Influence of Abandonment Pressure on Recoverable Reserves, Special Application to the Depleted Dnipro-Donetsk Basin Reservoirs

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miljenko Cimic ◽  
Michael Sadivnyk ◽  
Oleksandr Doroshenko ◽  
Stepan Kovalchuk

Abstract Volumetric gas reservoirs are driven by the compressibility of gas and a formation rock, and the ultimate recovery factor is independent of the production rate but depends on the reservoir pressure. The gas saturation in the volumetric reservoir is constant, and the gas volume is reduced causing pressure drop in the reservoir. Due to this reason, it is crucial to minimize the abandonment pressure to the lowest possible level. Concerning Dnipro-Donetsk Basin (DDB) gas reservoirs, it is widespread to recover sometimes more than 90% of the OGIP. Often, OGIP was estimated not considering lower permeability gas layers due to inaccurate logging equipment used in the past, causing that such layers were not included in the total netpay. This is one of the reasons for OGIP overestimation and higher recovery factors. On many P/Z graphs, we observe that at certain drawdown, lower permeability reservoirs kick in lifting up P/Z plot curve. Abandonment pressure is a major factor in determining recovery efficiency. Permeability and skin are usually the most critical factors in determining the magnitude of the abandonment pressure. Reservoirs with low permeability will have higher abandonment pressures than reservoirs with high permeability. A specific minimum flow rate must be sustained to keep the well unloading process, and a higher permeability will permit this minimum flow rate at lower reservoir pressure. Abandonment pressure will depend on wellhead pressure, friction and hydrostatic pressures in the system, pressure drop in reservoir, and pressure drop due to skin. This last factor is often neglected, which sometimes leads to a significant reduction of the recovery factor. It is common practice that skin factor and pressure drop due to the skin are solved with well stimulation. Also, well stimulation has its limits concerning the level of reservoir pressure. It is very common that the stimulation effect of low reservoir pressure well is negligible or even negative. This is caused by the minimum required drawdown to flow back a stimulating aqueous fluid out of the reservoir. The required minimum drawdown is caused by the Phase Trapping Coefficient (PTC), which drives reservoir stimulation fluid cleaning behavior. For water drive gas reservoirs, Cole (1969) suggests that the recovery is substantially less than recovery from bounded gas reservoirs. As a rule of thumb, recovery from a water-drive reservoir will be approximately 50 to 75% of the initial gas in place. The structural location of producing wells and the degree of water coning are essential considerations in determining ultimate recovery. In the cases studied in this paper, we consider gas and rock expansion reservoir energy, if abandonment pressure needs to be coupled with a water drive, then it is recommended to use a numerical, not analytical approach.

2019 ◽  
Vol 876 ◽  
pp. 553-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Gamero-Castaño ◽  
M. Magnani

Stable electrospraying in the cone-jet mode is restricted to flow rates above a minimum, and understanding the physics of this constraint is important to improve this atomization technique. We study this problem by measuring the minimum flow rate of electrosprays of tributyl phosphate and propylene carbonate at varying electrical conductivity $K$ (all other physical properties such as the density $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}$, surface tension $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}$ and viscosity $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}$ are kept constant and equal to those of the pure liquids), and through the analysis of numerical solutions. The experiments show that the dimensionless minimum flow rate is a function of both the dielectric constant $\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}$ of the liquid and its Reynolds number, $Re=(\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}_{o}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}^{2}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}^{3}K)^{1/3}$. This result is unexpected in the light of existing theories which, for the conditions investigated, predict a minimum flow rate that depends only on $\unicode[STIX]{x1D700}$ and/or is marginally affected by $Re$. The experimental dependency on the Reynolds number requires the viscous stress to be a factor in the determination of the minimum flow rate. However, the numerical solutions suggest that a balance of opposing forces including the fixing viscous stress, which at decreasing flow rates may lower the acceleration of the flow to the point of making it unstable, is unlikely to be the cause. An alternative mechanism is the significant viscous dissipation taking place in the transition from cone to jet, and which at low flow rates cannot be supplied by the work done by the tangential electric stress in the same area. Instead, mechanical energy injected into the system farther downstream must be transferred upstream where dissipation predominantly takes place. This mechanism is supported by the balance between the energy dissipated and the work done by the electric stress in the transition from cone to jet, which yields a relationship between the minimum flow rate, the Reynolds number and the dielectric constant that compares well with experiments.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Zhibin ◽  
L. Yingchuan ◽  
L. Zhongneng ◽  
Z. Haiquan ◽  
L. Yonghui

1969 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 1475-1482 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.G. Turner ◽  
M.G. Hubbard ◽  
A.E. Dukler

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Indah Widiyaningsih ◽  
Panca Suci Widiantoro ◽  
Suwardi Suwardi ◽  
Riska Fitri Nurul Karimah

The RF reservoir is a dry gas reservoir located in Northeast java offshore that has been produced since 2018.  The RF reservoir has produced 2 wells with cumulative production until December 2019 is 31.83 BSCF. In January 2018 the gas production rate from the two wells was 36 MMSCFD and the reservoir pressure at the beginning of production was 2449.5 psia, peak production occurred in April 2019 with a gas flow rate of 98 MMSCFD but in December 2019 the gas production rate from both wells decreased to 30 MMSCFD with reservoir pressure decreased to 1607.8 psia. Changes in gas flow rate and pressure in the RF reservoir will affect changes in reservoir performance, so it is necessary to analyze reservoir performance to determine reservoir performance in the future with the material balance method. Based on the results the initial gas in place (IGIP) is 80.08 BSCF. The drive mechanism worked on the RF reservoir until December 2019 was a depletion drive with a recovery factor up to 88% and a current recovery factor (CRF) is 40%. The remaining gas reserves in December 2019 is 39 BSCF and the reservoir will be made a production prediction until December 2032. Based on production predictions of the four scenarios, scenario 2 was chosen as the best scenario to develop the RF reservoir with a cumulative production is 66.1 BSCF and a recovery factor of 82.6%.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adesina Fadairo ◽  
Gbadegesin Adeyemi ◽  
Temitope Ogunkunle ◽  
Oreoluwa Lawal ◽  
Olugbenga Oredeko

2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 024103 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Scheideler ◽  
Chuan-Hua Chen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document