2010-3-10 - Optimal Horizontal Wellbore Design For Artificial Lift

Artificial Lift - Closed Discussion Item
Optimal Horizontal Wellbore Design for Artificial Lift

Posted Wednesday, March 10, 2010 17:11 by Bresee, Don K
We are going to be drilling horizontal gas wells about 1800 meters deep. I am looking for advice on how to drill and
complete these wellbores so that we can unload these wells if needed. We are looking at possibly 4.5" casing from
surface. Typically we would run 2.375" tubing. Does anyone have advice on where to land tubing, how to build degrees in
the wellbore (quick build versus slow), and where would be the max build we could run a plunger from (I have heard a
range of 40 to 60 degrees). For this formation reservoir pressure is typically around 16MPa at initial completion and perm
is around 4 mD. Typical production from these wells could be around 3 mmcfd and around 1-5 bbl/mmcf of liquid
production (about 30% condensate and 70% water) Any advice on this would be great, thanks.

Posted Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:45 by White, Jason A View Attachment(s)
These are all good questions and some that we have been trying to answer in the Eagle Ford here in Texas. We are in
the early stages of developing this field and are still trying different methods of drilling, completion and production. We
are also still working on artificial lift selection but will most likely be utilizing plunger lift in wells with an acceptable
liquid yield and gas lift in wells with a high liquid yield. One of the issues we are working on now is toe-up vs. toe-down
laterals. Our fluid is a retrograde condensate. Our wells are around 12,000 deep with 5,000 laterals. We have 4 , 5,
5 and 7 casing all typically with 4 liners in the horizontal. We have liquid yields of 75 to 300 BBL/MMscf in the
wells we have been producing with lots of water during initial production (from completion operations) which tapers off
fairly rapidly. Our gas rates are similar to yours. We have 2 7/8 and 2 3/8 tubing installed with the end of tubing set
anywhere from just above deviation to mid-lateral. We will be installing 2 3/8 tubing on the upcoming wells which will
all have 5 casing to surface and plan to set the end of tubing just above the top perforation in the lateral (this will be
just past the heel). Most of the upcoming wells are toe up and the thinking is that the liquid will collect in the heel and
can be removed if the tubing is set there. The X-Nipple will be set at around 45 o for possible plunger lifting and a
packer will not be run (unless gas lift will be utilized). This also gives flexibility to flow up the casing/tubing annulus
early in the life of the well if production rates are high. It is important to make sure that the dog-leg severity (DLS) is
not too high to run a plunger. The attached spreadsheet was provided by a vendor and can be used to calculate the
maximum DLS that a plunger in tubing can pass through (it is just based on geometry.) In theory a plunger should be
able to fall to 60o but the recommendations we have received are to not go much below 45 o. Once the plunger starts
getting into the higher deviations it significantly slows down and time to reach bottom is increased (if it reaches the
bumper spring at all). Slickline work at this angle is also an issue. On the tubing that is run deep into the lateral, a
sliding sleeve is installed in between two X-Nipples located at about 45 o inclination. The thought process behind
running tubing deep into the lateral is to reduce the flow area to increase velocity to keep the lateral swept of liquid
which will minimize back-pressure on the reservoir and also keep liquid from sitting in the lateral and potentially causing
damage from relative permeability affects. The nipples and sliding sleeve provide a means to control how the production
from the lateral flows. If the sleeve is closed then production will travel down the liner/tubing annulus to the end of
tubing and then up the tubing to surface. If the sleeve is open then production can flow up the liner/tubing annulus and
tubing to the sleeve and then up the tubing to surface. If the sleeve is open and a plug is installed in the X-Nipple below
the sleeve then the tubing in the lateral serves as a dead string and the production flows up the liner/tubing annulus to
the sliding sleeve and then up the tubing to surface. Of course, you can always flow up the casing/tubing annulus to
surface if a packer is not installed. I have attached some simple sketches to show some of the flow possibilities. All of
our wells have dual flow hook-up on surface to allow production from tubing and/or casing/tubing annulus. We have
also done quite a bit of modeling to look at liquid hold-up in the horizontal based on the various tubing setting depths,
sizes and flow path scenarios (we have been using PipeSim and Hysys; both are compositional which is important for
our retrograde condensate). A couple of the issues with running the tubing into the lateral is that you typically dont
know where production is coming from along the lateral (unless a production log is run prior to running tubing) and if
the well is proppant fractured you run the risk of getting the tubing stuck if proppant flows back into the well and
around the tubing (remember we would have about a mile of tubing in the horizontal). Also, at the rates we are
producing, we most likely wont keep the lateral swept even if we run tubing deep into the lateral. A couple of issues
that I understand Barnett was having with running the tubing below the heel is removal of liquid and gas for plunger
lifting. They found that they were having trouble removing the volumes of liquid that were accumulating in the heel with
the tubing. When they raised the tubing or flowed up the casing/tubing annulus the issue went away. We have not seen
this with our wells. The other issue they found was that they needed to perforate the tubing below the X-Nipple when
they started plunger lifting since the gas that had collected in the casing/tubing annulus appeared to have trouble
traveling back down to the end of tubing and then up the tubing. A sliding sleeve would keep you from having to
perforate, but would still require slickline to open. Another issue we are currently tackling is whether to run standing
valves with the bumper springs and if relief valves should be used if a standing valve is installed. A relief valve (or even
scoring the ball seat) would allow liquid to fall below the standing valve if the level got too high which would prevent the
well from being so loaded that the standing valve had to be pulled to unload the well. We are currently running standing
valves to prevent the liquid that has accumulated into the tubing from falling back into the lateral and then not being
Page 1of 3 Ask the Network
6/8/2011 http://sptupks.conocophillips.net/sites/al/Lists/General%20Discussion/ViewInThread.aspx?...
removed with the plunger (this is inefficient). Our thinking is that given the depth of our wells the plunger fall time is
high any liquid that has collected in the tubing (not only at the bottom but also along the tubing string to surface) will
fall to bottom and even be pushed to bottom as the plunger falls. The lateral has a large volume and basically infinite
permeability which will enable fluid to fall out of tubing much faster than in a vertical well. Extra care must be taken by
the Operators to ensure wells dont load up with the bumper spring. We are not running relief valves since the current
spring design does not allow much liquid accumulation. We are discussing with one of the vendors about possibly
installing a stiffer spring which would allow more liquid accumulation. I have also attached a little information on
standing valves from Ferguson-Beauregard. Build rate has been limited to 6o/100 on the most recent wells in
anticipation of rod pumping in the future. In discussions with internal experts this was the recommended build angle to
ensure the rod pump could be placed close to the heel and minimize rod and tubing wear. However, with the type of
fluid we are trying to pump, the likelihood that rod pump will be used in the future is low. Also, with high build angles
the drillers are able to lower the kick-off point and make contact with more of the formation with the same lateral
length. The lower kick-off point lowers the point where the nipples can be set (based on 45 o) and also allows packers
to be set lower (if they are run for gas lift). The vertical height between the nipple and the heel is reduced to an
acceptable level with the current build rate of around 12o/100. You will want to make sure that coiled tubing
intervention and tubing can effectively be run in whatever build angles/DLS you end up with. One issue that you might
look at with 4 casing is the ability to run side-pocket gas lift mandrels. With your low liquid yield you might not be
interested in gas lift, but with 4 casing you would have to run conventional gas lift valves and pull the hole tubing
string to make adjustments or repair valves. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss. I would be interested in
hearing your thoughts and what all you have considered.

Posted Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:44 by Slemko, Gord View Attachment(s)
Don, Attached are course abstracts for a couple of Petroskills Horizontal Well Design courses being brought in-house to
Calgary. They are being offered the first 2 weeks of May. Contact Sheila Reader for more info if they appeal to you.

Posted Friday, March 12, 2010 9:33 by Busse, Greg
Don, We have not yet reached the point yet were we see a lot of vertical well loading in our horizontal wells in Wolf.
But, we are presently working on a horizontal well in Wolf that has not performed up to expectations and requires a
plunger lift on it. So I am interested to here Jason's response, Thanks for the posting the question. Our original
thoughts on artificial lift were very similar to Jason's email we set up with profile nipple at ~45deg, in hopes that for
artificial lift we would utilize plunger. Here are our experiences so far with this well: Early this year, we performed a
coil-tubing drill-out of the horizontal leg and then re-snubbed in tubing. The original slickstring we had was just 2 3/8"
hung to ~175 m above formation (the <45 deg rule that Jason suggested) with a nipple profile at the end of the
string, with this set-up we could actually unload the well and it would perform not great but it would at least flow.
After the failed coil job this year, we made the decision to attempt to get the tubing landed a little lower so we set it
up with essentially the same slickstring but this time with a tailpipe (2 1/16" integral tubing) after the profile nipple
hung right to the heel. Since we did this, we cannot get the well to flow at sustained rates for longer than about an
hour before it loads up. We were worried that this may have been due to the load fluid that we put on the well to due
the CTC drill-out. We continually blow the well down to flare but we cannot get it to flow at sustained rates. We are in
the process of looking into a plunger with backside soap injection to see if that will help it, but I am very interested to
hear that other areas of the company that have seen similar issues with tubing into the heel. I will let u know if we
have any luck with the plunger install. Thanks Greg

Posted Monday, March 15, 2010 9:42 by Bresee, Don K
Greg/Jason, thanks for the feedback, very helpful. Jason I have forwarded your attachments and comments to our team
for review and discussion. I'll get back to you both when we have more questions or ideas. Don

Posted Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:46 by Cochrane, Tom D
Some considerations we've had for rod pumping our horizontal well. We'd like to pump the deepest spot to minimize
bhp, critical to us because its a coal bed methane well. We set up a bit higher because of solids, to let them separate to
the low spot. Because of the angle we didn't give up alot of bhp for it. Baker Montana (Steve Townsend) has been
pumping many wells in the curve. I like the heel to be the deeper spot so we can get lower bhp with less rods/wear.
Navigating the bit through faulted coal seams (Jeff Harrison) has created several low spots in practical application. For
rod pumping, less angle is better, 8 is max 6 is ok 5 or less is better. I think our plunger team is starting to look at
deviated well fall times, which are long in our S wells. Dave Martin (Farmington) is a contact for that effort.

Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 15:17 by Hannaman, Bart View Attachment(s)
Don, I have been doing a lot of work recently in the Eagle Ford related to flow in the horizontal section of both a Toe
up and a toe down horizontal. I have attached a presentation that I am currently working on. My work is not done yet,
however I think that it highlights many of the artificial lift design issues as well as flow characteristics during the free
flow stage. The hold up (Pipe Volume % taken up by liquid) left in the lateral and the expected horizontal angles (2
degrees up or down) are tailored to the Eagle Ford fluid, so this same analysis may need to be carried out in your area
for quantitative results. HYSYS was used to analyze the hold up values due to the complicated fluid composition. This
presentation should however give a qualitative picture of issues being faced while unloading a horizontal well. Note
that we have a light condensate so do not take the hydrostatic gradients used in this presentation to your areas. Make
sure to view the presentation with the notes page showing. I have hidden slide 20-22 they only apply to the Eagle
Ford fluid and represent volume changes in liquid due to phase change at different pressures, this may not be an issue
in your area. I would appreciate any comments or concerns regarding the presentation since it is not yet completed, I
still have time to make modifications before I present it. Also, has anyone been trying continuous soap as an artificial
lift in horizontals? I have no experience with it in horizontals, however it may provide the ability to flow the wells
above critical rates longer before shut ins are required and we may be able to inject soap deeper than we can plunger
lift. I have talked to a vendor and he has experience running 2205 stainless caps to 90 degrees depending on DLS.
With a more robust cap we may be able to get even deeper.

Posted Thursday, March 18, 2010 14:11 by Jaeger, Mark A.
There really aren't too many reservoirs that allow an 'ideal' wellbore construction from a flow/unloading perspective,
but a low heel and lower DLS (~5 deg/100ft) typically make a nicer horizontal wellbore. If there is room and no
major scaling concerns, you could land a sliding sleeve just below the profile nipple (@45 to 60 degrees) and have a
tailpipe below both of those to the heel all with a cap string to tubing tail. That way you could produce in three
stages: free flow, soaped flow, and plunger lift (the first two stages being with the sleeve closed). Its more jewlery
and more cost, but maybe in an ideal world it could happen. Of course the poor man's alternative would omit the
cap sting and sleeve, still set a longer tubing string and then perf tubing below the profile nipple when the time
came for plunger lift. Just some more ideas.

Posted Monday, March 22, 2010 10:38 by Watts, Jeff T
There is not enough clearance between 2-3/8" tubing and 4-1/2" casing to make an outside cut, complicating fishing
operations. Have you considered 5" casing?

Top View of RV Housing
Bottom View of RV Housing
Lip that the Seat fits against
Slots milled in ID of housing
(flow path)
Ball
Seat
Spring
Top view of finished RV
Spring will compress
against V-Pack
mandrel, and hold
the seat in the UP
position.
Internals of RV
Bottom view of finished RV
Seat is against the inner
lip (red text on page 1),
and there is no flow
around seat
Seat: in the UPposition
(no pressure differential)
Seat: in the downposition
(pressure differential greater that 22psi)
Ball (not pictured), pushes
seat down, and exposes
slots (blue text on page 1).
Water/flow is allowed to
bypass around the seat
until the differential is less
then 22 psi, then spring
force seat back up.
Plunger Type Part No.
1-1/2" Viper PLS1500S 1.5 9.5 1.61
2-1/16" Viper PLS1700S 1.641 10 1.751
2-3/8" Viper (1.89) PLS2000S 1.89 12 1.995
2-3/8" Viper (1.87) PLS2000SS 1.875 12 1.995
2-7/8" Viper PLS2500S 2.34 11.875 2.441
1-1/4" Sidewinder PLS1250SW 1.265 6.5 1.38
2-3/8" Mini-Viper PLS2000MV 1.89 7.75 1.995
2-3/8" Single Pad PLP2000S 1.86 7.25 1.995
2-3/8" Dual Pad PLP2000 1.86 12.375 1.995
2-3/8" One-Two Pad PLPA2000 1.735 11.375 1.995
2-7/8" Single Pad PLP2500 2.31 7.25 2.441
2-7/8" Dual Pad PLP2500 2.31 12.375 2.441
Plunger Type Part No.
1-1/2" Viper PLS1500S 1.5 9.5 1.516
2-1/16" Viper PLS1700S 1.641 10 1.657
2-3/8" Viper (1.89) PLS2000S 1.89 12 1.901
2-3/8" Viper (1.87) PLS2000SS 1.875 12 1.901
2-7/8" Viper PLS2500S 2.34 11.875 2.347
Plunger O.D. at
Widest part
Top and
Bottom (in.)
Plunger Contact
Length
Reference
Tubing Dia.= Drift
Diameter
Plunger Contact
Length
Reference
Tubing Dia.=
Nominal
Diameter
Well Master Plungers in Deviated Wells
Enter values in blue columns. All other values are
calculated.
Plunger O.D. at
Widest part
Top and
Bottom (in.)
2-3/8" Mini-Viper PLS2000MV 1.89 7.75 1.901
2-3/8" Single Pad PLP2000S 1.86 7.25 1.901
2-3/8" Dual Pad PLP2000 1.86 12.375 1.901
2-3/8" One-Two Pad PLPA2000 1.735 11.375 1.901
2-7/8" Single Pad PLP2500 2.31 7.25 2.347
2-7/8" Dual Pad PLP2500 2.31 12.375 2.347
46.5 123.3 4.75 0.22 87.34819583 4.755092 102.7768
41.9 136.6 5 0.22 87.48061071 5.004838 113.8564
27.8 206.0 6 0.21 87.99546597 6.003674 171.6386
31.8 180.3 6 0.24 87.70938996 6.004798 150.24
27.3 209.7 5.9375 0.202 88.05148879 5.940935 174.7263
103.5 55.4 3.25 0.23 85.95197065 3.258128 46.15391
66.6 86.1 3.875 0.21 86.89797285 3.880686 71.71298
66.6 86.1 3.875 0.21 86.89797285 3.880686 71.71298
97.6 58.7 3.625 0.27 85.74031778 3.635041 48.93898
33.6 170.5 6.1875 0.27 87.50140561 6.193388 142.0669
76.1 75.3 5.6875 0.52 84.7760524 5.711222 62.72703
94.7 60.5 3.625 0.262 85.86608639 3.634456 50.41706
32.6 175.7 6.1875 0.262 87.57534834 6.193045 146.3886
6.8 846.1 4.75 0.032 89.61401322 4.750108 705.1101
6.1 937.5 5 0.032 89.63331202 5.000102 781.282
2.9 1963.7 6 0.022 89.78991642 6.00004 1636.386
6.9 830.8 6 0.052 89.50344901 6.000225 692.3597
1.9 3021.8 5.9375 0.014 89.86490283 5.937517 2518.15
19.0 301.8 3.25 0.042 89.25960345 3.250271 251.5301
Maximum
Recommended
Deviation
(degrees/100 ft)
Equivalent Minimum
Radius of Tubing
Curvature (ft)
Maximum
Recommended
Deviation
(degrees/100 ft)
Equivalent Minimum
Radius of Tubing
Curvature (ft)
Half
Plunger
length (AP)
Maximum
Clearance
(2x drift-pl
dia) (PC) Angle OCA
Chord
Length
(AC)
Radius of
Curvature
7.0 819.1 3.875 0.022 89.67471133 3.875062 682.5504
7.0 819.1 3.875 0.022 89.67471133 3.875062 682.5504
29.8 192.4 3.625 0.082 88.70415095 3.625927 160.3335
10.2 560.4 6.1875 0.082 89.24073068 6.188043 466.9741
48.8 117.3 5.6875 0.332 86.65922867 5.697182 97.7647
26.9 213.2 3.625 0.074 88.83053824 3.625755 177.65
9.2 620.9 6.1875 0.074 89.31479829 6.187942 517.441
55.74781 123.3322 46.45651
50.3229 136.6276 41.93575
33.38167 205.9663 27.81806
38.1362 180.288 31.78017
32.79176 209.6715 27.32647
124.1408 55.3847 103.4507
79.89604 86.05557 66.58003
79.89604 86.05557 66.58003
117.0761 58.72678 97.56338
40.33018 170.4803 33.60848
91.34153 75.27244 76.11794
113.6437 60.50047 94.70311
39.13956 175.6663 32.6163
8.125798 846.1321 6.771499
7.333566 937.5384 6.111305
3.501365 1963.663 2.917804
8.275442 830.8316 6.896202
2.275314 3021.78 1.896095
22.77892 301.8361 18.98243
Deviation
in
degreees
per 100'
Radius
with 20%
Safety
Factor
Deviation
with 20%
Safety
Factor
8.394373 819.0605 6.995311
8.394373 819.0605 6.995311
35.7354 192.4002 29.7795
12.26959 560.369 10.22466
58.60584 117.3176 48.8382
32.25208 213.18 26.87673
11.07292 620.9292 9.227434

1

Horizontal and Multilateral Wells: Analysis and Design
Discipline: Reservoir Engineering
Level: Advanced
Primary Instructor(s):
Dr. Ding Zhu
Dr. A. Daniel Hill
Dr. J .M. Peden

DESIGNED FOR
Geologists, reservoir engineers, production and completion engineers, and development, asset,
and project managers

YOU WILL LEARN HOW TO
Identify the applications of horizontal, multilateral, and intelligent wells from geological
and reservoir aspects
Determine optimum well locations and their placement in reservoir structures
Assess multidisciplinary inputs for successful screening of advanced well projects
Select the most appropriate well geometries to enhance production rates and
hydrocarbon recovery from a variety of reservoir types and lithologies
Predict horizontal and multilateral well productivity with integrated reservoir flow and well
flow models
Evaluate formation damage and well completion effects on advanced well performances
Diagnosis problems in advanced wells and conduct the necessary sensitivity analyses
Assess reservoir management requirements and how to achieve these through
developing well design criteria to achieve life of a well success
Minimize technical and economic risk in advanced well projects

ABOUT THE COURSE
The course is designed as a companion course to Horizontal and Multilateral Wells: Drilling and
Completions. Advanced well concepts including horizontal and multilateral wells have become a
dominant feature of new field development and redevelopment opportunities. They can, when
used appropriately, dramatically improve the economic profitability of field development
operations. However, their successful deployment largely depends on the effectiveness of the
initial screening of candidate fields/wells and an assessment of the longer term production
dynamics essential to ensuring life of well design criteria and effective reservoir management.
The complex, interdisciplinary decisions in advanced well projects are emphasized. This course
stresses the effective identification of objectives and planning goals in the design evaluation
Horizontal and Multilateral Wells - Analysis and Design_HML1_long_8_20_08.doc

2
process, the technical and economic assessment of risks and uncertainties, and the provision of
flexible solutions.
The application and benefits of horizontal and multilateral wells are analyzed. The process of
candidate screening and selection, involving geological, reservoir, and production characteristics
are considered, as well as constraints on drilling and completion options. Learn to select
appropriate well geometries or trajectories, with respect to a range of reservoir environments, to
optimize well capacity and fluid recovery.
Methods to predict well performance and recovery from horizontal and multilateral wells are
presented. The integration of inflow and wellbore flow performance for individual and multilateral
wells is discussed. Well completion options for horizontal and multilateral wells are summarized.
Reservoir simulation approach is presented during the course.
Economic and risk analysis and well performance prediction for advanced well applications are
summarized with a number of case histories, serving to highlight the performance and benefits of
horizontal wells and the elements of risk and uncertainty at the initial design stage. One personal
computer is provided, at additional cost, for each two participants.

COURSE CONTENT
Technical and economic benefits of advanced well systems
Limitations and risk
Reservoir applications for various well types
The screening of applications for advanced well applications
Geological structure characteristics
Classification of advanced wells
Reservoir flow and geometrical issues
Impact and importance of reservoir description
Reservoir inflow performance at different boundary conditions
Wellbore flow and integrated well performance
Commingled production and cross flow in multilateral wells
Formation damage in horizontal and multilateral wells
Well completion and combined effect of completion and damage on well performance
Reservoir simulation considerations
Applications of intelligent completion in advanced wells
Risk identification and assessment
Minimizing risk through initial well specifications
Case studies
Trajectory guidelines for well placement in various reservoir environments


3
EXAMPLES
The instructor will like to use the examples from participants field cases for analysis in the class
as demonstration exercises. Field problems will be analyzed and suggestions will be provided
through the course.

About the Instructor(s):

DR. DING ZHU is an Assistant Professor of the Petroleum Engineering Department of Texas
A&M University and General Partner and Consultant for EHZY Engineering. She holds a B.S.
degree in mechanical engineering from Beijing University of Science & Technology, and M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees from The University of Texas at Austin in petroleum engineering. Dr. Zhu has
worked at the University of Texas as a Research Scientist for 11 years before she joined Texas
A&M University. She is an expert in the areas of production engineering, well stimulation
(acidizing and fracturing), and complex well production (horizontal, multilateral and intelligent
wells). She has consulted on multilateral well design and optimization, well stimulation and other
production projects for companies around the world. For the past ten years, she has taught short
courses on production engineering topics in the US, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, and China. Dr.
Zhu is author of about forty technical papers and is currently co-authoring a book on Multilateral
Wells that will be published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). She is a member of the
SPE Production Monitoring and Control Committee.

DR. A. DANIEL HILL is Professor of Petroleum Engineering and holder of the Robert Whiting
Endowed Chair at Texas A&M University. Previously, he served on the faculty at The University
of Texas at Austin, where he taught for twenty-two years after spending several years in industry.
He holds a B.S. degree from Texas A&M University and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from The
University of Texas at Austin, all in chemical engineering. He is the author of the SPE
monograph, Production Logging: Theoretical and Interpretive Elements, co-author of the
textbook, Petroleum Production Systems, and author of over eighty technical papers and five
patents. He has been a SPE Distinguished Lecturer, served on numerous SPE committees and
was founding chairman of the Austin SPE Section. He was named a Distinguished Member of
SPE in 1999. Professor Hill is an expert in the areas of production engineering, well stimulation,
production logging, and complex well performance, and has presented lectures and courses and
consulted on these topics throughout the world.

DR. J. M. PEDEN is Professor of Well Technology at the Department of Petroleum Engineering
at Curtin University of Technology in Perth Western Australia; a Principal Technolgist for
Advanced Well Technologies Pty. in Perth WA and also Managing Director of PITAC Ltd. in
Edinburgh, Scotland Previously at Heriot Watt University, he was the Shell UK Professor of
Petroleum Engineering, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the department from 1982 until 1991.
In 1991, he founded the Horizontal Well Technology Unit. His specialties are focused primarily on
production technology but he also teaches courses in reservoir and drilling related topics and was
a visiting Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Stanford University. He was employed by Shell
in both the Middle East and the North Sea. He has consulted internationally for the majority of

4
major operating and service companies in areas such as horizontal wells, sand control,
multilaterals and other aspects of well design and troubleshooting.
Dr. Pedens principal areas of expertise are in well completion design; formation damage; sand
control; and, horizontal and multilateral wells. He has published over 100 technical papers, two
textbooks, and contributed to numerous conferences as a keynote speaker. He has been an
active member of SPE, holding a number of posts including Chairman of the Aberdeen Section in
1986/87. In 1999/2000 he was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer on the subject of multilateral
wells. He obtained his B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering in 1970, returning to University in 1976
from Shell, to obtain his M.Eng. in Petroleum Engineering and was awarded his Ph.D. in 1983.

In-House Course Presentations .
All courses are available for in-house presentation to individual organizations. In-house courses
may be structured the same as the public versions or tailored to meet your requirements. Special
courses on virtually any petroleum-related subject can be arranged specifically for in-house
presentation. For further information, contact our In-House Training Coordinator at one of the
numbers listed below.
Telephone +1 832 426 1200
Facsimile +1 832 426 1250
E-Mail inhouse@petroskills.com

Public Course Presentations .

How to contact PetroSkills Training Inc.

1-800-821-5933 toll-free in North America or
Telephone 1-918-828-2500
Facsimile 1-918-828-2580
E-Mail registrations@petroskills.com
Internet www.petroskills.com
Address P.O. Box 35448, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74153-0448, U.S.A

1
Horizontal and Multilateral Wells: Completions and Stimulation

Discipline: Production and Completions Engineering
Level: Specialized

Primary Instructor(s):
Dr. Ding Zhu
Dr. Buyon Guo
Dr. Daniel Hill

DESIGNED FOR
Drilling, completion, production, reservoir, and research engineers; geologists; managers in
drilling, completion, production, and exploration; others involved in various phases of horizontal
and multilateral wells or interested in gaining an interdisciplinary up-to-date understanding of this
continually evolving technology

YOU WILL LEARN HOW TO
Successfully design and optimize horizontal and multilateral wells
Engineer wells, taking into account limitations imposed by well bore stability and borehole
friction
Determine the appropriate zonal isolation methods for horizontal and multilateral wells
Design damage removal, stimulation, and workover operations

ABOUT THE COURSE
Are your horizontal and multilateral wells yielding the expected results? Why are some of these
types of wells great successes, while others are embarrassing failures? Are you hesitant to
recommend these types of wells for fear they will yield poor results? Too many operators are
finding themselves asking these same questions. Successful multilateral and horizontal wells
require new considerations, interdisciplinary planning, and special techniques. This intense
course addresses the critical need for a proper understanding of all aspects of horizontal and
multilateral well drilling and completion processes that make these wells unique. It is designed for
those planning or working with horizontal and multilateral wells, and interested in effective use of
the latest technology. Basic understanding of important reservoir characteristics, hole stability,
formation damage, and crucial zone isolation are just some of the issues critical to successful
horizontal and multilateral wells addressed by this course. A combined practical and technical
theme is employed, with emphasis on economy and efficiency in drilling and completing
horizontal and multilateral wells. Participants develop an appreciation for the complexity of these
wells and become equipped to design programs for horizontal and multilateral wells from drilling
through completion and production.
Horizontal and Multilateral Wells - Drilling, Completions and Stimulation_HML2_8_20_08.doc

2
Participants are required to bring a scientific calculator. One personal computer is provided, at
additional cost, for each two participants.

COURSE CONTENT
Introduction to horizontal and multilateral drilling and completions
Rock behavior in highly deviated wells
Reservoir characteristics influencing drilling and completion design
Effects of reservoir heterogeneity
Formation damage
Completion types and methods: adaptability to reservoir types and management
Zone isolation
Stimulation and workovers
Borehole trajectories and friction in multilateral and horizontal wells
Special techniques and problems: Drillstrings and workstrings, cuttings removal, coiled
tubing, short radius, MWD and geosteering, underbalanced drilling, specific multilateral
issues
Casing and liners: design, running, and cementing procedure

About the Instructor(s):

DR. DING ZHU is an Assistant Professor of the Petroleum Engineering Department of Texas
A&M University and General Partner and Consultant for EHZY Engineering. She holds a B.S.
degree in mechanical engineering from Beijing University of Science & Technology, and M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees from The University of Texas at Austin in petroleum engineering. Dr. Zhu has
worked at the University of Texas as a Research Scientist for 11 years before she joined Texas
A&M University. She is an expert in the areas of production engineering, well stimulation
(acidizing and fracturing), and complex well production (horizontal, multilateral and intelligent
wells). She has consulted on multilateral well design and optimization, well stimulation and other
production projects for companies around the world. For the past ten years, she has taught short
courses on production engineering topics in the US, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, and China. Dr.
Zhu is author of about forty technical papers and is currently co-authoring a book on Multilateral
Wells that will be published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). She is a member of the
SPE Production Monitoring and Control Committee.

DR. BOYUN GUO is an internationally recognized expert in well drilling and production
engineering. His expertise is focused on multiphase flow in wellbore. Applications of his expertise
can be found in aerated fluid drilling, horizontal drilling, optimization of oil and gas production
wells. Dr. Guos contributions to the oil and gas industry are reflected in his publications including
over 70 technical papers and several books. In return, he has received multiple awards from the
Horizontal and Multilateral Wells - Drilling, Completions and Stimulation_HML2_8_20_08.doc

3
industry and academia. Guo holds a BS degree from Daqing Petroleum Institute, MS degree from
Montana Tech, and PhD degree from New Mexico Tech, all in Petroleum Engineering.

DR. A. DANIEL HILL is Professor of Petroleum Engineering and holder of the Robert Whiting
Endowed Chair at Texas A&M University. Previously, he served on the faculty at The University
of Texas at Austin, where he taught for twenty-two years after spending several years in industry.
He holds a B.S. degree from Texas A&M University and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from The
University of Texas at Austin, all in chemical engineering. He is the author of the SPE
monograph, Production Logging: Theoretical and Interpretive Elements, co-author of the
textbook, Petroleum Production Systems, and author of over eighty technical papers and five
patents. He has been a SPE Distinguished Lecturer, served on numerous SPE committees and
was founding chairman of the Austin SPE Section. He was named a Distinguished Member of
SPE in 1999. Professor Hill is an expert in the areas of production engineering, well stimulation,
production logging, and complex well performance, and has presented lectures and courses and
consulted on these topics throughout the world.

In-House Course Presentations .
All courses are available for in-house presentation to individual organizations. In-house courses
may be structured the same as the public versions or tailored to meet your requirements. Special
courses on virtually any petroleum-related subject can be arranged specifically for in-house
presentation. For further information, contact our In-House Training Coordinator at one of the
numbers listed below.
Telephone +1 832 426 1200
Facsimile +1 832 426 1250
E-Mail inhouse@petroskills.com

Public Course Presentations .

How to contact PetroSkills Training Inc.

1-800-821-5933 toll-free in North America or
Telephone 1-918-828-2500
Facsimile 1-918-828-2580
E-Mail registrations@petroskills.com
Internet www.petroskills.com
Address P.O. Box 35448, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74153-0448, U.S.A
Liquids in a Toe Up vs. Toe
Down Well
Bart
3/11/2010
3 Modeled Scenarios
Model is set up to run rate
scenarios using Hysys out
puts
BFT #1 fluid composition
Current runs are only in 4-
1/2
Model output are
Volume of hold up in
lateral during flow
Volume of liquid left
remaining in lateral during
a shut in and its location
Variable rate entry points
Assumption that in a
flowing state once fluid
stream make it to the Tbg it
can be successfully
removed from the wellbore.
Pressure Drop in Horizontal
Pressure Drop Toe to Heel
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Surface Rate [Mcffd]
D
p

[
p
s
i
]
Toe up DP
Horizontal
Toe down DP
Shaded green area represents the flow rates of concern. Above 300
Mcfd (critical rate 2-3/8Tbg at 50 psi PTbg). Upper end pressure
drop convergence
Toe up Example
Evenly distributed inflow from a 2000Mcfd well
20% hold up at the interval closest to the heel and decreases to 16% at
the toe.
Toe up Flow Variable Rate
constant Pressure
Horizontal Example
37% hold up at the interval closest to the heel and decreases to 25% at the toe.
Horizontal Flow Variable Rate
constant Pressure
Toe Down Example
52% hold up at the interval closest to the heel and decreases to 35% at the toe.
Toe Down Flow Variable Rate
constant Pressure
Flowing Summary
Hold up in 4-1/2" at 500Mcfd
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
Toe up Horizontal Toe Down
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
SHUT IN
Does hold up matter?
With a Toe up well, less liquid
is left in the tbg
More left in a Horizontal well
Even more in a Toe down
well
Do we know weather the heel or
the toe is going to be the
better zone before we drill the
well?
Is there a difference in energy
required to unload a toe up
vs. a Toe down after a shut
in?
Can we change anything by going
Toe up or Toe Down?
Hold up in 4-1/2" at 2000 Mcfd
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Pressure
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Pressure
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Pressure BH [psi]
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
V
o
l
u
m
e

i
n

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

[
b
b
l
]
It is not possible to remove all of the liquids from the horizontal section
A toe down well seems to always have twice the perforations covered
SHUT IN
Do we know weather the heel or
the toe is going to be the
better zone before we drill the
well?
NO
SHUT IN
BRING ON
Is there a difference in energy
required to unload a toe up
vs. a Toe down after a shut
in?
Time and thought are
required for how a toe up will
unload in comparison to a
Toe down
A vertical model is necessary
in order to successfully model
unloading of the horizontal
Toe Up
17 bbl of liquid accumulated at
the heal based on the volume of
hold up in the flowing system
Toe up Bring on after shut in
summary (no volume change considered)
Verti cal hei ght of l i qui d col umn i n Hori zontal @ 1000 Mcfd
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
8000.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
L
i
q
u
i
d

c
o
l
u
m
n

h
e
i
g
h
t

[
f
t
]
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
H
y
d
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

H
e
a
d

[
p
s
i
]
Height of Liquid in Tbg Back Pressure
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
L
i
q
u
i
d

c
o
l
u
m
n

h
e
i
g
h
t

[
f
t
]
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
H
y
d
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

H
e
a
d

[
p
s
i
]
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
L
i
q
u
i
d

c
o
l
u
m
n

h
e
i
g
h
t

[
f
t
]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
H
y
d
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

H
e
a
d

[
p
s
i
]
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
8000.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure BH [psi]
L
i
q
u
i
d

c
o
l
u
m
n

h
e
i
g
h
t

[
f
t
]
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
H
y
d
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
c

H
e
a
d

[
p
s
i
]
Toe down
Not completed
Pressure Drop in Horizontal
Pressure Drop Toe to Heel
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Surface Rate [Mcffd]
D
p

[
p
s
i
]
Toe up DP
Horizontal
Toe down DP
Shaded green area represents the flow rates of concern. Above 300
Mcfd (critical rate 2-3/8Tbg at 50 psi PTbg). Upper end pressure
drop convergence
Tbg Modeling
The Tbg will have some amount of Liquid
Casing pressure is increasing faster than the Tbg and then they become parallel.
Theory 1 -The liquid falling down the Tbg can be seen during shut in.
Theory 2 liquids are being pushed from the Csg into the Tbg
Can there be liquids in the Csg falling out and being pushed into the tbg?
Theory 3 As pressure increase vapor compresses into a liquid, once at pressure
though it may turn back into a gas partially.
Plunger Cycle Marlene Olson #1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
4:48:00 7:12:00 9:36:00 12:00:00 14:24:00 16:48:00 19:12:00
Ti me
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
/
h
e
i
g
h
t
Ptbg
Pcsg
Fliud height
Liquid increase down hole
White line represent the pressure path and there for the liquid
generation during a shut in
500 psi Liquid

2010-3-10 - Optimal Horizontal Wellbore Design For Artificial Lift

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2010-3-10 - Optimal Horizontal Wellbore Design For Artificial Lift

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Artificial Lift - Closed Discussion Item

Optimal Horizontal Wellbore Design for Artificial Lift

Anda mungkin juga menyukai