Environmental Engineer

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Permeability Testing WTN Network Meeting April , 2011 ExxonMobil Exploration / Well Testing Team.
Advertisements

Flow Behavior of Gas-Condensate Wells - the impact of composition
Induced Seismicity Houston Bar Association Environmental Law Section Houston, Texas January 21, 2015 Mark K. Boling Executive Vice President and President,
Traditional acid well stimulation*
Lesson 14 Jet Bit Nozzle Size Selection
PETE 203 DRILLING ENGINEERING
Real World Pressure Buildup Issues Brian Graves TCEQ UIC Symposium UIC Land Ban Coordinator May 6, 2015
I-2 Gauss’ Law Main Topics The Electric Flux. The Gauss’ Law. The Charge Density. Use the G. L. to calculate the field of a.
Hydrologic Characterization of Fractured Rocks for DFN Models.
Mathematics of non-Darcy CO 2 injection into saline aquifers Ana Mijic Imperial College London Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering PMPM Research.
The Centrifugal Pump.
Well Testing Initial production tests at surface after wellbore cleanup and fracing. Sometimes called initial potential or IP. IP= Initial Production IPF.
Well Testing
SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program The SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program is funded principally through a grant from the SPE Foundation. The society gratefully.
Components of Centrifugal pumps
1 Study of Pressure Front Propagation in a Reservoir from a Producing Well by Hsieh, B.Z., Chilingar, G.V., Lin, Z.S. May 4, 2007.
Pseudopressure Function
Early Offshore Petroleum Development Cost Estimates Using GIS Narmina Lovely, GEOG 596A Advisor: Patrick Kennelly.
Lecture Notes Applied Hydrogeology
Monte Markley, P.G. SCS Aquaterra. What to do when you need to dispose of high volume fluids? One way is to drill a disposal well.
Produced Water Reinjection Performance Joint Industry Project TerraTek, Inc. Triangle Engineering Taurus Reservoir Solutions (DE&S) E-first Technologies.
Tom Beebe Project Manager
Produced Water Reinjection Performance Joint Industry Project TerraTek, Inc. Triangle Engineering Taurus Reservoir Solutions (DE&S) E-first Technologies.
Why Is It Getting Harder To Inject – Is It Just Skin Damage Or Is The Disposal Neighborhood Becoming Too Crowded? Presented by: Ken Johnson Environmental.
Parametric Study of Turbine Cascades P M V Subbarao Professor Mechanical Engineering Department Identification of New design Variables.……
FLUID FLOW FOR CHEMICAL ENGINEERING Dr Mohd Azmier Ahmad Tel: +60 (4) EKC 212 CHAPTER 8 (Part 5) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
Well test analysis of Shale gas wells JIP in New Developments in Well Test Analysis 12 September 2014 Irina Kostyleva, PhD student.
APPLICATION OF MULTIPLE WELL DECONVOLUTION METHOD IN A NORTH SEA FIELD EMMA THORNTON 1 SUPERVISORS: ALAIN GRINGARTEN (IMPERIAL COLLEGE) JALAL MAZLOOM,
Sanitary Engineering Lecture 7
Critical Parameters of a Horizontal Well in a Bottom Water Reservoir Department: Southwest Petroleum University Address: No.8,
Short-Term Forecasting
Chapter 5 Well Testing (III)
Chapter 5 Pressure Transient Testing (I)
INSTRUCTOR © 2017, John R. Fanchi
Motion in Two Dimensions
Full-Scale Reservoir Simulation Drilling and Completions Laboratory
Electric Circuits Fall, 2014
Chapter 2: Directional & Horizontal Drilling
Saudi Aramco – Course in Advanced Fluid PVT Behavior
PRO-2003 Natural Gas Processing Natural Gas Deliverability
Oil-Based Mud Contamination in Gas-Condensate Samples
QC checks on composition
Pipe Components, Piping System.
Gas Condensate PVT A worked example to estimate
Motion in Two Dimensions
Fluid Dynamics for Brewing
Gas Condensate Blockage
ENG421 (3c) – Pipes, Valves, Pumps
PERMEABILITY . Some slides in this section are from NExT PERF Short Course Notes, Some slides appear to have been obtained from unknown primary sources.
Gas Rate Equation General Equation Backpressure Equation
Andy Martin, Alexis Marmol & Abdullah Khan IPS-15-8
Radial flow equation Outer boundary: CR Inner boundary:
PERMEABILITY . Some slides in this section are from NExT PERF Short Course Notes, Some slides appear to have been obtained from unknown primary sources.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
Static Anomalies and Energy Partitioning
Pseudopressure Function
Gas Condensate Blockage
Gas Condensate Blockage
Produced Water Reinjection Performance Joint Industry Project
Class I Operational Constraints Requiring Specialized Wellbore Hydraulic Modeling Tom Ortiz TCEQ.
Gas Condensate PVT A worked example to estimate
The three fracture end members (microfractures, joints and seismically identified faults) that comprise the Lancaster conceptual model. The three fracture.
Gas Condensate Blockage
QC checks on composition
Fundamentals of TRANSPORT MECHANISMs
Gas Rate Equation General Equation Backpressure Equation
The structure and evolution of stars
CN2122 / CN2122E Fluid Mechanics
QC checks on composition
SPEGC Northside Study Group “Unconventional Reservoir Horizontal, Multi-Stage Completion Design Optimization” Presented by Stephen Schubarth President.
Presentation transcript:

Environmental Engineer Higher Injection Pressure – Is It Your Fault, Skin Damage, Or Someone Else’s Well? Presented by: Ken Johnson Environmental Engineer (214) 665-8473 Johnson.ken-e@epa.gov EPA Region 6 May 6, 2017

What Makes Injection Well Pressure Increase When Injecting? Injector Operating Bottom Hole Pressure Response = Static Reservoir Pressure (may not reach surface) + Wellhead Pressure + ∆Phydrostatic wellbore column - ∆Pwellbore friction loss - ∆Pcompletion skin factor pressure drop -∆Preservoir rock pressure drop + ∆Preservoir boundary pressure increase We’ll focus on skin factor and reservoir boundary (faults and offset injector) pressure increases for this presentation

Three Common Sources of Injection Pressure Increases At The Wellbore Skin Effect Characterized by dimensionless skin factor, S Usually measure S with a pressure transient test Annual falloff Positive S means a pressure increase at the wellbore Out In The Reservoir Geologic Fault Can be sealing or partially laterally transmissive Offset Class I or II injector(s) Either Class well can have the same effect

Impact of Geologic Fault Has a gradual long term impact with an increase in well operating pressure Distance to the fault (Lfault) coupled with reservoir transmissibility (kh/u) determines the time for pressure increase from fault pressure to begin to develop Full effect of the fault takes awhile to develop Operating pressure increase is also a function of the injector rate (Q) Can observe fault distance with a falloff test if injector is close enough

Falloff Response With and Without Fault Effects Images are log plot charts for No Fault and Fault at 1000 ft. Radial flow Fully developed fault effect Start of fault effects Radial flow

How To Project Fault Pressure Impact At Facility Injector Represent fault boundary as an “image” well with same Q as the injector Image well is equidistant from the fault on its other side Calculate the effects of “image” well on the actual injector’s operation pressure Image is a graphic depiction of a formula for fault pressure. Lfault to real well Lfault to image

Estimating Fault Pressure Buildup Impact Use infinite acting reservoir model equations from Petroleum Engineering references SPE Monographs 5 (Appendix C) and 23, SPE Well testing textbooks 1 and 9 Calculate Pd, td, and rd then solve for P fault impact at the facility injector Note d subscript means dimensionless variable Calculate dimensionless model values from reservoir conditions and permit time and convert to model outcomes in real dimensions Distance to boundary, r = Lfault to real well + Lfault to image well (for fault case)

Estimating Fault Pressure Buildup Impact Dimensionless equations for infinite acting reservoir model are: td = 0.0002637(k)(∆t)/(ɸ)(µ)(ct)(rw 2) rd = r/rw (rw is facility injector well radius) Pd = 0.5(ln(td/(rd2)) + 0.80907) Can adjust r and ∆t to any point in permit time and any distance in reservoir to see what boundary (and facility injector) effects are Take values from specified reservoir and permit conditions (Q, k, h, µ, rw, ct, ɸ) and solve for ∆ P at the well (or at various locations in the reservoir) ∆ P = 141.2(Q)(β)(µ)Pd/(k)(h) (using values taken from reservoir and permit conditions)

How To Project Offset Injector Pressure Buildup Impact At Facility Injector Treated similarly to a fault, except: the rate may vary and no “mirror” distance impact Direct distance between wells determines time for pressure buildup impact Facility injector Treated similarly to a fault, except: the rate may vary and no “mirror” distance impact Direct distance between wells determines time for pressure buildup impact Facility injector and Offset injector Image is a graphic depiction of offset injector pressure buildup Loffset Offset injector

Estimating the Offset Effect Again use infinite acting reservoir model equations Calculate Pd, td, and rd (as in fault example) then solve for P offset impact at the facility injector Note that r in offset well case is Loffset In a comparison where a fault and offset injector are each the same distance away, the Lfault is 2x Loffset

Skin Factor Pressure Buildup Impact Skin Factor, S Dimensionless parameter obtained from pressure transient tests to characterize completion conditions (- stimulated, + damaged) ∆Pskin = 0.87*m*S = 0.87*(162.6*Q*β*µ/k*h)*S in psi Kh/µ is transmissibility in md-ft/cp, Q is rate in bpd Skin pressure drop magnitude is rate dependent! Higher Q with +S means more pressure, horsepower, and electricity to inject Skin represents an immediate increase or decrease (if negative) in wellbore injection pressure Skin does not affect pressure buildup out in the reservoir, only at the injector Skin can be decreased with stimulation, reperforating, wellbore cleanouts, or fracturing Skin increases due to wellbore fill, plugging of perforations, scale buildup, and invasion of pore space around the well with dirty injectate

Let’s Look at 4 Hypothetical Injection Well Situations: At the Facility and Out in the Injection Interval Injector reservoir and operating conditions: Pstatic = 1500 psi k = 200 md; h = 50 ft; Φ = 30%; μ = 0.5 cp; ct = 6x10-6 psi-1 Permit life = 10 years; Maximum Q = 300 gpm (10,285 bpd); S= 0; rw = 0.292 ft (7 in. casing) Case 0: Undamaged completion (S=0) Case 1: Damaged completion Skin factor, S of +40 from a recent falloff test Case 2: A fault 2 miles away Has a regional fault that is considered sealing based on geology, but skin factor of 0 Case 3: An offset Class I injector 2 miles away Offset injects continuously at 300 gpm Facility injector has a skin factor of 0 How does the injector’s projected bottom hole operating pressure trend in each of these cases?

Comparison of Pressure Buildups at End of Permit Life Image is a chart of pressure buildups by location Location in Pressure Buildup Model Infinite Acting Reservoir with S=0 (psi) Infinite Acting Reservoir with S=40 Sealing Fault 2 miles away Offset Injector2 miles away At facility injector 930.5 3835 1049.4 1099.1 1 mile from facility injector 218.8 335.5 437.5 Incremental ∆P at facility Injector over 0 skin case --- 2904.5 118.9 168.6

Key Points An injection well’s bottom hole injection pressure is the net of several responses Some are at the wellbore and others out in the reservoir Reservoir components may take months, or years to impact a well’s injecting bottom hole pressure Faults and offset wells are reservoir components Depends on combination of reservoir and operating parameters Skin impacts the injector wellbore only Can use infinite acting reservoir model (IARM) equations to do a “basic” reservoir/injection capacity assessment for pressure buildup for permits and petitions Some “what if” capability for various completion and reservoir boundary conditions IARM equations available in petroleum engineering texts and suitable for calculator or spreadsheet applications

References “Transient Well Testing,” SPE Monograph 23, Medhat Kamal, 2009 “Advances in Well Test Analysis,” SPE Monograph 5, R.C. Earlougher Jr., 1977 “Well Testing,” SPE Textbook Series Volume 1, John Lee, 1982 “Pressure Transient Testing,” SPE Textbook Series Volume 9, John Lee et al., 2003