production optimization utilizing the balance-ported...

PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION UTILIZING

THE BALANCE-PORTED VALVE AND

PILOT VALVE IN THE

PERMIAN BASIN

Rick D. Haydel, Donald J. Brink, Gary J.

Gassiott, Joseph Bourque - Altec, Inc.

2017 ALRDC Gas-Lift

Workshop

Houston, TX

October 23-27, 2017

Oct 23-27, 20172017 ALRDC Gas-Lift Workshop 2

Outline• Introduction

– Production Challenges, Artificial Lift Options, Why Gas-Lift

• Gas-Lift Objectives

• Industry Standard Gas-Lift Design Practices

• Balance-Ported Gas-Lift Valve Design Practices

– Example Well

• Pilot Valve Gas-Lift / Design Practices

– Example Well

• Other Design Factors to Consider

• Additional Examples, Field Plots, etc.

• Conclusion

Introduction

3

• Production Challenges in the Permian Basin

– Wide Range of Flowing Conditions (i.e. Pressures, Rate-Potential)

– Higher GOR’s

– Slug-Flow from Lateral Dynamics

– Corrosive Environments

– Determining Artificial Lift Type vs. Well Maintenance Costs

Oct 23-27, 20172017 ALRDC Gas-Lift Workshop

Gas-Lift Objectives

4

• Inject high pressure gas into the well as deep as possible

• Obtain a single point of gas injection

– Lighten gradient of fluid head above operating gas-lift valve

– Optimal GLR for maximum and most efficient production

– Lower formation pressure and maximize fluid-rate potential


Industry Standard Gas-Lift

Design Practices

5

• Typical valves are Injection Pressure Operated (IPO)

– Primary opening and closing force is casing or injection pressure

• Typical 3/16” port sizes are used in Permian Basin

– 3/16” works well with applicable tubing sizes, gas injection rates and

operating pressures

• 90% Casing Pressure Effect ; 10% Production Pressure Effect

• Typical design injection pressure drops of +/- 20 psi

between successive valves for closing purposes


IPO Valve Mechanics

6Oct 23-27, 2017

2017 ALRDC Gas-Lift Workshop

Closed Open

IPO Valve Design Worksheet

7Oct 23-27, 2017


Port Size & Gas

Passage

Pressure

Surface Closed

IPO Valve Design Graph

8Oct 23-27, 2017


20 psi Pressure

Drops Shown

Graphically

Balance-Ported Valve Design

Practices

9

• Larger Production Pressure Effect than Typical IPO Valves

– Uniform 5/16” seat for all valve choke sizes

– 8/64”, 10/64”, 12/64”, 14/64”, 16/64” available choke sizes

– 75% Casing Pressure Effect ; 25% Production Pressure Effect

• No design injection pressure drops are required to be taken

between successive valves for closing purposes

• Bottom Valve is typically an orifice valve or “flagged back”

IPO valve


Balance-Ported Valve Mechanics

10Oct 23-27, 2017


Closed Open


Worksheet

11Oct 23-27, 2017


Choke Size &

Gas Passage

Pressure

Surface Open &

Closed


Graph

12Oct 23-27, 2017


No Pressure

Drops Shown

Graphically

IPO vs. Balance-Ported Graphs

13Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(May 2016 Initial Build-Up Survey Tubing Overview Plot)

14Oct 23-27, 2017


• Glasscock County, TX

• Wolfcamp B (8400’ TVD)

• 10,000’ MD Lateral

• Casing = 5-1/2” 20# ; Tubing = 2-7/8” 6.5#

• Flowing Naturally

• Well-Test Evaluation Date = May 2016

– Flowing / Build-Up Survey

– H2O = 1466 BPD

– Oil = 522 BPD

– Gas = 426 MCF

– FTP = 215 psia

– FBHP = 3086 psia

– SBHP (5 hour build-up) = +/- 3245 psia

– Simple Straight-Line PI = 12.5 BFPD/psia

Balance-Ported Design Example #1(Tubing Correlations Model Match)

15Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(Systems Model Match)

16Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(Proposed Gas-Lift Design)

17

• Balance-Ported Valve Design

– 12 Mandrels down to 7400’ MD w/ Orifice Valve on Bottom

• 500’ TVD Mandrel Spacing in Operating Envelope

– Production Packer at +/- 7500’ MD

– 1100 psi Design Operating Pressure

– +/- 500-600 MCFPD Gas Injection Rate

– 2864 Total BFPD w/ 75% Water Cut

• Based on Build-Up Survey and Projected Systems Plot


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(Proposed Gas-Lift Design Worksheet)

18Oct 23-27, 2017


• Balance-Ported Valve Design

– 12 Mandrels to 7400’ MD w/ Orifice Valve on Bottom; 500’ Spacing


– 1100 psi Design Operating Pressure

– +/- 500-600 MCFPD Gas Injection Rate

– 2864 Total BFPD w/ 75% Water Cut

• Based on Build-Up Survey and Projected Systems Plot

1100 psi Pressure

Surface Open &

Closed

Balance-Ported Design Example #1(Proposed Gas-Lift Design Graph)

19Oct 23-27, 2017


1100 psi Pressure

Surface Open &

Closed

Balance-Ported Design Example #1(Post Installation Kick-Off & Well-Test)

20Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(September 2016 Flowing Survey Results)

21

• Flowing Survey in September 2016 to evaluate well and

gas-lift design status

– 1262 Total BFPD w/ 50%Water-Cut

– 475 GOR

– 570 MCFPD Gas Injection Rate

– 158 Flowing Tubing Pressure

– 1030 psi Casing Pressure

– Injection Points 5385’ & 5911’ MD (Primary at 5385’ MD)

– Casing Fluid Level at +/- 6500’ MD


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(September 2016 Flowing Survey Tubing Overview Plots)

22Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(December 2016 Flowing Survey Results)

23

• Flowing / Build-Up Survey in December 2016 to further

evaluate well and gas-lift design status

– Well heading during flowing survey

– 967 Total BFPD w/ 50% Water-Cut

– 925 GOR


– 241 psi Flowing Tubing Pressure


– Injection Point at 7401’ MD (Bottom Orifice Valve)

– Casing Fluid Level at 7401’ MD


Balance-Ported Design Example #1(December 2016 Flowing Survey Tubing Overview Plots)

24Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Design Example

#1 Summary

25

• +/- 20 psi IPO Valve Design Pressure Drops would not

have allowed the well to lift as deep during each period

surveyed

• Balance-Ported Valve Design allowed most optimal

production rates throughout the entire time frame

evaluated

• Maximized Production = Quickest Return on Investment


Pilot Valve Gas-Lift

26

• Pilot valves offer a way to intermittent gas-lift a well

– Intermittent lift becomes an alternative lift option when wells

approach or fall below +/- 100-150 BFPD

– Typically recommended for wells with high SBHP and low inflow

potential, or high inflow potential and low SBHP

• Pilot Valves do not require the use of a surface injection

controller

– Valve self-intermits with a continuous flow of gas injection

• Retrievable mandrel on bottom can allow for conversion to

intermittent lift without the need for a workover rig



27Oct 23-27, 2017


Pilot Valve Design Practices

28

• Upper pilot valve section that senses casing/tubing

pressure and dictates the valve spread based upon the port

size

– Valve spread allows gas volume calculation to be performed based

on tubular sizes, aimed at displacing a certain liquid slug size to

surface

• Lower power section that shifts down and uncovers a very

large flow area once the pilot section opens

– Allows high volume of casing gas to enter the tubing quickly



29Oct 23-27, 2017


Pilot Valve Design Example #1(August 2016 Initial Flowing Survey Tubing Overview Plot)

30Oct 23-27, 2017


• Bone Springs (New Mexico) - 7400’ TVD

• 5,000’ MD Lateral

• Casing = 5-1/2” 17# ; Tubing = 2-7/8”

6.5#

• Flowing via Gas-Lift

• Well-Test Evaluation Date = August

2016

– Flowing Survey Only

– H2O = 98 BPD

– Oil = 130 BPD

– Gas = 491 MCF

– Injection Gas = +/- 500 MCF

– FTP = 210 psia

– FBHP = 625 psia

– Est. SBHP = 1025 psia

Pilot Valve Design Example #1(Proposed Gas-Lift Design Worksheet)

31Oct 23-27, 2017


Used Full OP

for Unloading

Valves

• Combined Balance-Ported & Pilot Valve Design

– 6 Mandrels down to +/- 6800’ MD w/ Pilot Valve on Bottom


– 900 psi Design Full Operating Pressure w/ Balance-Ported Unloading Valves

– 3/8” Ported Pilot Valve

– +/- 180-200 MCFPD Continuous Gas Injection Rate

– Note: This well was on the edge of the Pilot Valve’s recommended window, but

the operator wanted to try the application with the primary goal being to reduce

the gas injection requirements to the well

Pilot Valve Design Example #1(Proposed Gas-Lift Design Worksheet)

32Oct 23-27, 2017


Required

Continuous Gas

Injection Rate

Pilot Valve Design Example #1(Proposed Gas-Lift Design Graph)

33Oct 23-27, 2017


Pilot Valve Design Example #1(Post Installation Surface Pressure Plot)

34Oct 23-27, 2017


Pilot Valve Design Example #1(Surface Pressure Plot – 6 Months Later)

35Oct 23-27, 2017


Pilot Valve Design Example #1

Summary

36

• Balance-Ported Valves allowed the Pilot Valve to be set at

a higher, more optimal pressure as to not open any upper

unloading valves during cyclic operation

• Pilot Valve allowed well to intermittent lift at +/- 30% of the

original continuous gas-lift design injection rate (+/- 150

MCF vs 500 MCF)

• Maintained / Increased oil production rate potential with

less gas injection


Other Design Factors to Consider

• Varying geothermal temperature gradients across the

Permian Basin

– Can vary significantly across the Permian Basin

• Gas Compositions

– Specific Gravities are higher in this region and need to be known

• Changing Well Conditions / Higher Equipment Expectations

– High pressure / rate-potential to low pressure / rate-potential

– Steady flow conditions to more unstable dynamic flow conditions

• Horizontal Flow Effects

– Designing for and mitigating late-life slugging conditions

• Gas-Lift Industry Knowledge & Operational Experience

– Current experience and knowledge is lower in this region

37Oct 23-27, 2017


Additional Examples(Check Time)

38Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Valve Example #2

39

• Flowing Survey in December 2014 to evaluate well and

gas-lift design status / optimization potential

– 510 Total BFPD w/ 44%Water-Cut

– 465 GOR


– +/- 100 psi Flowing Tubing Pressure


– Injection Points 6,907’ MD (Primary at 5385’ MD)

– Casing Fluid Level at +/- 8,500’ MD



40Oct 23-27, 2017



41Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Valve Example #2(Tubing Correlations Match)

42Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Valve Example #2(Systems Projection)

43Oct 23-27, 2017


Balance-Ported Valve Example #2(Additional Delta Pressure Plots for Illustration)

44Oct 23-27, 2017


Pilot Valve Example #2

45

• Operator requested a specific field-wide Pilot Valve

project to lower field injection gas requirements in an

effort to reduce compression facilities

– Each well was receiving +/- 400 MCFPD continuous injection

before the project started

• Project included 30 wells (all requiring workover rig)

• Approximate gas injection requirements for these wells

was 10,096 MCFPD (May 2017)


Pilot Valve Example #2(Example Well Gas-Lift Design Worksheet)

46Oct 23-27, 2017


Required

Continuous Gas

Injection Rate

Pilot Valve Example #2(Example Well Kick-Off Surface Pressure Plot)

47Oct 23-27, 2017


Pilot Valve Example #2(Injection vs Production Graph)

48

+/- 10 MMCFPD Injection

+/- 5.8 MMCFPD

Injection

Gas – 10,000Oil - 1500

Gas – 3,000Oil - 300

3 Months Time Frame


Conclusion

• Balance-Ported Gas-Lift Valves offer production

advantages to any well that is not operating on the bottom

valve

– Deeper Gas Injection = Max Drawdown & Production Rates

• Pilot Gas-Lift Valves offer an alternative, cost-efficient

gas-lift option to artificially lift low-rate wells

• Combining the two valve types in a single-well design

plan can provide a complete gas-lift solution aimed at

production optimization for the well’s entire artificial-lift life

49Oct 23-27, 2017


References1. Petroleum Engineering Handbook, by Howard B. Bradley, et al, 3rd Printing, Society of Petroleum

Engineers, 1987.

2. Gas-Lift Theory and Practice, by K. Brown, et al, 1st Printing, The Petroleum Publishing Company,

1967.

3. The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, by K. Brown and D. Beggs, Volume 1, Penwell Publishing

Company, 1977.

4. The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, by K. Brown, J. Day, J. Byrd, and J. Mach, Volume 2A, The

Petroleum Publishing Company, 1980

5. Mooney, Leah (January 22, 2015). Artificial Lift Selection in the Permian. Production Point, Retrieved

from https://www.production-point.com/p4369/artificial-lift-selection-in-the-permian/

6. McEwen, Mella (February 10, 2017). Rise in horizontal drilling brings challenge of addressing slug flow.

Midland Reporter-Telegram, Retrieved from http://www.mrt.com/business/oil/article/Rise-in-horizontal-

drilling-brings-challenge-of-10921313.php

7. Rassenfoss, Stephen (November 9, 2016). Gas Lift Use Grows in Permian. Journal of Petroleum

Technology, Retrieved from http://www.spe.org/news/article/gas-lift-use-grows-in-permian

8. Rapier, Robert (November 21, 2016). The Permian Basin Keeps on Giving. Forbes, Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/11/21/the-permian-basin-keeps-on-giving/#31f37a3a4a2a


Thanks to the engineering management and owners of Altec, Inc. for the permission,technical support, and financing required to support and print this paper.

- US Patent No. 4,625,941 Constant Flow ® Valve- SPE Paper No. 69402 ABBA™ Pilot Valve

Acknowledgement


Disclaimer

The following disclaimer shall be included as the last page of a Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Course. A similar disclaimer is included on the front page of the Gas-Lift Workshop Web Site.

The Artificial Lift Research and Development Council and its officers and trustees, and the Gas-Lift Workshop Steering Committee members, and their supporting organizations and companies (here-in-after referred to as the Sponsoring Organizations), and the author(s) of this Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Training Course and their company(ies), provide this presentation and/or training material at the Gas-Lift Workshop "as is" without any warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the information or the products or services referred to by any presenter (in so far as such warranties may be excluded under any relevant law) and these members and their companies will not be liable for unlawful actions and any losses or damage that may result from use of any presentation as a consequence of any inaccuracies in, or any omission from, the information which therein may be contained.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in these presentations and/or training materials are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Sponsoring Organizations. The author is solely responsible for the content of the materials.

The Sponsoring Organizations cannot and do not warrant the accuracy of these documents beyond the source documents, although we do make every attempt to work from authoritative sources. The Sponsoring Organizations provide these presentations and/or training materials as a service. The Sponsoring Organizations make no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the presentations and/or training materials, or any part thereof, including any warrantees of title, non-infringement of copyright or patent rights of others, merchantability, or fitness or suitability for any purpose.

production optimization utilizing the balance-ported...

Documents