youngpetro - 12th issue - summer 2014

SUM

MER

/ 2

014

SUMMER / 2014

Want to join editorial board

and create YoungPetro with us?

Become an

Ambassador

in your country!

MORE INFORMATION: www.youngpetro.org/ambassador / [email protected]



Become an

Ambassador

in your country!




Become an

Ambassador

in your country!


Call for PapersYoungPetro is waiting for your paper!

� e topics of the papers should refer to: Drilling Engineering, Reservoir Engineering, Fuels and Energy, Geology and Geophysics, Environmental Protection, Management and Economics

Papers should be sent to papers @ youngpetro.org

For more information visit youngpetro.org/papers

57

SUMMER / 2013

ISSN 2300-1259

WINTER/SPRING / 2012

ISSN 2300-1259

AUTUMN / 2012

SUMMER / 2014

3

SUMMer / 2014

3 3 Editor’s Letter 3

Dear Readers,I am delighted to introduce the first YoungPet-ro issue prepared by new editorial board. We are accustomed to changes, they are necessary. This year came time for changes in YoungPetro. With this words, I would like to say big THANK YOU to previous editor-in-chief, Michał Turek and his deputy, Jan Wypijewski for their great effort and the work which they put into YoungPetro, to de-velop the project and make it better and better with every issue. I hope that you will appreciate the new staff.

All students are due to finish the academic year, which was a time of hard work as well as taking ambitious challenges. The first half of 2014 year was full of really interesting student petroleum events, which showed the whole world the power

of young generation and put faith into the future of our industry. You can read about some of the events in this issue. I would like to draw your spe-cial attention to the article about the 5th edition of “East meets West” Congress, which took place in Krakow in April.

The following months will be also very important. This will be not only a vacation time, but also a time of summer internships. You will have a won-derful opportunity to gain a practical view of being an employee of the E&P companies and to acquire new skills which are unavailable during university classes. You will find interesting articles about the theme in the next, autumn issue of YoungPetro.

Have a great summer, definitely with YoungPetro!

4 4

Editor-in-ChiefJoanna [email protected]

Deputy Editor-in-ChiefMaciej [email protected]

ArtMarek Nogiećwww.nogiec.org

EditorsKamil IrnazarowEdyta Stopyra

Science AdvisorEwa KnapikTomasz Włodek

Proof-readersPaweł GąsiorowskiUrszula ŁyszczarzAleksandra Piotrowska

ITMichał Solarz

LogisticsRadosław Budzowski

MarketingBarbara Pach

AmbassadorsAlexander Scherff – GermanyTarun Agarwal – IndiaMostafa Ahmed – EgyptJin Ali – RussiaManjesh Banawara – CanadaRakip Belishaku – AlbaniaCamilo Andres Guerrero – ColombiaFilip Krunic – CroatiaMoshin Khan – TurkeyMehwish Khanam – PakistanViorica Sîrghii – RomaniaMichail Niarchos – GreeceRohit Pal – India

PublisherFundacja Wiertnictwo - Nafta - Gaz, Nauka i TradycjeAl. Adama Mickiewicza 30/A430 - 059 Kraków, Polandwww.nafta.agh.edu.pl

issn 2300-1259

Published by

An O�cial Publication of The Society of Petroleum Engineers Student ChapterP o l a n d • www.spe.net.pl

4

5

autumn / 2013

5

A Little Bit More about Shale GasHubert Karoń

Importance of Porosity-Permeability Relationship and Its Use in Commercial Software

Reza Kazmi, Jawad Sarmad

Methods of Predicting the Liquid Loading – ComparisonHafiz Muhammad Haleem-ud-din Farooqui, Marium Altaf

A Novel Methodology for the Construction of Homogeneous Synthetic Sandstone Cores

Hernando Buendía Lombana, Juan Carlos Lizcano Niño, Robert Eduardo Padrón García

EOR Evaluation Using Artificial Neural NetworkSteffones K, Abhishek Tyagi, Akul Narang

System which Rules South-Eastern Europe – Russian Gas Pipelines

Radosław Budzowski

Five Years of a Great Experience!Joanna Wilaszek

The Annual Student Energy Coneference 2014Filip Krunić

In the Blink of an EyeJan Wypijewski

Pages from a Diary: IndiaRohit Pal

How it works?Maciej Wawrzkowicz

10

14

23

29

35

40

45

49

51

53

56

5

6

On Stream – Latest News

Radosław Budzowski

Green oil – is it real?

In nature the process of oil formation takes millions of years and there are concerns that we consume it too quickly. Researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have discovered how to shorten the process to just a few minutes, cutting costs at the same time.

The developed technology involves pumping of a slur-ry from wet algae to a reactor where at a temperature of 350 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 3,000 psi occur processes of hydrothermal liquefaction and catalytic gas-ification.

The result is unprocessed petroleum, which can be fur-ther refined into fuel, clean water and other substances (such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) as well as gas – which can also be used to generate electricity or, af-ter being compressed, even to power cars. “Not having to dry the algae is a big win in this process, that cuts the cost a great deal,” said D. Elliott, a researcher at the PNNL.

As the calculations show, in this process about 50% to 70% of the carbon contained in the algae can be convert-ed into natural hydrocarbons.

The only downside of this new solution is the cost of creating a high-pressure and high-temperature reactor which, in the final analysis, should be returned very quickly, all the same. The new technology can enter the market soon, because the license for its use has been pur-chased by an American company Genifuel Corp., which is working on the construction of a prototype "algal-re-finery" acting on an industrial scale.

Russia began extracting oil in the Arctic

In mid-April, Russia began to extract oil from the bot-tom of the Barents Sea. It is extracted on a Prirazlomnaya platform, which is the first Arctic-class ice-resistant oil platform in the world, designed to operate in extreme weather conditions that can resist maximum ice load. It carries out all technological operations including: drilling, production, storage, preparation and loading of oil. "The start of loading of the oil produced at Prira-zlomnaya means that the entire project will exert a most encouraging influence on Russia’s presence on the ener-gy markets and will stimulate the Russian economy in general and its energy sector in particular," said Vladimir Putin, Russian President. A total of 300,000 metric tons are planned to be exported to international markets through Rotterdam port in 2014. For this purpose, a pool of oil purchases is being formed for the oil to be on sale with a price discount to Urals oil price. At first, oil will be sold through a spot scheme to oil refineries in the Netherlands, Norway and Great Britain. Gazprom Neft plans to use a storage facility in the future to optimize oil export supplies.

In September 2013, a group of Greenpeace activists protested against the opening of the platform. Activists claimed that the platform does not have adequate safe-guards in the event of an oil spill. They pointed out that any failure could lead to serious contamination of the Arctic. Russian experts had a different opinion. They argued that the device has the latest security systems. Russian border guards arrested protesting environmen-talists and the government accused them of piracy. The investigation was waived under the amnesty.

7

summer / 2014

International Student Petroleum Congress & Career Expo6th Edition, 22nd - 24th IV 2015

Krakow, AGH UST

8 8

Find us on Facebookfacebook.com/YoungPetro

9

summer / 2014

9

For online version of the magazine and news visit us at youngpetro.org

10 A Little Bit More about Shale Gas

interview | with Jacek Trojanowski

� A Little Bit More about Shale Gas

Hubert Karoń

� Jacek Trojanowski, M.Sc. – Geophysicist, for-mer Seismic Monitoring Team Leader; Polish Academy of Science.

YoungPetro: Before you became Geophysi-cist in Department of Geophysical Monitoring of Polish Academy of Science you had gradu-ated from the Faculty of Physics, Warsaw Uni-versity. When did you realize that you would be working as a Geophysicist?

Jacek Trojanowski: The first step was a de-cision to make Master’s thesis in geophysics, but in the meantime I tried different jobs, completely not related to geophysics or even physics. After graduation I got a proposal to work in the Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences which eventually turned me to become a geophysicist.

YP: Can you tell us about your first job experi-ence? Later on, what did convince you to work for Polish Academy of Science?

JT: To be honest, it was quite strange to work for a big public institution after my previous experi-ence in small private enterprises. Completely dif-ferent type of job if you know what I mean. But I got used to it.

Anyway, the job was an opportunity and chal-lenging because I was appointed to lead a team re-sponsible for establishing completely new seismic project. Additional value was a free way to develop in research.

YP: Shale gas in Poland is a very hot topic. Do you make any research connected with this topic?

Hubert Karoń 11

summer / 2014

JT: At the beginning of the excitement about shale gas in Poland, I noticed that microseismic moni-toring is conducted during the process of hydrau-lic fracturing and that there may be a room for my Institute and my team to provide seismic mon-itoring. Indeed some time later, we monitored the site of Lebien LE-2H during the first ever hy-draulic fracturing treatment conducted in Poland. Since then, I have been focusing my interest and research on microseismic monitoring, specifically on getting as much information about an event as possible from the signal of very low signal-to-noise ratio.

YP: Some people say hydraulic fracturing may be very dangerous to the environment and our health. What are the real threats that we should be concerned about?

JT: Well, it is a very delicate matter. You can’t definitely say that there is no risk at all, because you need to prove it, but environmentalists who blame hydro-fracking for every evil thing in the world should prove it too. I think that it is time for collecting evidences – scientific facts and by now I have seen more positive studies than negative ones. Of course, there are always some examples of failures or mishandling but remember that there are hundreds of thousands wells drilled in the US and Canada which were made correctly. Af-ter all, there is hardly any industrial activity which does not have any impact on environment. The task is to reduce this impact. Shale gas has changed the US industry into a competitive one and also changed a political position of the US which is not as much related to oil and gas suppliers as it used to be. I believe that there are reasonable means of control of sustainable and safe shale gas explora-tion.

YP: Should we be worried about destabiliza-tion of the natural distribution of strain in the Earth’s crust?

JT: I do not think we are able to do it. We can have influence on a very limited amount of rock which – in the worst case – can reactivate some existing natural faults but on very limited scale. I think that

a Blackpool case is one of the worst cases we can expect. Technically negligible effect but social im-pact can be large. At this point I must remark one important difference between Poland and the US. It is common in the US to inject produced water into disposal wells whereas in Poland chemical methods are rather used to utilize produced water. There are much bigger amounts of water injected into dispos-al wells than it is during hydraulic stimulation which makes much bigger potential influence of disposal wells on seismicity level than hydraulic fracturing.

YP: It is common to monitor microseismicity induced during hydraulic fracturing. What type of seismic methods are used in this process? How big are detected events?

JT: It is not as common as one could expect. The exact figures are not known, but I saw some rough assessments that a few percent of hydro-frac jobs are monitored which makes a room for further development. The problem is that seismic moni-toring is relatively expensive and not all operators are convinced to use it. The most popular way is to put a vertical seismic array in one borehole to monitor the other one where treatment is con-ducted. It gives high number of detected events because receivers are very close to events, how-ever, the cost of drilling a monitoring well rapidly rises with its depth which in Poland may reach as far as 4,000 m. What is more, result of such moni-toring suffers from poor azimuthal coverage which harms location of events and their mechanism de-termination. Another option is to monitor from the surface, but seismic signal of small events is very weak and is hidden by high amplitude sur-face noise. Typical microseismic events induced during fracking have magnitudes below 0, whereas earthquakes have magnitudes about 3, magnitudes 5 can cause some damages, 7 – serious damages, 8 – are devastating. The largest earthquake ever had magnitude 9.5 (Chile, 1960). In terms of the released energy, a difference of two magnitude degrees is 1,000 difference in energy. The smallest events recorded downhole release seismic energy as small as a rock sample crack in a lab. To retrieve very weak signal recorded on the surface it is nec-essary to use thousands of receivers and migra-

12 A Little Bit More about Shale Gas

tion methods known from seismic imaging. After stacking many traces some events become visible. Using surface measurements you can better re-solve source mechanism and – in this way – sup-plement information about processes occurring during hydro-fracturing. Different mechanisms may indicate different fracture systems or show natural faults reactivation.

Both information are important for a job being conducted and for planning next jobs.

YP: Could you compare this events with other earthquakes caused by human activity (e.g. coal mining)?

JT: The scale of induced seismicity depends on local stress and rock’s type. In Poland, induced seismicity is relatively high and many Upper Sile-sia residents know the feeling of seismic tremors. Even bigger events are induced in Legnicko-Glo-gowski Copper Mine Region, Lower Silesia, Po-land where some of the events are comparable with small earthquakes. Is that a reason to stop exploration? No. If you do not believe, just ask people whether to close all mines in their region or not. I can foresee the results. There should be defined rules to compensate any losses related to mining activity, but it is a public interest to keep exploration. In comparison to seismicity induced by mines events induced by hydraulic fractur-ing are very small and hardly ever can be felt. It is a pity that during first attempts in Europe one relatively large event was induced in Blackpool, England in 2011.

It was strong enough to be felt and it was new ex-perience for British people because there is very small induced seismicity and natural seismicity is small too. This accident was caused by pumping water into preexisting natural fault with accumu-lated stress. Probably operator could have pre-vented this event form appearing by conducting microseismic monitoring and appropriate safety procedures. It is a lesson for the future at the cost of two-year-long brake in developments in the whole Britain and much worse atmosphere about shale gas in Europe than it could be. Much bigger

seismic hazard is related to geothermal sites where much bigger amounts of water are pumped into the ground, which influences natural equilibrium much more than smaller amounts of water used during hydraulic fracturing. What’s more, some geothermal sites are hydraulically stimulated too, but there are no eco-activists requesting of their shutdown. Don’t you see any contradiction?

YP: Optimists pin their hope on Polish shale, but at the same time there are protests against hydraulic fracturing. What do you think about the future of Polish gas industry? Is it possible for Poland to become natural gas exporter?

JT: Moods have been changing from the euphoria, as at the beginning, to gloom after retreating some big companies from Poland but the future remains unknown as unknown are our shale gas resources. Time will tell.

YP: Have you seen movies “Gasland” and “Fracknation”? What is your opinion about them?

JT: Yes, of course, I am really disappointed with high popularity of “Gasland”. I do not understand how fiction can be called a document. Those who like its point that it is an artistic point of view on a very important problem and doesn’t need to be strict. Yes, but why they call it a document? Josh Fox, an author of “Gasland”, is an eco-activist, who strongly believes in what he does which, in his opinion, justifies any means he undertakes, even lying. “Fracknation” is a natural response to “Gas-land”. The author engages on the other side and is tracking Fox’s lies.

The only good thing of the whole mess done by “Gasland” is that Oil & Gas companies put more attention to environment and dialog with local so-cieties. Since the problem started to be discussed in public, many efforts, at both sides, are made to ensure everybody that fracking is OK or nasty (de-pendently on the side engaged).

I hope that this public discussion will reveal facts and reduce prejudices.

Hubert Karoń 13

summer / 2014

YP: What do you think is the key to success? Do you have any advice for our readers how to survive and not freak out in the Petroleum In-dustry?

JT: I think that we need a lot of patience to ex-plain everything and to make people trust in this new technology.

The second most important thing is transparen-cy of technical details, especially those related to common concerns like composition of fractur-ing fluids or ways of production water utilization. Any hidden fact will be used by opponents. It is not only a matter of the industry but also poli-ticians, journalists and scientists to hold discus-

sion based on facts. I hope that people will get used to this new technology.

YP: What are your plans for the future?

JT: In the near future I want to finish my Ph.D. on microseismicity and then I want to continue my research in this very interesting and quickly devel-oping field. Hopefully, with a good cooperation with the industry which should understand that research is a key do develop in new fields.

YP: Thank you very much for the conversation and we wish you more successes.

JT: Thank you very much.

14 Importance of Porosity-Permeability Relationship and Its Use in Commercial Software

· Importance of Porosity-Permeability Relationship

and Its Use in Commercial Software

Reza Kazmi, Jawad Sarmad

�Porosity and permeability are considered to be very import ant parameters for petro-physical evaluation of sedimentary rocks. Porosity is the formations’ ability to store the hydrocarbons, while permeability is the rocks’ ability to con-duit the fluid. Porosity and permeability can be measured experimentally or calculated using es-tablished empirical correlations in the absence of the core data. Experimental data for porosity and permeability from the exploratory well of XYZ field; will be used to develop a correlation between porosity and permeability of XYZ field. The developed correlation can be used to calcu-late permeability by using log – porosity values at different depths during the fields’ develop-ment to cut down the coring expenses. Moreo-ver, more prominent objective will be achieved by knowing that relationship existing either in consolidated/unconsolidated sandstone or in both. The results of porosity – permeability correlation will be used in commercial software ‘SENDRA’ to get the capillary pressure and rel-ative permeability data which mark the utiliza-tion of correlation.

Introduction�During the formation evaluation, the most im-portant properties taking under the consideration are its porosity and permeability. Porosity governs the storage capacity and permeability deals with the transmission of fluids through porous medium [3]. Porosity can be measured through core sam-ples in the laboratory and well logs at the field but permeability determination near well bore is usu-ally done with the help of coring and other tech-niques. These properties are significant for res-

ervoir effectiveness evaluation and development program formation [19]. A highly porous rock, which has enough void volume to store hydrocar-bons but does not have large pore throat sizes that could accommodate an easy fluid flow is never ex-ploited. This shows that porosity and permeability relationship may not always be linear. Generally, in consolidated sandstones logarithm of permea-bility is often directly proportional to the poros-ity, whereas in sands, when grain sizes increases, permeability might increase with a decrease in porosity [14]. Thus, their significance demands on accurate determination of these parameters for better prediction of the reservoir potential. A strong relationship thus exists between these two rock properties which may vary depending on different conditions, which different reservoirs are subjected. Coring is considered to be an expensive job during rock evaluation do getting core samples from every development well is not practically fea-sible. This is why, numbers of models are utilized for predicting permeability based on different rock characteristics such as grain size, pore ge-ometry, surface area, porosity etc. Other than this models that directly using well log measurements is also used for this. [14].

Pores of the reservoirs are generally not only filled with one type of fluid. Thus, due to this presence of different immiscible fluids, they exert a capil-lary pressure on their interface depending upon

*Univ. of Engineering and Technology Lahore

Þ Pakistan

[email protected]

[email protected]

* University Þ Country E-mail

Reza Kazmi, Jawad Sarmad 15

summer / 2014

type of fluid, pore geometry, and the movement ability of different fluids is interdependent upon each others’ saturation and wetting or non-wetting characteristic. This is known as a relative permea-bility [5,8].

Methodology�The following methodology is proposed to ac-complish objectives after getting data.

The procedure adopted by company on the entire data pertaining to work was collected from XYZ field. This data comes from a core plug which is 2 ½ inch thick and 26.52 m long from an explor-

atory well at depth from 3,331.84 m to 3,358.36 m. The retrieved core was divided into 56 small cores for experimental measurements of porosity, per-meability and capillary pressure. For this, experi-mental results of porosity and permeability were obtained from an exploratory well of XYZ field. These values were plotted on x-y plane to draw a graph between them and develop correlation. This correlation enables to calculate permeabil-ity values through this developed correlation by inserting log porosity values instead of carrying out further experiments for each developing well. Using ø-k data, the power trend correlation was developed which has been checked to calculate “k” by using porosity of core plug. The calculated porosity and permeability were averaged using

0.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

Perm

eabi

lity,

mD

Porosity, %

�Fig. 1 – Porosity Permeability Relationship in Sandstone


the formulas as mentioned in Appendix B. Also by utilizing capillary pressure data and end points data of gas – water system were used to generate pc and kr curves using LET and Burdine correlations available in SENDRA and results were simulated.

Result Analysis�In this section, experimental values of porosity and permeability were used to develop a mathe-matical model. Experimental value of average po-rosity was used to calculate permeability from the developed equation for validation of results. In the last part of this paper, capillary pressure and rela-tive permeability curves were generated through commercial software SENDRA by using average porosity and permeability values from experimen-tal data along with data requires in the software.

Input data�The necessary experimental data used to exe-cute the experimentation at XYZ company as can be seen in the Table 1:

Sr No. Parameters Value

1 Thickness (m) 26.52

2 Avg. Porosity (%) 11.3

3 Avg. Permeability (mD) 20.28

4 Density of gas (g/cm3) 0.5

5 Viscosity of gas (cP) 0.020

6 Density of water (g/cm3) 1.2

7 Viscosity of water (cP) 0.36

8 Irreducible water saturation (%) 10

9 Initial water saturation (%) 10

10 Initial gas saturation (%) 0

11 Residual gas saturation (%) 15

12 Pore size distribution index (–) 5

13 Displacement pressure (psi) 10

14 Immobile oil saturation (%) 15

From these scattered points it can be inferred that relationship between two parameters is support-ing unconsolidated behavior as log-log graph of porosity and permeability is mostly a straight line for consolidated rock type. Actually, it is the cement and other digenetic materials inside the pores and pore throats that reduce the permeabili-ty as well as porosity of rocks. This does not mean that such materials will always decrease porosity too, along with permeability which is clear from the above figure, because points show samples having very high porosity but are at least perme-able as can been seen in Fig. 1. The power trend was generated on scattered data points. This shows that porosity and permeability might not always have a linear relationship.

Y = 0.00017 X4.031

Average porosity value of 11.26% is used in it, which gives the approximate permeability value nearby to the actual permeability. Porosity and permeability relationship on log scale covers the entire range of our experimental observations shown in Fig. 1.

Capillary pressure and relative permeability curves are also important in reservoir evaluation. These are obtained through experimentation on core samples. There are a certain built in corre-lations in SENDRA that are utilized in generating capillary pressure and relative permeability curves so averaged porosity and permeability values in SENDRA used to generate the capillary pressure using LET correlation and relative permeability curves using LET and Burdine correlations.

The process in which a non-wetting phase initially displaces the wetting phase is known as primary drainage as in Fig. 2, which shows that by increas-ing the pressure of non-wetting phase the satura-tion of wetting phase decreases. But there will be a point up to which non-wetting phase will contin-ue to displace the wetting phase after which even after increasing capillary pressure the saturation would remain same. This is the connate water sat-


summer / 2014

uration that is immobile and will not be able to flow no matter how greater the pressure might be applied.

LET primary drainage correlation was used for primary drainage capillary pressure curve. It in-cludes a well define threshold pressure if required as shown in Fig. 3. Relative permeability depends upon the saturation as well as wetting character-istics of the rock. The LET correlation behaves rather flexible, smooth, and physical shaped curve of the relative permeability curves [21]. It can be observed that initial water saturation is approxi-mately 10% and residual gas saturation is around 10%. This is because wetting phase occupies the smallest pores in the rock and thus finds it difficult to flow. Wetting phase requires a greater saturation to flow than non-wetting phase as it begins to flow at relatively lower saturation.

Fig. 4 shows the reverse process of drainage in which wetting phase displaces the non-wetting phase. The imbibition curve does not follow ex-actly the same path as that of drainage curve. This is because as we change the saturation the relative permeability is changing and thus never remain the same to previous values. The corre-lation is symmetrical with the respect to the two fluids as neither of them dominates the wettability. The strength of the LET-correlations for capillary pressure is that the saturation where the capillary pressure intersects the saturation axis and that the maximum and minimum capillary pressure can be set, and fixed.

Relative permeability depends upon saturation as well as wetting characteristics of the rock. It can be observed that initial water saturation is approximately 10% and residual gas saturation is

�Fig. 2 – Primary Drainage Curve from LET Correlation


around 15%. This is because wetting phase occu-pies the smallest pores in the rock and thus finds it difficult to flow. Wetting phase requires a great-er saturation to flow than non-wetting phase as it begins to flow at relatively lower saturation as can be seen in Fig. 5.

The process in which a non-wetting phase initially displaces the wetting phase is known as a prima-ry drainage as in Fig. 2. The graph shows that by increasing the pressure of non-wetting phase the saturation of wetting phase decreases. But there will be a point up to which non-wetting phase will continue to displace the wetting phase after which even after increasing capillary pressure the satura-tion would remain the same. This is the connate water saturation that is immobile and will not be

able to flow, no matter how greater the pressure might be applied. LET primary drainage corre-lation was used for primary drainage capillary pressure curve. It includes a well define threshold pressure if required.

Fig. 4 shows the reverse process of drainage in which wetting phase displaces the non-wetting phase. The imbibition curve does not follow ex-actly the same path as that of drainage curve. This is because as we change the saturation the relative permeability is changing and thus never remain the same to previous values. The correla-tion is symmetrical with respect to the two flu-ids as neither of them dominates the wettability. The strength of the LET-correlations for capillary pressure is that the saturation where the capillary

�Fig. 3 – Drainage Relative Permeability Curve from LET Correlation


summer / 2014

�Fig. 4 – Imbibition Capillary Pressure Curve from LET Correlation

�Fig. 5 – Imbibition Relative Permeability Curve from BURDINE


�Fig. 6 – Matching of Experimental and Simulate Results

�Fig. 7 – Simulate Results of Experimental Gas Production


summer / 2014

pressure intersects the saturation axis and that the maximum and minimum capillary pressure can be set, and fixed. It can be observed that initial water saturation is approximately 10% and residual gas saturation is around 10%. This is because wetting phase occupies the smallest pores in the rock and thus finds it difficult to flow. Wetting phase re-quires a greater saturation to flow than non-wet-ting phase as it begins to flow at relatively lower saturation.

Fig. 6–7 show experimental results of gas produc-tion, water injection which were simulated using the software, it shows very satisfactory results.

Conclusion È In consolidated formation, log-log plot be-

tween porosity and permeability is mostly a straight trend

È The developed correlation has limitation of porosity and permeability up to maximum value of 30% and 247 mD respectively

È Developed correlation gives satisfactory re-sult for average value of permeability by using average porosity but not for scattered points

È The use of porosity and permeability are a necessary input to simulate the experimental output.

RecommendationIn the future, this study can be extended by using different correlations of capillary pressure and rel-ative permeability, then by simulating the experi-mental injection production rate to find out which one fits better.

AppendixAverage Porosity

∑∑×( )( )fi hi

hi

Average Permeability

∑∑×( )( )

ki hi

hi

LET Drainage – Capillary

Ppcow Ptpcow Swx LpowSwx Lpow EpowSTpowwx

Ftp P

−( ) −( )−( ) +

−

−−( )

11

1 ttpcowSLtowwxSLtowwx Etow Swx Ttow

pcowtp

+ −( )+

1

LET Imbibition – Capillary

LET Imbibition – Rel

kk Sw

SwE Swrw

rw

Lw

Lw w

Tw=

( )( )

+ −( )0

1*

*

*

Burdine – Rel

k k Srw rw w= ( ) +0 2 3* /

k k S Srg rg w w= −( ) − −( )( ) +0 2 21 1 1* * /

SSw Swi

Swi Sorw* =

−− −1

Nomenclatureϕ – porosityh – thicknesskrw – relative permeability of waterS*

w – effective water saturationl – pore size distributionkro – relative permeability of oilk0

ro – relative permeability of oil at 0% saturation


References1. Ahmed, S. (2012). Impact of Pore Geometry Aspects on Porosity Permeability Relationships-A critical

review to evaluate NMR permeability. SPE paper No. 150887, North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt. February 20–22, 2012.

2. Ahmed, T. (3rd ed.). (2006). 3rd Edition Reservoir Engineering Handbook.3. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M., & Whiting, R.L. (1960). Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. New York, NY:

McGraw Hill Publ. co.4. Archie, G.E. (1950). Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks. Bulletin of the American Associ-

ates of Petroleum Geologists, 34(5), 943–961.5. Average porosity. Oil Zone Tools. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from http://www.oilzonetools.com/

average_porosity.html6. Berg, R.R. (1970). Method for Determining Permeability from Reservoir Rock Properties. Transac-

tions. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 20.7. Choho, T., & Pelce., V. (1989). A new method for Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Curve

Matching for Gas/Water Flow. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX. October 8–11, 1989.

8. Darcy, J.M. (2010). Core Tests for Relative Permeability of Unconventional Gas Reservoirs. SPE Annu-al Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy. September 19–22, 2010.

9. Evans, C.E., & Guerrero, E.T. (1979). Theory and Application of Capillary Pressure. SPWLA 20th An-nual Logging Symposium, Tulsa, OK. June 3–6, 1979.

10. Fuchtbauer, H. (1967). Influence of Different types of Digenesis on Sandstone Porosity. 7th World Pe-troleum Congress, Mexico City, Mexico. April 2–9, 1967.

11. Gang, T., & Kelkar, M.G. (2007). A More General Capillary Pressure Curve and Its Estimation from Production data. Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, CO. April 16–18, 2007.

12. Jiang-ming, D. (2013). Estimation of Porosity and Permeability from Conventional Logs in Tight Sand-stone Reservoirs of North Ordos Basin. SPE paper No. 163953. SPE Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman. January 28–30, 2013.

13. Katz., A.J., & Thompson, A.H. (1986). Quantitative Prediction of Permeability in Porous Rock. Physi-cal Review B 34(11), 8179–8181.

14. Nelson, P.H. (1994). Permeability-Porosity Relationships in Sandstones. US Geological Survey, Den-ver, CO.

15. Paper, H., Clauser, Ch., & Iffland, J. (1998). Permeability Prediction for Reservoir Sandstones and basement rocks based on fractal pore space geometry. 1998 SEG Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. September 13–18, 1998.

16. Pittman, E.D. (1992). Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to various parameters derived from mercury injection Capillary Pressure Curves of Sandstones. AAPG Bulletin, 76. 191–198.

17. Schlumberger. (1988). Probing for Permeability: An Introduction to Measurements. The Technical Review.

18. Schneider, J.H. Ne Least square model used for development of Permeability-Porosity Correlation.19. Tiab, D., & Donaldson, E.C. Theory and Practice of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport

Properties.20. Timur, A. (1968). An Investigation of Permeability Porosity, and Residual Water Saturation Relation-

ships. The Log Analyst, 9(04).21. Wetherford International. Manual of Sendra Software. 20B.

Hafiz Muhammad Haleem-ud-din Farooqui, Marium Altaf 23

summer / 2014

· Methods of Predicting the Liquid

Loading – Comparison

Hafiz Muhammad Haleem-ud-din Farooqui, Marium Altaf

Abstract� Liquid loading is a common issue in gas well.

Better predictions of liquid loading will help operators in terms of economics and revenue.

�The Turner et al. (1969) entrained-droplet model (or Turner’s model) is the most common method used to predict liquid loading in gas wells. However, there were still quite a few wells that could not be covered even after 20% upward ad-justment (Turner et al. 1969). Field practice also proves that sometimes the adjusted model still un-derestimates liquid loading.

D S Zhou presents a new empirical model to over-come this issue. According to the new model, crit-ical gas velocity is not of a single value; it varries

with the liquid holdup in the gas well once the holdup exceeds the threshold value.

Previous models for liquid loading are not de-pendent on the amount of liquid in a gas stream. When gas velocity is higher than calculated criti-cal velocity, no liquid loading exists. Zhou points out that, in addition to gas velocity, liquid amount (liquid holdup) in a gas stream is also a major fac-tor for liquid loading. There is a threshold value for liquid amount in a gas/liquid mixture. Above this value, liquid loading may appear even when the

Well intervention

Production Time

Gas R

ate

Natural Decline

Production impairmentLiquid Loading

Restoring Production

�Fig. 1 – Decrease in Production rate due to loading

*NED Univ. of Engineering & Technology

Þ Pakistan

[email protected]


24 Methods of Predicting the Liquid Loading – Comparison

gas velocity of a well is higher than the critical ve-locity from Turner’s droplet model. The presented model is the first model to include the amount of liquids in the calculation of gas critical velocity.

A comparison of Turner’s model and Zhou’s mod-el is presented in this paper. The prediction results from the new model are better than those from Turner’s model. The new model is simple and can be used easily to predict liquid loading in gas wells.

Introduction�One of the most serious problems that a gas well can face during its life cycle is Liquid load-ing. The gas stream, sometimes, may not carry the liquids to the surface and it will accumulate at the well bottom during production. This process of liquid accumulation in a gas well is called liquid loading. As a result of liquids accumulation, the flowing bottom-hole pressure will increase, and the gas-production rate reduces because water sat-uration around a wellbore increased which reduc-es the effective gas permeability near the wellbore. Decrease in production rate makes the loading problem worse, and eventually the loaded liquids will kill the gas well. Fig. 1 illustrates how the liquid

loading can drastically decrease the well rate until a proper well intervention is implemented.

This phenomenon of liquid loading is usually as-sociated with the late life of a gas well as reservoir pressure depletes and controls the well abandon-ment. For high-liquid/gas-ratio wells, such as in tight gas formations, liquid loading may occur in early production life from poor well planning and completion. These liquids may be free water, con-dense water and/or condensate. Liquid loading mainly occurs in low energy formations (with low reservoir pressure) and in tight gas regions. This problem can also occur in moderate to high per-meability reservoirs with a high condensate to gas ratio (CGR). For high-liquid/gas-ratio wells, such as in tight gas formations, liquid loading may oc-cur in early production life from poor well plan-ning and completion. These liquids may be free water, condense water and/or condensate.

Signs of Liquid Loading

Liquid loading is not easily identified. Even when a well is liquid loaded, it may continue to produce for a long time. It follows that if liquid loading is recognized and reduced at an early stage, higher producing rates can be achieved and maintained.

Mist Flow Slug Flow

GasFlow

Decreasing Gas Velocity

Mist SlugAnnular Bubble

�Fig. 2 – Flow Regime at different condition in a gas well


summer / 2014

Symptoms indicating liquid loading include the following:

È Pressure Gradient: Pressure surveys reveal a heavier gradient.

È Variance from the Decline Curve: Typical-ly gas wells will follow an exponential-type curve decline; however, liquid loading gener-ally leads to a deviation from the curve with a lower than predicted production rate.

È Liquid Slugging: Liquid production does not arrive to the surface in a steady continuous flow, but instead in slugs of fluid. This is read-ily observed through production monitoring.

Two-phase-flow pattern can also be used to de-scribe the liquid loading phenomenon. The tran-sition from a gas producing well to a liquid-loaded well is accompanied by the transition from an an-nular-flow regime to the regime of slug or churn flow. Flow regime refers to the geometrical con-figuration of gas and liquid phases. As described by Lea et al. (2003), several flow regimes – annu-lar-mist flow, slug/annular-transition flow, slug flow, and bubble flow – may appear in a gas well through its life cycle.

As shown in Fig. 2, the flow regime that is desir-able in gas wells is the “mist flow,” where there is a continuous gas phase with evenly dispersed liquid droplets. When a gas well flows below the critical gas flow rate, the flow regime changes to “slug flow,” where the liquid starts accumulating in the wellbore.

Turner's Method�Turner et al. (1969) was the first to analyze and predict the minimum gas flow rate to prevent the liquid loading .The Turner et al. entrained drop movement model was derived on the basis of the terminal-free settling velocity of liquid drops and the maximum drop diameter corresponding to the critical Weber number of 30. According to Turner et al. (1969), gas will continuously remove liquids from the well until its velocity drops to below the terminal velocity. The minimum gas flow rate for a particular set of conditions (pressure and con-duit geometry) can be calculated using a mathe-matical model.

Turner et al. (1969) concluded that wellhead con-ditions were the controlling factors for liquid load-ing and suggested evaluating the critical velocity at the wellhead. The major advantage of using well-head conditions is to simplify calculations to ob-tain the pressures and temperatures along tubings. However, it was pointed out that the controlling condition for Turner’s model is at bottom-hole, and the evaluation of critical velocity should be made at bottom conditions, especially when there is a larger-diameter segment above well’s perfora-tion (Coleman et al. 1991; Lea et al. 2003).

Guo's Method�Guo's method refers to the method present-ed by Guo, Ghalambor, and Xu (2006) Starting

�Fig. 3 – Encountering two liquid droplets in turbulent gas stream �Fig. 4 – Liquid loading when threshold value exceeds


from Turner et al.'s entrained drop model, Guo et al. (2006) determined the minimum kinet-ic energy of gas that is required to lift liquids. A four-phase (gas, oil, water, and solid particles) mist-flow model was developed. Applying the minimum kinetic energy criteria to the four-phase flow model resulted in a closed form ana-lytical equation for predicting the minimum gas flow rate. Through case studies Guo et al. (2006) demonstrated that Guo's method is more con-servative and accurate.

Zhou Model�Two mechanisms have been proposed for pre-dicting liquid loading in gas wells: entrained-liq-uid-droplet model and liquid-film model. As con-cluded by Turner et al. (1969), the liquid-droplet model represents the liquid-loading problem, but the liquid-film model does not.

Turner’s entrained-liquid-droplet model is based on the force balance on a single droplet (as shown in Fig. 2) and does not include the encounter ef-fect. For low liquid-droplet concentration, the chance of encounters is low and Turner’s model works well. However, when the liquid concen-tration reaches a certain value, the encounter co-alescing falling process of liquid droplets in a gas stream will dominate the entrained-liquid-droplet movement, and hence Turner’s single liquid-drop-let model losses its function, even with gas-stream flows faster than critical velocity.

If there are more liquid droplets in the gas stream, the chance of the process of liquid-droplet encoun-tering, coalescing, falling, and shattering increases. As the number of liquid droplets in a gas stream, called liquid-droplet concentration here, increases to a threshold value β, the process of droplets en-countering, coalescing, falling, and shattering will continue and bring those liquid droplets down to the well bottom. (as shown in Fig. 4)

Liquid holdup can be used to represent the liquid droplet concentration in a gas well. Liquid holdup is defined as

Hv

v vlsl

sg sl

=+

[ ]1

Liquid-droplet concentration is the control factor in droplet encounters. The higher the concentra-tion of liquid droplets in a turbulent gas stream, the greater the chance that the droplets will com-bine and fall. The concentration of liquid droplets in a gas stream may be the third mechanism con-tributing to liquid loading, in addition to the liq-uid-film mechanism and Turner’s liquid-droplet mechanism.

Critical Velocities for a Gas Well

There is a threshold value of liquid-droplet con-centration, β, below it, the entrained-liquid drop-lets do not encounter, or they do encounter co-alesce fall shatter, but still are brought out of the well by the gas stream before they accumulate at bottom-hole. Turner’s model can be used in this situation. But above the threshold concentration value, the gas velocity should be higher to provide higher drag force and to bring bigger droplets at surface. Higher gas velocity has also prevents bigger-liquid-droplet formation and shatters big-ger droplets faster. Therefore, the critical velocity for liquid loading is not a single value. It varies with the liquid-droplet concentration (amount of liquid) in a gas stream once the concentration exceeds the threshold value, According to the liquid-droplet-concentration mechanism; Zhou et al. (2010) propose an empirical correlation to estimate the critical velocities for gas-well liquid loading as

For Hl ≤ β

v vcrit N crit Tl g

g

− −= =−

1 593 21

4

12

.[ ( )]

[ ]σ ρ ρ

ρ

For Hl >β

v vH

crit N crit Tl

− −= + +ln [ ]βα 3

The new model is composed of two parts. When liquid holdup is lower than or equal to the thresh-


summer / 2014

Well H

ead P

ressu

reQ TE

STQ CR

IT-T

v sgwh

v CRIT-

Tv slw

hHl

v CRIT-

NQ CR

IT-N

Pred

iction

By

Turn

ers

Pred

iction

by ne

w

mode

l Te

st Sta

tus

(psi)

(Mscf

/D)

(Mscf

/D)

(ft/s

ec)

(ft/s

ec)

(ft/s

ec)

(ft/s

ec)

(Mscf

/D)

725

775

779

5.62

5.65

0.009

0.002

5.65

779

Load

ed UP

Load

ed UP

Load

ed Up

400

417

583

8.21

11.48

0.022

0.003

11.48

583

Load

ed UP

Load

ed UP

Load

ed Up

540

712

661

10.39

9.64

0.045

0.004

9.64

661

Unloa

ded

Unloa

ded

Load

ed Up

3607

1525

1156

3.33

2.52

0.171

0.049

4.23

1935

Unloa

ded

Load

ed UP

Load

e d Up

3340

2611

2412

2.74

2.53

0.455

0.142

5.23

4985

Unloa

ded

Load

ed UP

Load

ed Up

3540

1814

1635

2.72.43

0.412

0.132

5.06

3403

Unloa

ded

Load

ed UP

Load

ed Up

1895

1797

875

7.47

3.64

0.291

0.038

5.11

1229

Unloa

ded

Unloa

ded

Unloa

ded

1861

2502

859

10.59

3.64

0.405

0.037

5.09

1203

Unloa

ded

Unloa

ded

Unloa

ded

760

1247

1148

8.63

7.95

0.227

0.026

9.11315

Unloa

ded

Load

ed UP

Load

ed Up

1102

1356

1419

6.47

6.77

0.135

0.02

7.75

1623

Load

ed UP

Load

ed UP

Load

ed Up

500

800

1726

4.65

10.04

0.004

0.001

10.04

1726

Load

ed UP

Load

ed UP

Load

ed Up

�Ta

ble 1

– Com

paris

on of

Turne

r’s m

odel

and Z

hou’m

odel

Well H

ead P

ressu

reTu

bing I

DQ TE

STQ CR

IT-T

v CRIT-

Tv CR

IT-N

Q CRIT-

NPr

edict

ion by

new

mode

l Sta

tus (B

ased

on

Softw

are c

alcula

tion)

(psi)

(inch

es)

(Mscf

/D)

(Mscf

/D)

(ft/s

ec)

(ft/s

ec)

(Mscf

/D)

2000

2.441

9880

8910

23.43909

26.06357

9907

.653

Load

edLo

aded

1000

2.441

19375

11230

59.0844

59.0844

11230

Unloa

ded

Unloa

ded

1000

1.955

11502

1123

.39.213632

9.213632

1123

.3Un

loade

dLo

aded

700

1.755

8985

1123

.2316

.33221

17.49277

1203

.046

Unloa

ded

Load

ed

700

3.958

16023

9050

.0625

.87203

27.29909

9549

.247

Unloa

ded

Unloa

ded

�Ta

ble 2

– App

licati

on of

Zhou

mod

el to

synthe

tic da

ta


old value, the critical-velocity model is the same as Turner’s model. When liquid holdup is greater than the threshold value, the critical velocity var-ies with the liquid holdup and can be calculated from the new model. The critical-rate correlation for the new model is the same as that by Turner et al. (1969), which is given by

qpv ATzcrit N

crit N−

−=3060

4[ ]

Application of Zhou Model (new Model)�The data from Turner et al. (1969) were used to evaluate the Zhou model parameters. Table 1 shows some of the calculation and comparison between results of the two models. The calculated results are the same for both Turner’s and Zhou model when the liquid droplet concentration is below the threshold value. But when this liquid droplet concentration value exceeds the threshold value, the results from Turner’s model are not re-liable and the Zhou’s liquid droplet concentration model found its application. The parameters α =0.6 and β=0.01 in the concentration model give an adequate estimation to Turner et al data.

The data from a commercial software package is also used to compare the results of the two mod-els.

The results are shown in Table 2.

Conclusion�The model proposed by Zhou et al (2010) can be divided into two parts on the basis of a thresh-old value of liquid holdup. When the liquid drop-let concentration is below the threshold value, the model is same as the Turner’s model. Above the threshold value, critical velocity increases with the increase of liquid hold up and which can be pre-dicted by the new model. The model is simple and easy to use and covers more number of wells than Turner’s model.

NomenclatureA – flow cross-sectional area of a conduit, ft2

Bg – gas formation volume factorBgwh – gas formation volume factor at wellheadBw – water formation volume factordcsgID – casing inside diameter, in2

dtbgID – tubing inside diameter, in2

dtbgOD – tubing outside diameter, in2

T – temperature, ˚FHl – liquid holdup at wellheadp – wellhead pressure, psiQc – condensate rate, B/DQcrit-N – gas critical rate from the new ( Zhou)

model in this paper, Mscf/DQcrit-T – gas critical rate from Turner’s model,

Mscf/DQg – producing gas rate, Mscf/DQl – liquid rate, B/DQ-test – gas-test rate, Mscf/DT – temperature, °Rvcrit – critical speed, ft/secvcrit-N – critical speed from the new model in this

paper, ft/svcrit-T – critical speed from Turner’s model, ft/secvg – producing-gas velocity, ft/svsg – gas superfcial velocity, ft/svsl – liquid superficial velocity, ft/svsgwh – gas superficial velocity at wellhead, ft/svslwh – liquid superficial velocity at wellhead,

ft/syc – condensate yield, bbl/MMscfyw – water yield, bbl/MMscfz – gas z factorα – parameter in new model, 0.6 or 0β – the threshold value of liquid droplet con-

centration, 0.01 for petroleum gas wellsρg – gas density, lbm/ft3

ρl – liquid density, lbm/ft3

σ – interfacial tension, dynes/cm

AcknowledgmentsAuthors would like to thank their colleagues and friends for their support and help during prepara-tion of this paper.

Hernando Buendía Lombana, Juan Carlos Lizcano Niño, Robert Eduardo Padrón García 29

summer / 2014

· A Novel Methodology for the Construction of

Homogeneous Synthetic Sandstone Cores

Hernando Buendía Lombana, Juan Carlos Lizcano Niño, Robert Eduardo Padrón García

� In order to develop laboratory tests related to special petrophysics, formation damage or EOR processes, the construction of homoge-neous synthetic cores with specific petrophys-ical properties is very important. Samples from native cores or famous homogeneous outcrops (i.e. Berea Sandstones or Baker Dolomites) are sometimes very expensive or just unavailable. Therefore, synthetic cores have become indis-pensable for investigation purposes. The con-struction of sandstone synthetic cores gener-ally consists of a mixture made from fine sand (80–100 mesh), white kaolinite and an epoxy solution for cementing the sample. The ideal proportion of these materials forms the “formu-lation”, which, combined with certain amount of compression, makes it possible to obtain the petrophysical properties desired. Several at-tempts to find the ideal formulation in function of the petrophysical properties were made, but previous methodologies were not standardized, as the compression effect was neither account-ed, nor quantified.

�In the following study a satisfactory measure-ment of the compression related to the construc-tion process was performed by means of a torque wrench. By controlling this variable, a correlation between the compression applied and the abso-lute permeability of the core was obtained show-ing a direct relationship.

All the samples made in this work show the same density, proving somehow the similarity between the samples. Further works are required to devel-op a standardized procedure of construction of homogeneous sandstone samples.

Introduction�The construction of synthetic cores has always been very important for running laboratory tests related to diverse processes in petroleum indus-try. Despite that, studies regarding this matter are rather limited. Stegemeier and Jessen work [13] related to wettability is the first study concerning artificial coring. The cores were made from Teflon marbles and then consolidated by heating in a pro-cedure explained in Mungan wettability work [6]. Teflon was the material in these cases, because it leads to less chemical interactions with oil, which is a desirable property in terms of wettability stud-ies. Alumina and stainless steel marbles were also used as materials for synthetic cores [3]. More studies regarding wettability of artificial rock sam-ples were compiled by Anderson [1].

More recent studies can be found in a different field: rock mechanics. There are plenty of studies related to tensile efforts and fractures carried in synthetic rocks with epoxic material as a fracture bounder [2, 10, 12].

Much research has been made in Colombia in attempt to develop a standardized methodology

*Universidad Industrial de Santander

ÞColombia

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


30 A Novel Methodology for the Construction of Homogeneous Synthetic Sandstone Cores

for the construction of synthetic core samples. Muñoz et al. (at UIS) have put many efforts into this subject. Their studies are related to the ex-perimental representation of EOR processes such as waterflooding and steamflooding. In their first study [7], a methodology for the construction of homogenous sandstone samples was outlined using kaolinite as a permeability reducing agent, epoxic material as a cementing agent, and suited in a Radial Displacement Equipment (EDR), de-tailed in other study by Londoño et al. [4].

They attempted later to construct stratified po-rous media for displacement proposes [8]. They described all the variables involved in the con-

struction process, being all controllable, except for compression. Compression was made manually by means of a piston – a PVC sleeve and a common hammer. Moreover, the effectiveness of permea-bility reducing agents was evaluated by using dif-ferent materials (i.e., bentonite, white cement, and two varieties of kaolinite). White kaolinite was re-affirmed as the most effective reducing agent, and a correlation between percentage of kaolinite and petrophysical properties was constructed. How-ever, since the compression was not controlled, there is no control on the reproducibility of the process. Muñoz et al. [9] corroborate this fact by reproducing samples made with the same compo-sition but compressed for two different operators,

�Fig. 1 – Adapted assembly for core synthetic construction


summer / 2014

and concluding that compression is a fundamental variable. In conclusion, these methodologies were not standardized yet, because not all the variables involved were controlled.

In UNAL, Medellín, Lopera et al. [5] developed a different methodology; using Ottawa sand with different grain size and concluding that the size of grains is proportional to the petrophysical prop-erties obtained. Epoxic material is not mentioned as a cementing material, and the compression is made by means of a rubber sleeve and brine dis-placement.

Taking into account all of these studies, it is clear that in order to develop a standardized method-ology, the quantification of compression is abso-lutely necessary. There is a need to develop newer and more efficient methods for the construction of homogeneous porous media, which are our primary material for the characterization of many reservoir processes, from scale deposition to steamflooding.

Experimental Procedure�In the process of construction of synthetic cores needed are: fine sand (80–100 mesh), white kaolin, epoxy solution (mixture of resin and hard-ener), which acts as a cementing material between the fine sand and white kaolin, PVC sleeve as a

mold for the final mixture. This PVC tube should have an internal diameter of 1 ½ inches (API RP40 Standard Recommended Practices). To compact the final mixture and to assure the repetitiveness and reproducibility of the absolute permeability of the core, an assembly was adapted with a stem and a torque wrench (Fig. 1). The torque wrench provides a specific torque toward the stem, it transforms the torque to pressure into the mixture in the PVC sleeve.

The first step is to select desired permeability or porosity in synthetic cores. The quantities of fine sand, white kaolin, resin and hardener are defined by correlations established in Muñoz et al. work [8] to make the mixture for the construction of the cores.

The second step is to measure the quantities de-fined in the previous step and mixing. The mixture of fine sand and white kaolin should be in a vessel (Fig. 2) and the mixture of resin and hardener in another vessel, conforming the epoxy solution (Fig. 3). Each preparation should be mixed until it becomes uniform and homogeneous.

The third step is to put the mixture into the PVC sleeve; the mixture is compressed to a specific val-ue of torque (and consequently pressure) by the adapted assembly. The transition from step two to step three should be fast, because the epoxy solu-tion could dry.

�Fig. 2 – Mixture of fine sand and white kaolin �Fig. 3 – Mixture of resin and hardener, the epoxy solution


The fourth and final step is to dry the mixture in a PVC sleeve for about 3 to 4 days at environmen-tal temperature. After this period PVC sleeve is removed.

Results and Discussion�By using this procedure, 13 synthetic cores were constructed. The formulation which was designed for permeability of 50 mD was constant (Table 1), whereas the compression applied to each core varied. The results are presented in Table 2. In the construction of sample 1, some drawbacks were present in the application of the desired torque, therefore, sample 2 was made with the same torque as applied in sample 1. It did not present any problem in its construction. Hence, they differ in the absolute permeability value.

The construction of samples 4 and 5 was different. In sample 4, the pressure was applied only once and then the core was dried at environmental con-ditions, while in sample 5, the pressure was applied for 5 days with the PVC sleeve being subsequently removed. However, the results were not as expect-ed – sample 5 was more permeable than sample 4. The phenomenon expected was that the sample

which was compressed for 5 days would be less permeable. Basing on this, we cannot draw any conclusions yet. These differences are attributable to the mixing process since the mixture was not completely homogeneous due to the presence of lumps of cementing material. In the construction of sample 10, drawbacks were also present. As in sample 1, it was not possible to apply the desired compression.

However, in general terms, the methodology turned out to be effective, repeatable, and demon-strated the existence of a direct correlation be-tween the applied compression and absolute per-meability in each sample. The density of the grain material was practically the same in all samples (2.35 g/cm3). Fig. 4 shows the linear dependence between these two variables, samples 1 and 10 did not count in this figure, due to the problems in their construction process. We can conclude that the desired permeability is reached at a torque val-ue of 35 lb-ft.

Conclusions�The standardization of a new methodology for the construction of homogeneous synthetic rock

250

200

150

100

50

00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

�Fig. 4 – Correlation between absolute permeability vs. applied torque


summer / 2014

samples is a vital need for the petroleum industry, because it provides trustful materials for develop-ing innovation in laboratories

A novel methodology of compression was es-tablished. It measures the amount of compres-sion applied to samples (understanding that the compression applied to the cores is a significant variable in the posterior petrophysical properties calculation)

A correlation between Compressibility and Ab-solute Permeability was observed, providing the evidence for the significant effect of this variable

on the Permeability measurements. Basing on a previous conclusion, we can assume that the the-oretical permeability is reached in a 35 lb-ft torque value.

Further studies are required in order to develop a more effective and standardized methodology. The challenges in this area include forming of the lumps in preparation of samples, and validation of the previous concepts. The correlations between formulation and petrophysical properties (i.e. porosity and permeability) obtained in previous works should be revised in the near future.

Acknowledgments�The authors of this article want to express their gratitude for the Petroleum Engineering depart-ment of the Universidad Industrial de Santander, to all the professionals of Parque Tecnológico Guatiguará, to Luis Felipe Carrillo, M.Sc. for his guidance, and to Camilo Guerrero, Ambassador for YoungPetro Latin America.

Desired Permeability (mD) 50

White Kaolin Mass (g) 62

Fine Sand Mass (g) 151

Resin volume (ml) 6

Hardener volume (ml) 15

�Table 1 – Formulation synthetic cores to 50 mD

Synthetic Core Torque (lb-ft) Name Average Diameter (cm) Average Length (cm) Average Permeability (mD)

1 10 10 lb-ft 3.787 7.580 66.20

2 10 10 lb-ft 3.808 7.410 217.76

3 15 15 lb-ft 3.805 7.430 209.55

4 20 20 lb-ft 3.800 6.920 136.00

5 20 20 lb-ft SOST 3.805 6.615 185.73

6 25 25 lb-ft 3.795 7.581 86.24

7 30 30 lb-ft 3.799 7.509 115.16

8 30 30 lb-ft 3.799 7.207 135.57

9 35 35 lb-ft 3.803 6.860 70.71

10 25 25 lb-ft 3.710 7.280 21.72

11 30 30 lb-ft 3.790 7.640 45.53

12 35 35 lb-ft 3.780 8.170 45.15

13 35 35 lb-ft 3.700 4.310 48.31

�Table 2 – Synthetic cores results

SI Unit Conversion Factorsft2 x 9.290304* E-02 = m2 • in x 2.54* E+00 = cm •mD x 9.869233* E-04 = μm2 • *Conversion factor is exact


References1. Anderson, W.G. (1986, October). Wettability literature Survey – Part 1: Rock/Oil/Brine Interactions

and the Effects of Core Handling on Wettability. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 38(10), 1125–1144. SPE paper No. 13932.

2. Ding, P., Di, B., Wei, J., Li, X., & Deng, Y. (2014). Fluid-dependent Anisotropy and Experimental Measurements in Synthetic Porous Rocks with Controlled Fracture Parameters. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 11, 9.

3. Lefebvre du Frey, E.J. (1973, February). Factors Affecting Liquid-Liquid Relative Permeabilities of a Consilidated Porus Medium. Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal, 13(01), 39–47. SPE paper No. 3039.

4. Londoño, F.W., Muñoz, S., & Naranjo, C.E. (2013). El Resurgimiento de la Técnica de Escalamiento de Procesos de Recobro de Hidrocarburos – de laboratorio-campo o campo-laboratorio. Proc. XV Expo Oil and Gas ACIPET, Bogotá, Colombia. 2013.

5. Lopera, S., Zapata, F., & Mejía V. (2013). Construcción de Medios Porosos Artificiales para Despla-zamientos en Medios Porosos. Proc. XV Expo Oil and Gas ACIPET, Bogotá, Colombia. 2013.

6. Mungan, N. (1966, September). Interfacial Effects in Inmmiscible Liquid-Liquid Displacement in Po-rous Media. Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal, 6(03), 247–253. SPE paper No. 1442.

7. Muñoz, S., Ibarra, Y.A., & Celis, J.O. (2011). Estudio Experimental y Numérico del proceso de Inyec-ción de Agua en el Modelo de Desplazamiento Radial. Undergraduate Thesis of Petroleum Engineer-ing, Universidad Industrial de Santander. Bucaramanga, Colombia 2011. Available at Repositorio UIS.

8. Muñoz, S., Celis, L.A., & Fernandez de Castro, O.D. (2012). Estudio Experimental de Procesos de Inyección de Agua en el Equipo de Desplazamiento Radial con Medios Porosos Estratificados. Un-dergraduate Thesis of Petroleum Engineering, Universidad Industrial de Santander. Bucaramanga, Co-lombia 2012. Available at Repositorio UIS.

9. Muñoz, S., Alarcón, L.A., & Cavanzo, E.A. (2013). Estudio Experimental de un Proceso de Inyección Continua de Vapor en el Equipo de Desplazamiento Radial con Medios Porosos Homogéneos. Un-dergraduate Thesis of Petroleum Engineering, Universidad Industrial de Santander. Bucaramanga, Co-lombia 2013. Available at Repositorio UIS.

10. Nguyen, S.H., Chemenda, A.I, & Ambre, J. (2011). Influence of the loading conditions on the Mechan-ical response of granular materials as constrained from experimental tests on Synthetic Rock analogue material. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48, 103–105.

11. Recommended Practices for Core Analysis. (1998, February). API RP40. Second Edition.12. Singh, M., Lakshmi, V., & Srivastava, L.P. (2014, January). Effect of Pre-loading with Tensile Stress on

Laboratory UCS of a Synthetic Rock. Rock Mechanics Engineering Society Journal.13. Stegemeier, G., & Jessen, F.W. (1959, March). The Relationship of Relative Permeability to Contact

Angles. Conference on the Theory of Fluid Flow in Porous Media. Oklahoma, OK. March 23–24, 1959. Cited in Anderson (1986).

Steffones K, Abhishek Tyagi, Akul Narang 35

summer / 2014

· EOR Evaluation Using Artificial Neural Network

Steffones K, Abhishek Tyagi, Akul Narang

�Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) has gained great attention as a result of higher oil prices and in-creasing oil demands. Extensive research have been conducted to develop various EOR meth-ods, evaluate their applicability and optimize operation conditions. One of the principal ar-eas is to develop an effective tool for selection of a suitable EOR method according to oil field characteristics. The main objective of the stud-ies is to screen various EOR methods based on field characteristics and evaluate their techni-cal/economic applicability in an efficient way instead of predicting the field performances of all possible competing strategies and comparing their economics.

�In this paper, we present an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) approach to enable the petrole-um engineer to select an appropriate EOR meth-od with the given reservoir properties. The ANN developed in this study is a four-layered feed-for-ward Back Propagation (BP) network consisting of one input and output layer with two hidden layers. The input layer is composed of the key res-ervoir parameters (reservoir depth, temperature, porosity, permeability, initial oil saturation, oil gravity, and in-situ oil viscosity), while the out-put layer is composed of the five EOR methods to be evaluated (steam, CO2 miscible, hydrocarbon miscible, in-situ combustion, polymer flooding). The number of hidden layers and neurons are op-timized during the training by repeated trial and error. After trained successfully, the ANN is tested and applied to other fields which are not used for the training.

A series of the test results shows that the ANN developed in this study can be used to select the most appropriate EOR process according to res-ervoir rock and fluid characteristics in a time and cost effective way.

IntroductionHigher oil prices and concerns about future oil supply lead to increased interest in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) around the world. Because EOR projects are generally more expensive and involve higher front-end costs than conventional second-ary projects, effective planning takes on added importance [9]. A large number of studies have been conducted to help the petroleum engineer select efficient EOR methods with limited field in-formation. The main objective of the studies is to select the suitable EOR method in an effective way without predicting the reservoir performance of all possible competing strategies and comparing their economics.

Most of early studies in the EOR selection were to establish the technical screening criteria of each EOR method [7, 14, 15]. Based on laboratory ex-periments and field experiences, the applicable ranges of the reservoir rock and fluid properties were presented in these studies. The effort has been added in several studies to update the appli-cable ranges with the current technical and eco-nomic conditions [1, 4]. The problem of selection and implementation of proper EOR techniques was also addressed in some papers as a guide for petroleum engineers [16].

The improvement of computer technology in-troduced the artificial intelligence technique into

*University of Petroleum & Energy Studies

Þ India

[email protected]


36 EOR Evaluation Using Artificial Neural Network

EOR selection [5, 8, 10, 12, 13]. Because the values of these models strongly depend on the accuracy of the input data, it should be continuously up-dated with up-to-date operation data. In this pa-per, we developed the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) incorporating the recent database pub-lished in the industry. The main goal of the study is to develop the ANN model that can estimate the best EOR method according to the given reservoir rock and fluid properties in a time and cost effec-tive way and evaluate applicability of the model.

Artificial Neural NetworkANN is an information-processing system that has certain performance characteristics in common with biological neural networks. A typical neural network is a multilayered system consisting of sin-gle input layer, single or double hidden layer, and single output layer. Each layer is composed of ba-sic processing elements called neurons. Each neu-ron is connected to the neurons of the adjacent layer with the connection eights between 0 and 1. The signals between the neurons are multiplied by the associated connection weights and added up together as Eq. 1, and then used as the net input of the neuron.

NET I Wk

n

kk=

=∑

1

1[ ]

Where NET is the net input of the neuron, I is the input variable, W is the connection weight, k is the index, and n is the number of input variables. Each neuron applies an activation function to its net in-put to determine its output signal and the signal is transmitted to the next neuron. The sigmoid func-tion in Eq. 2 is an activation function commonly used.

f NETeNET( )=+

11

2[ ]

The connection weights between the neurons are adjusted during the training. There are two ways of the training; supervised and unsupervised. For most typical neural network, the connection weights are adjusted by the given input and corre-sponding output. This process is called as super-

vised training. One of the widely used supervised networks is the feed-forward Back Propagation (BP) network which adjusts the connection weights during the back propagation process.

In this study, the BP network with the training algorithm of Scaled Conjugate Gradient (SCG) which is a new variation of the conjugate gradi-ent method is used. SCG allows the avoidance of the line search per training iteration of Leven-berg-Marquardt approach in order to scale the step size.

Data Source and Preparation

The data used for training and testing the networks are extracted from the special reports, Worldwide EOR Survey published by Oil and Gas Journal [11]. The reports include the field name, reservoir rock and fluid properties, project maturity and project evaluation of the field where the EOR was being applied. In this study, the data of those fields were evaluated where application of EOR was success-ful. Neurons of the input layer are designed to be the main reservoir properties.

The seven reservoir properties which are reservoir depth, temperature, porosity, log permeability, in-itial oil saturation, oil gravity, log oil viscosity are selected as the input variables of the ANN model.

Step 1 Divide the input variables into two groups by their effects on the selection ∙

Group 1: porosity, log permeability, oil saturation, log oil viscosity

Group 2: depth, temperature, oil gravity

Step 2 Multiply the variables for each group V1 = porosity × log permeability × oil saturation × log

oil viscosity V2 = depth × temperature × oil gravity

Step 3 Generate the group variable by dividing V1 by V2

Step 4 Rank each data by group variable and group each three data

Step 5 Sample two data for each group

�Table 1 – Data sampling method by group variable


summer / 2014

A new variable is generated by grouping the in-put reservoir parameters to sample the data to be used for the training and two-thirds of the to-tal data are selected based on this group variable as summarized in Table 1. For training efficiency, the sampling ratio increases to three-fourths if the number of sampling data is less than ten. The re-maining data which are not included in the train-ing are used for testing the developed ANN model. Table 2 shows the number of data for the training and the applicability test.

The ranges of the input reservoir parameters are summarized in Table 3. Each input variable is nor-malized between 0 and 1 before the training for numerical stability as defined in Eq. 3.

The normalized input variables are then entered into the input neurons to train the network.

XX XX Xnorm

actual min

max min

=−−

[ ]3

Where Xnorm is the normalized input variable, Xactual is the original value of the variable, Xmin is the minimum value of the variable and Xmax is the maximum value of the variable. The ranges of the input reservoir parameters are summarized in Table 3.

The neurons of the output layer are composed of the EOR methods to be selected. The five EOR methods (steam, carbon dioxide miscible, hy-drocarbon miscible, in-situ combustion, polymer

flooding) which are being applied in more than ten fields consists in the output layer. The target value of the output neurons are designed to be +1 in the neurons indicating the successfully applied EOR methods and -1 in other neurons indicating other EOR methods.

Development of ANN ModelDesign and training of the ANN is done in the software developed by our team in Visual Studio (NET IDE )

The object function in the training is the mean square error as defined in Eq. 4 and the conver-gence tolerance is initially designed to be 0.001.

ErrorN

y f xi

N

i i

p

= −=∑1

41

2( ( )) [ ]

Where Np, yi, and f(xi) indicate the number of data, the measured output and estimated output by the model respectively.

As an activation function, the tangent sigmoid function is used for the first hidden layer and the logistic sigmoid function is used for the second hidden layer. For the output layer, the linear func-tion is used [10]. The structure of the ANN model, that is the number of neurons of the hidden layers, is optimized during the training by repeated trial and error. Maximum number of iteration is set to 10,000.

EOR type Total Training Testing

Steam 103 70 33

Carbon dioxide miscible 65 45 20

Hydrocarbon miscible 32 22 10

In-situ combustion 15 11 4

Polymer flooding 15 11 4

Total 230 159 71

�Table 2 – The number of data used for the training and the applicability test

Reservoir parameters Min Avg Max

Reservoir depth (ft) 200.0 4,079.0 13,750.0

Reservoir temperature (℉) 45.0 126.9 290.0

Porosity (%) 3.0 23.3 65.0

Permeability (mD) 0.1 1,283.6 11,500.0

Initial oil saturation (% of OOIP)

26.5 62.8 98.0

Oil gravity (°API) 8.0 24.9 57.0

In-situ oil viscosity (cP) 0.1 26,594.4 200,000.0

�Table 3 – Ranges of the input reservoir parameters

38 EOR Evaluation Using Artificial Neural Network

ConclusionA four-layered ANN model is developed to select the most suitable EOR method based on the field characteristics. The input layer consists of the seven reservoir parameters and the output layer consists of the five EOR methods to be selected. The number of neurons in the hidden layers is

optimized during the training; ten for the first hidden layer and eight for the second hidden layer.

After trained successfully with the successful EOR field data, the ANN model is tested against the data excluded in the training. The model correctly selected the best EOR method with the accuracy greater than 95%.

�Fig. 1 – Structure of the ANN model developed in this study

x1

x2

x3

x4

w1

w2

w3

w4

w5

w6

u4

u5

u6

u1

u2

u3

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

Reservoir Properties

EOR Methods+1 or -1


summer / 2014

References1. Aladasani, A., & Bai, B. (2010). Recent Developments and Updated Screening Criteria of Enhanced

Oil Recovery Techniques. SPE paper No. 130726. CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China. June 8–10, 2010.

2. Beale, M.H., Hagan, M.T., & Demuth, H.B. (2010). Neural Network ToolboxTM 7, Massachusetts, MA. MathWorks.

3. Chung, T.-H., & Carroll H.B. (1995). Application of Fuzzy Expert Systems for EOR Project Risk Analy-sis. SPE paper No. 30741. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX. October 22–25, 1995.

4. Dickson, J.L., & Wylie, P.L. (2010). Development of Improved Hydrocarbon Recovery Screening Methodologies. SPE paper 129768. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK. April 24–28, 2010.

5. Elemo, R.O., & Elmtalab, J. (1993). A Practical Artificial Intelligence Applicationin EOR Projects. SPE Computer Applications, 4(2), 17–21.

6. Flanders, W.A., & DePauw, R.M. (1993). Update Case History: Performance of the Twofreds Tertiary CO2 Project. SPE paper No. 26614. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX. October 3–6, 1993.

7. Goodlett, G.O., Honarpour, F.T., Chung, F.T., & Sarathi, P.S. (1986). The Role of Screening and Labo-ratory Flow Studies in EOR Process Evaluation. SPE paper No. 15172. Rocky Mountain Regional Meet-ing, Billings, MT. May 19–21, 1986.

8. Guerillot, D.R. (1988). EOR Screening With an Expert System. SPE paper No. 17791. Symposium on Petroleum Industry Applications of Microcomputers, San Jose, CA. June 27–29, 1988.

9. Hite, J.R., Avasthi, S.M., & Bondor, P.L. (2004). Planning EOR Projects. SPE paper No. 92006. SPE In-ternational Petroleum Conference, Puebla, Mexico. November 8–9, 2004.

10. Lee, J.-Y., & Lim, J.-S. (2008). Artificial Neural Network Approach to Selection of Ehanced Oil Recov-ery Method. Journal of the Korean Society for Geosystem Engineering, 45(6), 719–726.

11. Moritis, G. (2010). Worldwide EOR Survey. Oil & Gas Journal, 108(14), 41–53.12. Shokir, E.M. El-M., Goda, H.M., Sayyouh, M.H., & Fattah, Kh.A. (2002). Selection and Evaluation

EOR Method Using Artificial Intelligent. SPE paper No. 79163. 26th Annual SPE International Techni-cal Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria. August 5–7, 2002.

13. Surguchev, L.M., & Li, L. IOR Evaluation and Applicability Screening Using Artificial Neural Net-works. SPE paper No. 59308. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK. April 3–5, 2000.

14. Taber, J.J., & Martin, F.D. Technical Screening Guides for the Enhanced Recovery of Oil. SPE paper No. 12069. 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE of AIME, San Francisco, CA. Oc-tober 5–8, 1983.

15. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., & Seright, R.S. EOR Screening Criteria Revisited. SPE paper No. 35385. SPE/DOE Tenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK. April 21–24, 1996.

16. Zerafat, M.M., Ayatollahi, S., Mehranbod, N., & Barzegari, D. (2011). Bayesian Network Analysis as a Tool for Efficient EOR Screening. SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. July 19–21, 2011.

40 System which Rules South-Eastern Europe – Russian Gas Pipelines

å System which Rules South-Eastern

Europe – Russian Gas Pipelines

Radosław Budzowski

�Russia, Western Siberia. Here is situated the heart and thus the beginning of the Russian pipelines. Rich deposits of natural gas are ex-actly here. Let's take a closer look at the largest network of gas pipelines. The idea of gas tran-sit from Russia to Western Europe was born in 1992. Since then, the network of pipelines in Eu-rope has evolved considerably. Let’s just men-tion the Yamal-Europe pipeline, South Stream, Brotherhood or Nord Stream pipeline. Russia is the second-largest producer of dry natural gas and third-largest liquid fuels producer in the world. It is no wonder that the economy of the country (as well as European economy) de-pends on petroleum industry. In 2012, oil and gas revenues accounted for 52% of the feder-al budget and more than 70% of total exports. About 76% of natural gas is sent by Russia to Western Europe (mostly to Germany, Turkey, Italy, UK and France). It can be said that most countries in Europe are dependent on gas sup-plies from Russia. Due to the political crisis in Ukraine, the topic of Russian gas pipelines has become a burning issue recently.

Gas Infrastructure�As stated in “Oil and Gas Journal”, Russia has the largest natural gas deposits, with 1,688 trillion cubic feet. Most of them are located in West-ern Siberia. The largest fields are in Yamburg, Urengoy and Medvezh’ye. However, Gazprom is investing in oil extraction in other parts of the country. In 2010, estimated gas reserves amount-ed to 59.650 bcm which represents 31.51% of world reserves. Natural gas is transported through the Unified Gas Supply System (UGSS), a network of

gas pipelines and branches that covers the whole Russian territory and connects with foreign pipe-lines for export. The UGSS comprises facilities for gas extraction, processing, transmission, storage, and distribution, and is the world’s largest gas transmission system. Unified Gas Supply System (owned by Gazprom) controls about 104,000 miles of pipelines and 268 compressor stations, 6 gas processing plants and 25 underground gas storage facilities with a total capacity of 2.4 Tcf.

At the moment, there are 10 large pipelines trans-porting gas in Russia. 8 of them are export pipe-lines: Yamal-Europe I, Northern Lights, Soyuz, Brotherhood, Blue Stream, Nord Stream, North Caucasus and Mozdok-Gazi-Magomed. The first four transport natural gas through Belarus and Ukraine to other European countries, whereas the others transport natural gas to Turkey and some former Soviet Union countries. The Yamal-Europe pipeline supplies gas from Russia to Poland and Germany (capacity 1.2 Tcf per year). A real tech-nical achievement during the construction of the Yamal-Europe pipeline was the open excavation through the Vistula to intersection the river by a pipeline with a 1,400 mm diameter.

Another interesting gas pipeline is the Brother-hood which has a carrying capacity of 3.5 Tcf per year, running across Ukraine up to Slovakia where it divides into two branches. The northern line reaches the Czech Republic, Germany, France and Switzerland, and the southern line runs through the Austrian gas hub in Baumgarten and supplies gas to Italy, Hungary and several countries of for-mer Yugoslavia. These gas pipelines are located within the territory of many countries. Therefore it is necessary to pay transit fees to these countries,

Radosław Budzowski 41

summer / 2014

which is one of the major problems of the Russia’s Government with respect to gas export.

How to Avoid Transit Fees?�Building an onshore gas pipeline requires transit fees. In order to transport gas from Rus-sia to Germany, it is necessary to build pipelines through Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. It is a well known fact that transit costs are high. How should this problem be solved? Build an offshore pipeline! Nord Stream is a pipeline composed of two tubes running through the Baltic Sea, trans-porting natural gas to Europe from Russia. These two pipelines, each of 1,224 km, are the most direct connection between the huge reserves of natural gas in Russia and the European Union energy markets. Approximately 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year will flow to corporate and private customers through both threads for at least 50 years. The construction of the first branch of

the pipeline began in April 2010 and ended in June 2011. Transportation of gas through this thread started in mid-November 2011. Construction of the second thread that is running parallel to the first line began in May 2011, and ended in April 2012. Transportation of gas through the second thread started in October 2012. Each thread has a capacity allowing to transport 27.5 billion cubic meters of gas per year. Building the pipeline was a significant event in the field of engineering. Due to the fact that it runs through the territorial wa-ters of five states and may have an impact on other countries, a comprehensive process for granting permits was conducted as well as consultation. An important element of this process was to focus on the environment and investigate potential risks connected with this project.

Another pipeline that is worth mentioning is South Stream. It is a planned gas pipeline with a capacity of 63 billion cubic meters, which will be built through the Black Sea, connecting the coast

�Fig. 1 – The most important Russian pipelines


of Russia and Bulgaria. The construction of the South Stream pipeline will help Russia to reduce its dependence on transit countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Poland). The construction started in 2012 and is expected to be functional by 2018.

Gazprom Hegemony

Company (Bcf/d)

Gazprom 47.1

Rosneft 1.2

LUKoil 1.6

Surgutneftegaz 1.2

TNK-BP 1.3

Others 1.6

ITERA 1.2

Novatek 5.5

PSA operators 2.6

Total 63.4

�Table 1 – Russia’s natural gas production by company, 2012

Gazprom Hegemony�Referring to the preceding paragraphs and as Fig. 5 shows, attention must be paid to the com-

pany which manages most of the gas pipelines in Russia. Gazprom, a Russian state-owned com-pany, the world's largest extractor of natural gas, produces about 74% of Russia’s total natural gas output. Moreover, the company controls most of gas reserves. More than 65% of proven reserves are controlled directly by Gazprom, which pos-sesses the largest gas transport system in the world, with 158,200 km of gas trunk lines. With the support of Russian authorities, Gazprom is seeking to increase its economic position among the EU countries by engaging in joint projects of European gas companies. The highest state offi-cials in Moscow have a significant impact on this group. Gazprom is very active in many areas. It holds shares in a number of German companies. Gazprom has become a part of the Nord Stream consortium, which is building the Nord Stream pipeline. It has formed a partnership with the Ital-ian concern Eni.

In June 2008, as a result of record-high energy prices, Gazprom's market value amounted to $342 billion. Gazprom was thus the third corpo-ration in the world in terms of market value, after ExxonMobil and PetroChina. Alexander Medve-dev, vice president of the group, announced the capitalization of $1 trillion in 2014, but due to the decrease in trading on the Moscow stock exchange after fleeing of Western investors following the Russian-Georgian war in August 2008, and also

Turkey

Italy

France

United Kingdom

Other Western Europe

Germany

Eastern Europe

19% 24%

24%

10%6%

6%

11%

�Fig. 2 – Share of Russia’s natural gas exports by destination, 2012

Radosław Budzowski 43

summer / 2014

due to lower prices of oil and gas resulting from global economic crisis capitalization of the group fell to $85 billion at the end of 2008 and remained at this level in the first quarter of 2009, which gave it 35. place on the list of the largest companies in terms of capitalization in the world.

Ukraine – a Key Link�This winter the situation in Ukraine shook the whole Europe. Much was said about the po-

litical aspects of the conflict, but the importance of Ukraine as a transit country is also worth con-sidering. Ukraine has the world's largest transit pipeline system, managed by state-owned Nafto-haz. The system receives gas from the East, Russia and Central Asia, and sends it to Central Europe and the Balkans. Ukrainian system is able to take 288 billion cubic meters of gas per y ear, while its annual export capacities account for 142 billion cubic meters.

This difference results from the presence of a large gas pipeline in the east of the country that sends gas from northern Russia to the south of the country. More than 200 million cubic meters of gas per day

flows to Europe from Ukraine. This amount has decreased dramatically over the last years. In Jan-uary 2008, before the launch of the Nord Stream pipeline, the transit reached 390 million cubic me-ters per day. The largest pipelines lead to Slovakia and Romania, the smaller ones – to Poland and Hungary. Ukraine produces about 20 billion cubic meters of gas annually and still needs about 40 bil-lion. So far Ukraine used the resources from Rus-sia. In 2013, the price of Russian gas was $400 per 1000 cubic meters. In the fourth quarter of 2013 Ukrainians stopped buying gas from Gazprom for

a few days, claiming that they have financial prob-lems. The country, which is most dependent on Russian gas transit through Ukraine is Bulgaria, which buys this way 100% of natural gas. Slovakia imports two-thirds of the gas, Greece more than a half of its demand and the Czech Republic – 80%. Czechs can receive gas through Nord Stream which bypasses Ukraine. Over the years Ukraine resisted to Gazprom, which wanted to take control of its pipelines. As a result, the Russians decided on two very expensive projects (Nord Stream and South Stream) that make Russia less dependent on the Ukrainian transit. The price they are willing to pay for it provides the estimated cost of the lat-ter project – about $35 billion.

�Fig. 3 – The Trans-Siberian Pipeline


Conclusion�It is impossible to describe all important Rus-sian pipelines in such a short article, especial-ly these that are planned to be built. As you can see, Russia seeks to maximize independence in terms of gas exports. Conflictual relationships between Russia and transit countries have repeat-edly threatened to disrupt gas supplies to Europe. Do the Western Europe countries have to be wor-

ried about their gas imports? It is difficult answer this question. However, European countries have more and more opportunities to import gas, e.g. from Algeria and Norway (where Statoil sold more gas to Europe in 2012 than Gazprom).

Due to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, one thing is certain: geopolitical tensions always have a strong influence on energy markets, mak-ing oil and gas prices instable… Nevertheless, it is Russia that holds all the cards.

References1. (2013, November 12). World Energy Outlook 2013. International Energy Agency.2. Gazprom. (2012, December 31 ). Production. About Gazprom. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from

http://www.gazprom.com/about/production3. Mathonniere, J. (2014. March 10). The end of Russian gas hegemony? Student Energy Blog. Retrieved

February 9, 2014, from http://studentenergy.org/blog/the-end-of-russian-gas-hegemony/4. Nord Stream. (2013). The pipeline. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from http://www.nord-stream.com/

pipeline5. Nord Stream. (2013, December). Transporting Russian Natural Gas to Western Europe. Nord Stream

Library. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from https://www.nord-stream.com/press-info/library/6. Pirani, S. (2009). Russian and CIS Gas Markets and Their Impact on Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.7. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2013, November 26). Russia. Analysis. Retrieved February 8,

2014, from http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=RS8. Wyciszkiewicz, E. (2009, January 1). Geopolitics of Pipelines. Energy Interdependence and Inter-State

Relations in the Post-Soviet Area.Photos: eia.gov, theguardian.com, istockphoto.com, svaboda.org

�Fig. 4 – Comparison of capacity of different routes

Joanna Wilaszek 45

summer / 2014

conference | East Meets West Congress – Anniversary Edition

´ Five Years of a Great Experience!

Joanna Wilaszek

�“East meets West” 2014 went down in histo-ry. For the 5th time it was a wonderful feast of knowledge, ideas, breaking boarders and build-ing bridges between nations and generations. We were happy to host over 400 guests com-ing from 32 countries, situated on 6 continents! Student participants represented 38 universities and we had pleasure to meet representatives of 21 well-known international E&P companies. During the student contests, we could see 41 re-search works, chosen from 164 applications.

�All three congress days were a priceless occa-sion to get to know what is happening in the world of science and industry, meet new great people,

exchange opinions and discuss. Discuss what? The matters of industry, education, science, tech-nology – the matters of life. All that in the heart of Krakow, organized by AGH UST SPE Student Chapter.

Pre-day�Traditionally, one day before the congress all participants had a possibility to participate in a wide range of networking events and workshops. This year our friends from Gubkin SPE Student Chapter from Moscow organized PetroOlypmic Games – a contest during which student teams an-swered questions concerning petroleum industry.

Apart from this student participants took part in City Game, which gave all of them a great oppor-tunity to visit the most marvelous parts of Krakow. The Game was finished with an Icebreaker party.

1st day – OPENING!�Opening ceremony was started by Con Fuo-co Choir, which gave us a wonderful concert.

46 Five Years of a Great Experience!

Afterwards we could listen to speeches of AGH University authorities: Vice-Rector – Professor Andrzej Tytko and Dean of the Drilling, Oil and Gas Faculty – Professor Andrzej Gonet, as well as the speech of the Manager of Young Members Programmes of SPE – Maria Zenon. After this part all supporters, both companies and institu-tions, as well as individual persons, whose help was priceless for organizing and development of the Congress, was awarded with statues. After the Opening Ceremony we have started a panel which every student was waiting for: Career Session. During the panel, representatives of the compa-nies which became sponsors presented their offer for students. The opening day was fulfilled with the Social Opening Gala organized in Hilton Gar-den Inn Hotel.

2nd day – Students’ beginning!�The second day of the Congress was a day of two panels: Student Paper Contest and Distin-guished Guests Panel. This year both of them were connected. Student Paper Contest was divided

into 3 parts and each of them had its own moder-ator – distinguished guest, specialist in the pres-entations’ categories. Every moderator opened his part with a speech focusing on his career and af-terwards students presented their research works. The distinguished guests, who became moder-ators of Student Paper Contest were: Gerhard Milan (OMV), Milton Jerez (ConocoPhillips) and Carsten Simms (Weatherford). During the Paper Contest, we could see 21 presentations prepared by the most outstanding students from 15 coun-tries. In the evening all participants were invited for dinner in Kompania Kuflowa “Pod Wawelem” Restaurant, were they could try delicious dishes, get to know a lot about Polish treat and all that just next to the Wawel castle – as the name of the res-taurant says.

3rd day – Final emotions�During the 3rd day, finally it came time for the second student contest – Student Poster Session. Its participants, coming from 14 countries, pre-sented 20 posters. Every poster referred to one of the six categories (Drilling Engineering; Reservoir Engineering; Geology and Geophysics; Fuels and

Joanna Wilaszek 47

summer / 2014

Energy; Health, Safety and Environment; Man-agement and Economics). After the Poster Session we have participated in fascinating Oxford Debate, prepared by Young Professionals Section. The topic was “Is higher education necessary for a career in high-tech industry?”. After the lunch break we took part in Closing Ceremony, during which results of the Student Contests were announced. We would like to congratulate the winners!

The winners of East meets West 2014 Student Paper Contest

1st place: Daniel Sanchez Rivera (The Universi-ty of Texas at Austin, USA) “Reservoir Simulation and Optimization of CO2 Huff-and-Puff Opera-tions and Application of Mortar Coupling to Hy-draulic Fracture Models”

2nd place: Lukas Jakob Mosser, Fabian Steinach-er (Montan University of Leoben, Austria) “Im-pact of gas oil gravity drainage on the flow behav-iour in a Moroccan carbonate anticline”

3rd place: Carter Henderson (Texas A&M Uni-versity, USA) “Integrated Workflow to Forecast and Maximize Liquid Yield Obtained Over the Life of a Gas Field”

Commendation: Alsu Gabbasova (Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Russia) “Control of Oil Stability towards Asphaltene Pre-cipitation by Bioadditives”

The winners of East meets West 2014 Student Poster Session

1st place: Alina Malinowska, Patrycja Pęczek (AGH University of Science and Technology, Po-land) “Various vegetable products as natural or-ganic sorbents for oil spills removal”

2nd place: Johannes Loisl (University of Vienna, Austria) “High-resolution seismic reflection data acquisition on the Neusiedlersee, Austria”

3rd place: Anastasiya Kirichenko, Anton Zaytsev (Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Russia) “Calculations for an optimum geometry of the Above-Bit Ejector Unit”

Commendation: Ali Elaal (The British Uni-versity in Egypt, Egypt) “Future trends in EEOR (Nano EEOR)”

Workshops�This year “East meets West” gave all its partici-pants to improve their skills. During the congress, three companies organized workshops. Cono-coPhillips was the first one – the workshop was a great portion of knowledge for students of drilling and exploitation subjects. The topic was “Practical safety management on an onshore well location.” The two other workshops prepared students from theoretical and practical point of view to the future

48 Five Years of a Great Experience!

job interview. The first one was prepared by special-ists from Fair Recruitment company and the sec-ond one by specialists from Weatheford company.

Something about your careerAll students could get much more from “East meets West”. Simultaneously to all the panels and sessions, for the three congress days there was open Career Expo with stands of companies which were strategic partners of the Congress: OMV, Weatherford, Schlumberger, United Oil-field Services, ORLEN Upstream. Students had a unique opportunity to talk to the companies’ rep-

resentatives, learn about the companies’ offer and put their CVs. Apart from this, three companies hold recruitment sessions, recruiting both for job and for internships.

See you next year!

What more can I say? Thank you very much for all participants, you have created the magic of “East meets West” together with us. See you next year, during the 6th edition of the Congress, which will take place from 22nd to 24th of April 2015! You can’t miss it!

Filip Krunić 49

summer / 2014

conference | Annual Student Energy Conference

´ The Annual Student Energy Coneference 2014

Filip Krunić

�The Annual Student Energy Conference 2014 was held from 5th to 9th of March 2014, at the University of Zagreb in Croatia. It covered a wide range of topics related to energy and the Oil & Gas Industry, what is more it was Croa-tia’s first ever international student energy con-ference.

�The Conference was entirely organized by the members of the University of Zagreb SPE Student Chapter. I am very proud to be the President of the Chapter, the founder of the Conference and the Main Organizer behind the event. It was a lot of work but it was all worth it when I saw how successful everything was. I hereby wish to thank all the co-organizers, our supporters and most im-portantly, all attendees without whom this event would not be successful.

The Conference had amazing attendance for a first-time event. There were over 150 accredit-

ed students and young professionals as well as 30 experienced professionals who are experts in the Oil & Gas Industry with extensive national and international experience. Attending students were from all over the world: Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, Hun-gary, Germany, Poland and Syria.

During the opening ceremony, there were several distinguished speakers: Vice Rector for Research and Technology at the University of Zagreb (Mel-ita Kovačević); Vice Dean for Science and Inter-national Cooperation at the Faculty of Mining Geology & Petroleum Engineering (Sibila Boro-jević-Šoštarić); and the Secretary of the Croatian Committee of the World Petroleum Council (Bi-serka Cimeša).

They all praised the event and were proud, that such a significant and successful event was organ-ized solely by students.

50 The Annual Student Energy Coneference 2014

There was an almost distribution of professional and student presenters. They have covered a wide range of topics concerning energy and various technologies in the Oil & Gas Industry. I have to say that we were very happy to receive a huge number of interesting paper abstracts from stu-dents and it was not easy to choose which one should be presented.

Apart from attending presentations session, at-tendees had an opportunity to tour Croatia’s won-derful capital City of Zagreb, Croatia’s world-fa-mous Natural Park “Plitvice Lakes”, the Historical Gold Mine “Zrinski” and last but not least, there was a party every night! The conference was offi-cially supported by the University of Zagreb and its Faculty of Mining, Geology & Petroleum En-gineering as well as companies and organizations from the Oil & Gas Industry: oil company – INA (member of MOL group); the Croatian Under-ground Gas Storage Operator – PSP; SPE Croatian Section and the Croatian Committee of the World Petroleum Council.

YoungPetro was the event’s Media Patron and also provided copies of the latest magazine issue to at-tendees.

Lastly, here are several photographs from the event. The most interesting is a photo from the closing ceremony, which shows the Organizers dressed in traditional mining uniforms, a famous trademark in the University and also common in several other countries. The attendees were so amazed by the uniforms that they even wanted to dress themselves and take photos!

We have received nothing but praise and positive feedback from our attendees and our speakers. That is why we plan to organize the Conference next year again and have big plans for the future! It will be even bigger, even better and even more fun. You will be able to find out more information on our website (http://spes.rgn.hr/asec/) in a cou-ple of months, so be sure to follow us there and on Facebook (http://facebook.com/spezg), and we hope to see you in Zagreb in 2015!

Jan Wypijewski 51

summer / 2014

conference | International Scientific & Practical Conference

´ In the Blink of an Eye

Jan Wypijewski

�6th International Scientific & Practical Confer-ence – this fantastic event took place on the 20th and 21st of February 2014 and was organized by Kazakh – British Technical University SPE Stu-dent Chapter and Kazakh – British Technical University in the former capital of Kazakhstan: Almaty. The main topic of students' discussion was “Innovative development in oil and gas in-dustry”. Of course, YoungPetro was the media partner of the whole Conference!

Day 1 �KBTU is located in the former Kazakh Parlia-ment which is one of the most impressive build-ings in Almaty. It was established in 2000 with a patronage of British Prime Minister – Tony Blair.

The university is the most recognizable Kazakh university in the world.

The 6th International Scientific & Practical Con-ference was opened by Pro-Rector for Research at KBTU Mr Muarat Zhurinov, Dean of Energy, Oil

and Gas Faculty Mrs Zaure Bekmukhametova, Ph.D., Mr Marcus Hartland – Mahon from PSN Kazstroy and Mr William Abson from Maersk Oil. Both companies were the main sponsors of the Conference.

After the opening ceremony, special guests pre-sented their speeches. All participants were accus-tomed with the details about Maersk Oil's MITAS programme by Mr Shukhrat Mametov. I also found the lecture of Mr Herwig Ganz very inter-esting. Mr Herwig Ganz is a Shell's Geochemist in Bangalore, India.

After the Plenary Session and lunch all students headed to Paper Contest Session. It was divided into five sections connected with the topics such as: new technologies, geology and exploration,

environmental challenges, mechanics and math-ematical modeling and social – economic prob-lems. All participants showed their best sides and presented really innovative solutions for the in-dustry. After the day full of attractions and fun all of us were invited to a ceremonial dinner.

52 In the Blink of an Eye

Day 2�The second day of the conference was no less attractive than the first one! We started from the presentations by company representatives called Petroleum Engineers' Presentations. What's im-portant is the fact, that YoungPetro International Student Magazine had also its presentation! After lunch, some students took part in a Motivation-al Trainings “My way to professional career and Trends of Kazakhstan labor market for the young specialists,” the rest competed in Intellectual Pe-troleum Games. The quiz was very amusing and educative, the participants presented skills from a wide range of topics connected not only with en-gineering but also with politics or economy. The last event was the Roundtable talk between KBTU and industry representatives and students about the development of oil & gas industry. During

the closing ceremony Pro-Rector for Research at KBTU Mr Muarat Zhurinov awarded the best stu-dents who had won in the Paper Contest in their categories. After the official part, we all headed to Cosmo Leisure Center for a bowling game!

I strongly recommend all of you participation in the 7th International Scientific & Practical Confer-ence the next year. Without any shadow of doubt, the organizers rose to the challenge! Everything was prepared excellently. You should also defi-nitely stay a few days longer and go sightseeing in Almaty and take a trip to Tien Shan moun-tains! You will never forget these places. I would like to thank the organisers and all students with whom I had a pleasure to talk, these from KBTU and these from other Kazakh universities: KNTU, Aktobe and Nazarbayev. I will never forget your great hospitality, kindness and beautiful Kazakh-stan! Spasibo bolshoe!

Our Esteemed Speaking Faculty Includes:

• Azizollah Ramazani, Manager of International Affairs, National Iranian Gas Company

• H.E. Dr. Hamid Reza Katouzian, President of Research Institute of Petroleum Industry, Ministry of Petroleum

• Dr. Kambiz Sadaghiani, CEO, Kayson Energy Company• Dr. Mahdi Asali, Deputy of Research at IIES (Institute for

International Energy Studies) and Advisor to Deputy of Petroleum Minister

• Dr. Alireza Bashari, Chairman of the Board Directors, ISPG (Iranian Society of Petroleum Geology

• Dr. Behrooz Akhlaghi, Attorney at Law, Senior Partner, Dr. Behrooz Akhlaghi & Associates

Orga

nised

by:

Media Partner: For more information contact:Ben Hillary

E: [email protected]: +44 207 111 1615

Endorsed by:

Sponsors: Charity Partner:

The high-level meeting will bring together experienced International Oil Companies (IOCs) in the Middle East along with world famous experts to discuss key opportunities for development of the Iranian oil and gas sector and highlighting areas for greater international co-operation, such as geology and infrastructure.

23-25 June 2014 | Dubaiwww.iransummit.com

Rohit Pal 53

summer / 2014

meeting | UPES SPE Fest 2014

´ Pages from a Diary: India

Rohit Pal

�As we just rounded up with the UPES SPE Fest 2014, I would like to share with you my pleasant experience of an amalgam of fun, knowledge, and interaction.

�Held between 6th and 9th February 2014, Univer-sity of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES) SPE Student Chapter welcomed more than 300 dele-gates under one roof – students from Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and all parts of India.

Day 0/Feb 5: We landed in one of the oldest cities in the country – Dehradun. After reaching our ho-tel that afternoon, we were informed about a cou-ple of field trips scheduled for the day. The first was to Institute of Drilling Technology (IDT), ONGC, Dehradun, where the students witnessed an arti-ficial blowout on a real rig. We were introduced to BOP simulator that belonged to the ONGC, the

national oil company of India, after which we took a round of the cement slurry laboratory. Later, we visited the ONGC Oil Museum that gave us an in-terface to the industry we belong to – a story that starts from exploration to production.

To create just the right ambience for the compe-tition and getting to know each other, the organ-izers hosted a bonfire party in the evening with a lavish Indian dinner setting out one of the best performances by the participants. What a tiring, but great day it was!

“I was greatly motivated by the fest. The fest thought me how to serve the society through

professionalism.” Tauseef Mahmood, Al Habeeb College of En-

gineering & Technology, India

54 Pages from a Diary: India

Day 1/Feb 6: Nestled in the mountain ranges of the Himalayas, UPES is located in the outskirts of the beautiful city of Dehradun. The fest start-ed with the inaugural ceremony in the presence of the Chief Guest, Mr. Rich Paes, Director Op-erations, Cairn India Ltd and other delegates. The preliminary rounds for the Symposium and Source Code took place with a huge number of participants. Various sessions of “Techuminati”

– the Paper Presentation competition – which is the flagship event of the fest started off with a great bang. Shortlisted abstracts had their authors pre-senting their papers to a panel of experienced in-dustrialists. The Schlumberger Case Study – For-tune of a Star Trek, the most awaited competition, was also conducted parallely. Preliminary rounds of "Noesis" – Mega Quizzing event during the fest highlighted the day.

“UPES SPE Fest was one of a kind. Noesis was really great! After attending the workshops by Schlumberger and Baker Hughes, I really felt there's a professional in myself and I'm lucky

to be a part of the oil and gas industry.” Ateeb Sharief, JNTU Hyderabad, India

Day 2/Feb 7: We woke up early in the morning. The cloudy weather couldn’t get better until heavy rains lashed the city. Conclave sessions consisted of the best scientific and experience sharing ses-sions I have attended so far. Anton Paar Work-shops on "Virtuouso" – Poster Presentation also took place, where numerous participants dis-played the latest on various topics from Drilling and Exploration, Reservoir and Production Un-

conventional Resources and Chemical & HSE.

The Indian Oil & Gas Career Expo & Exhibition (IOGCEE) was inaugurated by a panel of industri-alists examining the various projects put up by the pre final year students of UPES. The visitors were given an insight on the oil and gas industry in In-dia. The day was complemented with two really informative Anton Paar’ Workshops.

Day 3/Feb 8: We cruised over the terrains of Bidholi to reach the campus, to witness the Mud Challenge that we all awaited for. It was really great to see over 80 teams battling it out for the finals. Enjoyable events like Treasure event, Snapshot (Photography Contest and Petrabol (Mini-Foot-ball tournament) gained a huge participation

Rohit Pal 55

summer / 2014

among students. Schlumberger marked its pres-ence at the fest by organizing one of the finest workshops for the students to learn more on rate analysis techniques, nodal analysis and inflow per-formance relationships. To rejuvenate our spirits, the Chapter hosted a Cultural Night late in the evening. That night we presented the audience a blend of cultures and colors of harmony and love between nations.

“This fest was a great experience! I loved my stay here in Dehradun, meeting new people

and professionals!” Gugulavath Suresh Naik, Kakinada

Day 4/Feb 9: Every possible technical event asso-ciated with our industry took place during this ex-cellent fest. The most exciting finals of Noesis took the finalists to a rollercoaster streak of rounds. The

Conclave sessions were to conclude today. The Baker Hughes Workshop was the icing of the cake. The workshop was based on the artificial lift sys-tems the company deploys all over the world in different scenarios. Definitely worth attending!

All good things have to come to an end. To put an end to the four day event, the Valedictory ceremo-ny of the SPE Fest 2014 saw UPES keeping home the Champions Trophy and the prize distribution of the various events that took place. My stay in Dehradun has ended likewise.

I extend my warm regards and many thanks to the UPES SPE Chapter for the warm hospitality, excel-lent coordination and quality dedication that all the delegates enjoyed over the week. Hats off to the Organizers! Truly, it was an experience worth the miles for all the participants. UPES SPE Fest, undoubtedly, lived up to its tag: Vision. Venture. Victory.

56 How it works

How it works?

Maciej Wawrzkowicz

�Rocks that occur under huge masses of ocean water and its seabed may conceal abundant reser-voirs of hydrocarbons. And we, as “people of oil and gas”, must know how to extract them. This is why I decided to write something about drill-ships. Of course, information presented in “How it works” of this issue will be only a tip of the ice-berg, which is knowledge of these units used in order to exploration, drilling and hydrocarbon exploitation on the sea.

First of all – let’s think – why did the people start-ed to seek for petroleum “offshore?” The answer is clear – to exploit more than they had been able to produce from wellbores located onshore. Inno-vation was accelerating not only by willingness to earn more but by growing demand for petroleum as well. Did you know that the first offshore drill-ing took place in 1897? Originator of this idea was H.L. Williams, who used the pier in the Santa Bar-bara Channel in California to support a land rig next to an existing field. Five years later, there were 150 offshore wells in the area. When this method of drilling on the sea became relatively popular people started to develop offshore drilling.

In the early 1930s, the Texas Company developed the first mobile steel barges for drilling in the brackish coastal areas of the gulf. But the first se-rious drillship was the Cuss 1 created especially for Mohole project which was an ambitious attempt to drill through the Earth’s crust into the Mohor-ovičić discontinuity and was executed from 1961 to 1966. Fortunately, the collapse of these plans didn’t prevent fast-developing technology of the drilling vessels.

Drillships have extensive mooring or positioning equipment, as well as a helipad to receive supplies

and transport staff. In order to drill, column called marine riser need to pass through the vessel’s moon pool and connect the outlet of the well with the bottom of the drillship.

The main advantage is possibility of drilling on very deep waters, from 610 to even 3,048 meters! Moreover, drillships are completely independent, in contrast to semi-submersibles and jackup barg-es, which need to be transported by another units like seagoing tugs.

On the other hand, the major disadvantage is susceptibility to being agitated by waves, wind and currents. It is especially troublesome when the vessel is actually under drilling process, due to the drillship’s connection with equipment thousands of feet under the sea. This is why these kinds of units are equipped with the most sensi-tive mooring systems. Sometimes, especially on the shallower waters, drillships are moored to the seafloor with just a few anchors but when waters are deeper drilling vessels depend on dynamic positioning systems (DPS) – that I was describing in the previous issue – to keep the vessel in place while drilling.

The world´s largest drillships are the Discover-er Enterprise, Discoverer Spirit and Discoverer Deep Seas, each of which displaces 103,000 tones. The vessels are owned by Transocean Inc. (USA) and are capable of drilling in over 3,050 m of wa-ter, and to overall depths of 10,650 m. The ships are 255 m long and 38 m wide! By contrast, the most expensive drillship ever built is DrillMAX ICE con-structed in South Korea.

See you in the subsequent issue! Next time we will be talking about oil rigs!

Call for Papers�YoungPetro is waiting for your paper!

The topics of the papers should refer to: Drilling Engineering, Reservoir Engineering, Fuels and Energy, Geology and Geophysics, Environ-mental Protection, Management and Economics

Papers should be sent to papers @ youngpetro.org

For more information visit youngpetro.org/papers

57

SUMMER / 2013

ISSN 2300-1259

WINTER/SPRING / 2012

ISSN 2300-1259

AUTUMN / 2012

summer / 2013

SUM

MER

/ 2

014

SUMMER / 2014



Become an

Ambassador

in your country!




Become an

Ambassador

in your country!




Become an

Ambassador

in your country!


youngpetro - 12th issue - summer 2014

Documents

autumn issue of youngpetro

information visit youngpetro

great summer

time of summer internships

new editorial board

vacation time

time of hard work

new skills