Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science

Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022

Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

Tubing Size Selection for Variation Percentages Water Cut in Well X Field Y
Florentino L. S Amaral and Edigar P. B. D. S. Gama
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Dili Institute of Technology (DIT), Timor-Leste
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Crude oil water cut is the percentage mass of water in all the liquids, i.e. increase of water in crude oil. Water cut is the significant
parameter along with the Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) for the crude oil to surely indicate the water content in the reservoir fluids. Water cut
is commonly expressed in percentage, this paper describes a method of determining water cut percentages with tubing variations
(inch), in order to have an applicable tubing size in water cut wells. There are several ways to determine the well’s performance,
single way is the tubing performance relation curve, also known as the tubing performance curve (TPR/TPC). The TPC is used with
the inflow performance relationship (IPR) to predict the performance of specific well, with aim to decide the performance of oil well
before well optimization conducted, Inflow Performance Relationships (IPR) curve is used. The curve illustrated relation between
well production rates (Q) to bottom-hole pressure (P). The IPR method calculation based on fluid phase that flowing in the well
through the conduit to surface. The result variation water cut percentages optimizing with an appropriated tubing size (Inch) for
wells. Thus, the effect of tubing size could be optimized the production rate that will be produced.
Keywords: Water Cut, TPR & IPR, Tubing size Variations.
Received April 21, 2022; Revised May 29, 2022; Accepted August 22, 2022

1. Introduction
Oil and gas production is an activity where, lifts fluid as expected, this is due to the condition that the surface and
from the formation to the surface through production facilities. boundaries of production facilities are indicators of failure in
Production activities can be classified into three stages such as the production plan (quantity and life time of production). In
primary production, secondary production and tertiary previous studies using the nodal analysis method for the
production (fanchi at al. 2017.)In the primary production selection of performance tubing. However, this study focused
stage, the production activities use natural flow and artificial on how far the selection of tubing size (inch) in the field with
lift production methods. Although natural flow production the assumption of a different percentage of water cut, initially
there are some wells or new fields, most of them have an experiment was conducted to determine the effect of tubing
production problems such as water cut problems, as a result of size on the amount of water cut percentage and each number
incorrectly determining the perforation point at the time of of presentations on variations in tubing size through nodal
well completion. According to (Timothy, 2020). In addition to analysis.
completing completion, water cut problems can also occur due
to the long production time in reservoir conditions where the
driving force is water drive. The water cut problem is a very 2. Literature Review
important problem from a technical and environmental point
of view. Excess water cut can cause a drastic reduction in oil In the reservoir condition high water cut wells make
production. (Bailey et al, 2000). Excessive water production some bad impact in the production stages (Afi et al., 2017).
does not pose a risk to the profitability of oil and gas Water-production problems can vary from (1) leaks in casing,
producing wells but also reduces the sweep efficiency and production tubing or packers; (2) flow behind casing; (3)
final recovery of the oil reservoir. According to (Botermans et water coning (or water cresting in horizontal wells); (4) direct
all. 2001) prevention of water production is more effective communication from injector to producer through natural or
than treatment. induced fractures (Vasquez, 2015). Problems identification for
Not only maintaining assets in the field by preventing the water cut are: high permeability streaks; Bottom Water and
increase in water cut, but the amount of water cut greatly Coning and Near Wellbore Problems (Al-dhafeeri, 2012).
affects the selection of tubing sizes. Tubing is a series of Usually because of the strong aquifer in the reservoir where
production pipes covered with steel with variations in inside water underlying the oil zone and this can cause water cut
and outside sizes from 2,025 inch – 7 inch (API 5 CT).Not all during production phase. Water breakthrough in the formation
tubing sizes can be used in production activities, but there are sometimes is common in intervals with high permeability
various parameters that must be considered, one of which is streaks causing the water cut to increase substantially, thus
fluid properties. (Bariakpoa, 2018). the effective tubing size affecting the oil producing zones. Besides the onset of water,
must be based on the amount of fluid production and the life additional decline results from high pressure drawdown and
time of production, but not all wells and oil fields can produce high clay content (including Kaolinite) in the formation.
Therefore, when production is conducted in formation with

33
Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

high permeability streaks it can cause water breakthrough prone to happen immediately after the well is completed or
during early production due to the difference between upper stimulated (Gasbarri, 2008). High water cut is attributed to
formation and lower formation (Boucher, 2011) and the study poor sweep efficiency due to preferential movement of water
was conducted on subject reservoir is a leading example from conventional injector to producer through high
where the upper layer (Upper Sand) permeability is in the permeability streaks/thief zones in the crested area (Majhi,
range of 100 Milli-Darcy and contains approximately low 2015).
percentage of the total oil in place. There is a consistent and almost immediate response
The lower flow unit, (Lower Sand) has permeability between injection rates and water cut, the cause of high
approximately 10 to 50 times higher than the upper flow unit, injection rates results in a fast rise in water (Al-murayri,
contain the bulk of the oil. In addition, inter-bedded zones 2019). In general, mature fields are oil fields that have been
have higher permeability in each sand of the three sands the producing for a long period of time, as a reservoir mature
upper, middle and the lower sand. In such a case, fluid flow there is almost inevitable increase in water cut (Thiruthonder,
preferentially through the lower zone and very little of it was 2020) & (Tiwari, 2016). Early water breakthrough in many of
diverted into the upper or the low permeability inter-bedded the recently drilled rapid development wells in the East and
zones accelerating the water production (Al-dhafeeri et al., West accumulation was caused by fractures lead to high water
2012). production (Sivrikoz, 2018).
Problems of excessive water production associated to the Tubing is one of the important component parts in the
reservoir, commonly are water conning (in vertical wells) and production system of a flowing well and is the main channel
water cresting (in horizontal wells) both of them are originated for oil and gas field development. The pressure drop for the
by an excessive reduction of the well bottom hole flowing fluid lifting from the bottom hole to the surface can be up to
pressure, this cause the water of an adjacent zone to flow 80% of the total, the pressure drop of the oil and gas system.
towards the completion and this usually happens in formations Any oil well system has an optimum tubing size. Undersized
with high vertical permeability along with high water-oil tubing will limit the production rate due to the increased
mobility ratio (Gasbarri, 2008). friction resistance caused by excessive flow velocity.
(Al-dhafeeri et al., 2012) also states that several wells Contrarily oversized tubing may lead to an excessive liquid
especially the vertical ones are examples for suffering for phase loss due to slippage effect or an excessive down-hole
water coning problem because of high permeability. Coning liquid loading during lifting. Therefore, sensitivity analysis of
problem in water is bottom water infiltrates the perforation tubing size should be carried out using the nodal analysis
zone in the near-wellbore area and reduces oil production or method. A well production is dependent on mechanical
affects cumulative production, operation costs and cause configuration of the wellbore, the fluid properties the reservoir
environmental problem (Jafari, 2012) and water forms cones conditions and several others factor. There are several ways to
more vigorously through the permeable channels with the determine the well’s performance (Gromotka, 2015). One way
increase in hydraulic fracture conductivity (Prasun, 2018). It is is the tubing performance relation curve, also known as the
important to consider that coning is normally associated with tubing performance curve (TPR/TPC).
high production rates, when the theoretical critical rate is A mathematical tool used in production engineering to
exceed a deformation of gas or water contact will occur assess the performance of the completion string by plotting the
(Espinola, 2016). surface production rate against the flowing bottom hole
Poor cement bonding could be caused of water pressure. The fluid composition and behavior of the fluid
channeling behind casing which is one of the most serious phases in the specific completion design will determine the
problem to increase water production (Moawad, 2013) or shape of the curve. The TPC is used with the inflow
bottom water is produced by two different mechanisms either performance relationship to predict the performance of
poor quality completion (cement channels, casing leaks, etc.) specific well (Guo et al, 2008).
or coning (fazal, 2019). In addition, wrong and improper The TPR curve is a combination of all possible steady
intervals just near the bottom water or the above gas or state production conditions for the well, given certain
adjacent to a conductive fault cause water breakthrough conditions. To determine the actual or natural production
resulted from water movement (Al-dhafeeri et al., 2012). conditions the characteristics of the reservoir need to be taken
Pulling high rate from the reservoir or quest for high into the well. In many circumstances, the conditions of surface
production performance through high rate thus high flow line cannot be determined in advance and the first
drawdown have cause some wells to cut water early in their method cannot be used for the sensitivity analysis of tubing
producing life therefore initiating early extra cost for water size. Thus, the tubing size is optimized by setting wellhead
handling and water shut-off activities (Oyakhire, 2017). High tubing pressure or PWH. The fluid flow in tubing during
water cut might be caused by lateral water breakthrough from flowing production can be analyzed in accordance with the
an offset injection well, coning or channeling behind casing aforementioned vertical flow rule in tubing. The most
from an underlying or overlying aquifer (Ali & Ahmed, 2017) sensitive factors affecting the pressure gradient distribution of
Apart from this, common problem of water breakthrough multiphase vertical flow in tubing include tubing size,
associated to the near-wellbore is flow behind the casing in production rate, gas liquid ratio, viscosity, and water cut are
which flow channels may be developed through the cement basically in a range, where the production rate can be
behind the casing through the life of the well, being more controlled and changed. In accordance with the theory of

34
Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

multiphase flow in tubing, each production rate value relationship (TPR) curves. The IPR and TPR curves can
corresponds to the optimum tubing size so that the pressure describe the ability of the well to drain fluid from the reservoir
gradient (or pressure depletion) in tubing can be the minimum. based on the sum of the reservoir pressure and the bottom
The effect of change in tubing size is often analyzed using the flow pressure of the well.
coordinate diagram of pressure P and production rate Q. The
optimum tubing size is generally determined using the nodal 4.1. Water Cut Effect Amount the Production.
analysis method.
Production problems that often occur when production
activities are running in addition sand, paraffin, scale and
water cut problems. According to (Thiruthonder, 2020) &
3. Research Methodology (Tiwari, 2016) this production problem can occur based on the
production time in an oil well which is the basic driving force
This research is carried out in stages, the initial stage is
in the reservoir in the form of water. There are also other
calculating the data from the number of water cut studies which say that the problem of water cut is not only
presentations; 10%, 20% and 30% for one type of tubing size based on production time but also the permeability factor and
in one well condition, with the aim of knowing the effect of the amount of production produced that does not match well
the amount of water cut when producing a certain tubing size conditions can trigger the number of water cuts to increase.
through nodal analysis. The second stage determines the The water cut problem has a significant impact on
effective tubing size based on the production rates at each production wells, especially the amount of production.
water cut presentation for different wells condition. Figured 1 shows the effect of the amount of water cut on the
Field X is a field that has three production wells (D1, D2 production rate through nodal analysis, and the 2.093 inch
and D3). When there are completions of the three wells, the tubing is the tubing used for testing variations in the amount
water cut was detected. Due to the limited size of tubing in the of water cut. At the water cut, 10% of the well is able to
field, it is recommended to determine the effective tubing size produce liquid of 1.580,32 bbl/day, WC20% produced
for each well that has a different amount of water cut 1.623,37 bbl/day, and WC30% produced 1.664,60 bbl/day. If
presentation. D1 well is a well that has 10% water cut, well the amount of water cut is not much, the production rates are
depth 6900 fit, reservoir pressure 4300 psi/fit, qtest 680 bbl/d, greater. This phenomenon occurs as a result of the pressure
D2 well has 20% water cut, well depth 6900 fit, reservoir gradient in the tubing, because the smaller the water content in
pressure 4300 psi/fit, qtest 680 bbl/d and well D3 has 30% the oil, the lighter the fluid density in the tubing, when
water cut, well depth 6900 fit, reservoir pressure 4300 psi/fit, compared to the large amount of water content. If the pressure
qtets 680 bbl/d. in the tubing (outflow) is much smaller than the reservoir
pressure, the production rate will be even greater. The same
thing was expressed, that the bottom flow pressure of the well
4. Result and Discussion has a significant effect on the amount of production rate that
will be produced (Kermit & Brown, 1985).
Results of the study in fluids production system from the
well using the nodal analysis method through the, inflow
performance relationship (IPR) and tubing performance

Tubing 2.093-in VS Water Cut

3,200.00 Variations (%)
3,100.00
PWF (PSI/FT)

1,580.32
BBL/D
3,000.00 1,623.37
BBL/D IPR
2,900.00
1,664.
2,800.00

2,700.00
0 PRODUCTION
2000 RATE4000
(BBL/D)
Figure 1. Effect of Water Cut Quantities Amount Production.

35
Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

4.2. Tubing Size Selection in Water Cut Production.

the most important factor in determining the amount of
Tubing is a production facility that is used to drain fluid
production rate and length of production time. According to
from the bottom of the well up to the surface. The tubing itself
the production limit recommended by Kermit and Brown, the
has various sizes on the inside and outside diameter, according
production rate for the natural flow method is between 30%-
to API 5 CT the smallest inside diameter size is 1,278 inches
70% of the pump's maximum production rate, while for
and the largest is 3,958 inches, but you can also use casing as
artificial lift it is between 40%-60%, the purpose of this limit
a substitute for tubing if the condition of the well allows it to
is to maintain formation stability, wells, avoiding well
be used. The function of tubing is not only to flow fluid but
production and profitability problems.
also as

Water Cut 10% VS Tubing

9,000.00 Variaions (Inch)
8,000.00 636.73
7,000.00
6,000.00
PWF (PSI/FT)

1,664.60 IPR
5,000.00
BBL/D
4,000.00 Tubing
3,000.00 1.885
2,000.00
1,000.00
0 2000 4000 6000
PRODUCTION RATE (BBL/D)
Figure 2. Water Cut 10% VS Tubing Variation
(Inch)

Figure 2 The graphic IPR identified using available data 1.664,60 Bbl/day, with the Pwf is amount 2.951,26
and used in the current simulation model for water cut Psi/ft and the tubing 2.664” produces 1.664,60 Bbl/day
10% VS tubing variation (inch) such as; tubing 1.885”, with the Pwf is amount 2.951,26 Psi/ft. This
tubing 2.093” and tubing 2.664”. In addition, the optimization production well could be the tubing size
production rates for the TPR at nodal points such as; 2.093” with the same high production rates as 2.664”
tubing 1.885” produces 636,737 Bbl/day, with the Pwf however, it has the smaller size.
is amount 3.833,52 Psi/ft, the tubing 2.093” produces

Water Cut 20% VS Tubing

9,000.00
Variations (Inch)
622.3201
7,000.00 BBL/D
PWF (PSI/FT)

1,623.37 IPR
5,000.00 BBL/D

3,000.00 Tubing
1.885
1,000.00
0 2000 4000 6000
PRODUCTION RATE (BBL/D)

36
 Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

Figure 3. Water Cut 20% VS Tubing Variation (Inch)

Figure 3. The graphic IPR illustrated using available 1.623,37 Bbl./day, with the Pwf is amount 2.990,90
data and used in the current simulation model for water Psi/ft, and the tubing 2.664” produces 1.623,37
cut 20% VS tubing variation (inch) such as; tubing Bbl./day, with the Pwf is amount 2.990,90 Psi/ft. This
1.885”, tubing 2.093” and tubing 2.664”. Additionally, optimization production well could be the tubing size
the production rates for the TPR at nodal points such as; 2.093” with the same high production rates as 2.664”
tubing 1.885” produces 622,3201 Bbl/day, with the Pwf however, it has the smaller size.
is amount 3.844,63 Psi/ft, the tubing 2.093” produces

Water Cut 30% VS Tubing

9,000.00
Variations (Inch)
8,000.00 608.1229
BBL/D
7,000.00
PWF (PSI/FT)

6,000.00
1,580.3 IPR
5,000.00
4,000.00 Tubing 1.885
3,000.00 Tubing 2.664
2,000.00 Tubing 2.093
1,000.00
0.00
0 2000 4000 6000
PRODUCTION RATE (BBL/D)
Figure 4. Water Cut 30% VS Tubing Variation (Inch)

Figure 4 The graphic IPR showed using available data and impact on production wells, especially the amount of
used in the current simulation model for water cut 30% VS production.
tubing variation (inch) such as; tubing 1.885”, tubing 2.093” b) The 2.093-ID is the tubing size used for testing
and tubing 2.664”. Furthermore, the production rate for the variations in the amount of water cut. This tubing is
TPR at nodal points such as; tubing 1.885” produces 608, 1229 the optimum tubing in optimizing production rates, at
Bbl/day, with the Pwf is amount 3.855,54 Psi/ft, the tubing the water cut, 10% of the well is able to produce
2.093” produces 1.580,32 Bbl/day, with the Pwf is amount liquid of 1.664,60 bbl/day, with the Pwf is amount
3.031,82 Psi/ft, and the tubing 2.664” produces 1.580,32 2.951,26 Psi/ft, the WC20% produces 1.623,37
Bbl./day, with the Pwf amount 3.031,82 Psi/ft. This bbl/day, with the Pwf is amount 2.990,90 Psi/ft,
optimization production well could be the tubing size 2.093” besides this, the WC30% produces 1.580,32 bbl/day,
with the same high production rate as 2.664” however, it has with the Pwf is amount 3.031,82 Psi/ft. If the amount
the smaller size. of water cut is not much, the production rates are
greater. Water cut with the high percentages can
cause to the production quantity decrease,
5. Conclusion and Recommendation additionally, the larger tubing size is absolutely affect
5.1. Conclusion the production rates increase.
The conclusion of the result of this study as the following:
a) Water cut production problem can occur based on the 5.2 Recommendation
production time in an oil well which is the basic
Due to water cut problem in producing crude oil which is
driving force in the reservoir in the form of water.
prevention of water production is more effective than
There are also other studies which say that the
treatment. Take detail control when production is conducted in
problem of water cut is not only based on production
formation with high permeability streaks it can cause water
time but also the permeability factor and the amount
breakthrough during early production due to the difference
of production produced that does not match well
between upper formation and lower formation. It’s accurate if
conditions can trigger the number of water cuts to
the pressure in the tubing (outflow) is much smaller than the
increase. The water cut problem has a significant
reservoir pressure, the production rate will be even greater. It’s

37
Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

more effective when tubing size is smaller but the production Espinola, O., Guzman, J. D., Mehranfar, R., & Pineda, H.
rate is higher rather than the tubing size is bigger however, the (2016). An integrated and reliable workflow to determine
production rate is lower at each water cut presentation for critical rates for gas and water coning in oil and gas
different wells condition. reservoirs - A multi well approach, case study Pemex,
Mexico. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE Trinidad
and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference.
References https://doi.org/10.2118/180775-MS
Afi, F. N., Gunawan, H., Widiatmo, R., Waskito, L. B., Gasbarri. (2008). SPE 117236 Water-Production Diagnosis
Nugroho, P., Luthfan, M., … Suryana, A. (2017). How to Using Transient Test W ith Multiphase Flowmeter, 1–21.
solve high water cut well problem in mature oil field, case
study: Application of modified completion fluid treatment Gromotka, Z. J. G. (2015). The Stability Region of the
in WW d-29, WW h-12, II a-22 wells. Society of Petroleum Tubing Performance Rela-tion Curve. Retrieved from
Engineers - SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil and Gas http://repository.tudelft.nl/.
Conference and Exhibition 2017, 2017-Janua. Guo, B., Feng, Y., & Ghalambor, A. (2008). Prediction of
https://doi.org/10.2118/187009-ms influx rate and volume for planning UBD horizontal wells
Al-dhafeeri, A. M., Aramco, S., Mohammed, T., & to reduce formation damage. Proceedings - SPE
Moawad, T. M. (2012). SPE 158747 Lessons Learned from International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
a Water Shutoff Technique for Cross Flow between Two 1(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.2118/111346-ms
Perforation Intervals in Al-Khafji Field. Jafari, I., Jamshidi, S., & Masihi, M. (2012). Investigating
Al-murayri. (2019). SPE-198035-MS Chemical EOR Pilot the mechanism of water inflow in gas wells in fractured gas
Design Optimization Through Dynamic Reservoir reservoirs and designing a controlling method. SPE
Characterization. Production and Operations Symposium, Proceedings, 1,
323–340. https://doi.org/10.2118/156039-ms
Ali, & Ahmed. (2017). SPE-187557-MS Productivity
Assessment and Evaluation of Water Coning Tendency to Majhi. (2015). SPE-175391-MS Mitigating Water
Support Full Field Development Plan Using Single Well Recycling in a Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoir,
Numerical Model. (October), 11–14.

Bariakpoa Kinate, B., Kponanyie Dune, K., & Leyii Moawad. (2013). SPE 164642 Reservoir Management
Kluivert, N. (2018). Optimum Tubing Size Prediction for Tool-Kits in Offshore Khafji Field : Successful Solutions
Vertical Multiphase flow in Niger Delta Wells. for Field Case Studies on Water Conning Problems in
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Sandstone Reservoirs.
9(2), 26–34. Retrieved from http://www.ijser.org Oyakhire. (2017). SPE-189129-MS Best Practice for
Botermans, C. W., Van Batenburg, D. W., & Bruining, J. Marginal Oil Field Development and Production
(2001). Relative Permeability Modifiers: Myth or Reality? Sustainability beyond First Oil Production . – Niger Delta
SPE - European Formation Damage Control Conference, Case Operational & Technical Challenges.
Proceedings, 429–441. https://doi.org/10.2523/68973-ms Prasun, S., & Wojtanowicz, A. K. (2018). Determination
Boucher, A., Del Rio, C., Salazar, F., Milne, A., & Robles, and Implication of Ultimate Water Cut in Well-Spacing
M. (2011). Increasing oil production without increasing Design for Developed Reservoirs with Water Coning.
water cut in wells in Ecuador. Society of Petroleum Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, Transactions of the
Engineers - 9th European Formation Damage Conference ASME, 140(8). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039743
2011, 1(June), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.2118/143777-ms Sivrikoz, A., Chavez, M. J., & Buwaiqi, S. (2018). Tackling
Brown, K. E., & Lea, J. F. (1985). Nodal Systems Analysis high water production in Oman South Fields with new
of Oil and Gas Wells. JPT, Journal of Petroleum technology. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE
Technology, 37(11), 1751–1763. International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition 2018,
https://doi.org/10.2118/14714-pa HOCE 2018, (December), 10–12.
https://doi.org/10.2118/193658-MS
Colection, S., Blanco, O., Crabtree, M., & Romano, C.
(2018). Oilfield Review 30 Water Control Related papers. Thiruthonder. (2020). OTC-30105-MS Multi-Functional
Copyright 2000 American Petroleum Institute Information Production Unit for Marginal Fields, 17–19.
Handling Services, 2000. (2000). Timothy, O. (2020). SPE-203620-MS Investigating the

38
Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

Correlation between Water Saturation obtained from Cased- a Mature Field in Mumbai Offshore Region.
Hole Saturation Tool Measurements and Produced Water
Cut in Strong Water Drive Reservoirs Review of Pulsed Vasquez, J., & Curtice, R. (2015). A shallow-penetration
Neutron Logging Tools and Neutron Measurement polymer sealant for water and gas control: Case histories
Processing. and lessons learned after more than 250 well interventions.
SPE - European Formation Damage Conference,
Tiwari. (2016). Application of Drag Reducing Agent in Proceedings, EFDC, 2015-Janua, 1186–1195.
Pipeline handling High Water Cut Fluid - Case Study from https://doi.org/10.2118/174246-ms

Appendix

Table 1. Well X and Field Y, tubing 2.093" VS Water cut Variations (%)

39
Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

Table 2. Well D1 Water Cut 10% VS Tubing size 1.885”, 2.093” and 2.664”.

Table 3. Well D2 Water Cut 20% VS Tubing size 1.885”, 2.093” and 2.664”.

40
Timor-Leste Journal of Engineering and Science
Vol.3, Issue.1, pp.33-41, 2022
Available online at: http://tljes.org/index.php/tljes/data

Table 4. Well D3 Water Cut 30% VS Tubing size 1.885”, 2.093” and 2.664”.

41