Optimization of the Turnaround Time and Quality of Production-Screening Tests in Offshore Fields – Some Case Studies

S. Eyitayo, K. Lawal, I. Abdullahi, S. Matemilola, John Akadang, Victor Anyanwu, Bernard Ainoje, Tunde Alabi, S. Owolabi
{"title":"Optimization of the Turnaround Time and Quality of Production-Screening Tests in Offshore Fields – Some Case Studies","authors":"S. Eyitayo, K. Lawal, I. Abdullahi, S. Matemilola, John Akadang, Victor Anyanwu, Bernard Ainoje, Tunde Alabi, S. Owolabi","doi":"10.2118/207105-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Production-screening test (PST) is performed on a reservoir drill-in fluid (RDIF) prior to running any component of the lower completion assembly that is vulnerable to plugging. This is applicable in open-hole completions in which wire-wrapped production screens are deployed. The key objective of a PST is to reduce the risk of plugging key completion components, such as production screens, during subsequent flow back. Hence, a PST increases the chance of preserving well productivity (or injectivity), ultimate recovery and project economics. However, conducting and achieving PST-quality RDIF in offshore fields can be cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive, yet the quality is not guaranteed.\n This paper presents the formulation, implementation, and results of a simple strategy to reduce the turnaround time and costs of achieving PST-quality RDIF for applications in offshore fields. Employing a combination of on-the-job assessment, empirical data and expert opinions, the strengths and weaknesses of onsite versus offsite (onshore) options of preparing PST-quality RDIF for offshore operations are evaluated.\n As a case-study, empirical data from the execution of both onsite and offsite options for an example field are employed for the evaluation. Results of simple cost-time-benefit analysis underscore the robustness and competitiveness of preparing the PST-quality RDIF offsite and transporting same for subsequent test validation and application on the rig.\n The results of these empirical examples show that the offsite option yields about 75% cost-saving relative to its onsite counterpart. In addition to cost saving, other incremental benefits of the former include (i) significant reduction in rig time and personnel; (ii) improved RDIF quality; and (iii) higher chances of preserving well performance and economics. To increase the success rate, residual risks of the preferred offsite option are outlined, and relevant mitigations provided.","PeriodicalId":10899,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, August 03, 2021","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, August 03, 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/207105-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Production-screening test (PST) is performed on a reservoir drill-in fluid (RDIF) prior to running any component of the lower completion assembly that is vulnerable to plugging. This is applicable in open-hole completions in which wire-wrapped production screens are deployed. The key objective of a PST is to reduce the risk of plugging key completion components, such as production screens, during subsequent flow back. Hence, a PST increases the chance of preserving well productivity (or injectivity), ultimate recovery and project economics. However, conducting and achieving PST-quality RDIF in offshore fields can be cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive, yet the quality is not guaranteed. This paper presents the formulation, implementation, and results of a simple strategy to reduce the turnaround time and costs of achieving PST-quality RDIF for applications in offshore fields. Employing a combination of on-the-job assessment, empirical data and expert opinions, the strengths and weaknesses of onsite versus offsite (onshore) options of preparing PST-quality RDIF for offshore operations are evaluated. As a case-study, empirical data from the execution of both onsite and offsite options for an example field are employed for the evaluation. Results of simple cost-time-benefit analysis underscore the robustness and competitiveness of preparing the PST-quality RDIF offsite and transporting same for subsequent test validation and application on the rig. The results of these empirical examples show that the offsite option yields about 75% cost-saving relative to its onsite counterpart. In addition to cost saving, other incremental benefits of the former include (i) significant reduction in rig time and personnel; (ii) improved RDIF quality; and (iii) higher chances of preserving well performance and economics. To increase the success rate, residual risks of the preferred offsite option are outlined, and relevant mitigations provided.
海上油田生产筛选试验的周转时间和质量优化——一些案例研究
在下入下部完井组合的任何容易堵塞的组件之前,需要对储层钻入液(RDIF)进行生产筛选测试(PST)。这适用于裸眼完井中使用钢丝包裹生产筛管的情况。PST的主要目标是在随后的返排过程中降低关键完井部件(如生产筛管)堵塞的风险。因此,PST增加了保持油井产能(或注入能力)、最终采收率和项目经济效益的机会。然而,在海上油田进行和实现pst质量的RDIF可能是繁琐、耗时和昂贵的,而且质量也得不到保证。本文介绍了一种简单策略的制定、实施和结果,以减少海上油田应用中实现pst质量RDIF的周转时间和成本。结合现场评估、经验数据和专家意见,评估了为海上作业准备pst质量RDIF的现场方案与非现场(陆上)方案的优缺点。作为一个案例研究,从现场和非现场的一个示例领域的执行经验数据被用于评估。简单的成本-时间-效益分析结果强调了在现场制备pst质量的RDIF并将其运输到后续的测试验证和钻机上应用的稳健性和竞争力。这些实证实例的结果表明,相对于现场期权,非现场期权的成本节约约75%。除了节省成本外,前者的其他增量效益还包括:(1)显著减少钻井时间和人员;(ii)改善RDIF质量;(3)更有可能保持油井性能和经济效益。为了提高成功率,概述了首选非现场方案的剩余风险,并提供了相关的缓解措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信