4.4 Article

A Novel Scientific Approach to Compare the Effectiveness of Well Stimulation and Artificial Lifting

Publisher

ASME
DOI: 10.1115/1.4052860

Keywords

petroleum engineering; petroleum wells-drilling; production; construction; wells-injection; oil; gas; geothermal

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents a new approach for comparing the effectiveness of artificial lifting and well stimulation. The method utilizes two charts summarizing the results of formation and well-column simulation. It proves to be a powerful tool for predicting and comparing the effectiveness of well stimulation and artificial lifting.
Production rate decline is one of the most common challenges in production engineering. Obviously, the first step to overcome this challenge is to understand its main reason. In this article, a new approach is developed which can be used to compare the effectiveness of artificial lifting and well stimulation. The method is based on a couple of charts that summarize the results of integrated simulation of formation and well-column. In the first graph, called the flow productivity index curve, the production rate is drawn as a function of the productivity index. Some important points are also specified on this diagram which are current state, production rate at maximum possible productivity index, and production rate when the well is equipped with a pump or gas lifting. In the second graph, derivatives of the production rate of different wells are drawn as a function of the productivity index. The analysis of three actual wells with conventional inflow performance relationship-tubing performance relationship (IPR-TPR) curves and also our suggested curves are discussed in this paper. It is seen that the introduced approach can be used as a powerful tool to predict the effectiveness of well stimulation and artificial lifting and make a clear comparison between them.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available