SPE 71372 Successful Well Control in the Cantarell Field Applying the Dynamic Method

Carlos Osornio V., Humberto Castro Mtz., Victor Vallejo A., Enrique Ayala V. / PEMEX Exploracin y Produccin

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September3 October 2001. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract While drilling the gas cap zone of the offshore Cantarell 69-I well, a gas kick was taken, becoming a blowout. The gas ignited, causing a large fire situation, and as a consequence the drilling rig was severely damaged. Due to the flowing conditions of the well, it was not possible to achieve well control through the tubing string. Therefore, two different alternatives were analyzed to solve the problem: momentum and dynamic kill. This paper presents the results obtained applying both techniques, as well as the well control analysis and procedure. First, the pressure profile in the well was calculated, as well as the gas flow rate (230 MMscfd) in blowout conditions. Then the kill flow rate (considering seawater) was calculated for both methods. The dynamic method yielded a kill flow rate of 19 bbl/min. Once the flow rate required to control the well was defined, the casing head was inspected to assure the success of the attempt, and it was in good condition to perform the operations. The operative sequence to control the contingency in a minimum time consisted of connecting the 20 x 13 3/8-inch casing head to a cementing ship through 2-inch lines in order to pump seawater. The total time required to control the gas blowout was 11 hours after the kick was taken. The success consisted of reaching a flowing pressure at the tie-back depth (680 m) greater than the reservoir pressure, which was generated by the frictional pressure losses and the hydrostatic head of the multiphase flow (gas and seawater) inside the injection string.

platform at the South side of the Gulf of Mexico approximately to 85 km. from Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche (Fig. 1). This is made up of the following blocks: Akal, Nohoch, Chac and Kutz. Exploitation of the Cantarell oil field started in 1979 with the Cantarell 1-A well. The formations that store the hydrocarbons are Brecia Paleocene, Upper, Medium and Lower Cretaceous, with a thickness from 300 m. to 800 m. At the early production stage, the main drive mechanism was the rock fluid expansion of the system, because at that time reservoir pressure was above of the bubble point pressure (150 kg/cm2). Nevertheless, in 1980 the pressure drop of the field allowed gas release, originating a secondary gas cap, and therefore gravitational drainage started to act as a second drive mechanism. Since the beginning of the oil field exploitation, the movement of both gas-oil contact (GOC) and oil-water contact (OWC) has been monitored constantly. They are currently situated at 1950 m. (vd) and 2760 m. (vd) respectively. The top of the gas cap, which has a pressure of 54 kg/cm2, is located at 1200 m. (vd). The pressure at the gas-oil contact is 75 kg/cm2. The level of reference is located at 2330 m. (vd) with a pressure of 105 kg/cm2 and a temperature of 105C. With the mission of achieving the maximization of the economic value of the Cantarell oil field by optimizing the oil production rate for a period of about 31 years by keeping the reservoir pressure, a project was designed called "Proyecto de Modernizacin y Optimizacin del Campo Cantarell (Cantarell Oil Field Modernization and Optimization Project). Among other things, the project calls for the installation of necessary infrastructure for nitrogen injection into the gas cap on the top of the oil field level (see Fig. 2). The project requires a nitrogen injection volume of 1200 MMscfd through 9 injection wells. Introduction With the expectation to accomplish on time the goals of the project, the strategy of the Drilling Management of the Marine Division consisted to drill five wells using the Mud-Line Suspension System, leaving the last section of the wells pending to drill. The five wells were temporarily abandoned to allow the installation of the octopus-type structure. Once the structure and the drilling rig were installed, the operations to recover the first well (Cantarell 69-I) were started. The process consisted in recover the corrosion plugs, extend the tie-backs from the mud line suspension to the

Background Cantarell oil field, discovered in 1979, is classified as one of the huge oil fields in the world. It is located on the continental

CARLOS OSORNIO V., HUMBERTO CASTRO MTZ., VICTOR G. VALLEJO A., ENRIQUE AYALA V.

SPE 71372

surface, and install the corresponding well heads. Then the blowout preventer stack (including a rotating preventer) was installed, and the last section of the well was drilled with a 8 3/8-inch. bit, leaving the uncased well approximately 50 meters inside of the Brecia Paleocene - Upper Cretaceous zone. Here the drilling process had been finished. Due to the highly fractured conditions of the formation, this section was drilled without returning to the surface, by pumping seawater and mud pills. Completion of the well began with the introduction of the 9 5/8-inch. injection string equipped with tie-back and bullet type seals, continually pumping sea water through the annular section and through the injection string. The tie-back was introduced in the PBR at 704 m. The effectiveness of the seals was satisfactorily tested with pressure through the annular section. Subsequently, the injection string was picked up to install the 9 5/8-inch. subsurface control safety valve, with continuous sea water pumping through annular section at a rate of 440 gpm; when the third joint was picked up, a strong water and gas flow was observed, due to suspension of pumping water into the well after a failure in the mud pump. Then the annular preventer, the 9 5/8-inch. pipe rams preventer, and the blind rams from the double preventer were closed. Several movements were carried out at the stand pipe to pump with two pumps, without response; at 0600 hours, January 22, 2000, the rig caught fire proceeding to evacuate the platform. At 0630 hours five fire fighter ships arrived and proceeded to spread out water to prevent fire propagation to the rest of the structure. Figure 3 shows the well geometry and conditions before the loss of control at the Cantarell 69-I well. Work Plan A contingency plan was carried out on board the Boa Canopus vessel after the conditions of the preventers and well head were analyzed (Fig. 4). The operation sequence is defined below: a) Connect to the 20 x 13 5/8-inch. wellhead valve using 2.00 in. lines. b) Lay 2.00-inch. lines from the platform to the ship Cape Hawk and test with 3000 psi. c) Analyze blowout control methods and to perform the corresponding calculations. d) Open valve "A" in Figure 4 and begin to pump control fluid. Control Analysis A workgroup was designated to analyze several approaches to control the well taking, into consideration that it was not possible to pump through the injection string. The following calculations were performed. Gas Flow Rate Determination Gas flow rate is affected by the formation and formation fluid properties and by the flow system into the wellbore (well geometry). Therefore, two equations must be coupled to calculate the rate of gas influx introduced into the wellbore. One of the equations used in this procedure is the Forchheimer equation for gas radial flow in a

porous media6, which involves non-Darcy gas flow (B) due to high gas velocity near the wellbore. It is given by:
2 2 AQg + BQg pr2 p wf = 0 ..(1)

Where:

B=

1.422 g z r Tr & , re )# '! 0 . 472 $ln* * ' kh r $ w (! % + "

3.16 10 18 g z r Tr , 1 1 ) * A= *r r ' ' h2 e ( + w

The turbulence parameter for permeability smaller than 5,000 milidarcies is given by:

3.55 1010 (2) k 1.35

It can be seen that equation 1 has two unknowns, the flowing bottomhole pressure (pwf) and the gas flow (Qg), Therefore, it is also necessary to use the Cullender and Smith equation6 which involves the same unknowns. The Cullender and Smith equation utilized to calculate the pressure gradient in a gas system is given by:

1,000 g L 53.356

p1

p2

- 0.667 fQ
d5

pn Tn z n
2 g

1 H , pn ) * ' + ' 1,000 L * + Tn z n (

dp (3)

Figure 5 shows the inflow performance of the reservoir (IPR) calculated with equation 1, assuming different gas flow rates. Similarly, the wellbore hydraulics performance curve at blowout conditions is calculated with equation 3. As it can be observed, the gas flow rate in the system is given by the intersection of the two curves, which is approximately 230 MMscfd. Once the gas flow rate was obtained, the pressure profile in the well during blowout conditions was calculated using equation 3 (Fig. 6).

After the calculation of gas flow rate and pressure profile, two available methods in the literature were considered for the solution of the problem, they are: * Momentum Kill. * Dynamic Kill

SPE 71372

SUCCESSFUL WELL CONTROL IN THE CANTARELL FIELD APPLYING THE DYNAMIC METHOD

Momentum Kill The momentum kill technique3 is an application of fluid dynamics. It is a procedure in which the formation fluid and the kill fluid collide at injection-string depth. The momentum of the control fluid must be greater than the momentum of the formation fluid to stop the blowout fluid and bringing the well under control. Due to the conditions in the Cantarell 69-I well, this technique could have been an option to solve the problem. Success would consist of generating a kill fluid momentum higher then gas momentum at injection-string depth (collision depth). The objective of the procedure was primarily to calculate the momentum of the gas at injection-string depth (collision depth). Once the gas momentum is known, it is possible to calculate the fluid control density and velocity (flow rate) that generate a force greater than the gas force at interest depth. To calculate the momentum of the gas, the following equation was used:

flow (in static conditions), since this hydrostatic pressure would be greater than the reservoir pressure: p= 0.052 * 8.6(lb/gal)*2231(ft)=998psi Thus the hydrostatic pressure generated by a seawater column of 680 m. is higher than the formation pressure. So, under this circumstance the well should completely be under control after filling the annular section and subsequently pumping control fluid at any flow rate. Case 2: In this case, it was assumed that all injected control fluid would be ejected to the surface by the gas flow (Fig. 9). For this condition the well would have to be controlled using the frictional pressure losses and the hydrostatic head of the mixture (gas and seawater) generated inside the injection string. In other words, the dynamic control technique would have to be applied to achieve a pressure at the tie-back depth (680 m) equal to the reservoir pressure in order to stop the gas flow. It is important to highlight that any case between those two cases would be better one than case 2, because if a small amount of the control fluid would be accumulated below of the injection string, the liquid fraction would increase between the injection depth and the bottom of the well, which would help to the control the well. Assuming that all of the control fluid was ejected to the surface by the gas flow (critical case 2), the minimal injection rate to control the well was then calculated. The procedure consisted of obtaining a pressure generated by the gas and the control fluid flow (due to the frictional pressure losses and the hydrostatic head in the injection string) at different kill rates, until a pressure value equal or higher to the reservoir pressure at the tie back depth (680 m.) was achieved. The results are shown in Table 1 and Figure 10. It can be observed that the minimal theoretical kill flow rate required to control the Cantarell 69-I well was found to be between 16 and 20 bbl/min. The flow chart of Figure 11 shows the dynamic control procedure utilized in this control. Well Control Achievement Taking the previous results as a starting point , it was decided to control the well using a kill flow rate between 16 and 20 bbl/min., holding a maximum pressure of 2000 psi. Once the control rate was defined, the technicians went up to the production floor of the platform and proceeded to inspect the 20 x 13 5/8-inch. wellhead, finding it in operational condition. Subsequently, they installed 2-inch. lines from the platform to the Cape Hawk ship and tested with a pressure of 3000 psi. The control of the well began by pumping sea water at a rate of 10 bbl/min and a pressure of 1000 psi. It was then increased to 12 bbl/min in order to monitor the surface conditions and check for leaks, since the fire could have damaged the seal elements of the valves, rams, etc.

g 2 Q g 2 z nTn M g = 0.0115 g p n Ag

(4)

A derivation of the above equation is given in appendix A. On the other hand, the momentum of the kill fluid can be calculated as follows:

ML =

L QL 2
AL g c

(5)

Momentum of the gas and momentum of the control fluid are shown in Figure 7. As it can be noticed the seawater flow rate required to control the gas flow using the momentum concept is about 68 bbl/min. This rate is high because of the large flow area of the control fluid, so that a high flow rate is needed to reach a fluid velocity that generates a momentum similar to the momentum of the gas. Analysis of the momentum equation shows that the momentum is a function of the square velocity. Therefore, in this technique, the fluid control velocity is critical to reach the required momentum to control the well. Dynamic Kill For the analysis of the dynamic control at the Cantarell 69-I well, two extreme cases were considered during the analysis of the control. Case 1: Case 1 assumed that the whole control fluid injected from the surface through the annular section was flowing to the bottom of the well (Fig. 8). On this circumstances the well should be nearly under control, since just hydrostatic pressure generated by the control fluid (seawater) from the surface to the tie-back depth (680 m.) would be enough to stop the gas

CARLOS OSORNIO V., HUMBERTO CASTRO MTZ., VICTOR G. VALLEJO A., ENRIQUE AYALA V.

SPE 71372

The kill flow rate was increased to 18 bbl/min., which is within the range of the theoretical value previously calculated to control the well. Once a volume approximately equal to the annular section (annular capacity) was pumped at a kill rate of 18 bbl/min, a decrease of the flame intensity was observed. At the completion of twice the annular section capacity, the gas flowing to the surface began to decrease considerably. After 1360 barrels of kill fluid were pumped the well stopped flowing completely, and the flame was extinguished. In the contingency procedure, the pump pressure was about 1600 psi, and the total volume used to control the well was about 10 times the capacity of the annular section and 2.85 times total well capacity. To complete the control operation a salt plug was placed to isolate the exposed gas cap, and then the well was filled with seawater. Then the drilling rig was changed and the operation to recover the well was achieved successfully. It is important to note that after the well was recovered the nitrogen injection process was successful. In the Cantarell 69-I well N2 was injected up to 300 MMscfd at 105 kg/cm2 becoming the first N2 injector well at the Cantarell oil field. Analysis of Results The minimum theoretical kill flow rate to control the Cantarell 69-I well was between 16 and 20 bbl/min. The well was controlled twenty minutes after the calculated flow rate was reached. This confirms that the entire control fluid was ejected to the surface by the gas flow, at rates below 16 bbl/min. So it was thought that liquid accumulation never existed under the injection point until the control rate was achieved, then it started to accumulate and the hydrostatic pressure below the injection string helped to control the well. According to this, the analysis to control the well explained in case 2 was correct. It is also important to note that the homogeneous flow model (there is no slip velocity between phases, hence, the phase velocities are essentially equal) gives an over-prediction of the minimum kill rate: thus it was suspected that the well should have been under control with a kill rate control slightly lower than that previously calculated (19 bbl/min.) Conclusion 1. The dynamic kill method was a successful and efficient approach to control the Cantarell 69-I well, since it provide very good results on the kill control flow rate. 2. The expectation that the entire control fluid (case 2) would be ejected to the surface by the gas flow under 16 bbl/min was correct. 3. The consideration of an homogeneous flow (equal phase velocities) provided an acceptable prediction of the minimum kill rate. 4. The momentum kill technique yielded a very high kill flow rate. It is thought that one of the reasons is because the control fluid area is too large, therefore, a high control flow rate is needed to reach a control fluid velocity that generates a momentum similar to the momentum of the gas.

Nomenclature Ag = Gas flow area (ft2). AL = Control fluid flow area (ft2). Am = Mixture flow area (ft2). Bg = Gas formation volume factor (ft3/scf). d = Pipe diameter (inches) f = Friction factor. gc = Gravitational conversion factor. H = Vertical depth (ft). h = Formation thickness (ft). k = Permeability (md). L = Measure depth (ft). Mg = Momentum of the gas at interest depth (lbf). ML = Momentum of the control fluid (lbf). pn = Pressure at interest depth (psia). pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure (psia). Qg = Gas flow rate (scfd). Qg(fc) = Gas rate at flow conditions (ft3/sec). QL = Kill flow rate (ft3/sec). re = Reservoir radius (ft). rw = Well radius (ft). Tr = Reservoir temperature (R). Tn = Temperature at interest depth (R). vm = Mixture velocity (ft/sec). g = Gas viscosity (cp). zr = Reservoir gas deviation factor. zn = Gas deviation factor at interest depth. = Turbulence factor (1/ft). = Absolute pipe roughness (inches). g = Gas specific gravity. L = Liquid fraction. m = Mixture density (lbm/ft3). L = Kill fluid density (lbm/ft3). g = Gas density (lbm/scf). g(fc)= Gas density at flow conditions(lbm/ft3) Acknowledgements The authors thank the whole staff that participated in the successful control of the Cantarell 69-I well, since without your professional intervention it could have not been possible to achieve a successful operation. We thank Pemex Exploracin & Producin management for its permission to publish this paper. References
1. Aquino Lpez, Jos Alberto, "El Gigante Cantarell: Un ejemplo de Produccin Mejorada", Informative Report by AIPM, Ciudad del Carmen. Vol. 17, No. 32, January 2000. 2. Humberto Castro Martnez, Jos Luis Gonzlez Gonzlez, Jos Manuel Pavn Preve, "Perforacin de pozos en casquete de gas para el desarrollo del Campo Cantarell, Mxico", XI Latin American Congress on Drilling, Book III, P. 1087-1100, Buenos Aires, Octubre 25-29 1998. 3. Grace, Robert D., "Advanced Blowout & Well Control", Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1994). 4. Adams, N.J. And Larry K., "Kicks and Blow out Control", Pennwell Publishing Co., Tulsa (1994).

SPE 71372

SUCCESSFUL WELL CONTROL IN THE CANTARELL FIELD APPLYING THE DYNAMIC METHOD

5. Kouba, G. E. Et al, "Advancements in Dynamic Kill Calculations for Blowout Wells", Paper SPE 22559, Drilling and Completion, September 1993. 6. Ikoku, Chi U., "Natural Gas Engineering", Pennwell Publishing Co. Tulsa (1980). 7. Fox, R. W. And McDonald A. T., "Introduction to Fluid Mechanics", John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1992. 8. Brill J. P. And Mukherjee H., "Multiphase Flow in Wells", Monograph, Volume 17, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1999). 9. Bourgoyne A. T. Jr., et al, "Applied Drilling Engineering", SPE, Richardson, Texas, 1991. 10. Craft B. C. And Hawkins M. F., "Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering", Prentice - Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959). 11. Koederitz, W.B. Beck, F.E. BourgoyneA.T. and Langlinais, J.P. Methods for Dertermining the Feasibility of Dynamic Kill of Shallow Gas Flow paper SPE 16691. Annual Meeting of SPE, Dallas, Tx. 1987.

Solving the previous equation for velocity at the

n interval.
(A-5)

vn =

vA Q = n A n A

The gas density at the n interval can be obtained utilizing the real gas law, which is given by:

n =

g M a pn
z n RTn

(A-6)

Substituting equation A-6 in equation A-5.

Appendix A: This section shows the derivation of the gas momentum equation. The momentum equation for a fluid is given by:

vn =

Q
, g M a pn ) * * z RT ' 'A + n n (

Qz n RTn g M a pn A

M =

vdV + - vv dA t -

Substituting the above velocity in equation A-3. (A-1)

Assuming that the formation fluid is flowing at steady state conditions, and through constant area, the equation A-1 becomes:

g 2 Q g 2 z n RTn Mg = g M a p n Ag g c
Substituting the following constants in the equation A-7.

(A-7)

vvA M = gc
Substituting

(A-2)

R (10.73

lbm ft psia ft 3 ), M a (28.96) , g c (32.2 ) lbm R lbf sec 2

Q = vA in the equation A-2.

(A-3)

M =

vQ gc

g 2 Q g 2 z nTn M g = 0.0115 g p n Ag

On the other hand, the mass conservation law is given by:

0=

dV + - v dA t -

(A-4)

Assuming again that the formation fluid is flowing at steady state conditions, and through constant area, the equation A-4 becomes:

0 = vA = n v n A

CARLOS OSORNIO V., HUMBERTO CASTRO MTZ., VICTOR G. VALLEJO A., ENRIQUE AYALA V.

SPE 71372

TABLE 1. DYNAMIC KILL RESULTS AT DIFFERENT FLOW RATES.

Measured Depth (m) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 680 Temperature (Fahrenheit) 82 83 84 85 86 86 87 88 89 90 90 91 92 93 93 Pressure profile (psia) 4 (BPM) 14.7 253 306 350 390 426 460 492 522 551 579 605 631 657 671 8 (BPM) 14.7 277 331 377 419 457 492 526 558 588 618 646 674 701 717 12 (BPM) 14.7 300 355 403 447 486 524 559 593 625 656 686 715 744 761 16 (BPM) 14.7 323 380 430 475 516 555 592 627 661 694 726 757 787 805 20 (BPM) 14.7 347 405 456 503 546 587 625 662 698 732 766 799 831 850 24 (BPM) 14.7 370 429 482 530 574 617 657 695 733 769 804 838 872 892

9300'

TUNICH TABAY-101

9200'

30 KM.
PENROD 67

MOAN-1 KANTAAN-1 ZAZIL-HA MAL OOB-103 2 ZAAP-1 BACAB

LAT. 19 3511.39" N. LONG. 91 5421.43" W

ESCALA1:1 000 000

SAM 1

EK POK-1

N W S
ACANUN

KU KUTZ

CANTARELL
IXTOC-1

LE-1

Cantarell
TAKIN
101

BALAM

2 150

IXTAL
101 301 201

CHAC-101

TARATUNICH ABKATUN
201 601 KANAAB 101 401 501 101 D

CAAN

TOLOC BATAB

AYIN-1 300 m.
ALUX KI SINAN- 101 A

OCH

POL CHUC

KAX-1 UECH

KAY-1

Distance Cantarell- Cd. del Carmen 87 Km 1900'

BOLONTIKU-1
CHE-1

200 m.
CIT AM-1A
KAB-201

1A

MISON-1
HAYABIL -1 KAB-101

YUM-2
401 101

KIX-1 KIX-2

100 m.
KUZAM-101
KUZAM-1

301

MAY-1

50 m.
YAXCHE-1

CHUM-1

CD. DEL CARMEN

DOS BOCAS
IXMIMI-1

2 050

25 m.

FRONTERA

Fig. 1. Cantarell Oil field location.

SPE 71372

SUCCESSFUL WELL CONTROL IN THE CANTARELL FIELD APPLYING THE DYNAMIC METHOD

Nitrogen Injection Well Oil well Oil well

GAS

OIL

OIL

WATER

Fig. 2. Nitrogen Injection at the Cantarell Oil field.

Cantarell 69-I
180 mv 180 md

TR 30"

9 5/8 INJECTION TUBING

47 lb/pie, D.I.=8.681 pulg . 407 mv 407 md

TR 20"

TIE BACK 9 5/8

680 md B.L. 9 5/8 " 703 mv 710 md 833 mv 854 md

TR 13 3/8"

TR 9 5/8"

1210 mv 1289 md T.D. 1328 mv 1425 md

A.D. 8 1/2"

Fig. 3. Well Geometry and Conditions of the Cantarell 69-I Well.

CARLOS OSORNIO V., HUMBERTO CASTRO MTZ., VICTOR G. VALLEJO A., ENRIQUE AYALA V.

SPE 71372

Valve
Fig. 4. Surface Connections on Cantarell 69-I Well.

SPE 71372

SUCCESSFUL WELL CONTROL IN THE CANTARELL FIELD APPLYING THE DYNAMIC METHOD

PWF vs Gas Rate

1400

1200

1000

PWF (psia)

800

600

400

200

0 0 50 100 150 200 Gas Rate (MMPCD)

IPR Flow capacity

250

300

350

400

Fig. 5. Gas Flow Rate Determination

Pressure Profile
Pressure (psia)
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Injection tubing at 680 m. 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Depth (m)

PWF

PWS (annulus)

Fig. 6. Well Pressure Profile at Blowout Conditions

10

CARLOS OSORNIO V., HUMBERTO CASTRO MTZ., VICTOR G. VALLEJO A., ENRIQUE AYALA V.

SPE 71372

Gas Momentum vs Fluid Control Momentum

Momentum (lbf)
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
40 55 68 BPM

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Depth (m)

700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Injection Tubing at 680 m.

Gas Momentum

Fluid Control Momentum

Fig. 7. Momentum of the Gas and of the Control Fluid.

Gas Flow

Cantarell Inyector 69
BOP Wellhead

9 5/8 Injection Tubing

20

407 m

B.L. 9 5/8

703 mv 710 md

13 3/8

833 mv 854 md

Control Fluid Gas

1210 mv 1289 md

9 5/8

8 3/8

1328 mv 1425 md

Gas Cap

Fig. 8. Case 1.

SPE 71372

SUCCESSFUL WELL CONTROL IN THE CANTARELL FIELD APPLYING THE DYNAMIC METHOD

11

G a s F lo w

C a n ta r e ll In y e c to r 6 9
BOP W e llh e a d

9 5 / 8 I n je c t i o n T u b i n g

20

407 m

B .L . 9 5 /8

703 m v 710 m d

1 3 3 /8

833 m v 854 m d

C o n t r o l F lu id G as
1210 m v 1289 m d

9 5 /8

8 3 /8

1328 m v 1425 m d

G as C ap

Fig. 9. Case 2.

Depth vs Pressure
Pressure (psia)
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

100

200

Depth (m)

300

400

500

Reservoir Pressure

600

700

Gas

12

16

20

24 BPM

800

Fig. 10. Dynamic Kill Results.

12

CARLOS OSORNIO V., HUMBERTO CASTRO MTZ., VICTOR G. VALLEJO A., ENRIQUE AYALA V.

SPE 71372

START

Determinate the IPR and the wellbore-hydraulic performance solving Equation 1 and Equation 3 respectively using different gas flow rates (Figure 6).

Calculate the gas deviation (Zn) and volume factor (Bg) at interest temperature and pressure

Calculate the gas flow rate at flow conditions:

Q g ( fc ) = Q g Bg
Calculate the gas density at flow conditions:

g ( fc ) = 2.7

g Pn zn Tn

Calculate the friction factor:

1 2 ) = 1.74 2log, * f +d (

Assume a kill flow rate (QL)

Estimate liquid fraction in the system:

L =

QL QL + Q g ( fc ) QL + Qg ( fc ) Am

Obtain the mixture velocity:

vm =

Obtain the mixture density

m = LL + g ( fc ) (1 L )
Calculate the pressure gradient at the analysis interval:

v m fm vm + m , dp ) = + m * + dL ( t 772.17d 144 9273 L

2

NO

Is the pressure at the injection string depth greater than the reservoir pressure?

Yes The assumed kill flow rate is enough to kill the well

STOP

Fig. 11. Calculation Procedure.