|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
Ariffin, Mohd Hafizi (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Tham, Su Li (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Johing, Fedawin (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Jamel, Delwistiel (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Abdussalam, Khomeini (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.)
Smart field accessories are already widely used in the industry. Donkey field is ready to jump on the bandwagon by installing 8 wells with these accessories. In addition, Donkey field is equipped with data transmission system or we called it Integrated Operation (IO) where the data is transmitted directly to shore for faster decision making and continuous data monitoring.
For every installation for these jewelries, the question is always why do we need these? Most of the time, well inaccessible is the drive of their installation. But, the benefit of this jewelries are beyond that. For example, optimization for commingle is easier for this installation. With Inflow Control Valve (ICV), it is easier to control its injection for each layer.
IO helped the engineer to dive deep into well and reservoir performance or problem. This technology helps the engineer to have full picture on field potential. So, where is the problem?
"Smart well" have a good ring to our ear which make us forget what is the challenges underlying its installation. After 2 years of its installation, almost all these jewelries began to shows their problem. Team face quite a challenge to rectify this problem especially on well jewelries. Because of the location of the field, transmitters’ signals are really impacted by the weather. With the tropical climate of Donkey field, the data missing for interpretation is quite massive. Hence, it is difficult to get good data for it.
During initial design stage, everyone need to consider the configuration and location of the field before we start to consider these expensive jewelries. Do we really need it? And are we ready for its maintenance, not just on its installation? How frequent is its maintenance? All of these need to be considered before we jump on the bandwagon.
Usop, Mohammad Zulfiqar (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Suggust, Alister Albert (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Mohammad Razali, Abdullah (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Zamzuri, Dzulfahmi (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | M. Khalil, M. Idraki (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Hatta, M. Zulqarnain (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Khalid, Aizuddin (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Hasan Azhari, Muhammad (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Jamel, Delwistiel (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Ting Yeong Ye, Diana (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Abdulhadi, Muhammad (Dialog Berhad) | Awang Pon, M Zaim (Dialog Berhad)
Reservoir G-4, a depleted reservoir in field B had been producing from 1992 to 2015 with a recovery factor of 30% before the production was stopped due to low reservoir pressure. Due to the huge inplace volume. A secondary recovery screening was conducted and gas injection was identified as the most suitable solution to revive G-4 reservoir due to its low cost impact of 0.4 Mil. USD whilst managing to deliver the same results as other solutions (i.e. Water injection & Water Dumpflood).
The project had utilized existing facilities in field B including a gas compressor. The project required only minor surface modification to re-route gas into the tubing of injection well BG-03. From simulation results, a continuous injection of 5 MMscf/d will increase the reservoir pressure by 150 psia in 9 months, with incremental potential reserves of atleast 5.0 MMstb from the benefitter wells, BG-02 & as well as incoming infill wells BG-14 & BG-15. It is also envisaged that with future development of additional infill wells, the recovery factor will be increased up to 60%.
In term of gas management, field B is able to deliver additional 15 MMscf/d post petroleum operation reduction (i.e. Fuel Gas, Instrument Gas & Gas lift). With the initiation of gas injection, the project had managed to utilize and optimize 33% of additional gas production for reservoir rejuvenation purposes.
The paper provides valuable insight into the case study and lesson learned of maximizing oil recovery through gas injection with minimal cost incurred. The approach is highly recommended to maximize oil recovery especially in mature fields with similar reservoir conditions and production facilities.
Abdulhadi, Muhammad (Halliburton Bayan Petroleum) | Kueh, Pei Tze (Halliburton Bayan Petroleum) | Zamanuri, Aiman (Halliburton Bayan Petroleum) | Thang, Wai Cheong (Halliburton Bayan Petroleum) | Chin, Hon Voon (Halliburton Bayan Petroleum) | Jacobs, Steve (Halliburton Bayan Petroleum) | Suggust, Alister Albert (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Zaini, Ahmad Hafizi Ahmad (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Jamel, Delwistiel (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Dolah, Khairul Arifin (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Munandai, Hasim (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.) | Yusop, Zainuddin (PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.)
In the recent low oil price environment, a cost-effective solution was proposed to use through tubing bridge plugs to perform water-shut-off (WSO) in an offshore field. The solution consisted of using slickline to set a plug with a high expansion ratio followed by a cement dump. After three WSO jobs in different wells, the method has successfully proven itself. Watercut was reduced from 100% to 0% with a minimal cost of only USD100,000.
The through tubing bridge plug used is capable of passing through 2-7/8-in. tubing and expanding into 9-5/8-in. casing. After running a Gamma-Ray log, the plug was set across the perforation interval to give the anchor contact with a rough casing surface. The top of the plug, however, was above the perforation interval and became the base for cement. Cement was then continuously dumped on top using a slickline dump bailer in a static condition until the designed cement height was reached. Static conditions ensured no movement of cement during operation. The plug differential pressure limit is directly proportional to the cement height.
The first WSO job was a complete success with watercut reduced from 100% to 0%. The second job however, was partially successful as the cement dump was not completed due to unexpected appearance of a hold-up-depth (HUD). The HUD was created by leftover cement which had accumulated at the end of the tubing. Despite the setbacks, the end result was successful in reducing water production from 1000 bwpd to 200 bwpd. The third job faced a completely different problem. The original plug fell off deeper into the well after it was set. To rectify the situation, a second plug was set at the target interval. Despite the successful execution, there was no change in watercut after the well was brought back online. Since the same method was proposed for another upcoming well, Memory-Production log (MPLT) coupled with Temperature-Noise log was performed to assess the effectiveness of the WSO. The log results confirmed that the WSO was successful and the post job water production was caused by channeling behind the casing. The results so far concluded that the through tubing bridge plug WSO method was both reliable and cost-effective. It is exceptionally suitable for zones located at the bottom of a well and can be deployed using slickline.
The paper provides valuable insight to a WSO solution which should be a first-choice option due to its relatively inexpensive cost and high reliability. The solution has proven to provide tremendous cost saving for production enhancement activity.