Sie sind auf Seite 1von 94

Petroleum Experts

Integrated Production Modelling


An Introduction to PROSPER,
MBAL & GAP
November 2007

Training Course Notes

Copyright Notice
The copyright in this manual and the associated computer program are the property of Petroleum Experts
Ltd. All rights reserved. Both, this manual and the computer program have been provided pursuant to a
Licence Agreement containing restriction of use.
No part of this manual may be reproduced, transmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system, or
translated into any language, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or
otherwise, or disclose to third parties without prior written consent from Petroleum Experts Ltd., Spectrum
House, 2 Powderhall Road, Edinburgh, EH7 4GB, Scotland, UK.
Petroleum Experts Ltd. All rights reserved.
IPM Suite, GAP, PROSPER, MBAL, PVTP, REVEAL, RESOLVE, IFM and OpenServer are trademarks of
Petroleum Experts Ltd.
Microsoft (Windows), Windows (NT), Windows (2000) and Windows (XP) are registered trademarks of the
Microsoft Corporation
The software described in this manual is furnished under a licence agreement. The software may be used
or copied only in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It is against the law to copy the software on
any medium except as specifically allowed in the license agreement. No part of this documentation may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or information storage and retrieval systems for any purpose other than the purchaser's personal
use, unless express written consent has been given by Petroleum Experts Limited.

Address:
Petroleum Experts Limited
Petex House
10 Logie Mill
Edinburgh, Scotland
EH7 4HG
Tel : (44 131) 474 7030
Fax : (44 131) 474 7031
email: edinburgh@petex.com
Internet: www.petex.com

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

Contents

Table of Contents
0

Chapter 1

IPM Course - Introduction

1 Objectives

................................................................................................................................... 1

2 The IPM Concept


................................................................................................................................... 2
3 The IPM Modelling
...................................................................................................................................
Platform
3
4 Introduction and
...................................................................................................................................
Scope of Work
5

Chapter 2

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

1 Problem 1: System
...................................................................................................................................
solution using PROSPER
6
2 Problem 2: Flow
...................................................................................................................................
line modelling within PROSPER
9
3 Problem 3: Review
...................................................................................................................................
Exercise
13
4 Problem 4: Importance
...................................................................................................................................
of correct PVT
16
5 Problem 5: Effect
...................................................................................................................................
of oil FVF on production
18
6 Problem 6: Flow
...................................................................................................................................
correlation selection within PROSPER
20
7 Problem 7: Well
...................................................................................................................................
bore modelling review exercise
22
8 Problem 8: Running
...................................................................................................................................
Sensitivities studies in PROSPER for matched well models
26

Chapter 3

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling


Exercises

28

1 Problem 9: Building
...................................................................................................................................
a Darcy well inflow model
28
2 Problem 10: Effects
...................................................................................................................................
of Water cut on IPR
30
3 Problem 11: Use
...................................................................................................................................
PROSPER to build a Karakas and Tariq skin Model
31
4 Problem 12: Use
...................................................................................................................................
PROSPER to build a Gravel Pack design model
34
5 Problem 13: Review
...................................................................................................................................
Exercise
36
6 Problem 14: ...................................................................................................................................
Building IPR Model for Horizontal well with closed boundaries.
40
7 Problem 15a:...................................................................................................................................
Multilayer IPR models (Case 1).
42
8 Problem 15b:...................................................................................................................................
Multilayer IPR models (Case 2).
45
9 Problem 16: ...................................................................................................................................
Building Multi-rate C & n inflow model for gas wells
47

Chapter 4

PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises

49

1 Problem 17: Gas


...................................................................................................................................
Lift Design
49
2 Problem 18: Using
...................................................................................................................................
Quick-look option of PROSPER as a diagnostic tool
52
3 Problem 19: ESP
...................................................................................................................................
Design
54

Chapter 5

PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises

56

1 Problem 20: ...................................................................................................................................


Multi-branch completion modelling
56
2 Problem 21: ...................................................................................................................................
Complex Horizontal Well Modelling
60
November, 2007

II

IPM Training Course Notes

Chapter 6

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

63

1 Problem 22: ...................................................................................................................................


Building Tank model for a reservoir with a known production history
63
2 Problem 23: Review
...................................................................................................................................
Exercise.
66
3 Problem 24: Use
...................................................................................................................................
of MBAL for oil water contact monitoring
68
4 Problem 25: ...................................................................................................................................
Performing Predictions using MBAL.
69
5 Problem 26: ...................................................................................................................................
Building a Tank Model for a Reservoir with Know Production History by Well 70

Chapter 7

GAP - Surface Network Modelling


Exercises

73

1 Problem 27: ...................................................................................................................................


Integrated Production Modelling Model Setup
73
2 Problem 28: ...................................................................................................................................
Integrated Production Modelling Solve Network
75
3 Problem 29: ...................................................................................................................................
Integrated Production Modelling Production Forecasting
76
4 Problem 30: ...................................................................................................................................
Gas Lift Optimisation
78

Chapter 8

OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial

80

1 Problem 31a:...................................................................................................................................
OpenServer Exercise 1
80
2 Problem 31b:...................................................................................................................................
OpenServer Exercise 2
81

Chapter 9

IPM Review - Workshop

82

1 IPM Review -...................................................................................................................................


Workshop
82

Chapter 10

Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network


Optimisation

84

1 GAP Constrained
...................................................................................................................................
Network Optimisation
84

IPM Course - Introduction

IPM Course - Introduction

1.1

Objectives

Integrated Field Development Analysis


Optimisation and Forecasting
Overall Objectives:
1. Developing the dexterity skills of the programs
2. Basic understanding of the physics
3. Understanding the limitation of the methods and techniques used
Agenda:
Day 1
Introduction to integrated production system and overall approach
Introduction to PROSPER
Pressure loss in wellbore
Importance of PVT
VLP correlations theory
Building a wellbore model, Matching PVT and flow correlations, and generation of
lift curves for output to GAP or simulator.
Day 2
Inflow performance models
Gas lift design
ESP Design
Use of Quick-look for gas lift
Day 3
Introduction to MBAL
Running and matching prediction, importing VLP's and IPR's from PROSPER
Introduction to Multi-PVT MBAL
Day 4
Introduction to GAP
Building surface network model- linking PROSPER well models
Generation of surface performance curves
Linking PROSPER, MBAL and GAP for full field optimisation and forecasting
Day 5
Workshop

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

1.2

The IPM Concept


In its simplest form a production system can be visualised as shown in the sketch below.

The following elements need to be considered when studying the behaviour of such a
system:

For a given reservoir how much of oil / gas is recovered at separator level
depends on the facilities that connect the two.

Thus any strategy designed to maximise / optimise the oil and gas recovery of the
field requires simultaneous modelling of the reservoir, facilities and the separator.

Decision making process should be based on how these components interact


with each other.

This type of model could be used to fulfil different objectives such as:

Decision making process should be based on how these components interact


with each other.

Production Allocation

Optimally meeting Production Targets

Short-Term to Long-Term Forecasting

Maintenance Planning

November, 2007

IPM Course - Introduction

1.3

The IPM Modelling Platform


The Petroleum Experts toolkit is designed to build and study a complete integrated model.
The following tools are used for the different modelling aspect:

PROSPER, Single Wellbore-Modelling Tool

MBAL, Material Balance Reservoir Modelling Tool

GAP, General Allocation Program


Surface Network Modelling and Optimisation Tool
GAP is the total system-modelling tool. It models the surface network internally.
For modelling reservoirs it calls MBAL tool and uses it.
For well modelling it calls PROSPER and uses it.

The following sketch is drawn to explain how these tools interact with each other.

PVTP, Fluid Characterisation Tool


PVTP is used to characterise the fluid pressure - volume temperature behaviour and
is used to construct models that will be used by other tools.

REVEAL, Specialised Numerical Simulator Reservoir Modelling Tool

RESOLVE, IPM controller, establishing the link between the IPM suite and
third-party tools.

IFM, Integrated Field Management


2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

IFM is a tool that provides the engineers with the ability to keep these Integrated
Models Valid and perform the various tasks (one of which is rate allocation for
instance) through pre-defined workflows that the engineers can follow.

November, 2007

IPM Course - Introduction

1.4

Introduction and Scope of Work


In the overall scheme that we will follow during this course we will build an integrated model
of a very simple field, with two-reservoir block being produced by one well.
Then we will model each component of the system, the wells, the reservoirs and the
gathering network in a sequential manner.
At each stage we will be adding more information that may be available to us and see the
value of the added information.
At the end, we should be capable to use the field scale integrated model, to study the
response of our total system.
We will start by drawing the simple system we want to model and then proceed in a
sequential manner. The system sketch is given in below.
Also, in order to keep track of what we will be doing it is better to use the following directory
structure.

Save this GAP file as day1/Simple.GAP.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

2.1

Problem 1: System solution using PROSPER


Objective:
This problem is designed to:
-

Introduce PROSPER to the student,

Help the user to familiarise with PROSPER,

Show how to enter PVT data, IPR and VLP data

Show how to perform a system (VLP + IPR) using PROSPER and

Show where to find the desired results

Given PVT, IPR and well completion data, calculate the flow rate for this naturally
flowing oil well if the flowing well head pressure is 450 psig.
Dataset:
BLACK OIL PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid

Oil and Water

Separator

Single-Stage

Solution GOR
Oil Gravity

800 (SCF/STB)
35 (API)

Gas Gravity

0.78

Water Salinity

80000 (ppm)

EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Measured Depth (feet)

True Vertical Depth (feet)

1000

1000

1500

1500

1954

1950

2262

2250

3077

3000

8993

8000

12672

11000

12960

11200

13435

11500

DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Label

Equipment
Type

MD (feet)

ID (inches)

Roughness (inches)

Wellhead

Xmas Tree

N/A

N/A

Tubing

Tubing

1100

3.992

0.0006

Safety Valve

SSSV

1100

3.6

N/A

Tubing

Tubing

13000

3.992

0.0006

Casing

Casing

13400

6.13

0.0006

GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)

Temperature
oF

60

1000

50

13400

250

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8 (BTU/h/ft2/F)


INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA
Over twenty inflow options are available.
The choice depends upon the available information and the type of sensitivities that
you wish to run

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

Method

PI Entry

Reservoir Pressure

5200

psig

Reservoir Temperature

250.0

Water Cut

Total GOR

800.0

SCF/STB

Productivity Index

10

STB/day/psi

Compaction Permeability
Reduction

No

Relative Permeability

No

RESULTS

450 psig

Well Head Pressure

Oil Rate

8699.0

STB/day

Flowing BH Pressure

3316.8

Psig

Flowing Wellhead Temperature

Save this PROSPER file as prob1.out.

November, 2007

degF

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

2.2

Problem 2: Flow line modelling within PROSPER


Objective:
This problem is designed to:
-

Show how to include pipeline into a PROSPER model,

Show how to describe pipelines,

Show the impact of pipeline on a well bore model

Reinforce how to perform a system (VLP + IPR) using PROSPER and

Review where to find the desired results

Given PVT, IPR, well completion data and surface pipeline, calculate the flow rate for
this naturally flowing oil well if the downstream pressure at the delivery point (here
called Manifold, NOT well head) is 450 psig.
START WITH THE prob1.out FILE
Dataset:
BLACK OIL PVT DATA

The PVT Data is similar to that of Problem 1.


Reservoir Fluid

Oil and Water

Separator

Single-Stage

Solution GOR
Oil Gravity

800 (SCF/STB)
35 (API)

Gas Gravity

0.78

Water Salinity

80000 (ppm)

EQUIPMENT DATA

DEVIATION SURVEY

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

10

Measured Depth (feet)

True Vertical Depth (feet)

1000

1000

1500

1500

1954

1950

2262

2250

3077

3000

8993

8000

12672

11000

12960

11200

13435

11500

Note: The zero depth of the deviation survey refers to the MSL /rig depth.

SURFACE EQUIPMENT SKETCH

PIPELINE DATA
Pipeline ID

Ambient Temp.

55

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

8.5

BTU/h/ft2/F

DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

11

Label

Equipment
Type

MD (feet)

ID (inches)

Roughness (inches)

Wellhead

Xmas Tree

1000

N/A

N/A

Tubing

Tubing

1100

3.992

0.0006

Safety Valve

SSSV

N/A

3.6

N/A

Tubing

Tubing

13000

3.992

0.0006

Casing

Casing

13400

6.13

0.0006

GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)

Temperature
o
F

60

1000

50

13400

250

PROSPER requires the user to enter the temperature at the well head
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient: 8 (BTU/h/ft2/F)
INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

Method

PI Entry

Reservoir Pressure

5200

psig

Reservoir Temperature

250.0

Water Cut

3.3

Total GOR

800.0

SCF/STB

Productivity Index

10

STB/day/psi

Compaction Permeability
Reduction

No

Relative Permeability

No

RESULTS

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

12

Manifold

Pressure

450 psig

Oil Rate

8699.0

STB/day

Flowing BH Pressure

3316.8

Psig

Flowing Wellhead Pressure

Psig

Flowing Wellhead Temperature

degF

Save this PROSPER file as prob2.out.

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

2.3

13

Problem 3: Review Exercise


Objective:
This is a review exercise of how to build well bore models. The input data is given
below. It is required to calculate the Oil Rate, FWHP, FWHT and FBHP for two cases,
one case considering the flow line and a second case without considering the flow
line.
START WITH AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
BLACK OIL PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid
Separator

Water and Oil


Single-Stage

Solution GOR
Oil Gravity

700.0
42.00

Gas Gravity

(SCF/STB)
(API)

0.80 (sp. Gravity)

Water Salinity

200000 (ppm)

EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
Measured Depth (feet)

True Vertical Depth (feet)

100.0

100.0

2500.0

2480.0

6500.0

6300.0

15000.0

14000.0

Note: The zero depth of the deviation survey refers to the mean sea level depth.
PIPELINE SKETCH

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

14

DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Label

Measured Depth
Feet

Inside
Diameter (inches)

Roughness
(inches)

Xmas Tree

100.0

Tubing

14000.0

3.96

0.0006

Casing

15000.0

6.00

0.0006

GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)

Temperature
oF

60

100

50

15000.0

200

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8.0

(BTU/h/ft2/F)

PIPELINE DATA
Pipeline ID

Ambient Temp.

50 F

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

8.5

INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Method

PI Entry

Reservoir Pressure

5000.0

psig

Reservoir Temperature

200.0

Water Cut

20

Total GOR

700.0

SCF/STB

Productivity Index

15.0

STB/day/psi

15

RESULTS

Case

With Flowline

Top Node Pressure

Without Flowline

200 (Psig)

Water Cut

20 (%)

Oil Rate

5446.6

STB/day

7903.9

STB/day

Flowing Well Head Pressure

435.9

Psig

200

Psig

Flowing Well Head Temperature

110.3

127.9

Flowing BH Pressure

4546.1

Psig

4341.3

Psig

Save this PROSPER file as prob3.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

16

2.4

Problem 4: Importance of correct PVT


Objective:
This problem is designed to:

Demonstrate how to enter PVT lab data into PROSPER,

Match black oil correlation to lab data,

Show the impact of PVT parameters on well response

The following procedure can be used to go through this example:

Start from the saved file prob2.out

Enter the PVT data, match the black oil correlation to the PVT lab data and
recompute the flow rate for this naturally flowing oil well if the flowing well
head pressure is 450 psig.

Compare the results with Problem 2 (un-matched PVT case).

START WITH THE prob2.out FILE


Dataset:
PVT MATCH DATA

The PVT calculation method is identical for all reservoir fluid types (i.e. oil and water,
condensate or gas). The choice of fluid type affects the choice of IPR and VLP models
as well as the range of available sensitivity variables.
Temp.
F

Pressure
Psig

Bubble Point
(psig)

Gas Oil Ratio


(SCF/STB)

Oil FVF
RB/STB

Oil Viscosity
cP

250

3600

3600

800

1.25

0.31

RESULT

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Manifold Pressure

17

450 psig

Black Oil Correlation for Pb, Rs, Bo


Black Oil Correlation for o
Oil Rate

STB/day

Flowing Well Head Pressure

Psig

Flowing Well Head Temperature

Flowing BH Pressure

Psig

Save this PROSPER file as prob4.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

18

2.5

Problem 5: Effect of oil FVF on production


Objective:
This problem is designed to:

Demonstrate how to enter PVT lab data into PROSPER,

Match black oil correlation to lab data,

Show the impact of PVT parameters on well response

The following procedure can be used to go through this example:

Enter the PVT data, match the black oil correlation to the PVT lab data and
recompute the flow rate for this naturally flowing oil well if the flowing well
head pressure is 450 psig.

Compare the results with Problem 2 (un-matched PVT case) and Problem 4
(matched with erroneous oil FVF).

START WITH THE prob4.out FILE


Dataset:
PVT MATCH DATA

Temp.
F

Pressure
Psig

Bubble Point
(psig)

Gas Oil Ratio


(SCF/STB)

Oil FVF
RB/STB

Oil Viscosity
cP

250

3600

3600

800

1.456

0.31

RESULT

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Manifold Pressure

19

450 psig

Black Oil Correlation for Pb, Rs, Bo


Black Oil Correlation for o
Oil Rate

STB/day

Flowing Well Head Pressure

Psig

Flowing Well Head Temperature

Flowing BH Pressure

Psig

Save this PROSPER file as prob5.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

20

2.6

Problem 6: Flow correlation selection within PROSPER


Objective:
This problem is designed to:

Demonstrate how to enter PVT lab data into PROSPER,

Match black oil correlation to lab data,

Match well test VLP correlation

Use the calibrated correlation to predict the well rate for future operating

The following procedure can be used to go through this example:

Recall the PROSPER file generated while solving the problem 1.

Enter the PVT data, match the black oil correlation to the new PVT lab data,

Select the most appropriate black oil correlation

Quality-check the well test data,

Match the well test data with the most suitable VLP correlation

Use the calibrated model to predict the oil rate if the water cut increases to
35% while everything else remains unchanged.

START WITH THE prob1.out FILE


Dataset:
PVT MATCH DATA

Temp.
F

Pressure
Psig

Bubble Point
(psig)

Gas Oil Ratio


(SCF/STB)

Oil FVF
RB/STB

Oil Viscosity
cP

250

3600

3600

800

1.456

0.31

WELL TEST DATA

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Well head pressure

375

psig

Well head temperature

157

Total GOR

600

SCF/STB

Free GOR

SCF/STB

Water Cut

0.5

Gauge Depth

12500

feet

Gauge Pressure

3257

psig

Liquid Rate

11350 STB/day

Static Reservoir Pressure at test time

5200

21

psig

RESULT

Parameters

Value

2
Calibrated U-value (Btu/h/ft /F):
VLP correlation selected:
Gravity correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 1):
Friction correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 2):
Well Productivity Index (STB/d/psi):
Liquid rate if water cut = 35% (STB/d):

Save this PROSPER file as well1.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

22

2.7

Problem 7: Well bore modelling review exercise


Objective:
The following dataset is available:
PVT data measured from the laboratory.
A well test with a down-hole gauge measurement
Downhole equipment description
Build a PROSPER well model. Then, build a PVT model that reproduces the measured
data using PROSPER.
Use PROSPER to quality check the down-hole pressure data and then select a
pressure drop correlation based on it. Use this calibrated well bore model to find the
flowing BHP, WHT and production rates.
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid

Water and Oil

Separator

Two-Stage

Separator Pressure

200(psig)

Separator Temperature

90 (F)

Separator GOR

2650 (SCF/STB)

Tank GOR

150 (SCF/STB)

Oil Gravity

44.00 (API)

Separator Gas Gravity

0.737

Tank Gas Gravity

1.35

Water Salinity

75000 (ppm)

Reservoir Temperature

313 (degree F)

Bubble point pressure at


reservoir temperature

7785.3 (psig)

Av. Gas Gravity: 0.769839 / GOR: 2800 scf/stb


EQUIPMENT DATA

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

23

DEVIATION SURVEY
Measured Depth (feet)

True Vertical Depth

1856.96

1843.83

11358.30

8307.09

20544.60

12322.80

22385.20

12821.50

23845.10

13566.30

(feet)

DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Label

Measured Depth
Feet

Xmas Tree

85.3

Tubing

1857

Inside
Diameter (inches)

Roughness
(inches)

4.13

6 E-5

SSSV

3.81

Tubing

11423.9

4.13
3.75

Restriction
Tubing

6 E-5

20600.4

4.13

Restriction

6 E-5

3.75

Tubing

22319.6

3.18

6 E-5

Casing

23218.5

3.81

6 E-5

GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)

Temperature
oF

85.3

68

23218.5

313

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 1 to 10

(BTU/h/ft2/F)

INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

24

Method

Vogel

Reservoir Pressure

7785.3

psig

Reservoir Temperature

313.0

Water Cut

Total GOR

2800

SCF/STB

TEST DATA

Well head pressure

3235.3

psig

Well head temperature

183

Total GOR

2800

SCF/STB

Free GOR

SCF/STB

Water Cut

Gauge Depth

15251

feet

Gauge Pressure

5796.8

psig

Liquid Rate

9274

STB/day

Static Reservoir Pressure at test time

7785.3

psig

RESULT

Parameters
2
Calibrated U-value (Btu/h/ft /F):
VLP correlation selected:
Gravity correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 1):
Friction correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 2):
Test BHP (psig):
Liquid rate if WHP = 450 psig and water cut = 35%
(STB/d):

November, 2007

Value

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

25

Save this PROSPER file as well2.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

26

2.8

Problem 8: Running Sensitivities studies in PROSPER for


matched well models
Objective:
Use one of the well models generated previously, run a set of sensitivities on it and
compare the results obtained.
START FROM THE "well1.out" FILE.
Dataset:
Part I
At what water cut will the well die (WHP = 450 psig) at the following reservoir
pressures?
5200 psig
4000 psig
Sensitivity variables to use:
Water cut :
0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90%
Reservoir Pressure :
5200, 4000 psig
RESULT

Reservoir Pressure (psig)


Water cut (%)

5200
30

4000
45

Part II
Find the production rate at the two specific cases below (WHP=450 psig)
RESULT

November, 2007

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Case 1

Case 2

Reservoir Pressure (psig)

4000

5200

Water cut (%)

15

40

Liquid Rate (STB/day)

3198.7 (aut. geom.)

27

3237.1 (aut. geom.)

Save this PROSPER file as Prob8.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

28

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

3.1

Problem 9: Building a Darcy well inflow model


Objective:
Use the Darcy inflow model of PROSPER to estimate the Well Inflow Performance..
START FROM THE "well1.out" FILE.
Dataset:
INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

Method

Darcy

Reservoir Pressure

5000

psig

Reservoir Temperature

250

Water Cut

25

Total GOR

800

SCF/STB

Reservoir Permeability

65

md

Reservoir Thickness

100

feet

Drainage Area

390

acres

Dietz Shape Factor

31.6

Well-Bore Radius

0.354

Skin

feet

RESULT

AOF for Skin = 0

38497.6

STB/day

13.4

STB/day/psi

If Q = 10000 stb/d and BHFP = 3665 psig


was a test point, what skin would be
required to match this test point?

Equivalent PI

STB/day

AOF

November, 2007

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

29

Save this PROSPER file as prob9.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

30

3.2

Problem 10: Effects of Water cut on IPR


Objective:
Investigate the effects of water cut on the well inflow perfomance.
START FROM THE "prob09.out" FILE.
Dataset:
VARIABLES
Run sensitivity on water cut using the Inflow Calculation section.
The water cut values used are the following:
0, 20, 40, 60 and 80%
RESULT
Compare the results - Discuss.
Save this PROSPER file as prob10.out.

November, 2007

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

3.3

31

Problem 11: Use PROSPER to build a Karakas and Tariq skin


Model
Objective:
A slanted well is going to be drilled to perforate the same pay as Well1.
Use the Karakas and Tariq model in PROSPER to model various components of skin
and analyse their contribution to total skin.
START FROM THE "prob10.out" FILE.
Dataset:
INFLOW SKIN DATA

Method

Darcy

Perforation Diameter

0.25

Shots Per foot

Perforation Length

12

inches

Damaged Zone Thickness

inches

Damaged Zone Permeability

32

md

Crushed Zone Thickness

0.2

inches

Crushed Zone Permeability

16

md

Deviation

53

deg

Penetration

0.5

Vertical Permeability

6.5

md

Wellbore Radius

0.354

feet

Shot Phasing

120

deg

inches

Skin due to Perforation Model


Karakas and Tariq has been found to give good results in many field applications and is
explained here.
A sketch outlining the main geometric variables is shown below

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

32

The following input data is required:


Reservoir permeability

(Effective permeability at connate water saturation)

Perforation diameter

(Entry hole diameter)

Shots per foot


Perforation length

(Effective perf. length in formation)

Damaged zone thickness

(Thickness of invasion)

Damaged zone permeability

(Permeability in invaded zone)

Crushed zone thickness

(Crushing associated with perforation)

Crushed zone permeability

(Reduced permeability near perf. tunnel)

Shot phasing
Vertical permeability
Wellbore radius

(Enter the open hole radius, not casing I.D.)

Deviation/Partial Penetration Skin


Two models of this type are provided in PROSPER:
Cinco / Martin Bronz
Wong Clifford
For this exercise, the first model is going to be used.
It requires the following data:
Deviation angle of well
Partial penetration fraction
Formation vertical permeability
Penetration is the proportion of the total reservoir thickness that is completed. (e.g. a
November, 2007

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

33

200 ft thick reservoir with 100 ft of perforations would have a Penetration of 0.5)
Deviation skin is calculated using Cinco-Ley's method, and is therefore valid up to 75
degrees deviation.
The calculation is based upon the paper by Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey, Jr., H.J. and Miller, F.G.:
"Pseudo-Skin Factors for Partially-Penetrating Directionally-Drilled Wells", SPE 5589
presented at 50th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE of AIME,
Dallas, TX, September 28 October 1, 1975
RESULT

Absolute Open Flow

307.5

Total Skin

4.77

Perforation Skin

0.178

Partial Penetration Skin

6.693

Deviation Skin

-2.104

Equivalent PI

10.61

STB/day

STB/day/psi

Save this PROSPER file as prob11.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

34

3.4

Problem 12: Use PROSPER to build a Gravel Pack design model


Objective:
Calculate the IPR for the slanted well in problem 11 if a gravel pack is to be included.
Open the PROSPER file prob11.out, then from the main screen (Options) select well
completion with Gravel Pack.
START FROM THE "prob11.out" FILE.
Dataset:
INFLOW GRAVEL PACK DATA
PROSPER models gravel packed completions as a concentric cylinder having a user
specified permeability connected to the wellbore via perforations of specified diameter. By
sensitising on perforation spacing and diameter, the effect pressure drop due to flow
concentration on well performance can be investigated. Likewise, the effect of varying
gravel length (i.e. the thickness of gravel between the OD of the screen and the ID of the
original open hole) on skin can be evaluated.
Gravel pack permeability
Perforation diameter
Shots per foot
Gravel pack length
Perforation interval
Perforation efficiency

(Enter the in-situ permeability for the gravel)


(Diameter of perforation tunnel)
(Distance from the screen O.D. to the sand face)
(This affects the flow velocity in the perforations only)
(Proportion of perforations that are open and effective)

INPUT DATA

November, 2007

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

Method

Darcy

Gravel Pack Permeability

90000 md

Perforation Diameter

0.25

Shots per foot

Gravel Pack Length

1.8

inches

Perforation Interval

74

feet

Perforation Efficiency

Beta Factor

Calculated

Method

Multiphase

35

inches

RESULT

What is the Absolute Open Flow (AOF) of this well in STB/d:

What was the AOF in stb/d prior to the gravel pack installation?
With gravel pack, how much gravel pack dP is lost across the gravel if
the well produces 10,000 STB/d?
With gravel pack, what is the velocity in ft/second of the fluid at the
casing for a WHP of 350 psig:

Save this PROSPER file as prob12.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

36

3.5

Problem 13: Review Exercise


Objective:
This example is designed to go through the following subjects:
How to set up a PROSPER well model for a dry gas well
How to customise the set of unit used
How to predict the production rate of a well using a well model
How to select the right tubing size for various conditions
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE.
Dataset:
1. Statement of the problem:
A new gas field has been discovered offshore.
The top of the reservoir is 3460 m TVD below the mean sea level.
The water depth is 330 m. A sub-sea well head completion is foreseen.
The dataset available is as follows:
1.1. PVT
From the discovery well, a gas sample was taken and analysed. The gas composition is:
Component

Mol. Percent

Molecular Weight
lbm/lbmol

Nitrogen

28

Carbon Dioxide

0.5

44

Methane

95

16

Ethane

30

Propane

0.5

44

(Mwair=28.96)
Separator pressure: 1000 psig
Condensate Gas Ratio: 1 stb/MMscf
Condensate Gravity: 50 API
Water Salinity: 100 000 ppm
1.2. Reservoir parameters

November, 2007

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

Initial Reservoir pressure

5300

psig

Reservoir Temperature

230

deg F

Average Reservoir permeability

25

mD

Porosity

15

Connate Water Saturation

25

Gross Pay

300

feet

N/G Ratio

40

Drainage Area

500

acres

Dietz shape factor

31.6

Skin factor (initial assumption)

Time from start production

100

days

Drill bit size

12 1/4

(0.51 ft Wellbore Radius)

37

1.3. Downhole Equipment


According to the original design, the well should be completed as follows:
Well orientation

Straight hole

Tubing size

2.9ID down to 3400 m

Casing

8.5 ID down to top perforation

SSSV (ID = 2.5)

1000 m below mean sea level

Formation Temperature at well head depth

40 degF

Average Sea Temperature

60 deg

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (downhole)

3 Btu/h/ft2/F

2. Questions
Question No.1:
Assuming a well head flowing pressure of 3000 psig, calculate the gas rate to be expected
with the fluid and reservoir parameters given above.
Answer:MMscft/day
Question No.2:
Is it possible to increase the performance of the well by selecting a different tubing size?
Which tubing size can be recommended?
Tubing Size (ID) available are: 2.9, 3.5, 3.9, 4.8, 5.5
Answer:..MMscft/day with in tubing.
Modify the model to take into account the tubing size that has been selected.
2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

38

Question No.3:
If we take into account the skin caused by the perforations, how much would the well
productivity be affected assuming the WHP of ?
Skin Calculation:
Perforation Diameter

0.5

Shots per foot

Perforation length

12

Damage Zone Thickness

Damage Zone Permeability

K*50% = 12.5 mD

Crushed Zone Thickness

0.2 in

Crushed Zone Permeability

K*25%= 6.25 mD

Deviation

0 deg

Vertical Permeability

K*10% = 2.5mD

Shot Phasing

120 deg

Answer:.MMscft/day.
Question No.4:
If a gravel pack screen is used, by how much will the productivity of the well be affected
assuming the same WHP as Question 1?
Gravel Pack Permeability (mD)

10000 (5), 20000 (10), 35000 (15) *

Gravel Pack Length

Perforation Efficiency

80%

(* The number in brackets corresponds to the R value for the gravel pack)
Which Gravel Pack Permeability has to be selected in order to maximise the productivity of
the well?
Answer:.. mD will give .MMscft/day.
Question Nr.5:
After drilling and completing this well (with the gravel pack selected), a test was made and
the following test data are available:

November, 2007

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

THP

2350

psig

THT

174

deg F

Gas Rate

70

MMscft/day

WGR

CGR

Gauge Depth

3400

Gauge Pressure

3038

psig

39

Select the Correlation which best represents pressure losses in the well and match it to the
test data. Then determine if the IPR model used is representative of the well and determine
the most likely cause of the deviation.
Answer:
The . Flow Correlation was selected.
Most likely cause of the deviation in the IPR: .......................
Save this PROSPER file as prob13.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

40

3.6

Problem 14: Building IPR Model for Horizontal well with closed
boundaries.
Objective:
Use PROSPER to build Horizontal Well inflow in close boundary rectangular system
and find the AOF. Find the effect of vertical permeability on inflow.
START FROM THE "prob09.out" FILE.
Dataset:
INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA
This model is based on the work of Kuchuk and Goode. The inflow model used here
assumes that the horizontal well is draining a closed rectangular drainage volume with
sealing upper and lower boundaries. The well can be placed anywhere in the drainage
region. Pressure drops along the well bore itself are not taken into account.

Reservoir permeability

(Total permeability at prevailing water cut)

Reservoir thickness

(Thickness of producing reservoir rock)

Wellbore radius
Horizontal anisotropy

(Ratio of Ky/Kx where Kx is permeability in the


direction of the horizontal well and Ky is the
permeability perpendicular to the horizontal well)

Vertical anisotropy

(Ratio of Kz/Ky where Kz is the vertical


permeability)

Length of well

Length of drainage area

Lx

Width of drainage area

Ly

November, 2007

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

Distance along length edge

(Xw)

Distance along width edge

(Yw)

Distance from bottom

(Zw)

Method

41

Horizontal Well
No flow Boundaries

Reservoir Pressure

5000

psig

Reservoir Temperature

250.0

degrees F

Water Cut

25

Total GOR

800

scf/stb

Reservoir Permeability

65

mD

Wellbore Radius

0.354

feet

Reservoir Thickness

100

feet

Horizontal anisotropy

fraction

Vertical anisotropy

0.1

fraction

Length of well

1500

Reservoir Width

6000

feet

Reservoir Length

6000

feet

Distance from length Edge to centre of the well

3000

feet

Distance from Width Edge to centre of the well

3000

feet

Distance from Bottom to centre of the well

50

feet

Skin

feet

RESULTS

Vertical Anisotropy

AOF (STB/day)

0.0083

165500

0.015

199400

0.030

242100

0.100

316700

Save this file as Prob14.out

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

42

3.7

Problem 15a: Multilayer IPR models (Case 1).


Objective:
Use PROSPER to build a Gas Multilayer well.
In this case one layer on top of the other without any pressure drop in the wellbore
between them.
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE.
Dataset:
PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid

Dry and Wet Gas

Separator

Single-Stage

Gas Gravity

0.801

Separator Pressure

200 (psi)

Oil Gravity

39.00 (API)

CGR

5 (STB/MMSCF)

WGR

0 (STB/MMSCF)

Water Salinity

100000 (ppm)

EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
Measured Depth (feet)

True Vertical Depth

1856.96

1843.83

11358.30

8307.09

20544.60

12322.80

22385.20

12821.50

23845.10

13566.30

DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT

November, 2007

(feet)

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

Label

Measured Depth
Feet

Xmas Tree

Tubing

1857

Inside
Diameter (inches)

Roughness
(inches)

4.13

6 E-5

SSSV

43

3.81

Tubing

11423.9

4.13

Restriction

6 E-5

3.75

Tubing

20600.4

4.13

Restriction

6 E-5

3.75

Tubing

22319.6

3.18

6 E-5

Casing

23218.5

3.81

6 E-5

GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)

Temperature
oF

68

23218.5

313

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 1 to 10

(BTU/h/ft2/F)

INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

44

Model

Multilayer Reservoir
Layer 1

Layer 2

7785.3

7800.2

100

150

Layer Skin

Gas Gravity

0.798

0.803

Oil Gravity (API)

39

39

CGR (STB/MMSCF)

WGR (STB/MMSCF)

Layer Permeability (mD)

12

35

Drainage Area (acre)

500

500

Dietz Shape factor

31.6

31.6

Wellbore Radius (ft)

0.354

0.354

Layer Pressure (psi)


Layer Height (ft)

Once the model is built, determine what is the well overall production and the
contribution from each layer when the wellhead pressure is 3000 psi.

RESULTS

Wellhead Pressure
Overall Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Layer 1 Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Layer 2 Gas Rate (mmscfd)

Save this file as Prob15a.out

November, 2007

3000 psi

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

3.8

45

Problem 15b: Multilayer IPR models (Case 2).


Objective:
Use PROSPER to build a Gas Multilayer well.
In this case there is a significant distance between layer so we would like to take into
account the pressure drop in the wellbore between the layers
START FROM THE "Problem15a.out" FILE.
Dataset:
INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

46

Model

Multilayer dP loss in Wellbore


Layer 1

Layer 2

7785.3

7800.2

100

150

Layer Skin

Gas Gravity

0.798

0.803

CGR (STB/MMSCF)

WGR (STB/MMSCF)

Layer Permeability (mD)

12

45

Drainage Area (acre)

500

500

Dietz Shape factor

31.6

31.6

Wellbore Radius (ft)

0.354

0.354

100

150

Layer Pressure (psi)


Layer Height (ft)

Perforation Interval (ft)

Once the model is built, determine what the well overall production and the
contribution from each layer when the wellhead pressure is 3000 psi.
RESULTS

Wellhead Pressure
Overall Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Layer 1 Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Layer 2 Gas Rate (mmscfd)

Save this file as Prob15b.out

November, 2007

3000 psi

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises

3.9

47

Problem 16: Building Multi-rate C & n inflow model for gas wells
Objective:
Use the multi-rate C and n IPR method to construct an IPR.
Based on this find the well AOF and reservoir pressure.
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE.
Dataset:
The C and n IPR Model is based on the following relationship:
Q = C.(Pr2 - Pwf2)n
C and n values are determined from a plot of Q vs (Pr2 - Pwf2) on log-log paper and directly
input by the user.
n is usually found in the range 0.5 (complete turbulence) to 1.
The multi-rate C and n determines the coefficients of the back pressure equation that best fit
measured flowing bottom-hole pressures.
PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid

Dry Gas

Separator

Single Stage

Separator Pressure

1000 psig

CGR

10 STB/MMscf

Oil Gravity

44.00 API

Gas Gravity

0.77

WGR

0 STB/MMscf

Water Salinity

100000 ppm

INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

48

Multi-rate C & n

Method
Reservoir Pressure

Reservoir Temperature

302 (degree F)

WGR

0 STB/MMscf

TEST DATA

Rate (MMscf/day)

FBHP (psig)
3600

250

3000

500

RESULTS

AOF

1036.8

mmscfd

Reservoir Pressure

4060.26

psig

Save this PROSPER file as prob16.out.

November, 2007

PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises

PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises

4.1

Problem 17: Gas Lift Design

49

Objective:
This problem is designed to:

Illustrate how to design a gas lifted well with PROSPER

Transfer the design results to the input section

Sensitize on gas lift injection rate during the system (VLP + IPR) calculation

The reservoir pressure is supposed to have decreased down to 4500 psig.


The following procedure can be used to go through this example:

Load the PROSPER file Well1.OUT

Set the Reservoir Pressure to 4500 psig

Under |Options|Options, select |Artificial Lift: GAS LIFT

Select |Design |Gas Lift and enter the gas lift gas gravity of 0.7

Design a gas lift system for the given well configuration

Assuming a single point of injection (orifice only) perform a system calculation with:
o

WHFP = 350 psig

Water Cut = 80%

GOR = 800 scf/st

Gas lift injection rates: 0, 0.5, 1,2,3,5,7,8,10 and 15 MMscf/d.

START FROM THE well1.out FILE.


Dataset:
LIFT GAS DATA

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

50

Artificial Lift Method

Gas Lift

Gas-lift Gas Gravity

0.7 sg

Mole Percent H2S

0%

Mole Percent CO2

0%

Mole Percent N2

0%

GAS LIFT DESIGN ( NEW WELL)

Artificial Lift Method

Gas Lift

Valve Type

Casing Sensitive

Design Rate Method

Calculated from Max Production

Maximum Liquid Rate

35000 STB/day

Maximum Gas Available

MMscf/day

Maximum Gas during Unloading

MMscf/day

Flowing Top Node Pressure

350

psig

Unloading Top Node Pressure

350

psig

Operating Injection Pressure

2000

psig

Kickoff Injection Pressure

2000

psig

Desired dP Across Valve

100

psi

Packer Depth

13000 feet

Design Water Cut

80

Static Gradient Of Load Fluid

0.450

psi/ft

Minimum CHP decrease/valve

50

psi

Minimum Spacing

250

feet

VALVE DETAILS

Valve Type

Casing Sensitive

Manufacturer

Camco

Type

R-20

Specification

Normal

November, 2007

PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises

51

RESULTS

What is the depth of the orifice in ft MD:

Save this PROSPER file as day2/well1gl.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

52

4.2

Problem 18: Using Quick-look option of PROSPER as a


diagnostic tool
Objective:
Using the file PROB18_start.out perform a diagnostic using Quick look in PROSPER.
Calculate the total gas injection rate.
START FROM THE PROB18_start.out FILE.
Dataset:
In the file considered:
PVT has been matched to lab data
PI entry has been used as IPR model
Existing Mandrel Valves Information given
WELL TEST RESULTS

Tubing Head Pressure

113

psig

Tubing Head Temperature

185

Liquid Rate

11970 STB/day

Water Cut

73.3

Total Gas Rate

1.368

MMscf/day

Injection Gas Rate

0.4

MMscf/day

Casing Head Pressure

1740

psig

Valve Depths and Port sizes

Valve

Depth (m)

Port size (1/64th inches)

Valve 1

1337

16

Valve 2

1744

20

Valve 3

2098

24

Orifice

2362

32

DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS

November, 2007

PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises

Likely depth of injection


Port size
Reservoir Pressure

1744

8.7

1/64th inches

3098

psig

53

Save this PROSPER file as prob18_final.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

54

4.3

Problem 19: ESP Design


Objective:
Use the well1.out file. Use this file perform an ESP design using PROSPER.
Then use the ESP selected to study various changed conditions by doing a sensitivity
analysis.
Use the sensitivity analysis to see if the selected ESP is appropriate for all the flowing
conditions the well is potentially going to encounter during its life.
START FROM THE well1.out" FILE.
Dataset:
ESP DESIGN ( NEW WELL)

Artificial Lift Method

ESP

Pump Depth

12000

ft

Operating Frequency

60

Hertz

Maximum OD

inches

Design Rate

12000

STB/day

Water Cut

80

Top Node Pressure

350

psig

Gas Separation

Motor Power Safety Margin

Pump Wear Factor

SENSITIVITY PARAMETERS

Top node pressure:

400 psig

Water Cut:

60, 70, 80, 90 & 95%

Frequency:

50, 55, 60 Hertz

DESIGN RESULTS

November, 2007

PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises

Pump

Centrilift KC12000

Motor

Centrilift - 562

Cable

Cooper

Gas Separation

0%

55

Save this PROSPER file as well1esp.out.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

56

PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises

5.1

Problem 20: Multi-branch completion modelling


Objective:
Model a multi-branch completion by using the multilateral modelling option in
PROSPER.
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
COMPLETION DESCRIPTION

Tie point
Branch 1
Joint

Branch 2

Upper Layer

Branch 3
Lower Layer

Available data for the Upper and Lower layer


Upper layer:
Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Temperature
Oil Gravity
Gas Gravity
Water Salinity
Water Cut
Total GOR
Horizontal Permeability

November, 2007

5200
225
35
0.782
80000
5
820
50

psig
degrees F
API
sp. gravity
ppm
percent
scf/STB
md

PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises

Formation Thickness
Drainage Area
Depth of Reservoir Top
Vertical Permeability
Lower Layer:
Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Temperature
Oil Gravity
Gas Gravity
Water Salinity
Water Cut
Total GOR
Horizontal Permeability
Formation Thickness
Drainage Area
Depth of Reservoir Top
Vertical Permeability

40
200
7850
5

feet
acres
feet
md

5250
225
35
0.782
80000
10
820
40
65
500
7950
5

psig
degrees F
API
sp. gravity
ppm
percent
scf/STB
md
feet
acres
feet
md

57

Branch 1
Measured Depth
(feet)

True Vertical Depth


(feet)

Azimuth

8800

7700

8850

7750

Tubing
Type

Measured Depth
(feet)

Start

8800

Tubing

8850

IDs
(ins)

Roughness
(ins)

3.92

0.0006

Well bore radius = 0.43 ft


Branch 2
Measured Depth
(feet)
8850
9120
9300
9400
9650

True Vertical Depth


(feet)
7750
7810
7840
7855
7885

Azimuth
0
45
55
65
75

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

58

Tubing
Type

Measured Depth
(feet)

Start

8850

Tubing

9650

IDs
(ins)

Roughness
(ins)

3.92

0.0006

Perforation start (MD),


feet

Perforation end, (MD), feet

Local Skin

9380

9650

Well bore radius


Dietz shape factor

= 0.43 ft
= 31.6

Branch 3
Measured Depth
(feet)
8850

True Vertical Depth


(feet)
7750

Azimuth

9200

7950

220

9400

8010

245

Tubing
Type

Measured Depth
(feet)

Start

8850

Tubing

9400

IDs
(ins)

Roughness
(ins)

3.92

0.0006

Perforation start (MD),


feet

Perforation end, (MD), feet

Local Skin

9200

9400

Well bore radius


Dietz shape factor

= 0.43 ft
= 31.6
RESULT

Solve for 5 points


Tie point pressure,
psig

November, 2007

Flow rate, STB/day

PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises

59

These points can be transferred to any multi-rate IPR to represent the overall response of
the multilateral completion.
Save this file as PROB20.out

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

60

5.2

Problem 21: Complex Horizontal Well Modelling


Objective:
Using the Multilateral option, build a model for a complex Horizontal well
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
COMPLETION DESCRIPTION

PVT DATA

Oil and Water

Reservoir Fluid
Oil Gravity

840 Kg/m3

Gas Gravity

0.7

GOR

300 Sm3/Sm3

H2S

0%

CO2

0.99 %

N2

2.21 %

Water Salinity

20000 ppm

Layer Properties
Reservoir Pressure
November, 2007

440

Bar

PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises

Reservoir Temperature
Oil Gravity
Gas Gravity
Water Salinity
Water Cut
Total GOR
Horizontal Permeability
Formation Thickness
Drainage Area
Depth of Reservoir Top
Vertical Permeability

61

113
degrees C
840
Kg/m3
0.7
sp. gravity
20000 ppm
0
percent
300
Sm3/Sm3
100
md
200
m
600000 m2s
2830 m
50
md

Top Node
Measured Depth
(m)

True Vertical Depth


(m)

4711

2824

Tubing
Type

Measured Depth
(m)

TVD
(m)

Azimut

Start

4711

2824

Tubing

4924

2923.7

192.31

Well bore radius

IDs
(ins)

Roughness
(m)

1.524e-5

= 0.15 m

Branch 1
Measured Depth
(m)

True Vertical Depth


(m)

Azimuth

5128.51
5212.58

2987.53
3004.23

196.64
195.72

5348.10

3010.43

197.39

5453.19

2993.64

200.84

5688.61

2905.92

202.71

5818.43

2869.8

204.41

5948.07

2860.61

204.71

6182.47

2889.55

229.31

6616.00

2974.57

229.90

Tubing
Type

Measured Depth
(m)

Start

4924

Tubing

6616

IDs
(ins)

Roughness
(m)

4.0

1.524e-5

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

62

Perforation start (MD), m

Perforation end, (MD), m

Local Skin

5130

5380

5423

5579

5604

5665

5767

5975

6124

6246

6279

6505

Well bore radius


Dietz shape factor

= 0.15m
= 30
RESULT

Tie Point Pressure 400 bara


Productivity Index
Sm3/day/bar
536

Skin
-2.18

Save this file as PROB21.out

November, 2007

Rate
(Sm3/day)
4190

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

6.1

Problem 22: Building Tank model for a reservoir with a known


production history

63

Objective:
This problem is designed to:

Show how to set-up an MBAL model

Show how to match PVT in MBAL

How to enter tank and historical data into MBAL

How to perform a history match with MBAL

How to perform fractional flow matching and how to verify the reliability of the
fractional flow

The following procedure can be used to go through this example:

Set-up and MBAL model single tank

Match the PVT

Quality-check the historical data

Perform a history match to:


o

Estimate the original oil in place

Check if there is an aquifer

Quantify the various drive mechanisms affecting this oil reservoir

Derive pseudo relative permeabilities for use in forecasting mode

Verify that the pseudo relative permeabilities can reasonably reproduce the
historical water cut
and GOR.

START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE


Dataset:

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

64

PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid

Water and Oil

Separator

Single-Stage

Solution GOR

800 (SCF/STB)

Oil Gravity

35 (API)

Gas Gravity

0.78

Water Salinity

80000 (ppm)

PVT MATCH DATA

Temp.
F

Pressure
Psig

Bubble Point
(psig)

Gas Oil Ratio


(SCF/STB)

Oil FVF
RB/STB

Oil Viscosity
cP

250

3600

3600

800

1.456

0.31

RESERVOIR PARAMETERS

Reservoir Properties

Water and Oil

Reservoir Temperature

250 F

Reservoir Pressure

5215 psig

Reservoir Thickness

100 ft

Reservoir Radius

2200 ft

Reservoir Porosity

23 %

Connate Water Saturation

15 %

Initial Gas Cap

Estimated Oil In Place

250 MMSTB

Production Start

01/02/2000

Aquifer

Hurst-Van Everdingen Modified

Outer / Inner Radius

Encroachment Angle

180 deg

Aquifer Permeability

20 mD

November, 2007

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

65

RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES

Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)

End Point
(Fraction)

Corey Exponent

Water

0.15

0.6

Oil

0.15

0.8

Gas

0.02

0.9

Phase

Water Sweep Efficiency:


Gas Sweep Efficiency:

100%
100%
PRODUCTION HISTORY

Open the file in day3/res1h.xls and import the table in to MBAL


Save this MBAL file as Res1.mbi.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

66

6.2

Problem 23: Review Exercise.


Objective:
We have the production history of a under saturated reservoir.
We want to use this history to find the reservoir OOIP and handle the various drive
mechanisms that this reservoir has.
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid

Water and Oil

Separator

Single-Stage

Solution GOR

2800 (SCF/STB)

Oil Gravity

44

(API)

Gas Gravity

0.77

Water Salinity

75000 (ppm)

% H2S

% CO2

% N2

PVT MATCH DATA

Temp.
F

Pressure
Psig

Bubble Point
(psig)

Gas Oil Ratio


(SCF/STB)

313

7785.3

7785.3

2800

RESERVOIR PARAMETERS

November, 2007

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

67

Water and Oil

Reservoir Properties
Reservoir Temperature

313 F

Reservoir Pressure

7785.3 psig

Reservoir Thickness

105 ft

Reservoir Radius

5000 ft

Reservoir Porosity

23 %

Connate Water Saturation

15 %

Initial Gas Cap

0.1

Estimated Oil In Place

300 MMSTB

Production Start

01/02/2003

Production History

res2h.xls

Aquifer Model

Hurst-Van Everdingen Modified

Aquifer Type

Radial

Reservoir Outer / Inner Radius

?? (5)

Encroachment Angle

?? (180 degres)

Aquifer Permeability

?? (10 mD)

RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES

Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)

End Point
(Fraction)

Corey Exponent

Water

0.15

0.7

Oil

0.15

0.8

Gas

0.02

Phase

Water Sweep Efficiency:


Gas Sweep Efficiency:

100%
100%

Save this MBAL file as Res2.mbi.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

68

6.3

Problem 24: Use of MBAL for oil water contact monitoring


Objective:
We have a reservoir model already history matched.
We know all its drive mechanisms. We want to see how the contact moves with
production.
START FROM THE "Res1.mbi" FILE
Dataset:
PORE VOLUME versus DEPTH

Pore Volume
(Fraction)

TVD
(ft)

11477.9

0.25

11520

0.5

11550

11577.9

Run the simulation and save the stream as 100% Sweep

Go to the relative permeability screen and change the water sweep efficiency
to 70%.

Re-run the simulation and save the stream as 70% Sweep

Plot, compare and comment the evolution for the oil-water contact in both cases

Save this MBAL file as Prob24.mbi.

November, 2007

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

6.4

69

Problem 25: Performing Predictions using MBAL.


Objective:
We have a reservoir model already history matched.
We know all its drive mechanisms.
We want to see run prediction forecasts using this model
START FROM THE "Res1.mbi" FILE
Dataset:
A: Predict Reservoir Pressure only from Production Schedule
We want to know how the Reservoir Pressure / Water Cut and GOR would evolve if
a constant 3500 STB/d of liquid is produced from the end of the Production History
until 1/1/2025
Save this MBAL file as PROB25A.mbi

B: Predict Reservoir Pressure and Production from Manifold Pressure


We plan to produce the reservoir with one well at a constant manifold pressure of
360 psi with a maximum liquid production constraint of 3500 STB/d.
We want to know how the Production / Reservoir Pressure/Water Cut and GOR
would evolve.
The well lift curves have been already generated using PROSPER and are in the file
PROB25.tpd.
The Productivity Index of this well is 16.5 STB/d/psi
Use the file previously saved PROB25A.mbi
Save this MBAL file as PROB25B.mbi

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

70

6.5

Problem 26: Building a Tank Model for a Reservoir with Know


Production History by Well
Objective:
We have the production history by well of a under saturated reservoir.
We want to use this history to find the reservoir OOIP, understand the various drive
mechanisms that this reservoir has and to match the individual wells fractional flow.
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid

Water and Oil

Separator

Single-Stage

Solution GOR

500 (SCF/STB)

Oil Gravity

39 (API)

Gas Gravity

0.798

Water Salinity

100000 (ppm)

PVT MATCH DATA

Temp.
F

Pressure
Psig

Bubble Point
(psig)

Gas Oil Ratio


(SCF/STB)

Oil FVF
RB/STB

Oil Viscosity
cP

250

2200

2200

500

1.32

0.4

RESERVOIR PARAMETERS

November, 2007

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

71

Water and Oil

Reservoir Properties
Reservoir Temperature

250 F

Reservoir Pressure

6000 psig

Reservoir Thickness

250 ft

Reservoir Radius

2500 ft

Reservoir Porosity

23 %

Connate Water Saturation

15 %

Initial Gas Cap

Estimated Oil In Place

200 MMSTB

Production Start

01/01/1997

RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES

Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)

End Point
(Fraction)

Corey Exponent

Water

0.15

0.6

Oil

0.15

0.8

Gas

0.02

0.9

Phase

Water Sweep Efficiency:


Gas Sweep Efficiency:

100%
100%

PRODUCTION HISTORY

Open the file in Prob26 - Production History.xls and import the table in to MBAL

PREDICTION WELLS
Well1 PI=15 STB/d/PSI
Well2 PI=10 STB/d/PSI
Well1 & Well2 VLPs: PROB26.tpd

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

72

Perform a Prediction using the wells described above using a manifold pressure of 1000 psi
until 1/1/2015
Save this MBAL file as Prob26.mbi.

November, 2007

GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises

GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises

7.1

Problem 27: Integrated Production Modelling Model Setup

73

In this section, we will finalize the construction of our Integrated Production Model Simple.
Step 1: Linking all the components
Ensure the reservoirs and wells components in GAP are associated to the corresponding
MBAL and PROSPER files.
Reservoir 1 in GAP:
Reservoir 2 in GAP:
Well 1 in GAP:
Well 2 in GAP:

Res1.mbi MBAL file


Res1.mbi MBAL file
Well 1.out PROSPER file
Well 2.out PROSPER file

Step 2: Generating IPRs and VLPs using PROSPER files from GAP
In order to use the VLP/IPR intersection method for our well performance calculations in
GAP, we need to generate this data in advance.
Make sure an appropriate range of values (and and spacing) is used when generating Lift
Curves (VLPs) as this is key to keep the integrity of the well models.
Below there is a suggested range to be used for each well.
Well 1
Variable (OilField Units)

Liquid Rate

Manifold
Pressure

GOR (*)

WC

Minimum

100

200

400

Maximum

40000

4000

25000

95

20

10

10

10

Geometric

Linear

Geometric

Linear

Number of values
Spacing

After generating the values, replace the second value by 800 (solution GOR) as we know
this exact value will be required while the reservoir pressure remains above the Pb.
Well 2

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

74

Variable (OilField Units)

Liquid Rate

Manifold
Pressure

GOR

WC

Minimum

100

200

1500

Maximum

40000

6000

25000

95

20

10

10

10

Geometric

Linear

Geometric

Linear

Number of values
Spacing

After generating the values, replace the third value by 2800 (solution GOR) as we know this
exact value will be required while the reservoir pressure remains above the Pb.
Step 3: Pipelines Data
WH1 to Manifold
Length (ft)
Inside Diamter ()
Correlation

Save this as Simple.GAP

November, 2007

WH2 to Manifold

Manifold to Sep

1000

2000

1000

10

Beggs & Brill

Beggs & Brill

Beggs & Brill

GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises

7.2

75

Problem 28: Integrated Production Modelling Solve Network


a) How much would the field produce if both wells were fully open today (01/07/2005)?
Step 1: Initialise IPRs from tank simulations
When solving the network, the reservoir data used (Reservoir Pressure, WC, GOR, etc)
is that of the wells IPR screen.
Initialising the IPRs from tank simulations ensures the Wells IPRs are up to date as per
the reservoir model.
MBAL will run a simulation until the date specified (using the production history rates) and
update the IPRs with the Pr, GOR/CGR and WC/WGR.
The IPRs can also be updated manually (ie. no tank models are required for solving the
network)
Step 2: Solve Network (No optimisation) with a Separator Pressure of 200 psig
Discuss the results
b) How could we control the field to maximise oil production if we have a maximum
liquid constraint at the Separator of 22000 bbl/d?
Step 1: Set the wells controllable (Wellhead choke can be changed by the optimiser)
Step 2: Enter a maximum liquid constraint of 22000 bbl/d at the separator
Step 3: Solve Network (Optimise with all constraints)
Discuss the results

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

76

7.3

Problem 29: Integrated Production Modelling Production


Forecasting
Perform a production prediction (from 01/07/2005 to 01/01/2020 2 months stepsize)
for the following different scenarios
a) Both Wells fully open (No optimisation)
Discuss the Results
b) With a maximum liquid rate constraint at the Separator of 22000 bbl/d
(Optimisation)
Discuss the Results
c) We are planning to maintain the Reservoir 1 pressure by water injection.
How much water (injection rate) would we need if the pressure is to be maintained at
5300 psig? From when?
d) An upgrade of the facilities is being considered for early 2008.
How much more could we produce if the maximum liquid rate handling were increased to
35000 bbl/d?
e) Artificial lift for Well 1 is being considered as soon as the facilities are upgraded.
Analyse both Gas lift and ESP artificial lifts methods impact in the overall production.
Use previously created Well1GL.out and Well 1ESP.out.
VLPs are provided
Available Gas Lift: 10 mmscfd
f) Water Injection System
ESP is the preferred option.
Using this as base case, we want to design the water injection system.
In previous scenarios, the required water injection to maintain Reservoir 1 pressure at
5300 psig was automatically injected by GAP. Now we want to analyse the system
required to achieve that.
A simple Water Injection System GAP model will be built and then coupled to the existing
production system
Step 1:

Save the Production System Simple.GAP model

November, 2007

GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises

77

Step 2:

Start a new GAP model (Water Injection System)

Step 3:

Build the System Layout


a) Injection Manifold
b) Flowline (1000 ft long / 4 ID)
c) 1 Water Injector well
d) 1 Tank
e) Link the components
f) Save as Simple-Injection.GAP

Step 4:

Create the water injector model using PROSPER


a) Water Salinity: 100000 ppm
b) Vertical Well down to 11500 ft
c) Geothermal Gradient as per Well 1
d) Completion: Tubing down to 11000 ft (2.9 ID) / Casing (6ID)
e) Injectivity Index: 12 STB/d/psi
f) Save as Wat Injector.out

Step 5:

Link PROSPER file and Res1 MBAL model to the corresponding components
in GAP

Step 6:

Generate IPR/VLP

Step 7:

Set the Well controllable and Save the file


Open the Production System model and link it to the injection system.

Step 8:

Analyse the whole system performance. (Injection Manifold 1000 psi)


Is one well enough? How many well do we need?
Discuss how the Target pressure feature works when having an Injection
System linked.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

78

7.4

Problem 30: Gas Lift Optimisation


Objective:
Use the GAP Optimiser to analyse if oil production can be increased by reallocating
the same amount of gas lift gas among the wells
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
SURFACE NETWORK SETUP

TEST DATA

November, 2007

GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises

79

Well

Gas Injection Rate


MMscf/d

WHP
psig

Liquid rate
STB /day

Water cut
%

GOR
scf/stb

Well 1

198.3

6720

85

1200

Well 2

208.3

820

80

300

Well 3

208.3

1135

75

300

Well 4

208.3

1400

70

300

Well 5

208.3

3090

30

300

TASKS
Step 1: Build the Production System Layout in GAP (all components) and link them
Pipeline Data
Pipeline

Length (feet)

ID (inches)

Correlation

From Manifold 1 to Manifold 2

1000

Beggs & Brill

From Well 1 to Manifold 2

200

Beggs & Brill

From Well 5 to Manifold 2

500

Beggs & Brill

From Manifold 2 to Sep Joint

2000

Beggs & Brill

Step 2: Link the Well models in GAP to the corresponding PROSPER files given
Step 3: Generate IPRs
Step 4: IMPORT the VLPs given. (DO NOT GENERATE THEM)
Step 5: Compare the Well models against test data by using the Model Validation feature
in GAP
Step 6: Enter the surrent amount of gas being injected in the wells in the \Edit\Equipment
Control screen
Step 7: Solve the Network (no optimisation) to calculate the total oil production of the field.
Step 8: Set the wells gas lift gas controllable and solve the network this time optimised
(using the same total amount of gas lift gas)
Step 9: Compare the total oil rate production now.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

80

OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial

8.1

Problem 31a: OpenServer Exercise 1


MACRO 1
1. Exercise Objective
Generate Sensitivities on Well Length for a Horizontal Well.
The Performance of the Well for different Well Lengths (Liquid Rate vs. Well Length) is
required.
2. Data Provided
PROSPER File: HORWELLDP.OUT
OpenServer Template (Excel File): Exercise 1 Template.xls
MACRO 2
1. Exercise Objective
Generate Sensitivities on Well Length and Vertical Anisotropy for a Horizontal Well.
The Performance of the Well for different Well Lengths and Vertical Anisotropy is required.
2. Data Provided
PROSPER File: HORWELLDP.OUT
OpenServer Template (Excel File): Exercise 1 Template.xls

November, 2007

OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial

8.2

81

Problem 31b: OpenServer Exercise 2


1. Exercise Objective
Generating a Production Forecast and determining the time for drilling Well-2
2. Description
The Field is being currently produced with Well-1 at Maximum Rate.
A second Well (Well 2) is planned to be drilled when Well 1 Production falls below 7000 bbl
An automatic way of running the model (and enabling the second well when required) is
required as there will be plenty of sensitivities run on this model and manually checking for
the drilling date is not practical.
3. Data Provided
IPM Model: GAP Model.GAP (and associated files)
OpenServer Template (Excel File): Gap Prediction Template.xls
OpenServer Commands/Variables required
Well 1 Liquid Rate: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W1}].PREDRES[ j ].LIQRATE
Mask Command: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W2}].MASK()
Unmask Command: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W2}].UNMASK()
VBA Functions
CStr(Number): Converts the number into a string. This is useful for concatenating strings
and numbers
e.g.: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W1}].PREDRES[ & Cstr(j) &].LIQRATE
with j=3.
This is equivalent to
GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W1}].PREDRES[ 3].LIQRATE
Which is the string required to extract the Liquid Rate of well W1 of the 4th prediction
timestep
Val(String): Converts a string into a number. This is useful when extracting values using
OpenServer (they are extracted as strings) and need to compare in numerical values (e.g. if
Rate > 4000..)

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

82

IPM Review - Workshop

9.1

IPM Review - Workshop


Objective:
There has been a new discovery and few data available on the discovery.
On the basis of the information available, we want to study the best way to manage
the development of the field.
The Platform maximum capacity is 35000 bbl/d and the target Recovery Factor are
22% for Res 1 and 35% for Res 2 in 10 years.

START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE


Dataset:
FIELD DESCRIPTION
Two subsea reservoirs in 600 feet of water.
Reservoir 1 is 10,000 feet away from reservoir 2.
Separator is 50,000 feet away.
Data:

Reservoir 1

Reservoir 2

OOIP
Pressure
GOR
API
Gas gravity
Res Depth
Permeability
Pay height
Porosity

150
6500
500
35
0.7
14000
50
25
0.15

85
11000
1700
40
0.72
15000
500
50
0.25

November, 2007

(MMSTB)
(psig)
(scf/STB)

(feet)
(md)
(feet)
(fraction)

IPM Review - Workshop

Swc
Salinity
Temperature
Wellbore radius
Drainage Area

0.15
100,000
200
0.354
100

0.15
10,000
250
0.354
100

83

(fraction)
(ppm)
(F)
(feet)
(Acres)

Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)

End Point
(Fraction)

Corey Exponent

Water

0.15

0.7

0.8

Oil

0.15

0.8

1.5

Gas

0.02

0.9

Phase

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

84

10

Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network Optimisation

10.1

GAP Constrained Network Optimisation


The constrained optimisation module in GAP alters choke settings on naturally flowing wells
and gaslift amount on gaslifted wells to achieve maximum oil production whilst meeting
constraints usually processing limits placed at various levels in the gathering system.
The Successive Linear Programming Algorithm
Firstly, consider a system (Fig 1) consisting of two wells connected via a manifold and a
pipework to a separator.

The wells are naturally flowing, and their unchoked production is:

Oil

Water

Gas

Production

Production

Production

Well 1

5000

1250

Well 2

4000

Totals

9000

Water Cut

GOR

20

1000

3017

43

500

4267

Processing limits at the manifold of 2500 STB/d water and 3.8 MMscf/day gas are given,
and the task is to choke back the wells to meet these limits in an optimal way, where optimal
November, 2007

Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network Optimisation

85

in this case is define as maximising oil production.


This reduces to a mixing problem of a type frequently seen in all forms of process industry,
since each well supplies oil gas and water in its own particular proportions and we are
mixing the wells at the manifold. There are therefore many techniques available for solving
problems of this type.
Before we look at the actual technique used in GAP, let us solve the problem manually. We
therefore define x1 and x2 as the fraction of unchoked production from each well, o1 and o2
as the unchoked oil production, w1 and w2 as the unchoked water production and finally g1
and g2 as the unchoked gas production. The problem can be stated with the following
equations:
Maximise

oil production

= x1.o1+x2.o2

Subject to the constraints

water production

= x1.w1+x2.w2 <=2500

Gas production

= x1.g1+x2.g2 <= 3.8

Non negative production

= x1,x2 >= 0

Production <=unchoked

= x1,x2 <= 1

We can draw a diagram of the problem (Fig 2) by plotting x1 along the x axis and x2 along
the y axis. Any point within the square region defined by the 0,1 limits (OAHD) represents a
possible mixture of the two wells.

Taking the water constraint first, if we plot a line on the diagram where the water production
from both wells adds up 2500, we get the line EI on the diagram. Any point on or below this
line will satisfy the water production constraint. We plot a similar line representing the gas
constraint, line FG. The lines intersect within the square at point B. To satisfy both
2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

86

constraints, a point has to lie below or on both lines simultaneously. The region containing
all the possible mixtures which satisfy all the constraints is the four sided region OEBG, the
feasible region.
Now consider the oil production. Two lines representing all mixtures of the two wells which
produce 5000 and 4000 (JK and KL) are plotted. The 5000 line lies entirely outside the
feasible region, while the 4000 line divides it. If we visualise moving a production contour
from 5000 to 4000, it can be seen that the contour will first touch the region at point B. This
therefore must be the optimal point, since all points in the region below must have lower oil
production.
At point B, the actual production is 5031, and both the gas and water production are at their
limits. This corresponds to a fraction x1=0.513728 of unchoked production for Well 1, and
x2-0.615679 of unchoked production for Well 2. Note that the combination of constraints has
led a solution where both wells are choked.
Since we have performed curves for the wells relating production to WHP, we can
immediately look up the desired WHP for each well. This in turn gives us the choke settings
(as pressure differences), since they must equal the difference between the manifold
operating pressure and the desired WHP.
To get to this stage, we used the production data and constraints to form a set of linear
equations, and solved then simultaneously with a graphical method. It should be clear that
we can construct a similar set of equations for any system of naturally flowing wells, with
constraints at different levels affecting all of the wells connected below. Since the equations
are linear, this can be classed as a linear programming problem, and GAP solves this using
the simplex method, since this is reliable and computationally efficient.
The Simplex Method.
A property of linear programming problems is that the solution always occurs on the
boundary of the region enclosed by the problem constraints, where two or more constraints
meet (i.e. a vertex of the region). Let us take a problem with N variables (i.e. N wells) and M
constraints.
To solve the problem therefore, we need to step through the points at the vertices, ending
with the point whose objective value is the highest. The simplex method is a procedure
which ensures that the objective increases at each step, and that the optimum point is
reached after a number of steps of order N (or M, whichever is larger).
The first step is to express the system of equations in a standard form as follows:
z-

5000.x1

-4000.x2

=0

:Objective function

1250.x1

+3017.x2+y1 = 2500

:constraint 1

5.x1

+2.x2+y2

= 3.8

:constraint 2

x1

+y3

=1

:constraint 3

x2

+y4

=1

:constraint 4

They yis are called slack variables and are introduced to transform the inequality constraints
to equality constraints. All the variables are defined to be non-negative. We now form a

November, 2007

Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network Optimisation

87

matrix representation of the equation (the tableau):


z

x1

x2

y1

y2

y3

y4

Row 0

-5000

-4000

Row 1

1250

3017

2500

Row 2

3.8

Row 3

Row 4

As a starting point, take x1 and x2=0. This satisfies all constraints. We now want to take a
step which increases the objective. Choose the variable which has the largest negative
coefficient in row 0 in this case x1. Let x2 stay at zero. As we increase x1, the variables y1
will change value, but by definition, we cannot allow any y1 to become negative. Taking
each y1 in turn (and setting x2 to zero), we can say
y1=2500-1250.x1

=>

y1 >= 0

for x1 <= 2500/1250 = 2

y1=2500-1250.x1

=>

y1 >= 0

for x1 <= 2500/1250 = 2

y2=3.8 5.x1

=>

y2 >= 0

for x1 <= 3.8/5 = 0.76

y3=1 x1

=>

y3 >= 0

for x1 <= 1/1 = 1

y4=1 x2

=>

y4 >= 0

for x1 <= any value of x1

Where the upper limits on x1 are simply the ratio of the limit to the coefficient. Clearly we
can set x1 to min{2500/1250, 3.9/5, 1/1} = 0.76, which will set y2 to zero. This is called the
ratio test, and in this case, row 2 (i.e. the y2 row) is the winner. We now use matrix
arithmetic to pivot around the intersection of the x1 column and the y2 row, in other words
use matrix arithmetic (row operations) to make the coefficient of x1 1 in row 2 and 0 in all
other rows. That is, we divide row 2 by 5 to make the row 2 coefficient 1, subtract 1250
times row 2 from row 1 to make the row 1 coefficient 0, and so on. This yields the following
tableau
z

x1

x2

y1

y2

y3

y4

Row 0

-2000

1000

3800

Row 1

2517

-250

1550

Row 2

0.4

0.2

0.76

Row 3

-0.4

-0.2

0.24

Row 4

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

88

The step has made x1 non-zero, and the equation represented by the top row is now:
z 2000.x2 + 1000.y2 = 3800, or z = 3800 + 2000.x2 1000.y2

November, 2007

Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network Optimisation

89

Clearly, the next step in increasing z is to set y2 to zero, and increase x2. To find out how
much, we perform another radio test, using the four variables, y1, x1, y3 and y4 :
y1 = 1550 2517.x2

=>

y1 >= 0

for x2 <= 1550/2517 = 0.615812

x1 = 0.76 0.4.x2

=>

y2 >= 0

for x2 <= 0.76/0.4 = 1.9

y3 = 0.24 + 0.4.x2

=>

y3 >= 0

for any value of x2

y4 = x2

=>

y4 >= 0

for any value of x2

So, we can set x2 to min {1.9 , 0.615812 } = 0.615812, which will make y1 zero. We now
pivot around the y1 row (row 1) and the x2 column getting

Row 0

x1

x2

y1

y2

y3

y4

0.794597

801.3508

5031.62
5

Row 1

0.000397

-0.09932

0.61567
9

Row 2

-0.00016

0.23973

0.51372
8

Row 3

0.000159

-0.23973

0.48627
2

Row 4

-0.0004

0.099325

0.38432
1

The step has made x2 non zero, and the equation represented by the top row is now:
z = 5031.625 0.794597.y1 801.3508.y2
We can stop here, since the only way to maximize z is to set y1 and y2 to zero. Thus the
optimal solution is x1=0.615679 , x2=0.513728 , z=5031 as we obtained graphically above.
A value of zero for y1 and y2 means that these constraints are binding.
A good textbook on linear programming and the simplex method is [Introduction to
mathematical programming, W.L. Winston, Duxbury Press]
Special steps must be taken to cope with the situation where the back pressure caused by a
group of strong wells kills or severely attenuates production from a weaker group, and the
operator wishes the weaker wells to achieve a minimum production. In practice, this
minimum must be achieved by choking back the stronger wells, thus reducing the back
pressure and allowing the weaker wells to flow. The algorithm described above, however, is
not aware of the minimum production set by the operator. GAP therefore detects when
conditions could allow this, and sets the weaker wells production level, artificially, to the
minimum before performing the simplex step. This allows the simplex algorithm to attenuate
2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

90

the stronger wells in favour of the weaker ones.


We now have choked settings, but in general we would not obtain correct results if we
applied them and performed a network pressure calculation. This is because the choke
settings were based in the operating pressures as calculated for the unchoked system. In
general, these pressures will change as the wells production is modified, because the
pressure drops in the surface network will change. GAP therefore performs a loop,
calculating and applying choke settings as described above, then performing a network
pressure calculation until a stable situation is reached. This is essentially linearising an
inherently non-linear problem, and is known as a Successive Linear Programming (SLP)
approach.
The Nonlinear Programming Algorithm
The SLP algorithm described above can be applied to systems of naturally flowing wells
because the equations which describe the objective and the constraints are all linear,
allowing the use of the simplex algorithm at each stage. When we consider systems
containing gaslifted wells, however, this approach breaks down because the gaslift
constraint, i.e. that the sum of the individual wells gaslifts be limited to the gas available,
cannot be expressed as a linear equation involving the fractional products. The problem thus
unavoidably becomes a non-linear programming one (NLP). GAP still uses the overall loop
described above, but replaces the simplex step with a NLP solution technique.
This is in fact requires a much more complex algorithm than simplex, since there are many
special cases and problems which have to be catered for, and the solution almost always
requires a significant number of search steps, complex logic to maintain an active constraint
set, as well as the gradients and even second order derivatives of the objective function and
the constraints. For descriptions of many common techniques, see [nonlinear programming,
M.S. Bazaraa, H.D. Sherali & C.M. Shetty, Wiley]. Briefly, GAP solves the non-linear
programming problem by forming a quadratic approximation to the Lagrangian of the
problem, solving this approximation to obtain a direction to step in, then maximizing a merit
function (The L1 penalty function) along that direction, where the merit function measures
both the increase in the objective and the violation of the constraints.
These steps are repeated until an optimum is found. This can be quite computationally
expensive for some systems. The output of this step is a set of desired productions for
naturally flowing wells, and a set of gaslift amounts for gaslifted wells. The naturally flowing
wells then have their choke settings calculated. If the algorithm decides to attenuate a
gaslifted wells production, the well is converted to a naturally flowing well and choked. To
ensure a smooth transition from gaslifted to choked regimes, which is required by the
nonlinear programming model, a blending function is used to merge the two.
As above, this step is followed by a network pressure calculation, and the two steps are
repeated until stability is reached.

November, 2007