Page 11 - Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach

Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach Guo-prelims Final Proof page xix 29.12.2006 10:39am

LIST OF FIGURES xix

Figure 15.3: Measured bottom-hole pressures and Figure 17.4: Concept of effective stress between
oil production rates during a pressure grains.
drawdown test. Figure 17.5: The KGD fracture geometry.
Figure 15.4: Log-log diagnostic plot of test data. Figure 17.6: The PKN fracture geometry.
Figure 15.5: Semi-log plot for vertical radial flow Figure 17.7: Relationship between fracture
analysis. conductivity and equivalent skin factor.
Figure 15.6: Square-root time plot for pseudo-linear Figure 17.8: Relationship between fracture
flow analysis. conductivity and equivalent skin factor.
Figure 15.7: Semi-log plot for horizontal pseudo- Figure 17.9: Effect of fracture closure stress on
radial flow analysis. proppant pack permeability.
Figure 15.8: Match between measured and model Figure 17.10: Iteration procedure for injection time
calculated pressure data. calculation.
Figure 15.9: Gas production due to channeling behind Figure 17.11: Calculated slurry concentration.
the casing. Figure 17.12: Bottom-hole pressure match with three-
Figure 15.10: Gas production due to preferential flow dimensional fracturing model
through high-permeability zones. PropFRAC.
Figure 15.11: Gas production due to gas coning. Figure 17.13: Four flow regimes that can occur in
Figure 15.12: Temperature and noise logs identifying hydraulically fractured reservoirs.
gas channeling behind casing. Figure 18.1: Comparison of oil well inflow
Figure 15.13: Temperature and fluid density logs performance relationship (IPR) curves
identifying a gas entry zone. before and after stimulation.
Figure 15.14: Water production due to channeling Figure 18.2: A typical tubing performance curve.
behind the casing. Figure 18.3: A typical gas lift performance curve of a
Figure 15.15: Preferential water flow through high- low-productivity well.
permeability zones. Figure 18.4: Theoretical load cycle for elastic sucker
Figure 15.16: Water production due to water coning. rods.
Figure 15.17: Prefracture and postfracture temperature Figure 18.5: Actual load cycle of a normal sucker rod.
logs identifying fracture height. Figure 18.6: Dimensional parameters of a
Figure 15.18: Spinner flowmeter log identifying a dynamometer card.
watered zone at bottom. Figure 18.7: A dynamometer card indicating
Figure 15.19: Calculated minimum flow rates with synchronous pumping speeds.
Turner et al.’s model and test flow rates. Figure 18.8: A dynamometer card indicating gas lock.
Figure 15.20: The minimum flow rates given by Guo Figure 18.9: Sketch of (a) series pipeline and
et al.’s model and the test flow rates. (b) parallel pipeline.
Figure 16.1: Typical acid response curves. Figure 18.10: Sketch of a looped pipeline.
Figure 16.2: Wormholes created by acid dissolution of Figure 18.11: Effects of looped line and pipe diameter
limestone. ratio on the increase of gas flow rate.
Figure 17.1: Schematic to show the equipment layout Figure 18.12: A typical gas lift performance curve of
in hydraulic fracturing treatments of oil a high-productivity well.
and gas wells. Figure 18.13: Schematics of two hierarchical networks.
Figure 17.2: A schematic to show the procedure of Figure 18.14: An example of a nonhierarchical
hydraulic fracturing treatments of oil network.
and gas wells.
Figure 17.3: Overburden formation of a hydrocarbon
reservoir.