CALCIUM CARBONATE DEPOSITION IN GEOTHERMAL WELLBORES MIRAVALLES GEOTHERMAL FIELD COSTA RICA A Report Submitted to the Deparment of Petroleum Engineering of Stanford University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SClENCE by Eduardo Granados June 1983
154
Embed
of for...Apr 29, 1982 · In countries like Costa Rica that have no fossil fuel resources geothermal energy exploration and development are most important. Geothermal resources in
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CALCIUM CARBONATE DEPOSITION IN
GEOTHERMAL WELLBORES
MIRAVALLES GEOTHERMAL FIELD
COSTA RICA
A Report
Submitted to the Deparment of Petroleum Engineering
of Stanford University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SClENCE
by
Eduardo Granados
June 1983
Stanford Geothermal Program Interdisciplinary Research in Engineering and Earth Sciences
STANFORD UNIVERSITY Stanford, California
SGP-TR-67
CALCIUM CARBONATE DEPOSITION IN GEOTHERMAL WELLBORES
MIRAVALLES GEOTHERMAL FIELD COSTA RICA
BY
Eduardo Granados
June 1983
Financial support was provided through the Stanford Geothermal Program under Department of Energy Contract
No. DE-AT-03-80SF11459 and by the Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University.
ABSTRACT
Calcium carbonate deposition takes place in the wells of
the Miravalles geothermal field in Costa Rica. Data from
three long term flow test periods performed in well PGM-1
are analyzed through different methods, especially for the
third and longest period which took place after mechanical
scale removal had been performed. For this test a
collection of chemical and thermodynamic data is used to
investigate the evolution of the well production with time.
Hotter fluids are suspected to enter the well at the end of
the test, counting for higher enthalpy values and decrease
in scale deposition rate. Remedial actions are suggested to
reduce the scale deposition rate, or to remove the deposits
formed, taken from the experience gained in different
geothermal fields in the world, dealing with the same
problem.
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to thank all the persons and institutions that in some form made possible to complete this work. Appreciation is specially expressed to Dr. Jon S. Gudmundsson and Dr. Roland N. Horne for their guidance and support in prepa- ring this report.
4 . 4 Flow Test Period 3 .................................. 11 5 . ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION MEASUREMENTS ..................... 13
6 . WORLD EXPERIENCE OF CALCIUM CARBONATE ................... 17 7 . CALCIUM CARBONATE CHEMISTRY ............................. 21
8 . CHEMICAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .......................... 25
8.1 Sampling and Analysis Methods ....................... 25 8.2 Chemical Analysis ................................... 26
9 . DEPOSITION ANALYSIS ..................................... 28 9.1 Electric Power Research Institute Program ........... 28 9.2 National Energy Authority (Iceland) Program ......... 30
9.3 Rice University Method .............................. 32 10 . FLASHING POINT .......................................... 34
enthalpy) or with downhole conditions (reservoir pressure,
temperature and enthalpy) for up to five different diameters
of the pipe.
The output of the program displays the pressure,
temperature, and fluid velocity profiles for both the single
phase and the two phase regions of the well and predicts the
depth of the flashing point for the given set of well
flowing conditions.
For our purposes, the raw data that appears in Tables 15,
17, 20 and 23 was fed into the program and the results
obtained from it as for the depth of the flashing point at
each wellhead pressure (assuming no scaling in the well),
are plotted in Fig.49.
It is difficult to believe that the flashing point will
migrate almost 1300 feet in a 6 month periodas indicated in
Fig.49. The approach followed then, was to take the
reservoir conditions for the earliest flow test performed
after the clean-up operations of the well, which corresponds
to April 29th. 1982 and assume the well completely free of
scale at this point.
The reservoir conditions for a clean well were obtained
from the program for three different wellhead pressures by
feeding it with surface data. Then, for each of the three
wellhead pressure points reservoir conditions were kept
constant as well as the flow rate in the surface but the
diameter of the well was changed.
Since the wellhead pressure during the long term test
oscillated around 10 kg/crn2 (with the orifice plate
restriction at the outlet) it seems reasonable to assume
that the flashing depth had to be between 2125 and 2075
feet. Fig.50 shows for the deliverability test (clean well
conditions) carried out on April 29th. 1982 the conditions
that were assumed to take place during the whole 6 month
test. If the flashing point is assumed to remain unchanged
(or at least within the ranges specified in Fig.501, it is
expectable that the calcite deposits will develop at that
depth too. Therefore, the conditions for the diameter of the
well as shown in Fig.51 were used to simulate the wellhead
pressure decrease that would occur by choking the well over
a lenght of 50 feet at t h e flashing point depth with calcite
deposits, while holding a constant flow at the surface for
each wellhead pressure. The three wellhead pressure points
that were chosen from the test of April 29th. 1982,
correspond t o low, intermediate and high pressure and flow
rates.
The program was run many times for each flow rate
condition, starting with the clean condition of the well and
ending where the well was not capable to sustain the flow
rate specified. Tables No.27 through 29 show the area
decrease and the corresponding wellhead pressure obtained
for the low, intermediate and high flow rate values. For the
case of the intermediate flow rate, more points were
obtained in order to observe the pressure decay point more
accurately.
In Fig.52, the simulated well performance curves obtained
through this method are shown for four different choked
diameters. Then, the next step was to plot on top of those
simulated performance curves the real ones, and in Fig.53
this situation is reproduced, for the deliverability curves
of Jun. 2nd. and June 26th. 1982 . As can be observed, the
well was able to go in August 26th. 1982 far below the last
simulated curve (which stands for the lowest flowing
conditions that was possible to maintain for the proposed
mode 1.
By repeating the same procedure to different wellbore
deposits conditions one should be able to obtain a more
accurate result. The results obtained here are shown only
with the purpose of information, but it is beyond the scope
of this work to obtain the optimum model which can be
probably done by a trial and error procedure.
-37-
Fig.54 reproduces the values of wellhead pressure versus
the choked pipe area obtained from Table 28 for intermediate
flow rates. As it is expected, the wellhead pressure decay
is almost imperceptible at the beginning and very fast at
the end, where the percent of area changes very quickly with
small changes in diameter.
11. REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The effect that well scaling will have On the future
development of the Miravalles geothermal field, Will depend
on the feasibility of solving the problem. Many methods
have been suggested to minimize and/or control the Scaling
problem (McNitt et al. 1983). The methods can be divided as
follows:
1. Periodic cleaning by the mechanical method of drilling
out the calcite
2 . Periodic or continuous suppression of scale by chemical
or CO2 gas injection
3 . Minimizing deposition of scale by operating the wells at
a relatively high wellhead pressure, thereby insuring
flashing above the casing-liner joint
4 . Minimizing scaling potential by running the same diameter
liner from production depth to the wellhead
5 . Avoiding scale by finding zones in the reservoir from
which non scaling fluids can be produced
Among those methods suggested, the mechanical cleaning,
together with running a single diameter in t h e well and a
-39-
further investigation searching for a deeper and hotter
source of the reservoir, will probably minimize the problem
during the exploitation of the field.
The inconvenience of using some of the most recently
developed methods, is that those methods have been tested
for short terms and would be applied still under a testing
basis in the Miravalles field.
Instead, a combination of mechanical cleaning and well
design improvement are techniques that have been used
elsewhere and do not involve the use of any sophisticated
methods. Increased well diameter has reduced frequency of
calcite cleaning in the Svartsengi field in Iceland
(Gudmundsson, 1983) I f carried out with good organization,
it may provide the less costly method that can be applied in
the field, especially under a combined condition of lack of
specialized equipment, manpower and spare parts.
The last option contemplated, of extending the
exploration elsewhere in the field, is strongly supported by
some of the findings of this work and the possibility of
having either an offset or deeper hotter aquifer is quite
good.
11.1 Mechanical Removal
The mechanical removal of calcite deposits seems to be
widely used in areas where the problem has appeared. Mahon
-40-
(1981) states that the use of a Failing rig to remove
calcium carbonate in the field of Kaweraw, New Zealand, is a
common practice. Similar reports from Iceland and Mexico are
known. In the field of Svartsengi (Iceland) and Cerro
Prieto, (Mexico), a more useful technique have been
developed for scale removal by rotary drilling while the
well is producing.
The two techniques that are being used are similar and
the main difference is in the place where the cooling of the
packer that seals against the drill string takes place and
the type of pipe joint used. In the Mexican method, upset
joint, 3" drill pipe is used. Two blow-out preventors are
used, and the cooled drill pipe packer and flow diverter
spool make the height of the substructure almost 30 feet.
The coolhead used in one of the methods employed in
Svartsengi and shown in and shown in Fig.57 seems to offer a
good solution for this inconvenience. Both systems have the
advantage of being able to carry out the whole operation
without exposing the well to thermal shock, either from
warming up or cooling down periods that, when done
repetitively may cause damage in the casing.
11.2 Running Liner to Wellhead
It is likely that the scaling rate can be reduced by
having a uniform diameter from the bottom to the wellhead.
In Cerro Prieto, Mexico, the use of the Hydrill, Super-Flush
-4 1-
joint in 9 5/8" diameter liner, that is cemented to the top
of the reservoir through the use of cementing ports, has
reduced greatly the silicate deposition in the wells. This
type of pipe joint, oposite to the buttress joint, is
internally continuous and leaves a smooth surface in the
joint area.
The use of the technique of cementing through portholes,
provides thus, a smooth pipe of a single diameter from the
reservoir to the wellhead. An increase in production has
also been obtained with this method as compared with the
conventional one, since the 9 5/8" diameter can carry a
bigger production with less pressure losses (Guiza, 1983).
This approach reduces the scaling rate but does not
eliminate it.
11.3 Well Location and/or Deepening
It is common that wells form scale in the wellbore when
they are located peripherically with respect to hotter
regions of a reservoir. In Miravalles, the possibility of
deepening at least one of the existing wells is worth
consideration, since the liner hanger may be still in
operable condition to be retracted.
Another possibility would be to explore with deep
gradient surveys and resistivity soundings in the less
explored zone uphill the Miravalles volcano as suggested by
-42-
McNitt et al. (1983).
The data that has been analized in this paper, strongly
supports this possibility.
12. CONCLUSIONS
1. The results obtained through the study of the
chemistry and deliverability in the second and
third flow test periods , seem to indicate a
possible evolution of the field, that suggests the
possibility of withdrawing in future from hotter
aquifers that may feed the wells after prolonged
periods of time.
2 . Such evolution is shown in this paper starting with
indications from the chemical analysis and
production measurements, and supported with
calculations from geothermometry and computer
models.
3 . Using the two phase flow simulator to reproduce the
scaling process in a cleaned well, appears
promising. The simulator can perhaps be changed to
suit deposition problems or by matching the
solutions by trial and error methods.
4 . From all the parameters analyzed in this study,
careful measurements of the production and
chemistry of the liquid and gas phases seem to be
important when using the computer codes available.
It is equally important to gather as much data as
possible under pre-planned schedules in order to
use, if possible, statistical analysis.
-44-
5 . The use of a simple and qualitative method for the
prediction of calcite precipitation is presented
and seems to work well as the more advanced methods
for the data studied.
6. Mechanical reaming of scale deposits and improved
well design have proven to be effective over long
periods of time in other parts of the world. It
appears to be a workable solution to this important
problem.
7 . Deepening of the existing wells, for investigation
purposes, or extension of the geophysical studies
searching for a hotter source, and therefore, a
less scaling environment is recommended.
1.
2.
3.
4 .
5 .
6.
7.
8.
9.
-45-
REFERENCES
Arneberg, J. E.: "Testing of Equipment for Use in Connection With Workovers in Flowing Geothermal Wells". Paper in preparation. JEA-81-01, Iceland, 1981. sk. Arnorsson, S. : "Mineral Deposits from Iceland Geothermal Waters ,Environmental and Utilization Problems". Society of Petroleum Engineers, 7890, 1979. sk. Arnorsson, S., Svavarsson, H.: "The Chemistry of Geothermal Waters in Iceland. Calculation of Aqueous Speciation from 0 to 370 C". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 46, No.9, Sep. 1982.
Ellis, A. J., Mahon, W. A. J.: "Chemistry and Geothermal Systems". Energy, Science and Engineering: Resources, Technology, Management - Academic Press. Belton, Texas, 1977.
Fournier, R. 0.: In. Ribach L:, Muffler, L. P. J.: "Geothermal Systems: Prlnciples and Case Histories". John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
Grant, M: , Donaldson, I, Bixley, P. "Geothermal Reservolr Engineering". Energy, Science and Engineering: Resources, Technology, Management. Academic Press, Belton, Texas, 1982. ,sk
Guiza, J.: Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas (IIEE), Cerro Prieto, Mexico. Personal comunication, 1983.
Instituto Costarricence de Electricidad: "Prefeasibility Report of the Miravalles Geothermal Area". Internal Paper, 1976.
10. Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad: "Drilling and Production Report for Wells PGM-1, PGM-2 and PGM-3". Internal report, 1980.
11. Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad: "Summary of Investigations and Technical Findings as of November, 1980". Internal report, 1981.
12. Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad: "Results of the Tests Carried Out in Wells PGM-1, PGM-2 and PGM-3 of the Miravalles Geothermal Project". Doc. 1006-81. Oct. 1981.
13. James, R.: "Measurement of Steam-Water Mixtures Discharging at the Speed of Sound to the AtmosDhere". New Zealand Eng. Jour., Vo1.2, Part 2, 1976
-46-
14. James, R.: "Report on Study of Miravalles Wells". Dep. of Sci. and Ind. Res., Wairakei, New Zealand, June, 1981.
15. Mahon, W. A. J.: Dep. of Sci. and Ind. Res., Wairakei, New Zealand, personal comunication, 1981.
16. McNitt, J , Klein, C, Sanyal, S.: "Interpretation of Well Testing Results with Specific Reference to the Calciting problem: Miravalles Geothermal Project, Costa Rica". GeothermEx, Inc, Berkeley, Ca., June, 1981.
17. McNitt, J., Sanyal, S., Klein, C.: "Impact of Scale Deposition on the Feasibility of Developing the Miravalles Geothermal Field, Costa Rica". GeothermEx, Inc, Berkeley, Ca., unpublished report.
18. Michaels, D. E.: "Deposition of CaC03 in Porous Materials by Flashing Geothermal Fluid". Geoth. Res. Eng. Mangmt. Prgm., LBL 10673-GREMP 9, 1980.
19. Michaels, D. E.: "C02 and Carbonate Chemistry Applied to Geothermal Engineering" LBL 11509-GREMP 15, 1981.
20. Oddo, J. , Tomson, M.: "Simplified Calculation of CaC03 Saturation at High Temperatures and Pressures in Brine Solutions". Journal of Petroleum Technology, p. 1583-1590. July, 1982.
21. Ortiz, J.: "Two Phase Flow in Geothermal Wells: Development and Uses of a Computer Code". MS Report, Stanford University, 1983.
22. Roberts, V.: "Analysis of Scale Formation in Geothermal Systems" EPRI, 1983.
23. Stiff, H. A . , Davis, L. E.: "Method for Predicting the Tendency of Oil Field Waters to Deposit Calcium Carbonate". Trans. AIME, 1952.
24. Tomson, Mason : "Inhibitor Evaluation in Geopressured Brines" Rice U. and U. of Houston Project Review, Gas Res. Inst., HOUSton, Texas, Feb., 1983.
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
5.
6.
7.
Geographical location of the Miravalles geothermal
field
Geologic and topographic map showing the
exploration technique results
PGM-1 - Well design and lithology PGM-1 - Drilling curve PGM-1 - Temperature recovery
PGM-1 - Decline index versus time for the three
long term tests
PGM-1 - Flow rate and wellhead pressure versus time for test 1
8 A . PGM-1 - Flow rate versus time for test 2
8B. PGM-1 - Wellhead pressure versus time for test 2 9 A . PGM-1 - Flow rate versus time for test 3
9B. PGM-1 - Wellhead pressure versus time for test 3
10. Equipment utilized for flow measurements
11. Surface continuous recording equipment for flow
measurements
12. Caliper logging results for wells PGM-1, PGM-2 and
PGM- 3
13. PGM-1 - Mass flow versus cummulative production for test 2
14. PGM-1 - Mass flow versus cummulative production for test 3
15. PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 4/29/82
1 6 .
1 7 .
1 8 .
1 9 .
2 0 .
2 1 .
2 2 .
2 3 .
2 4 .
2 5 .
2 6 .
27 .
28 .
2 9 .
3 0 .
31.
3 2 .
PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 5/13/82
PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 5/27/82
PGM-1 - Deliverability c'urve for test on 6/2/82
PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 6/24 /82
PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 7/8/82
PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 7/30/82
PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 8/12/82
PGM-1 - Deliverability curve for test on 8/26/82
PGM-1 - Deliverability curves for some typical
tests during test 3
PGM-1 - Flowrate versus time for 7 . 5 kg/cm2 (a)
from deliverability curves
PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 4/29/82
PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 5/13/82
PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 5/27/82
PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 6/2/82
PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 6/24/82
PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 7/8/82
PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 7/30/82
33. PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 8/12/82
34. PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for
test on 8/26/82
35. PGM-1 - Mean enthalpy values (without adjustment)
versus time
36. PGM-1 - Mean enthalpy values (adjusted) versus time 37. PGM-1 - Na concentration versus time
38. PGM-1 - K concentration versus time 39. PGM-1 - Ca concentration versus time 40. PGM-1 - C1 concentration versus time
41. PGM-1 - Si02 concentration versus time
42. PGM-1 - HC03 concentration versus time
43. PGM-1 - Na/K concentration ratio versus time
44. Calcite precipitation versus wellhead pressure for
EPRI code
45. Silica precipitation versus wellhead pressure for
EPRI code
4 6 . Calcite precipitation versus time
47. Silica precipitation versus time
48. Saturation index versus wellhead pressure for
simplified model
4 9 . Flashing depth versus wellhead pressure for four
deliverability tests during flow test 3
50. Range of wellhead pressures and flashing depth
assumed for scale simulation
51. Wellbore conditions assumed for scale simulation
52. Flow rate versus wellhead pressure from scale
simulation
53. Real and scale simulated well performance curves
54. Area versus wellhead pressure for scale simulation
55. Equipment utilized in Cerro Prieto, Mexico for
mechanical reaming with the well flowing
56. Equipment utilized in Svartsengi, Iceland for
mechanical reaming with the well flowing
57. Combined cooling chamber and flow restriction for a
12" Grant rotating head utilized in Svartsengi
field, Iceland
c
GEOGRAPHIC LDCATION MAP . h-
0.1s m
lahar ..
IY -S lB SSS a1 tered tuff
..
GEOIxxjy WELrxToCTuRE =Cemented zone
Total loss zone !
v Partial loss zone
FIGURE 3. PGM-1 - Well design and lithology
FIGURE 4 . PGK-1 - Drilling curve
1 0 0
200
300
400
E - 500 a 600
100
a 800
.*
. .
CI
0 - - 0
0,
900
1000
1100
1200
N O T A S SIM BOLOGIA
'020 TERMINADO EL DIA 28-7-79 -=-=-> 13- 8- 79 28-8-79: POZO CERRADO PARA MEDIDA
----- - - - 16-10-79 IO - 10-79
7 - 9 - 7 9 : POZO OESPUES DE PRODUCCION .-- .... .... .... 28-8-79 10-10-79: MEOIDA AL C E R R A R EL POZO -1-s-r 7-9-79
---- 15-5-80 -4-4- 28-8-79
Figure 5 Temperature Recovery
j O I B U J O 0 PLANIFICLICION U f C T R i C A
VERlFlCO PROICCTO O E O f t R I l C O (I I IAVALLL9
POZO P G M I I N Q € bnln
1 REGISTRO DE RECUPERAClON lNSTlTUTO COSTb.!?R!CENSE DE fEMPERAfURI DESPUES
'DE LA P E R F O R X I O N DE E L E C T R I C I D A D
W O V I E M C f R E , I 9 0 0 / 1 - 1 -
W >_
I- H
o
cr> CSL > a 3 \
a c +
i
E (3 Q
0 0 0 * c Q,
0 0 0 m
0 0 0 Tv
0 0 0 4
0
W D a a
C
(d/M) X3CINI 3NIl33Cl
0 0 co
0 0 d-
0
a
cr, L I
m
H
I-
0 e
0
rl
u m al U
H R
S / 9 1 ‘IWv’tl M01d SSVW
U
u-) 0
0 0 0 m
a3 m
0
I I
1 I I I I L 0 4
m
0 0 0 *
0 0 0 c3
0
c/) L I
o x
0 0 0
0 0
m U v1 aJ U
$4 0 tu
d
0 3 4 w
f
LC
w 0
0 C .d
a LC 0 u LC aJ
UI 1
3 0
c
R
I
0 4 0 u w m a 4 u U
e r J
m
0 0
- I
S/91 '331Vtl M01d SSVM
L
W 0
E 0
0
5 3
0
i 0 0 m
4
1
C 0
. c
c 0
LC a U
a aJ
c
In I -
3
L
e 0
LC 0 u
m W a
33S/93>1 ‘M01J lV101
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0- a I\ a Lo d- m m
E 0
I
. 0 c\(
W L 4
L J C
.
C 0
a al
I
u5 cn W CL
E >
LL
.
c 0
a aJ
I
m (v
33S/9>1 ‘M01A W101
i 3
0 co L
0 Lo
0 v
1 1
0 0 0 co CY
H err
S/% ‘M01i lV101
PGM-1: H VS. PRESS. :::; 950
70k 50 6ol
t-
3 0 : tr 1
PGM-1: W VRS.PRESS.
FIGURE 26 . PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for test on 4/29/82
PGM-1: H VS. PRESS.
7 0 L
5 0 F
40k 3 0 F
1
PGM-1:: W VRS,PRESS.
FIGURE27. PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for t e s t on 5/13/82
PGM-1: H VS. PRESS,
c, ld
i Q
I- z w
w cr)
-.I a + m e
1000 10501
""E .
PGM-1: W VRS.PRESS.
FIGURE 28. .PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for test on 5/27/82
c3 Y \ c, Y
i LL
t- Z W
.
PGM-1: H VS. PRESS. 1100 1 1 1 1 I I I I I l l 1 1 1 1 1 I l l 1 1 1 1 1
loool 950
. -
i
30k I
WELLHEAD PRESSURE, K G / C M 2
PGM-1: W VRS.PRESS.
FIGURE29. PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability f o r test on 6/2/82
PGM-1: H VS. PRESS.
LL J a I- m I-
- E 1050
t
loool 950 i
t
WELLHEAD PRESSURE, KG/CM2
PGM-1: W VRS.PRESS.
FIGURE^^. PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for test on 6/24/82
w m \ 0 Y
3' m LL
I- h, I-
PGM-1: H VS. PRESS.
1100
1000
950 i t
i i
PGM-1: W VRS.PRESS, .
- .
PGM-1: H VS, PRESS.
I- 1
40
30 L 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
WELLHEAD PRESSURE, K G / C M 2
PGM-1: W VRS.PRESS.
FIGURE32. PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for test on 7/30/82
PGM-1: H VS. PRESS.
z W
0 w
s 6 2
LL J U t- m I-
1100 I l l 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1
10
9
00
50
80
701 60
40k I- i
WELLHEAD PRESSURE, KG/CM2
PGM-1: W VRS,PRESS.
FIGURE 3 3 . PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for t e s t on 8/12/82
PGM-1: H VSn PRESS. 1100 I l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i rL J < I I- z w
0 w
c3 Y
0 . i
701 I-
50 t 3 0 L
WELLHEAD PRESSURE, KG/CM2
PGM-1: W VRSnPRESSn
FLGURE 34. PGM-1 - Downhole enthalpy and deliverability for t e s t on 8/26/82
0 Ln rL> d
3 0 0 d
0 0 0 (D 0.l
o 0 0 Tr rn
0 0 C
n 4J C
E" U In 3 *n CrJ a U 3 0 c 4J
3 .A
W
I
I
0 Lo 0 e
0 0 0 *
L-l n a 0 Ln a
B .A U
m m L,
2 aJ
a
n
‘I] PI U m 3 -n ‘I] ro Y
m
C 0
u C 0 u
LlJ E I- H
n + U
0 0 0 (D nJ
0 0 0 * c\1
0 0 0 C U G
0 0 (D v cv CY
0 0 r\l 0 r\l w
0 0 0 (D vi
-4 4.J
VI
VI 3
LC aJ 3
C 0
u C 0
.
F-
t 0 0
0 0 m d-
I aJ 6 .r( U
I m
Ol-4
0 0
03
u C 0 u
.
W E I- H
o
D O
-7-4 I x
(3 Q i
3" i 0
0 0
CUL C U G I
I m
Ol- 0 m
C 0
c u 0 u rl u
I
rl
I: I
2
.
i
i
I X
0 0 0
nJL c u d I
w
W
O + 0 OI
0
U F
u :- 1;
.
t-
cn" > n
U
0 0 0 rn rn
0 0 0 0 nl
0
v) c I
m
W x )---I
I-
.rl c,
C 0 .rl U
LC rg
U C aJ C u 0 u m 0 V X
I
4
r I
CJ a
.
0 0 0 a c\1
1 D
0 0 0 03 d
0 0 n
C 0
.A
L)
a c, L
e aJ u e 0 u X \
z I
CJ a
m c*
.
i.a> W
I"
Q, LC 3 m m aJ
a m c aJ rl l-i
Q, 3
c 0
e e
2 3 u H Fr(
EO-3 X 0ZH "LIE> 0001/10W 31131V3
i d- m 0
0 G 0 0 0 Q
a (0
c aJ rl rl aJ 3
C 0
ZO-3 X 0ZH "d9 OOOT:/1014 V3IlIS
.
I
I
u-)
6 d- 6
4
(5
0 0 LC1 c\1
0 0
0
0 0 ' 0 d-
0 O m m
.d
U
O F
0 QI
x I- H
LC
> Q,
C 0
.
W
l- H
0
c(> > CL u H
W E n
0 u-> d
Lo d- 6
0 d- 6
Lo cy)
6 0 c3 (3
N0IlVlIdI33tfd 10%
I
i" I I I I I I I I I I I l l 1 I I I I 0
LC 0 W
a rp
c aJ 6-l
r-i aJ 3
C O O a J
X3aNI N0IlVNllVS
c6 > 1 I- n LLJ I
t i I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 -
0
d- 4
0 4
a3
(D
W - 1-
L 3 0 y1
5 0 3
13 ‘HHld3CI 9NIHSVl.d
’I
-7
t
a Q, ‘0
. 0 m
H err
Reduced d iamete zone (2075-2125
r
KMX3 ADEKE 1205 m FOND0 #)ZO 1300m.
ACABADO
ZONA CEMENTADA
FIGURE 51. Wellbore conditions assumed for s c a l e simulation
6 0
0
LL
Q 0
U’,
>
(3
w
UJ
3 a - h 3 u al C u
E m h
ru 0
h aJ a
m aJ U
0 ln
33S/9)>1 “013 lV101
E 0
Equipment mechanical
utilized in reaming .with
Cerro Prieto, Mexico the well flowing
fo r
I I
l i /
R ~
1 ji il
/ P -- ,
/ I 1 J
I !
i
I # I I U
k T
N
le
Set up of test equipment ot well no.6 Svortsengi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Long term flow tests run at Miravalles well PGM-1
2. Chemical analysis of the particles found in the silencer of PGM-1
3. Production data for deliverability test of 4/29/82
4. production data for deliverability test of 5/13/82
5. Production data for deliverability test of 5/27/82
6. Production data for deliverability test of 6/2/82
7. Production data for deliverability test of 6/24/82
8. Production data for deliverability test of 7/8/82
9. Production data for deliverability test of 7/30/82
10. Production data for deliverability test of 8/12/82
11. Production data for deliverability test of 8/26/82
12. Downhole enthalpy calculated for deliverability tests
14. Chemical analysis of the samples taken during test periods 1, 2 and 3
15. Chemical analysis of the brine and condensate for samples taken during flow test period 3
16. Selected chemical-physical data for computer analysis for 6/02/82
17. Selected chemical-physical data for computer analysis €or 6/2/82
18. Selected chemical-physical data for computer analysis for 6/24/02
19. Selected chemical-physical data for computer analysis for 6/24/02
21. Selected chemical-physical data for computer analysis for 8/12/82
23. Selected chemical-physical data for computer analysis for 8/12/82
24. Input data for EPRI code
25. Output data for EPRI code
26. Scaling simulation results for W=260,330 lb/h
27. Scaling simulation results for W=493,258 lb/h
28. Scaling simulation results for W=593,446 lb/h
29. Data f o r Rice University method
d
h
C
bl 1
rn c cl 0
L
0 TABLE^. Chemical analysis of the particles found in the silencer of PGM-1
0.4%
0.-
00%
0-1%
0.W
0.2%
NbA.
1.2%
3.5
* e * i * * *
a 0
(* c
m n .
c m 0 .
* w R O * * * * * * * *
D
0 r. a * * *
* * 0 * I N
c r c rc,
c .
W
e c m * e .
*
15
5 . a
9
9 N
r( al a LC 0 Y(
U cp
a 0 E
.#-I .L
Y a 0 e, 0 4
h)
C 0
+ + J + e
+ +
a
OD S
0
t
* e m
0 m 9 L1
(c c
z
*** ** +* *+ *** o c o o *
* * a
(Y
\ ap
c 0 -4 U 0 3 a 0
* * 0
*** ** *
-hr
i
c 0
0 3 a 0
t r t e
n e
L oU t o t tt
t
t t w t t
t t
t
m *
* a * :
\ rD
d Q, a & 0 W
c, Q
(0 a c 0 .r( L)
iJ
a 1 0
c (Y
0
0
I- 0.
0
c
0
0 0
m
0
I- ro
0
23
c W I-
0
O
C 9
0
c.
e* ** * ** e
o m 9 7 w l -
(Y
?
e * e * *
C
c o c m c u * v e .
lr,
Q, y.
h. V.
***e**** *
*e* ** *
r , m
e ** ** .*e* * e
* aa ww
* * a * u * u e s
t . m c
n * P .
0
0 .
m
c . 0 w r )
0 0
* .
(Y
\ OD
0 m
c, 0
a 0
a 0 0
m . 0
C
10 . m
= m
m
a LC
. QI
w
* a w PI
********* * a
i i s * c
4J 0 3
t L
*. .*
* t
*
e t t , * *
(1
m m 0
t t
*
m a 0
(Y QD
w 0
LC 0 w
a c,
a a c 0
+, .r(
t 9
* G * u
* * o o o . o c o * +
* i
e *
TABLE 1 2
DOWNHOLE ENTHALPY CALCULATED FOR DELIVERABILITY TESTS
* \ co d ( u B O VI\ w a E O W x ** o w O B w * e n
m O e ( u N 0 eooo-Ln
o o o o o m . . . . . .
Q, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A n . . . . f . . . . . \ . . . . . 3 . . . . . Y . . . . . . . . . . x c u v l ~ . m V I u z o x u
o(ux(uw U e x x x s x
n 4
E \ cn r 0
E Y
m o o o o o o o o o o o o m o o N o o o - - - - a 9 o o - o o o o \ . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . m a J c 3 3 m o o m o m o a P - - o o o o o - - o
m - m 9 0 (u 0
PI- (3 rn . m m N
B \ u x
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z x (0' u m L:
m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o N 0 0 0 N - - 0 0 - 0 0 0 a 0 Q , 0 \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L n L n m * m 0 0 m - 0 0 0 N 0 m 0 PfczSln m c r ) m m o
o ~ o o o m . . . . . . m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- . e . . . J . . . . . \ . . . . . 3 . * . . .
X N V ) * O C U I N U
* d
a u a u x u w s . v s s s
Y . . . . . . . . . . 4
n 4
E \ m
c 0
E Y
m o 6 o o o o o o o o m o o o o ( u o ~ o - - o o q o o ( u o o o o \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . m o ~ N ( u o ~ - o o o o t o t o r D m O l 3 3 s * m m o
Q) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . z . . . . . \ ’ . . . . 3 . . . . * y . . . . . . . . . . x’Ntn3 * e m u Z u Z U
O W I N H
U W X x ’ S x ’ x ’
. 4 w e U
a U
f W I t-c 0 w W
m w a n a 4
4 * E U
\
n: In 0
r c E
I
W
Y
c m o o o o o o o o o o m o o o o N O o 0 ( u - N 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 \ . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . o o o ~ L n o ~ m - o o o W o m o m m m m f t e Ln a 0 e N
a0 (3 Q)
I E 0 a a a w I E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ir a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 (u u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* \ w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * a (u a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t-c b c a u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W m \ X 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * c( 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H
0 m e r . . . .b
2 e w . , .a E . . . u
0 w w b w . . . . . . . . . . . . m ~ 0 t-c b \ O . . . . . f . . . . . . o x w u uzT.rcta ~ t u t n - t o s ~ . r ( .suo t3 n a o l v ! r x o ~ a m o c u e u m ~ r ~ u
m o o o o o o o o o o m o o o o ~ o o o * - - ~ o ~ o o c u o o m o \ . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . m o o a e o * N ~ o o o ~ o - o 0 0 3 a m 3 s t m e o
IS I l E M C O l t I4 ME104 so FE<DH)t I? fC~OMI2 LO fECLt 41 fECL2 42 CECLI- 4s fL804 44 fEttt 47 FEtOMlt4 4s FE1OH)Zt 49 fE(OH)3 70 ?E(OII)4- 71 TECLtt 72 TECL2t 71 fECL3
SI02 535.00 M 1WO.00 K 233.00 CA 48,w RG 0,100 co2 42.55 so4 31.20 OS 0,00 U 3100*00 F O*OO D I S S h W I D S 0,00 AL 0.1000 B 47 ,oooo FE 0,0000 NH3 o.oOO0
BEEP MATER ~PPIO
SI02 467.36 an 1648.35 K 204 6 2 8
ffi 0,088 so4 28.23 U 2717,M f 0.00 DISSaS. O B 0 0
SI02 1500 .84 w2 I44 1766.41 H2s II 218.31 Hz ca 45.95 M IG 0,094 CHI SM 30.25 NZ CL 2912,46 NH3 F 0*00 DISSnS, 0,OO AL 0.0940 B 44,1563 FE 0.oOoQ
ACTIVITY UlEFFICIWTS In DEEP WTER Ht 0 * 741 KSM- OH- 0.655 F- HWIM- 0,665 U- H?SI04-- 0.233 Mt H303- 0,632 K t HC03- 0,665 cat t C03-- 0,212 Ntt 6- 0.655 M 0 3 t S-- 0.224 ffiHC03t HSO4- 0 t 674 CAM0 S O k - 0,200 MGWt NASM- 0.690 IM4t
DEEP STEM P m n
74.78 m 2 149)6*91 0.00 m 0.00 0,04 Hz 73.35 0,00 02 0,00 0,00 CHI 3.21 0,59 112 1214.38 0.00 )M3 0.00