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
Contents
Table of Contents
0
Chapter 1
1 Objectives
................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2
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
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
49
Chapter 5
56
II
Chapter 6
63
Chapter 7
73
Chapter 8
80
1 Problem 31a:...................................................................................................................................
OpenServer Exercise 1
80
2 Problem 31b:...................................................................................................................................
OpenServer Exercise 2
81
Chapter 9
82
Chapter 10
84
1 GAP Constrained
...................................................................................................................................
Network Optimisation
84
1.1
Objectives
1.2
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.
This type of model could be used to fulfil different objectives such as:
Production Allocation
Maintenance Planning
November, 2007
1.3
The following sketch is drawn to explain how these tools interact with each other.
RESOLVE, IPM controller, establishing the link between the IPM suite and
third-party tools.
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
1.4
2.1
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
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
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
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
Oil Rate
8699.0
STB/day
Flowing BH Pressure
3316.8
Psig
November, 2007
degF
2.2
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
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
Oil Gravity
800 (SCF/STB)
35 (API)
Gas Gravity
0.78
Water Salinity
80000 (ppm)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
10
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.
PIPELINE DATA
Pipeline ID
Ambient Temp.
55
8.5
BTU/h/ft2/F
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
November, 2007
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
12
Manifold
Pressure
450 psig
Oil Rate
8699.0
STB/day
Flowing BH Pressure
3316.8
Psig
Psig
degF
November, 2007
2.3
13
Reservoir Fluid
Separator
Solution GOR
Oil Gravity
700.0
42.00
Gas Gravity
(SCF/STB)
(API)
Water Salinity
200000 (ppm)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
Measured 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
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
(BTU/h/ft2/F)
PIPELINE DATA
Pipeline ID
Ambient Temp.
50 F
8.5
November, 2007
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
Without Flowline
200 (Psig)
Water Cut
20 (%)
Oil Rate
5446.6
STB/day
7903.9
STB/day
435.9
Psig
200
Psig
110.3
127.9
Flowing BH Pressure
4546.1
Psig
4341.3
Psig
16
2.4
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.
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)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.25
0.31
RESULT
November, 2007
Manifold Pressure
17
450 psig
STB/day
Psig
Flowing BH Pressure
Psig
18
2.5
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).
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.456
0.31
RESULT
November, 2007
Manifold Pressure
19
450 psig
STB/day
Psig
Flowing BH Pressure
Psig
20
2.6
Use the calibrated correlation to predict the well rate for future operating
Enter the PVT data, match the black oil correlation to the new PVT lab 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.
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.456
0.31
November, 2007
375
psig
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
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):
22
2.7
Reservoir Fluid
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)
0.737
1.35
Water Salinity
75000 (ppm)
Reservoir Temperature
313 (degree F)
7785.3 (psig)
November, 2007
23
DEVIATION SURVEY
Measured Depth (feet)
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
(BTU/h/ft2/F)
24
Method
Vogel
Reservoir Pressure
7785.3
psig
Reservoir Temperature
313.0
Water Cut
Total GOR
2800
SCF/STB
TEST DATA
3235.3
psig
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
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
25
26
2.8
5200
30
4000
45
Part II
Find the production rate at the two specific cases below (WHP=450 psig)
RESULT
November, 2007
Case 1
Case 2
4000
5200
15
40
27
28
3.1
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
31.6
Well-Bore Radius
0.354
Skin
feet
RESULT
38497.6
STB/day
13.4
STB/day/psi
Equivalent PI
STB/day
AOF
November, 2007
29
30
3.2
November, 2007
3.3
31
Method
Darcy
Perforation Diameter
0.25
Perforation Length
12
inches
inches
32
md
0.2
inches
16
md
Deviation
53
deg
Penetration
0.5
Vertical Permeability
6.5
md
Wellbore Radius
0.354
feet
Shot Phasing
120
deg
inches
32
Perforation diameter
(Thickness of invasion)
Shot phasing
Vertical permeability
Wellbore radius
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
307.5
Total Skin
4.77
Perforation Skin
0.178
6.693
Deviation Skin
-2.104
Equivalent PI
10.61
STB/day
STB/day/psi
34
3.4
INPUT DATA
November, 2007
Method
Darcy
90000 md
Perforation Diameter
0.25
1.8
inches
Perforation Interval
74
feet
Perforation Efficiency
Beta Factor
Calculated
Method
Multiphase
35
inches
RESULT
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:
36
3.5
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
5300
psig
Reservoir Temperature
230
deg F
25
mD
Porosity
15
25
Gross Pay
300
feet
N/G Ratio
40
Drainage Area
500
acres
31.6
100
days
12 1/4
37
Straight hole
Tubing size
Casing
40 degF
60 deg
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
Perforation length
12
K*50% = 12.5 mD
0.2 in
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)
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
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.
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
Reservoir thickness
Wellbore radius
Horizontal anisotropy
Vertical anisotropy
Length of well
Lx
Ly
November, 2007
(Xw)
(Yw)
(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
3000
feet
3000
feet
50
feet
Skin
feet
RESULTS
Vertical Anisotropy
AOF (STB/day)
0.0083
165500
0.015
199400
0.030
242100
0.100
316700
42
3.7
Reservoir Fluid
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)
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)
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
(BTU/h/ft2/F)
44
Model
Multilayer Reservoir
Layer 1
Layer 2
7785.3
7800.2
100
150
Layer Skin
Gas Gravity
0.798
0.803
39
39
CGR (STB/MMSCF)
WGR (STB/MMSCF)
12
35
500
500
31.6
31.6
0.354
0.354
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)
November, 2007
3000 psi
3.8
45
46
Model
Layer 2
7785.3
7800.2
100
150
Layer Skin
Gas Gravity
0.798
0.803
CGR (STB/MMSCF)
WGR (STB/MMSCF)
12
45
500
500
31.6
31.6
0.354
0.354
100
150
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)
November, 2007
3000 psi
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
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
November, 2007
4.1
49
Objective:
This problem is designed to:
Sensitize on gas lift injection rate during the system (VLP + IPR) calculation
Select |Design |Gas Lift and enter the gas lift gas gravity of 0.7
Assuming a single point of injection (orifice only) perform a system calculation with:
o
50
Gas Lift
0.7 sg
0%
0%
Mole Percent N2
0%
Gas Lift
Valve Type
Casing Sensitive
35000 STB/day
MMscf/day
MMscf/day
350
psig
350
psig
2000
psig
2000
psig
100
psi
Packer Depth
13000 feet
80
0.450
psi/ft
50
psi
Minimum Spacing
250
feet
VALVE DETAILS
Valve Type
Casing Sensitive
Manufacturer
Camco
Type
R-20
Specification
Normal
November, 2007
51
RESULTS
52
4.2
113
psig
185
Liquid Rate
11970 STB/day
Water Cut
73.3
1.368
MMscf/day
0.4
MMscf/day
1740
psig
Valve
Depth (m)
Valve 1
1337
16
Valve 2
1744
20
Valve 3
2098
24
Orifice
2362
32
DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS
November, 2007
1744
8.7
1/64th inches
3098
psig
53
54
4.3
ESP
Pump Depth
12000
ft
Operating Frequency
60
Hertz
Maximum OD
inches
Design Rate
12000
STB/day
Water Cut
80
350
psig
Gas Separation
SENSITIVITY PARAMETERS
400 psig
Water Cut:
Frequency:
DESIGN RESULTS
November, 2007
Pump
Centrilift KC12000
Motor
Centrilift - 562
Cable
Cooper
Gas Separation
0%
55
56
5.1
Tie point
Branch 1
Joint
Branch 2
Upper Layer
Branch 3
Lower Layer
November, 2007
5200
225
35
0.782
80000
5
820
50
psig
degrees F
API
sp. gravity
ppm
percent
scf/STB
md
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)
Azimuth
8800
7700
8850
7750
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(feet)
Start
8800
Tubing
8850
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(ins)
3.92
0.0006
Azimuth
0
45
55
65
75
58
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(feet)
Start
8850
Tubing
9650
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(ins)
3.92
0.0006
Local Skin
9380
9650
= 0.43 ft
= 31.6
Branch 3
Measured Depth
(feet)
8850
Azimuth
9200
7950
220
9400
8010
245
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(feet)
Start
8850
Tubing
9400
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(ins)
3.92
0.0006
Local Skin
9200
9400
= 0.43 ft
= 31.6
RESULT
November, 2007
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
60
5.2
PVT DATA
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
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)
4711
2824
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(m)
TVD
(m)
Azimut
Start
4711
2824
Tubing
4924
2923.7
192.31
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(m)
1.524e-5
= 0.15 m
Branch 1
Measured 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
62
Local Skin
5130
5380
5423
5579
5604
5665
5767
5975
6124
6246
6279
6505
= 0.15m
= 30
RESULT
Skin
-2.18
November, 2007
Rate
(Sm3/day)
4190
6.1
63
Objective:
This problem is designed to:
How to perform fractional flow matching and how to verify the reliability of the
fractional flow
Verify that the pseudo relative permeabilities can reasonably reproduce the
historical water cut
and GOR.
64
PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
800 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity
35 (API)
Gas Gravity
0.78
Water Salinity
80000 (ppm)
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.456
0.31
RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
Reservoir Properties
Reservoir Temperature
250 F
Reservoir Pressure
5215 psig
Reservoir Thickness
100 ft
Reservoir Radius
2200 ft
Reservoir Porosity
23 %
15 %
250 MMSTB
Production Start
01/02/2000
Aquifer
Encroachment Angle
180 deg
Aquifer Permeability
20 mD
November, 2007
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
100%
100%
PRODUCTION HISTORY
66
6.2
Reservoir Fluid
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
2800 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity
44
(API)
Gas Gravity
0.77
Water Salinity
75000 (ppm)
% H2S
% CO2
% N2
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
313
7785.3
7785.3
2800
RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
November, 2007
67
Reservoir Properties
Reservoir Temperature
313 F
Reservoir Pressure
7785.3 psig
Reservoir Thickness
105 ft
Reservoir Radius
5000 ft
Reservoir Porosity
23 %
15 %
0.1
300 MMSTB
Production Start
01/02/2003
Production History
res2h.xls
Aquifer Model
Aquifer Type
Radial
?? (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
100%
100%
68
6.3
Pore Volume
(Fraction)
TVD
(ft)
11477.9
0.25
11520
0.5
11550
11577.9
Go to the relative permeability screen and change the water sweep efficiency
to 70%.
Plot, compare and comment the evolution for the oil-water contact in both cases
November, 2007
6.4
69
70
6.5
Reservoir Fluid
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
500 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity
39 (API)
Gas Gravity
0.798
Water Salinity
100000 (ppm)
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
2200
2200
500
1.32
0.4
RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
November, 2007
71
Reservoir Properties
Reservoir Temperature
250 F
Reservoir Pressure
6000 psig
Reservoir Thickness
250 ft
Reservoir Radius
2500 ft
Reservoir Porosity
23 %
15 %
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
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
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
7.1
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:
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
74
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
November, 2007
WH2 to Manifold
Manifold to Sep
1000
2000
1000
10
7.2
75
76
7.3
November, 2007
77
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
Step 5:
Link PROSPER file and Res1 MBAL model to the corresponding components
in GAP
Step 6:
Generate IPR/VLP
Step 7:
Step 8:
78
7.4
TEST DATA
November, 2007
79
Well
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
1000
200
500
2000
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.
80
8.1
November, 2007
8.2
81
82
9.1
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)
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
84
10
10.1
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
85
oil production
= x1.o1+x2.o2
water production
= x1.w1+x2.w2 <=2500
Gas 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
87
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
y1=2500-1250.x1
=>
y1 >= 0
y2=3.8 5.x1
=>
y2 >= 0
y3=1 x1
=>
y3 >= 0
y4=1 x2
=>
y4 >= 0
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
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
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
x1 = 0.76 0.4.x2
=>
y2 >= 0
y3 = 0.24 + 0.4.x2
=>
y3 >= 0
y4 = x2
=>
y4 >= 0
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
November, 2007
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.