Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Results
Multiphase Flow Meters Trial Testing in High GOR/GVF Environment
Nasri, Ahcene (Saudi Aramco) | Al-Anizi, Abdulaziz (Saudi Aramco) | Al-Amri, Meshal A. (Saudi Aramco) | Al-Khelaiwi, Faisal T. (Saudi Aramco) | Al-Anazi, Ammal (Saudi Aramco)
Abstract Multiphase flow metering (MPFM) technology is gaining popularity and becoming the main well rate testing mechanism in some regions of the world. Yet, their application in measuring the flow rates of high gas-oil-ratio (GOR) and/or high gas volume fraction (GVF) wells has always been a challenge. A remote field located in the Southeastern part of Saudi Arabia commenced its production in the late 90's from a thin oil column lying between a large gas-cap and a water aquifer. Although, 84% of the thin-oil-column producing wells are horizontal and multilateral wells with extended reservoir contact, the gas-cap gas breakthrough and production from these wells have increased gradually; resulting in an increase in the wells GOR. Currently, 35% of the wells are producing at high GOR ranging between 2,000 and 6,000 SCF/STB with a GVF reaching as high as 98%. The fluid flow rate tests of these wells are conducted through a test separator designed to handle a GOR of 2,500 SCF/STB; well below the current GOR of these wells. Such plans require identification of the most appropriate MPFMs that can operate successfully in such high GOR/GVF conditions. This paper describes the field trial test of three MPFMs under high GOR/GVF conditions of dry and wet production. The meters' performance is compared to a portable test separator properly sized to accommodate the high gas and liquid flow rates of the producers of this field. The paper summarizes the results of this test and justifies the measurement errors in light of the operating principle of each meter. The paper also provides valuable guidelines for conducting such testing operations by building on the lessons learned from this trial test.
- Asia > Middle East > Saudi Arabia (0.49)
- Asia > Middle East > UAE > Abu Dhabi Emirate > Abu Dhabi (0.16)
Abstract The Northern Area Oil Operations of Saudi Aramco has embarked on the installation of Intelligent Field equipment and innovative technologies on a mass scale for the past decade. It was noticed that the initial performance and utilization of such technologies were lower than expected. Therefore; a plan comprised of the following was devised to tackle these deficiencies:Launching a major organizational restructure and assigning a dedicated team of specialists to look after the Intelligent-Field equipment and the real-time data transmission to the databases. Establishing a tailored maintenance service contract with the providers of such technologies. Developing an in-house training program for specialization in the operation, maintenance and utilization of Intelligent-Field equipment. Launching of an innovative technology deployment and evaluation program where each technology is assigned to a technical champion who assumes full responsibility of the technology deployment process. Initiating and maintaining state-of-the-art knowledge management system to track the progress, document the procedures and processes, and capture the lessons learned from the application of each technology. The implementation of these steps resulted in enhanced Intelligent-Field equipment performance efficiency. In addition, the utilization of real-time data โ in advanced production and reservoir engineering analysis; such as automated well rate validation and allocation, production optimization and sweep monitoring โ has improved due to the high availability and quality of the transmitted data. This paper will provide details of the holistic approach developed by Saudi Aramco for the installation and maintenance of Intelligent-Field equipment and all the implemented changes in the work processes to maximize their performance and tangible benefits. The success and value-added by implementing this generic approach will be illustrated through the high efficiency of Saudi Aramco's Intelligent-Field equipment, which has been maintained at 99%.
- Government > Regional Government > Asia Government > Middle East Government > Saudi Arabia Government (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- Information Technology > Communications > Networks (1.00)
- Information Technology > Architecture > Real Time Systems (1.00)
Abstract Advances (from conventional wells to horizontal and then multi-lateral) in well architecture for maximising reservoir contact have been paralleled by advances in completion equipment development of both "Passive" Inflow Control Devices (ICDs) and "Active" Interval Control Valves (ICVs). These devices provide a range of fluid-flow control-options that can enhance the reservoir sweep efficiency and increase reserves. ICVs were initially employed for controlled, commingled production from multiple reservoirs; while ICDs were developed to counteract the "Heel-Toe" Effect. The variety of their reservoir applications has since proliferated, so that their application areas now overlap. It has become both complex and time consuming to select between ICVs or ICDs for a well's completion. This publication along with a companion paper summarises the results of a comprehensive, comparison study of the functionality and applicability of the two technologies. It maps out a workflow of the selection process based on the thorough analysis of the ICD and ICV advantages in major reservoir, production, operation and economic areas. Detailed analysis of the modelling, gas and oil field applications, equipment costs and installation risks, long term reliability and technical performance are covered. The systematic approach and tabulated results of this comparison forms the basis of a screening tool of the potential applicable control technology for a wide range of situations. The selection framework can be applied by both production technologists and reservoir engineers when choosing between "Passive" or "Active" flow control in advanced wells. The value of these guidelines is illustrated by their application to synthetic and real field case studies. Introduction Increasing well-reservoir contact has a number of potential advantages in terms of well productivity, drainage area, sweep efficiency and delayed water or gas breakthrough. However, such long, possibly multilateral, Extreme Reservoir Contact (ERC) wells bring not only advantages by replacing several conventional wells; but also present new challenges in terms of drilling and completion due to the increasing length and complexity of the well's exposure to the reservoir [1]. The situation with respect to reservoir management is less black and white. An ERC well improves the sweep efficiency and delays water or gas breakthrough by reducing the localized drawdown and distributing fluid flux over a greater wellbore length; but it will also present difficulties when reservoir drainage control is required. Production from a conventional well is normally controlled at the surface by the wellhead choke; increasing the total oil production by reducing the production rate of a high water cut, conventional well afflicted by water coning. Such simple measures do not work with an ERC well, since maximization of well-reservoir contact does not by itself guarantee uniform reservoir drainage. Premature breakthrough of water or gas occurs due to:Reservoir permeability heterogeneity. Variations in the distance between the wellbore and fluid contacts e.g. due to multiple fluid contacts, an inclined wellbore, a tilted oil-water contact, etc. Variations in reservoir pressure in different regions of the reservoir penetrated by the wellbore. The "heel-toe" effect that leads to a difference in the specific influx rate between the heel and the toe of the well, especially when the reservoir is homogeneous.
- North America > United States > Texas (1.00)
- Europe (1.00)
- Asia > Middle East > Saudi Arabia > Eastern Province (0.67)
- North America > United States > Gulf of Mexico > Central GOM (0.46)
- South America > Brazil > Sergipe > Sergipe-Alagoas Basin > Carmopolis Field (0.99)
- North America > United States > Gulf of Mexico > Central GOM > East Gulf Coast Tertiary Basin > Mississippi Canyon > Block 657 > Na Kika Project (0.99)
- North America > United States > Gulf of Mexico > Central GOM > East Gulf Coast Tertiary Basin > Mississippi Canyon > Block 608 > Na Kika Project (0.99)
- (47 more...)