S. Eyitayo, K. Lawal, I. Abdullahi, S. Matemilola, John Akadang, Victor Anyanwu, Bernard Ainoje, Tunde Alabi, S. Owolabi
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Optimization of the Turnaround Time and Quality of Production-Screening Tests in Offshore Fields – Some Case Studies
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.