Example #8- High Water Producing Well (example8.

csv)

Description:

- High permeability reservoir, low pressure

- Significant increase in water production in final months
- Water production measured once every two weeks
- Operator suspects active water drive, and well has watered out

Reservoir / Wellbore Parameters:

Pi = 1475 psia (bottomhole)

T = 98 deg F
h = 20 ft
porosity = 21 %
Sg = 80 %
So = 0 %
Sw = 20 %
G = 0.565
CO2, H2S, N2 = 0

Pressure Source= Tubing

Flow Path= Tubing
MPP / Tubing Depth = 3,990 ft
Tubing ID = 2.992 in
Tubing OD = 3.5 in
Casing ID = 5 in
Casing Depth= 4010 ft
Wellhead Temperature = 70 deg F

Question:

Is this well producing under active water-drive? Why or why not?

Answer:

Use Beggs and Brill pressure loss correlation to calculate sand face pressures from
tubing pressures as Gary correlation does not model the increase in liquid hold up and
change of flow pattern properly, when water rates start to increase after water
breakthrough in the well in late December 2002.
There is no identifiable classic signature of active pressure support on the modern type
curves such as illustrated below; normally very large aquifer should be connected to the
gas envelope to provide strong pressure support; considering sharp contrast that exists
between compressibility and mobility of gas and water moving through an assumed
homogeneous sand with constant permeability.

Contrarily, continuous loss of productivity of the well can easily be identified on FMB
plot. Gradual deviation of green productivity index data points below the initial flat trend
is the sign of loss of productivity due to water encroachment and possible loss of
effective permeability to gas, Red arrow on the plot marks the date of water
breakthrough
Note that it is very easy to do an incorrect type curve match like the one shown below, if
water rates are not carefully examined. This match reflects a volumetric depletion
scenario and does not reflect the loss of productivity confirmed by FMB. You can now
recognize that Cartesian plot of FMB gives a much clearer picture of loss of productivity
over time than log based type curve analysis plots. The second plot below shows the
correct match that reflects the loss if productivity and correct estimate of OGIP that
matches what FMB analysis gives.
The well seems to be watered out having only recovered 0.75 Bscf out of
1.4 Bscf that FMB estimates for OGIP.