Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Summary
Nodal l analysis , defined as a systems approach to the 5. To check each component in the well system to
optimization of oil and gas wells, is used to evaluate determine whether it is restricting the flow rate
thoroughly a complete producing system. Every unnecessarily.
component in a producing well or all wells in a 6. To permit quick recognition by the operator's
producing system can be optimized to achieve the management and engineering staff of ways to increase
objective flow rate most economically. All present production rates.
components-beginning with the static reservoir There are numerous 011 and gas wells around the
pressure, ending with the separator, and including world that have not been optimized to achieve an
inflow performance, as well as flow across the objective rate efficiently. In fact, many may have been
completion, up the tubing string (including any completed in such a manner that their maximum
downhole restrictions and safety valves), across the potential rate cannot be achieved . Also , many wells
surface choke (if applicable), through horizontal flow placed on artificial lift do not achieve the efficiency
lines, and into the separation facilities-are analyzed. they should.
The production optimization of oil and gas wells by
Introduction nodal systems analysis has contributed to improved
The objectives of nodal analysis are as follows. completion techniques, production, and efficiency for
1. To determine the flow rate at which an existing many wells. Althou~h this type of analysis was
oil or gas well will produce considering well bore proposed by Gilbert in 1954, it has been used
geometry and completion limitations (first by natural extensively in the V.S. only in the last few years. One
flow). principal reason for this was the changing of allowable
2. To determine under what flow conditions (which producing rates, and another has been the development
may be related to time) a well will load or die . of computer technology that allows rapid calculation of
3. To select the most economical time for the complex algorithms and provides easily understood
installation of artificial lift and to assist in the selection data.
of the optimum lift method . Past conservation practices in the V. S. more or less
4. To optimize the system to produce the objective restricted operators to 2 - and 2 1/2 -in. [5.08- and
flow rate most economically. 6.35-cm] tubing and 4 shots/ft [13.1 shots/m] for
Copyright t 985 Society of Petroleum Engineers perforating. The use of larger tubing (4'/2 and 5'12 in.
OCTOBER 1985 1751
llPI Pr - Pwfs LOSS IN POROUS MEDIUM
llP2 Pwfs-Pwf LOSS ACROSS COMPLETION
LlP3 PUR - POR RESTRICTION
llP4 PUSy -POSy = SAFETY VALVE
llP5 Pwh- Pose = SURFACE CHOKE
llP6 Pose-Psep IN FLOWLINE
llP7 Pwf-Pwh TOTAL LOSS Ir~ TUBING
llPs Pwh - Psep FLOWLINE
[11.43 and 13.97 cm)) and 16 shots/ft [52.5 shots/mJ models of other well components can be used to
is common today. complete the predicted well performance.
Although the increase in flow rates in high- Fig. 1 shows components that make up a detailed
productivity wells has popularized nodal analysis, it is, flowing well system. Beginning with the reservoir and
nevertheless, an excellent tool for low-rate wells (both proceeding to the separator, the components are (1)
oil and gas) as well as for all artificial lift wells. Some reservoir pressure, (2) well productivity, (3) wellbore
of the greatest percentage increases in production rates completion, (4) tubing string, (5) possible downhole
have occurred in low-rate oil wells (from 10 to 30 BID restrictive device, (6) tubing, (7) safety valve, (8)
[1.59 to 4.77 m 3 /d)) and low-rate gas wells (from 50 tubing, (9) surface choke, (10) flowline, and (11)
up to 100 to 200 MscflD [1416 up to 2832 to 5663 std separator.
m 3 /d)). Numerous gas wells have needed adjustments To optimize the system effectively, each component
in tubing sizes, surface pressures, etc., to prolong the must be evaluated separately and then as a group to
onset of liquid loading problems. Nodal analysis can evaluate the entire well producing system. The effect
be used to estimate the benefits of such changes before of the change of anyone component on the entire
they are made. system is very important and can be displayed
One of the most important aspects of nodal analysis graphically with well analysis. Some aspects of the
is to recognize wells that should be producing at rates IPR component are covered in Appendix A; discussion
higher than their current rate. Therefore, it can serve of multiphase-flow pressure-drop correlations for
as an excellent tool to verify that a problem exists and pipelines is found in Appendix B.
that additional testing is necessary. For example, The most common positions for nodal analysis
assume that a well is producing 320 BID [51 m 3 Id] of graphical solutions are listed below.
oil. Applying nodal analysis to this well shows that it 1. At the center of the producing interval, at the
is capable of producing 510 BID [81 m 3 I d]. This bottom of the well. This isolates the well's inflow
difference may be attributed to several factors, but performance.
nodal analysis can determine which component is 2. At the top of the well (wellhead). This isolates
restricting the rate or can determine that incorrect data the flowline or the effects of surface pressure on
are the cause of the higher predicted rate. A basic production.
requirement for well analysis is the ability to define 3. Differential pressure solutions (t..p) across the
the current inflow performance relationship (IPR) of completion interval to evaluate the effect of the
the well. Accurate well test data must be obtained and number of perforations on production in gravel-packed
the proper IPR applied for successful analysis. Then or standard completion wells.
1752 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
t t
BHP BHP
or or
~P ~P
RATE + RATE +
Fig. 2-Constructed IPR curve. Fig. 3-Constructed tubing intake curve.
RATE + RATE +
Fig. 4-Transfer Ap. Fig. 5-Construct Ap across gravel pack.
3. Transfer the differential pressure available 6. Evaluate other shot densities or perhaps other
between the node inflow and node outflow curve on hole sizes until the appropriate /lp is obtained at the
the same plot (Fig. 4) to a /lp curve. objective rate (Fig. 6). Perforation efficiency should
4. Using the appropriate equations,3,4 calculate the be considered at this time. A good review on
pressure drop across the completion for various rates. perforating techniques, which points out such factors
Numerous variables have to be considered here, as the number of effective holes expected and the
including shots per foot, gravel permeability, viscosity effect of the number of holes and hole sizes on casing
and density of the fluid, and length of the perforation strength, was presented by Bell. 6
tunnel for linear flow. Add this /lp curve on Fig. 4, as 7. The /lp across the pack can be included in the
noted in Fig. 5. IPR curve, as noted in Fig. 7.
5. Evaluate this completion (Fig. 5) to determine
whether the objective rate can be achieved with an Example Problem-Typical Gulf Coast Well With
accepted differential across the gravel pack. Company Gravel Pack. Below is a list of given data.
philosophies on accepted /lp values differ. A
reasonable maximum allowable /lp that has given Pr = 4,000 psi [27.6 MPa],
good results ranges from 200 to 300 psi [1379 to 2068 D = 11,000 ft [3352 m] (center of perforations),
kPa] for single-phase gas or liquid flow. Most k = 100 md (permeability to gas),
operators will design for smaller /lp's for multiphase h = 30 ft [9.1 m] (pay interval),
flow across the pack. hp = 20 ft [6.1 m] (perforated interval),
t t
BHP BHP
or or
~P ~P
RATE + RATE +
Fig. 6-Evaluation of various shot densities. Fig. 7-Gravel pack solution by including Ap completion in
IPR curve.
)( 2 )( 4
0.. 0..
I I
III Pr = 4000 PSI III
DEPTH = 11,000'
K = 100 MD 2
20 40
Fig. 8-IPR curve for gas well-gravel-pack analysis. Fig. 9-Evaluation of tubing sizes.
4 4
DEPTH 11,000'
(f)
Pwh= 1200 PSI
3 3
u; ~P <\1>-'t-~0 0..
0..
0\~ ~\~ M
'0~\~ """v
M
0
0
"" b. \\'2- )(
)(
0..
0.. 2 <l 2
<l 0
0 0..
0.. DEPTH = 11,000' I
I III
III Pwh= 1200 PSI
~P
Fig. 10-Ap available from sandface to tubing intake. Fig. 11-Ap across gravel pack at 4, 8, 12, and 16 shotslft.
3 Ci5 3
(j5
.-
0..
..-
0..
0
0
><
>< 2 0.. 2
<1
0.. ....
:x: 0
CD 0..
:x:
CD
DEPTH = 11,000'
41/2" TUBING
Pwh = 1200 PSI
00 10 30 40 50 60 70
Fig. 12-Completion effects included with IPR-gravel- Fig. 13-Effects of wellhead pressure-gravel-packed well.
packed well.
conditions permitted, much higher rates could be surrounded by a low-permeability zone. They still
projected with adequate sand control. incorporate basic concepts suggested by Jones et al. 4
3. The Ap is transferred, as noted in Fig. 10. This is for gravel-packed wells.
the Ap available across the gravel pack.
4. The Ap across the pack for 0.75-in. [1.905-cm] Example Problem and Procedure for
-diameter holes with 4, 8, 12, and 16 effective shots/ft a Perforated Well
[13.12, 26.2, 39.4, and 52.5 effective shots/m] (Fig. In this section, a sample oil well with a low GOR, a
11) should be calculated with Jones et al. 's equations low bubblepoint pressure, and assumed single-phase
or with modifications of these equations adjusted to fit liquid flow across the completion will be analyzed.
field data. The reason for this selection is that current technology
5. Figs. 11 and 12 show the final two plots has offered solutions only for single-phase flow (gas or
indicating that 16 shots/ft [52.5 shots/m] are necessary liquid) across such completions. When two-phase flow
to obtain a Ap of about 300 psi [2068 kPa] at a rate o'f occurs across either a gravel-packed or a standard
58.5 MMscfID [1.7XI0 6 std m 3 /d]. Additional perforated well, relative permeability effects must be
perforations could bring this Ap below 200 psi considered. Additional turbulence then occurs in
[1379 kPa]. gravel-packed wells and creates more energy losses.
6. To bring this well on production properly, one McLeod 7 noted that most of the pressure drop can
more plot (such as Fig. 13) should be made with occur across a compacted zone at the perforation wall
several wellhead pressures so that Ap across the pack because of turbulence. He analyzed a gas-well
can be watched through the observation of rate and example and showed that 90% of the total Ap across
wellhead pressure. This procedure is described by the completion, in fact, was caused by turbulence
Crouch and Pack 5 and Brown et al. 3 across the approximately V2-in. [1.27-cm] -thick
compacted zone. (Refs. 3 and 7 provide more details).
Nodal Analysis To Evaluate a Standard To use this technique, the crushed-zone thickness,
Perforated Well e c, the permeability, k co the perforation-tunnel
In 1983 McLeod 7 published a paper that prompted diameter, d p' and the length, L p' must be known.
operators to examine completion practices on normally Obviously, because of the many input variables
perforated wells. Although numerous prior required, the technique can only be approximate and
publications 8-10 discussed this topic and companies indicate trends. It is hoped that future research in this
had evaluated the problem, this paper sparked new area will lead to more accurate models of pressure
interest. A modification of this procedure is presented drop through perforations shot in both over- and
in Ref. 3. underbalanced conditions.
The procedure is similar to that offered for gravel-
packed wells, except that the equations used for the Example Problem.
calculation of pressure drop across the completion fir = 3,500 psi [24.1 MPa],
have been altered to model flow through a perforation D = 8,000 ft [2438 m],
"0 x
1.5 c.. 1.5
x <l
c.. 0
I c..
CO
1.0 I 1.0
CO
DEPTH = 8000'
Pr = 3500'
.5 .5
Pwh = 140 PSI
Fig. 14-IPR and tubing curves for perforated oil well. Fig. 15-Transfer for Ap curve-perforated oil well.
Feet Perforation kc as % of
Number Shots/Ft Perforated Condition k f Formation
4 20 Overbalanced with 10
filtered salt water
2 8 20 Overbalanced with 10
salt water
3 4 20 Underbalanced
with 30
filtered salt water
4 8 20 Underbalanced
with 30
filtered salt water
parallel line instead of replacing the current line with a 320-acre [129-ha] spacing,
larger size. T = 200F [93C],
k = 0.12 md,
Restriction Caused by Incorrect Tubing Size. The Pwh = 100 psig [689 kPa],
tubing may be either too large (causing unstable flow) hp = 15 ft [4.57 m],
or too small (reducing flow rate). This can be
'Yg = 0.7,
recognized immediately on a nodal plot and is as
hole size = 8 1/2 in. [21.6 cm], and
important in high-rate gas lift wells as in low-rate gas
wells. no skin effects.
A weak gas well is chosen to show how to
determine when the tubing is too large and to predict
when loading will occur. The Gray 11 correlation is Evaluate 3 1/2-, 2Ys-, 2%-, and Biz-in. [8.89-, 7.3-,
recommended for use in the calculation of tubing 6.35-, and 3.81-cm] tubing (1.66-in. [4.21-cm] ID)
pressure drops in gas wells that produce some liquids. and I-in. [2.5-cm] tubing (1.049-in. [2.66-cm] ID) for
this well.
Example Problem-Weak Gas Well with Note in Fig. 18 that all sizes of tubing are too large
Liquid Production. for this particular case except the 1.049-in. [2.66-cm]
-ID tubing. Unstable flow is indicated by the tubing
P r = 3,200 psi [22 MPa],
curves crossing the IPR at a point to the left of the
30 bbllMMcf [168 X 10 -6 m 3 /m 3 ] condensate, minimum for the larger tubing. The J .O-in. [2.54-cm]
5 bbllMMcf [28.1 x 10 -6 m 3 1m 3 ] water, tubing shows stable flow.
D = 10,000 ft [3048 m], The same type of analysis can be made for oil wells
h = 15 ft [4.57 m], for various tubing sizes.
3.0 500
DEPTH = 8000'
2.5 TUBING I.D. = 2.992"
Pr = 3500 PSI 400
u;
u; 0...
0...
2.0 u.i DEPTH = 8000'
M a:: TUBING I.D. = 2.441"
0 =>
(j) 300
x (j) Pwh "" 60 PSI
1.5 w Pr = 2100 PSI
0...
<l
a::
0...
5 0 200
0... w
I 1.0
co I
...J
...J
w
.5 ~
Fig. 16-Production vs. various perforated completions. Fig. 17-Wellhead nodal plot-flowline size effects.
2.5 30
DEPTH = 10,000'
Pwh = 100 PSI
Pr = 3200 PSI 25
2.0
30 B/MMCFD CONDo
en
[L
5 B/MMCFD WATER
20
~ 1.5 en
[L
I
x S 15 I
[L I
x 0
ffi 1.0 w
w r()
[L 0
I
co 10 >
a: 0w
w a:
(f)
.5 co [L
I
5 0
I
I
o 50 100 150 200 250 00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
RATE, MCFD RATE, MCFD
Fig. 18-Tubing-diameter effects-weak gas well. Fig. 19-Predicted vs. observed oilwell performance.
2.5
500
U5 2.0
a..
M
0
U5
a..
ui 400
a:
--- -
1.5 =>
x en
a.. [B 300
I
CD
a:
1.0 a..
o 200
DEPTH = 7000' ~ TUBING 1.0. = 1.995"
I
.5 TUBING 1.0. = 1.995" = 7000'
:::l 100 DEPTH
w
!:
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
RATE, BID RATE, BID
Fig. 20-Wellhead pressure effects on rate-nodal plot. Fig. 21-Production vs. wellhead pressure.
The IPR curve can be drawn quickly and the tubing area to flow than to stimulation. Refs. 3 and 4 provide
curve imposed on the sample plot (Fig. 19). The more details on this procedure.
intersection shows a rate of 760 BID [121 m 3 /d] of
oil. Effects of Wellhead And Separator Pressure
The question of whether this well is worth spending Specific cases of gas wells and gas-lift oil wells may
sufficient money to determine why the rate is less than be influenced significantly by changes in separator
the predicted rate now arises. The source of error pressure and/or wellhead pressure.
could be with two bits of information. Is the A good plot for both oil and gas wells is a
permeability of 50 md (obtained from cores) correct? deliverability plot of wellhead pressure vs. rate and, in
Is there a completion problem? For this well, the tum, separator pressure vs. rate. This plot also can
possibility of additional production justifies the show the loading or critical rate and offers immediate
expenditure to run a buildup test to verify kh/ J.I-.oB 0 selection of rates based on wellhead pressures. The
and to check for skin. A high skin may indicate that sample data used to construct Fig. 19 are used to
further testing is needed to determine whether a rate- construct Fig. 20 at various wellhead pressures. From
sensitive skin exists to decide whether stimulation or this graph, data are used to construct Fig. 21, which
reperforating is required. demonstrates the well response as a function of surface
pressure.
Restricted Gas Well
Many operators fail to recognize the significance of Summary and Conclusions
the exponent n for gas-well IPR equations obtained
Nodal analysis is an excellent tool for optimizing the
from four-point tests. It is common to see exponents
objective flow rate on both oil and gas wells. A
of 0.7 to 0.8 or less in gas wells. For example, the
common misconception is that often there are
following equation was obtained from a U.S. gulf
insufficient data to use this analysis. This is true in
coast well after data were plotted on log-log paper.
some cases, but many amazing improvements have
been made with very few data. The use of nodal
q gsc =0.0463[(5,000)2 -p w/] 0.7 Mcf/d. analysis has also prompted the obtaining of additional
data by proper testing of numerous wells.
The operator of this well had a market of 15 Another common statement is that there is too much
MMscf/D [424 x 10- 3 std m 3 /d]. Note that this well error involved in the various multiphase-flow tubing or
has an absolute 0j'en-flow potential (AOFP) of 6,984 flowline correlations, completion formulas, etc., to
Mcf/D [198xlO m 3 /d]. See Table 2 for AOFP's for obtain meaningful results. Because of these possible
higher values of n. errors, it is sometimes difficult to get a predictive
Obviously, this well has a serious completion nodal plot to intersect at exactly the same production
restriction. Sufficient data are already available to plot rate of the actual well. Even if current conditions
in the form suggested by Jones et at. 4 They suggested cannot be matched exactly, however, the analysis can
plotting (Pr 2 -Pw/)/qgsc on the ordinate vs. qgsc on show a percentage increase in production with a
the abscissa to evaluate the need for opening more change, for instance, in wellhead pressure. These