scholarly journals ANALISIS LOST CIRCULATION PEMOMPAAN GRAVEL SLURRY PADA SUMUR X BERDASARKAN WAKTU TUNGGU

PETRO ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Novrianti Novrianti ◽  
Ali Musnal ◽  
Febriyan Ramadhan

Unconsolidated formations tend to have sand problem that can lead to decline of production in Oil and Gas Well. There are some methods can be used to resolve sand problem like liner completion, meshrite liner, perforated liner completion, and gravel pack completion. Rock type of Well X is unconsolidated stone and the method which used in that well to surmount sand problem that occurred is gravel pack method. However, during pumping of gravel slurry there are some problems, partial or complete loss of the gravel slurry into the formation (lost circulation), waiting on sand sattle is one method that has developed to resolve loss circulation. This method is done by stopping pumping slurry after the amount of incoming sand has reached teoritical and more than 50%. The aim of this research to determine volume of gravel slurry that is needed and total of lost gravel sand. Gravel slurry needed to overcome sand problem in Well X consists of 109 sacks of gravel sand, 259.5 bbl of water, and 1834 lb (18 sacks) of KCL. Analysis of pressure test line chart to find out lost circulation problem. There are 147 sacks gravel sand missing as a result of lost circulation problem from 256 sacks of gravel sand that is pumped.

Author(s):  
Y. Anggoro

The Belida field is an offshore field located in Block B of Indonesia’s South Natuna Sea. This field was discovered in 1989. Both oil and gas bearing reservoirs are present in the Belida field in the Miocene Arang, Udang and Intra Barat Formations. Within the middle Arang Formation, there are three gas pay zones informally referred to as Beta, Gamma and Delta. These sand zones are thin pay zones which need to be carefully planned and economically exploited. Due to the nature of the reservoir, sand production is a challenge and requires downhole sand control. A key challenge for sand control equipment in this application is erosion resistance without inhibiting productivity as high gas rates and associated high flow velocity is expected from the zones, which is known to have caused sand control failure. To help achieve a cost-effective and easily planned deployment solution to produce hydrocarbons, a rigless deployment is the preferred method to deploy downhole sand control. PSD analysis from the reservoir zone suggested from ‘Industry Rules of Thumb’ a conventional gravel pack deployment as a means of downhole sand control. However, based on review of newer globally proven sand control technologies since adoption of these ‘Industry Rules of Thumb’, a cost-effective solution could be considered and implemented utilizing Ceramic Sand Screen technology. This paper will discuss the successful application at Block B, Natuna Sea using Ceramic Sand Screens as a rigless intervention solution addressing the erosion / hot spotting challenges in these high rate production zones. The erosion resistance of the Ceramic Sand Screen design allows a deployment methodology directly adjacent to the perforated interval to resist against premature loss of sand control. The robust ceramic screen design gave the flexibility required to develop a cost-effective lower completion deployment methodology both from a challenging make up in the well due to a restrictive lubricator length to the tractor conveyancing in the well to land out at the desired set depth covering the producing zone. The paper will overview the success of multi-service and product supply co-operation adopting technology enablers to challenge ‘Industry Rules of Thumb’ replaced by rigless reasoning as a standard well intervention downhole sand control solution where Medco E&P Natuna Ltd. (Medco E&P) faces sand control challenges in their high deviation, sidetracked well stock. The paper draws final attention to the hydrocarbon performance gain resulting due to the ability for choke free production to allow drawing down the well at higher rates than initially expected from this zone.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1064 (1) ◽  
pp. 012059
Author(s):  
R R Gazizov ◽  
A P Chizhov ◽  
V E Andreev ◽  
A V Chibisov ◽  
V V Mukhametshin ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 423-426 ◽  
pp. 2035-2039
Author(s):  
Long Cang Huang ◽  
Yin Ping Cao ◽  
Yang Yu ◽  
Yi Hua Dou

In the process of oil and gas well production, tubing connection stand the axial alternating load during open well, shut well and fluid flow. In order to know premium connection seal ability under the loading, two types of P110 88.9mmx6.45mm premium tubing connections which called A connection and B connection are performed with finite element analysis, in which contact pressures and their the regularities distribution on sealing surface are analyzed. The results show that with the increasing of cycle number, the maximum contact pressures on sealing surface of both A connection and B connection are decreased. The decreasing of the maximum contact pressures on B connection is greater than those on A connection. With the increasing of cycle number of axial alternating compression load, the maximum contact pressure on sealing surface of A connection is decreased, and the maximum contact pressure on sealing surface of B connection remains constant. Compared the result, it shows that the seal ability of A connection is better than B connection under axial alternating tension load, while the seal ability of B connection is better than type A connection under axial alternating compression load.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Asadi ◽  
Brain Ainley ◽  
David Archacki ◽  
Eric Aubry ◽  
Harold Brannon ◽  
...  

Abstract Historically, leak-off analyses of stimulation fluids have been performed using in-house laboratory procedures. The lack of industry standard procedures to perform leak-off and wall building coefficient analyses of stimulation fluids has introduced inconsistency in both results and reporting for many years. A technical standard adopted in 2006 by both API and ISO for static conditions has provided the oil and gas industry with the first standardized procedure to measure and report leak-off1. However, the more complex testing under dynamic conditions was not addressed. As a result, a group of industry experts have compiled their years of experiences in developing a new technical standard to measure the leak-off characteristics of stimulation and gravel-pack fluids under dynamic flow conditions. Stimulation and gravel-pack fluids are defined, for the purpose of this technical standard, as fluids used to enhance production from oil and gas wells by fracturing and fluids used to place filtration media to control formation sand production from oil and gas wells. Leak-off is the amount of fluid lost to porous media during these operations. The leak-off procedure was developed through the colaberation of several industry companies by evaluating numerous in-house laboratory techniques and conducting round robin testing to ensure that any modifications to these procedures were reliable and repeatable. The new standard provides a step-by-step procedure that includes fluid preparation, experimental equipment design, testing procedure and data analyses for fluids exhibiting viscosity controlled leak-off or wall building characteristics. Example calculations are reviewed within this paper.


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 68-69
Author(s):  
Chris Carpenter

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 202439, “Pushing Malaysia’s Drilling Industry Into a New Frontier: How a Distinctive Wellhead Design Enabled Implementation of a Fully Offline Well Cementing Resulting in a Significant Shift in Operational Efficiency,” by Fauzi Abbas and Azrynizam M. Nor, Vestigo, and Daryl Chang, Cameron, a Schlumberger Company, prepared for the 2020 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, originally scheduled to be held in Perth, Australia, 20–22 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Traditionally, rigs are positioned over a well from the moment the surface casing is drilled until the installation of the wellhead tree. This results in the loss of precious time as the rig idles during online cementing. However, in mature Field A offshore Terengganu, Malaysia, a new approach eliminated such inefficiency dramatically. Operational Planning With oil production in Field A initiated in October 2015, historical data on well lithology, formation pressure, and potential issues during drilling were available and were studied to ensure that wells would not experience lost circulation. This preplanning is crucial to ensure that the offline cementing activity meets the operator’s barrier requirements. Petronas Procedures and Guidelines for Upstream Activities (PPGUA 4.0) was used for the development of five subject wells in Field A. In this standard, two well barriers are required during all well activities, including for suspended wells, to prevent uncontrolled outflow from the well to the external environment. For Field A, two barrier types, mechanical and fluid, allowed by PPGUA 4.0 were selected to complement the field’s geological conditions. As defined in PPGUA 4.0, the fluid barrier is the hydrostatic column pressure, which exceeds the flow zone pore pressure, while the mechanical barrier is an element that achieves sealing in the wellbore, such as plugs. The fluid barrier was used because the wells in Field A were not known to have circulation losses. For the development of Field A, the selected rig featured a light-duty crane to assist with equipment spotting on the platform. Once barriers and rig selection are finalized, planning out the drill sequence for rig skidding is imperative. Space required by drillers, cementers, and equipment are among the considerations that affect rig-skid sequence, as well as the necessity of increased manpower. Offline Cementing Equipment and Application In Field A, the casing program was 9⅝×7×3½ in. with a slimhole well design. The wellhead used was a monobore wellhead system with quick connectors. The standard 11-in. nominal wellhead design was used for the wells with no modifications required. All three sections of the casing program were offline cemented. They were the 9⅝-in. surface casing, 7-in. production casing, and 3½-in. tubing. The 9⅝-in. surface casing is threaded to the wellhead housing and was run and landed with the last casing joint. Subsequent wellhead 7-in. casing hangers and a 3½-in. tubing hanger then were run and landed into the compact housing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document