Analysis of the Effect of Water Flux to a Gas Zone after Through Tubing Perforations on Gas Production by Numerical Simulations

Abstract

After perforating a gas zone with through tubing perforation method, other possible gas zones are also perforated from bottom to top accordingly. However, if one of these zones is highly saturated with water, water might flow through the perforations where gas production is possible. In this study, the water flux from upper perforation to lower perforations where gas is available was simulated by using TOUGH + RealGasBrine simulator. The effects of permeability, pressure differences between zones, and salinity on water flux through gas zone were investigated in this study. Permeability affects the behavior of water flux and its amount to gas zone significantly. Similarly, these effects were seen for the cases with pressure differences between zones and salinity in water zone even though these effects are less than those observed in permeability cases. It was observed that the duration of exposure of gas zone to water flux should be kept minimum by applying well completion operations quickly to isolate water zone and stop water flux from this zone to gas zone. After isolating water zone with well completion operations, gas production simulations from gas zone were conducted at a constant production pressure of 5 MPa. It was observed that gas production from gas zone was retarded and water production from gas zone was higher compared to the original cases without any water invasion. Even in a long term of gas production, it is possible to observe the remarks of previous water flux from upper zone after analyzing water saturation distribution

Keywords

• gas reservoirs,perforation,through tubing,water invasion

References

1. 1. Lea, JF, Nickens, HV, Solving gas-well liquid-loading problems, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2004, 56(4), 30-36.
2. 2. Turner, RG, Hubbard, MG, Dukler, AE, Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1969, 21(11), 1475-1482.
3. 3. Okon, A., Appah, D., Akpabio, J, Water Coning Prediction Review and Control: Developing an Integrated Approach, Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 2017, 14(4), 1-24.
4. 4. Tătaru, A, Simescu, NB, Underbalance well completion - a modern approach for mature gas fields. 8th International Conference on Manufacturing Science and Education, Sibiu, Romania, 2017, pp 1-7.5. Joseph, A, Sand, CM, Ajienka, JA, Classification and Management of Liquid Loading in Gas Wells, The Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 2013, pp 1-25.
5. 6. Anwar A, Hassan S, Belhadj B (2002) An integrated approach to determine hydrocarbon potential in low resistivity, thinly laminated reservoir: East-Delta area, Egypt. In: MOC 2002, Alex, Egypt.
6. 7. Islam, ARMT, Islam, MA, Tasnuva, A, Biswas, RK, Jahan, K, Petro physical parameter studies for characterization of gas reservoir of Narsingdi gas field, Bangladesh, International Journal of Advanced Geosciences, 2014, 2(2), 53-58.
7. 8. Xi, F, Bing, Z, Xuefeng, Y, Hui, D, Effective water influx control in gas reservoir development: Problems and countermeasures, Natural Gas Industry B, 2015, 2, 240-246.
8. 9. Jacobsen, S et al., Log Interpretation Strategies in Gas Wells, Oil Review, 1991 (April), 22-34.

9. 10. Wild Well Control (WWC), Completions and Workovers.https://www.wildwell.com/wp-content/uploads/Completions-and-Workover.pdf
10. 11. Cosad, C, Choosing a Perforation Strategy, Oilfield Review, 1992 (October), 54-69.
11. 12. McAleese, S, Operational Aspects of Oil and Gas Well Testing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherland, 2000.
12. 13. CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation), Perforation Technology for Complex Reservoirs. Science & Technology Management Department, 2011.
13. 14. Ifediora, E, Ibrahim, C, Ekeke, D, Nwaochei, F, Ogugua, E., Orumwese, S, Idedevbo, K, A Novel Technology for Through Tubing Perforation in Highly Deviated Wells Where Electric Line Is Limited, 33rd SPE Nigerian Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, 2009, pp 1-6.
14. 15. Marotta, M, Morsetti, C, Mazzoni, S, Diaf, R, Cherri, R., Production Optimization in Plio-Pleistocene Sequences by Through Tubing Perforations and Sand Consolidation in Rigless Activities: Italian Case Histories, 13th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna, Italy, 2017, pp 1-15.
15. 16. Moridis, GJ, Freeman, CM, User’s Manual for The RealGasBrine v1.0 Option of TOUGH+ v1.5: A Code for The Simulation of System Behavior in Gas-Bearing Geologic Media. Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720 August 2014.
16. 17. Ali, I, Malik, NA, A realistic transport model with pressure dependent parameters for gas flow in tight porous media with application to determining shale rock properties. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.05070.pdf (accessed on 17.11.2018).
17. 18. Aguilera, R, Shale gas reservoirs: Theoretical, practical and research issues, Petroleum Research, 2016, 1,10-26.
18. 19. Dai, S, Santamarina, JC, Water retention curve for hydrate-bearing sediments, Geophysical Research Letters, 2013, 40, 5637-5641.
19. 20. Jang, J, Santamarina, JC, Evolution of gas saturation and relative permeability during gas production from hydrate-bearing sediments: Gas invasion vs. gas nucleation, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 2014, 119, 116–126.