Strategies for Unconventional Wells Steering Committee members, and their supporting organizations and companies (here-in-after referred to as the Sponsoring Organizations), and the author(s) of this Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Training Course and their company(ies), provide this presentation and/or training material at the Artificial Lift Strategies for Unconventional Wells Workshop "as is" without any warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the information or the products or services referred to by any presenter (in so far as such warranties may be excluded under any relevant law) and these members and their companies will not be liable for unlawful actions and any losses or damage that may result from use of any presentation as a consequence of any inaccuracies in, or any omission from, the information which therein may be contained.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in these presentations and/or training materials are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Sponsoring Organizations. The author is solely responsible for the content of the materials.

The Sponsoring Organizations cannot and do not warrant the accuracy of these documents beyond the source documents, although we do make every attempt to work from authoritative sources. The Sponsoring Organizations provide these presentations and/or training materials as a service. The Sponsoring Organizations make no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the presentations and/or training materials, or any part thereof, including any warrantees of title, non-infringement of copyright or patent rights of others, merchantability, or fitness or suitability for any purpose.

improved field management - neftemer · petronas results –well#3s test 2 test 3 test 4 test 5 0...

Documents