SPE 52170
Gas Well Production Optimization Using Dynamic Nodal Analysis
A.B. Bitsindou, SPE, and M.G. Kelkar, SPE, The University of Tulsa
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2831 March 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This work presents a numerical algorithm that permits the
production optimization of gas wells using the concept of
dynamic nodal analysis. By combining the desirable features
of nodal analysis, material balance technique and decline curve
analysis, the method is able to match the historical
performance of the well data. It is also able to predict the
future performance of the gas well under the existing condition
as well as altered conditions. The proposed technique, which
has several advantages over the classical nodal analysis, can be
used for the selection of the timing and capacity of surface
compressor, the evaluation of the economic viability of a well
stimulation, and the understanding of the effect of individual
production component on the productivity of a gas well over
the life of that well.
Introduction
The production optimization of a gas well requires an
appropriate selection of the individual components in the
production system. Currently nodal analysis is used to
accomplish this task. Nodal analysis involves calculating the
pressure drop in individual components within the production
system so that pressure value at a given node in the production
system (e.g., bottom hole pressure) can be calculated from
both ends (separator and reservoir) [See Figure 1]. The rate at
which pressure is calculated at the node from both ends must
be the same1,2,3. This is the rate at which the well produces.
Once the rate under existing conditions is obtained, by
adjusting individual components, the sensitivity of individual
components on the overall production can be investigated;
Hence an optimum selection of components can be obtained at
a given time. The major drawback of the conventional nodal
analysis is that it only provides the user with a snapshot picture
of the well production. It does not provide any information as
to how the production will change as a function of time. For
example, if tubing size is changed, the nodal analysis may
provide the best tubing size at present time; however, it may
not be able to indicate which tubing size is the best over the
life of the well based on the future production. Even
generating future inflow performance curves (which
characterize how the reservoir will behave in the future at
discrete times) may not help since we will not be able to
estimate how the rate has changed over the time intervals.
To include the effect of time on the production
performance, the most commonly used technique is the decline
curve analysis. Decline curve analysis involves matching the
prior production data using one of the decline types
(exponential, hyperbolic or harmonic), and using the estimated
decline parameters, predicting the future performance under
existing conditions. Decline curve analysis is a very powerful
tool, and has been used extensively to predict the future
performance by ignoring the effects of tubing size, choke,
surface pipeline or other components in the production system.
In addition, although it is true that decline curve analysis can
predict the future performance under existing conditions, it
may not predict how the well will behave in future if the
production conditions are altered. These alterations include,
for example, changing skin factor, changing choke size, or
changing the surface compressor.
Conventional material balance technique which uses
diagnostic plots have also been proven to be useful in
understanding the behavior of the gas wells. These plots, for
example, include P/Z (reservoir pressure over compressibility
factor) versus gas production to predict how much gas the well
will eventually produce. These techniques can also account
for, through a trial and error procedure, the presence of water
influx. The drawback of the material balance technique is that
it does not account for time. It can predict the production as a
function of reservoir pressure, but not as a function of time.
Further, it only accounts for reservoir component, and not for
any other component of the production system. The effect of
alterations on the gas well performance cannot be predicted
using the material balance technique. The inclusion of time in
terms of predicting the future performance is critical from
2 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR
economic point of view. This cannot be accomplished using
this technique.
To overcome the drawbacks presented in the above
methods, we need a technique which can:
Predict the future performance as a function of time in the
presence of various production components including the
reservoir.
Match the prior production data in the presence of various
production components so that the appropriate parameters
can be assigned for future production prediction. This is
similar to decline curve analysis except that we need to
include the production components in the system.
Quantify the uncertainties with respect to various
parameters ( e.g., reservoir permeability, skin factor,
tubing roughness, drainage area, the type of pressure drop
correlation) by generating alternate possibilities of
parameters which can match the production data.
Predict the future performance under existing conditions
as well as altered conditions to compare the production
scenarios in the future.
Quantify the uncertainty in predicting the future
performance which can be combined with the price of gas
to conduct a risk analysis.
Optimize the producing well configuration so that the net
profit over the life of the well is maximized.
The system considered in this work is shown in Figure 1. It
represents a single well producing from a gas reservoir up to
the separator. This system is divided into the following
completion and piping components:
reservoir
perforations
gravel pack
tubing
bottom hole device
subsurface safety valve (SSSV)
well head choke
surface pipeline
separator
Approach
This section explains the procedure used to combine the
important elements of the decline curve analysis, nodal
analysis and material balance technique.
Assumptions. The major assumptions made with respect to
the flow of gas in the reservoir and the piping system are:
The production system operates under pseudo-steady state
conditions. The well is flowing at a steady flow rate for a
fixed average reservoir pressure and separator pressure.
This implies that the gas well produces with a fixed
liquid/gas ratio.
SPE 52170
The drainage mechanism of the reservoir is assumed to be
natural depletion mechanism.
The production exhibits a certain type of decline during
the period of time considered in the history match
computations. That decline can be exponential, hyperbolic
or harmonic according to the behavior of the reservoir
under consideration. This behavior is assessed by using
the decline curve analysis theory and the Fetkovich type
curve4,5.
For wet gas reservoir, it is assumed that the reservoir
pressure is above the dew point pressure. This assumption
implies that the flow is single-phase gas in the reservoir.
The well head pressure is reasonably constant throughout
the period of time considered for the history match.
Other limitations involved in this work depend on the type of
correlation selected to compute the pressure losses across the
individual component in the system.
History Match. The procedure used to compute the history
match is summarized in the following steps:
1. Assume that the production history is known. Thus, for
each observed production time T obs1, Tobs2,, Tobs j,,
Tobs n, the corresponding observed rate Qobs1, Qobs2, ,
Qobsj, , Qobsn is known.
2. Assume that at time Tj the following data are known:
fluid properties as a function of pressure and
temperature
The type of decline (harmonic, hyperbolic or
exponential) as well as the rate of decline. If type
is not known, assume exponential decline.
The pressure drop correlations as a function of
rate for each Q.
3. The gas in place at this time Tj is computed as:
V * * S
b g
Gj (1)
Bgj
where
Vb= reservoir bulk volume
reservoir porosity
Sg= gas saturation
Bgj= gas formation volume factor at pressure P j
4. Calculate the rate Qj at which the well will produce at Pj.
This is done by using the nodal analysis technique. As
stated earlier, in this study the node is chosen at the
bottom hole. The nodal analysis technique is explained in
ref. 1, 2, 3.
 SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS 3

5. Assume a small decrement in reservoir pressure Pj. The 9. At this point, we have the model predicted timesT 1, T2,
new reservoir pressure is then P j+1 = Pj- Pj . At this , Tj, Tj+k, and the corresponding rates:Q 1, Q2, ,
reservoir pressure , calculate the new gas in place Qj, , Qj+k, For each observed time T obs j, we calculate
V * * S the corresponding predicted rate Qj by interpolating the
Gj 1
b g (2) model predicted rates. At this point, we check how the
Bg j1 calculated flow rate Qj compares with the historical
observed production rate Qobs j at the same time.
The total amount of gas produced when the reservoir
pressure decreases from Pj to Pj+1 is: 10. If the difference between the predicted and observed rates
is significant, a regression technique is used to adjust
G Gj Gj 1 (3) some of the parameters and the procedure is repeated
(steps 3 - 9). The process terminates when a desirable
6. Calculate the rate Qj+1 at which the well will produce match between predicted and observed rates is achieved.
under the present reservoir pressure P j+1. This is done by The regression analysis technique is discussed below:
nodal analysis.
Regression Analysis. The basic objective of using the non-
7. Knowing the total amount of gas produced (G) and the linear regression in this problem is to determine the optimum
gas flow rate Qj and Qj+1 at reservoir pressures Pj and Pj+1, set, , of reservoir/completion parameters such that the
we can calculate the elapsed time T required to reach observed data match as closely as possible to the calculated
that production data from the model.
In this study, the parameters on which the regression is
For exponential decline:
performed consist of any set of three variables chosen among
1 Qj
the following parameters: permeability, skin, radius of
T ln (4) drainage, pay, perforated interval, radius of perforations,
D Qj 1
diameter of perforations, porosity, water saturation, and
Qj density of perforations. For example, one can choose a set
D Qj 1 Qj Q j 1 such that parameters ={permeability, skin, radius of drainage}.

G G j G j 1 In this case the regression calculations will be performed on
the following variables: permeability, skin and radius of
For harmonic decline: drainage.
In this study, the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm6,7, has
Qj Qj 1
T
1


(5) been used. This algorithm has been selected because it does
D Q j 1 not require to provide the derivatives of the functions to
Qj Qj
minimize.
D ln An obvious choice of objective function to minimize is the
G Q j1 difference between observed and predicted rates. However,
such choice will be sensitive to outlier data. Considering that
the observed rates fluctuate significantly, it is better to choose
For hyperbolic decline:
an objective function which is more resistant to the outlier
(6) data. In our work, we used a correlation coefficient between
b

T 1 * 1 Qj 1 observed rate and predicted rate as one of the matching
b* D Qj
functions, and we also used a plot between observed and
predicted rates to have a slope of one, and the intercept of
Qj Q 1b zero. If average reservoir pressure data were available, we also
D * 1 j 1


(1 b)* G Qj make sure that it matches with predicted average reservoir

pressures.
The total calculated time when the reservoir pressure is P j+1
The Levenberg Marquardt algorithm6,7 that we use is
can be calculated as: unconstrained: i.e., variables can be chosen to minimize the
objective function with value between infinite. Obviously,
Tj 1 Tj T for our problem, we need to ensure that the values of the
variables lie in the predefined interval of uncertainty and that
8. Repeat the process from step 4 to step 7 until the total these values are meaningful. For example we may want the
calculated time is greater or equal to the observed regressed permeability value to be between K max and Kmin. In
production time. order to keep the values of the regression variables in certain
4 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR
predefined intervals, the imaging extension6,7 procedure is
used.
Future Performance Prediction
1. The future performance of the well under the existing
conditions as well as under altered conditions can be
calculated. The procedure is the same as described from
step 2 to step 8 in the History Matching section. Repeat
the steps till an abandonment rate is reached.
2. Consider different scenarios for variations in production
procedures. These include, for example, changing the
number of perforations, stimulating the well, fracturing
the well, installing the compressor at the surface.
3. Predict the future performance under the new operating
conditions using the same procedure as explained in Step
1.
4. Repeat Step 3 for alternate combinations of input
parameters to quantify uncertainties in the prediction of
future performance.
5. Compare the performance under the new scenario with the
base case to calculate the incremental gas production as a
function of time.
6. Repeat step 5 for different input configuration.
7. Use information generated in step 5 and step 6 to study
the economic feasibility of making the changes in the
production configuration.
Results
This section presents the results obtained by applying the
dynamic nodal analysis technique to several production
systems. Those production systems include synthetic data as
well as actual field data. These results validate the dynamic
nodal analysis technique.
Synthetic Data
These synthetic data have been generated using the results
from a simulation of an actual field well. They represent a gas
condensate well which was open to production for five years.
The characteristics of the reservoir as well as the description of
the completion are summarized in Table 1.
History Match. The computer program was run with the
regression parameters selected to be radius of drainage, skin
and permeability. The result of the history match is shown in
Figure 2 and Table 2. As it can be seen, the predicted rate
matches very well with the observed data. Also, the predicted
reservoir pressure matches very well with the observed data 3.
Several runs of the program were conducted in order to
assess the sensitivity of the history match with respect to errors
in the input historical production data. The results of these
SPE 52170
run are shown in Figure 3. Again, the predicted rate matches
very well with the observed data. Also, the predicted reservoir
pressure matches very well with the observed data3.
Future Performance Simulations.
Future Performance Simulations for Different Skin Values.
In order to simulate the effect of a stimulation job (acidizing,
fracturation,..) on the performance of the well, the program has
been run with different skin factors. The skin of 116.5, 50 and
0.0 has been used in the forecast computations. The results of
this sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure 4.
The improvement of the well performance as the skin factor is
reduced is clearly displayed on the graph. The forecast
performance declines faster as the skin is lower. For example
the decline rate corresponding to skin 0.0 is greater than the
one corresponding to skin 116.5. This is due to the fact that the
removal of the skin does not increase the reserves, but
accelerates the gas recovery.
Field case
Case #1: Dry Gas Well Producing at a Constant Well
Head Pressure. This field case represents a dry gas well, open
to production since 1989. It has been produced at a constant
well head pressure. The initial reservoir pressure is estimated
to be 2083 psia.
History Match. The computer program was run with the
regression parameters selected to be radius of drainage, skin
and permeability. The results of the history match are shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6. An excellent production history match
is obtained. The reservoir pressure history match is also in
very good agreement with the observed field data. The
calculated values of the regressed parameters as well as the
observed values based on well test of those parameters are
shown in Table 3. The skin exhibits a good agreement
between the observed value and the calculated value from well
test. The permeability and radius of drainage calculated from
the program are higher than the corresponding observed
values. This may be due to the fact that the actual reservoir
drive mechanism may not be exactly natural depletion. Some
other mechanism such as compaction drive may contribute to
the actual reservoir mechanism. The change in rate observed at
time 750 days is simply due to a well head pressure
perturbation that was very limited in time.
Future Performance Prediction Using Different Well Head
Pressure Values. Different runs of the program were
conducted at various well head pressures to simulate the effect
of the installation of a compressor on the future performance
of the producing system. Well head pressure values of 870
psia, 700 psia, 500 psia, 300 psia, and 100 psia were used in
the forecast computations. The well was producing at a well
head pressure of 870 psia. The results of these simulations are
shown in Figure 7. As can be seen, the well performance
improves as the well head pressure decreases. However the
increase in flow rate is not linearly related to the decrease in
the well head pressure. For example, the gain in flow rate
obtained from reducing the well head pressure from 870 psia
SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS
to 700 psia is about 2400 Mscf/D, whereas the increase in the
well performance is only 500 Mscf/D when the well head
pressure is reduced from 300 to 100 psia. This sensitivity
analysis is useful to the engineer in the process of deciding
whether or not to install a compressor and under what
optimum conditions it can be operated.
Future Performance Prediction for Different Density of
Perforation. In order to assess the sensitivity of the density of
perforations on the well performance, the program was run
with different values of perforation densities. Perforation
densities of 4 spf, 8 spf and 12 spf are used in the forecast
computations. The overbalanced perforation mode is used. The
well is actually perforated overbalanced with a perforation
density of 4 spf. The results of the simulations are summarized
in Figure 8. As can be seen, the well performance improves
slightly as the perforation density increases. However the gain
in flow rate remains marginal compared to those obtained by
reducing the well head pressure (by installing a compressor for
example).
Case #2: Conversion of the Original Data from Constant
Flow Rate to Constant Well Head Pressure. This field case
represents a condensate gas production system. The well, open
to production since 1989, exhibits a very high condensate yield
of 145 BBL/MMscf. The initial reservoir pressure is 5011
psia. The PVT analysis estimates the dew point pressure at
5025 psia. The decline curve analysis indicates that the well
produces with exponential decline.
In order to use the computer program presented in this
work, it is required that the well head pressure be reasonably
constant during the period of time considered in the history
match computations. Case #2 does not satisfy this requirement
as it is producing with constant rate but not with constant well
head pressure. For this well, the data were converted from
constant rate to equivalent constant well head pressure. The
Q1
PR 2 PWF1 2
conversion equation used is the following: P 2 P 2
Q
2 R WF 2
(7)
Q1 is the actual constant flow rate corresponding to the
flowing bottom hole pressure Pwf1. Since Q1 and Pwf1 are
known, the flow rate Q2 can be computed by assuming a fixed
value of the corresponding bottom hole pressure P wf2.
This conversion technique works well if the total reservoir
pressure decline is small during the time period considered for
history match calculations, and the reservoir is producing
under pseudo-steady state conditions.
History Match. The computer program was run with the
regression parameters selected to be radius of drainage, skin
and permeability. The results obtained are presented in
Figure 9 and Figure 10. An excellent production history
match is obtained. The reservoir pressure history match is also
very good.
5
The calculated values of the regressed parameters as well
as the estimated values (from well test) of those parameters are
shown in Table 4.
The regressed value of the permeability agrees with the
value obtained from well test. The predicted radius of drainage
is greater than the observed drainage radius. This is probably
due to the fact that the computer program uses volumetric
drive mechanism and it has been documented that the reservoir
drive mechanism for case #2 is not volumetric3.
Future Performance Prediction Using Different Perforated
Interval Values. In order to assess the sensitivity of the well
performance with respect to the perforated interval, the
program is run with different values of perforated interval.
Perforated interval values of 17 ft and 64 ft are used in the
forecast computations. The actual perforated interval of the
well is 17 ft. The results of the simulations are summarized in
Figure 11.
As it can be seen, the well performance increases as the
perforated interval increases.
Future Performance Prediction Using Different Tubing
Inside Diameter Values. Different runs of the program were
conducted with various tubing inside diameter values in order
to simulate the effect of the recompletion of the well with
different tubing size. Tubing inside diameter values of 1.995,
1.049 and 2.441 have been used in the forecast
computations. The results of these simulations are shown in
Figure 12. As can be seen, the well production life is extended
as the tubing size is reduced. For example for tubing sizes of
1.995 and 2.441, the well dies respectively after 2184 days
and 8544 days of production for liquid loading. However the
life of the well is extended well beyond 12000 days when it is
completed with a tubing of 1.049 inside diameter.
Conclusions
Dynamic nodal analysis technique allows to perform sensitivity
analysis of future performance for gas wells once a satisfactory
match of the past production performance is obtained. The major
contribution of this work is that it provides a tool to analyze the
well performance changes as a function of time when the
production parameters are altered. The classic nodal analysis can
only be used if the production parameters remained unchanged.
The dynamic nodal analysis provides valuable means to help the
engineer in decisions making. Opening a gas well to production
always involves considerable expenses whereas a model can be
run many times at lower cost to try many different possible
scenarios in order to make technical and economical decisions.
It should be noted that the prediction of the future performance
based on history match of well performance is not unique. There
are many other sets of system parameters that can match the past
performance of the well. There is always some uncertainty
associated to the model used to arrive at a satisfactory historical
performance match. Based upon the history match results, the
engineer can obtain a range of future performances, and hence
can make a decision in light of uncertainties.
6 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR SPE 52170

The computer program presented in this paper is capable of
history matching the production data as well as predicting the
future performance under different scenarios. The program has
been validated with the help of both synthetic and field data. The
program provides a logical improvement to conventional nodal
analysis.
6. Carvalho, R. Thompson, L.G., Redner, R. and Reynolds, A.C.:
Simple Procedure for Imposing Constraints for Nonlinear Least
Square Optimization, paper SPE 29582.
7. Carvalho, R.: Nonlinear Regression: Application to Well Test
Analysis, PhD Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1993).

Nomenclature
b = decline exponent for hyperbolic decline behavior. Table 1-SYNTHETIC DATA: INPUT PARARMETERS
Bg = gas formation volume factor, cf/scf
= reservoir porosity Type of decline = exponential
Pressure decrement [psia] = 50
G = gas in place, Mscf Optimization tolerance = 0.000001
G = gas in place decrease, Mscf
P = pressure, psia. Reservoir
Initial pressure [psia] = 5011
P = pressure drop, psia Initial temperature [F] = 212
Q = gas flow rate, Mscf/D Pay [ft] = 64.5
Qobs = observed flow rate, Mscf/D Skin = 116.5
Sg = gas saturation, fraction Drainage radius [ft] = 9108
Permeability [md] = 11
T = temperature, R Porosity [fraction] = 0.06
Tobs = Observed production Time, days Water saturation [fraction] = 0.533
T = elapsed time, days
Fluid properties
Vb = reservoir bulk volume, Mscf Specific gravity of produced gas = 0.646
set of 3 independent regression variables Oil density [API] = 51.1
Specific gravity of produced water = 1.0
Subscript
Completion
g = gas Hole diameter [in] = 8.496
R = reservoir Casing diameter [in] =5
WF = at bottom hole in well flowing conditions Perforated interval [ft] = 17
Perforation diameter [in] = 0.36
Perforation tunnel length [in] = 12.33
Acknowledgement Perforation density [SPF] =4
The authors thank the University of Tulsa for provinding the Mode of perforation = overbalance
computer facilities used to conduct this study. They also express Tubing inside diameter [in] = 1.945
Tubing roughness [ft] = 0.00015
their gratitude to Dr Leslie G. Thompson of the University of Tubing length [ft] = 8688.0
Tulsa, and Stuart Cox of Marathon Oil Co. for their comments Hole inclination angle [degree] = 90
and suggestions. They are also grateful to Marathon Oil Co. for Pressure drop correlation: Beggs and Brill
providing the field data used during the test of the computer
Production
program. Oil/Gas ratio, [SBBLO/MMscf] = 145.0
Water/Gas ratio, [SBBLW/MMscf] = 0.0
References Well head pressure, [psia] = 2250.0
Well head temperature, [F] = 111.0
1. Brown, K.E. et al.: The technology of artificial lift methods, Reference separator pressure, [psia] = 14.7
Pennwell Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK (1984), volume 4. Reference separator temperature, [deg F] = 60.0
2. Perez, G. and Kelkar, B.G.: A Simplified Method to Predict
Over-all Production Performance, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Limits of regression parameters
Technology, January-February, 1990, Volume 29, No. 1. KMIN [md] = 0.0 KMAX [md] = 100.0
SMIN = -5.0 SMAX = 175.0
3. Bitsindou, A.: Gas Well Production Optimization Using Dynamic reMIN [ft] = 2500.0 reMAX [ft] = 10000.0
Nodal Analysis, M.S. thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1998).
4. Fetkovich, M.J., Fetkovich, E.J. and Fetkovich, M.D.: Useful
Concepts for Decline-Curve Forecasting, Reserve Estimation, and
Analysis, paper SPE 28628 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 25-28.
5. Fetkovich, M.J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,
JPT, June 1980, 1065-1077.
SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS 7

TABLE 2-HISTORY MATCH FOR SYNTHETIC DATA

Regression Calculated Initial Comment

parameters value value

Permeability [md] 11.05 10.8 From well test

Skin 116.45 101 From well test

Drainage radius [ft] 9107.8 2500.0 Estimated

TABLE 3-HISTORY MATCH FOR CASE #1 Fig. 1-System description and pressure losses.
Regression Calculated Initial Comment

parameters value value

2000

Permeability [md] 32.9 24 From well test 1950 Observed rate

Predicted rate

Skin 4.1 6.4 From well test 1900

Rate [Mscf/D]

1850
Drainage radius [ft] 4532.7 1000.0 Estimated

1800

1750

1700
TABLE 4-HISTORY MATCH FOR CASE #2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [days]
Regression Calculated Initial Comment

parameters value value Fig. 2-Synthetic data: production history match.

Permeability [md] 12.9 10.8 From well test

Skin 147.0 101 From well test

Drainage radius [ft] 9204.8 2500.0 Estimated

8 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR SPE 52170

2500
Observed data [after adding errors between
18000 -10% and +10% to the original data] Observed reservoir pressure
16000 Predicted rate [No error added to the 2000 Predicted reservoir pressure
original data]

Reservoir Pressure [Mscf/D]

14000
Predicted rate [after adding errors between
-10% and +10% to the original data] 1500
12000
Rate [Mscf/d]

10000
1000
8000

6000
500
4000

2000 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 Time [days]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time [days] Fig. 6-Case #1:reservoir pressure history match.

Fig.3-Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate history match with respect

to errors in the observed rate data.

3500 20000
Observed rate Observed rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia]
History match [skin=116.5] 18000
Predicted rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia]]
3000 Skin=116.5
16000 Well head pressure= 870 psia
Skin=50.0
Skin=0.0 Well head pressure = 700 psia
2500 14000
Well head pressure = 500 psia

12000 Well head pressure = 300 psia

Rate [Mscf/D]
Rate [Mscf/D]

2000 Well head pressure= 100 psia

10000

1500 8000

6000
1000
4000
500
2000

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time [days]
Time [days]

Fig. 7-Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head

Fig. 4-Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin pressure.
factor.

16000
16000
14000 Observed rate [SPF=4]
14000
Observed rate Predicted rate [SPF=4]
12000 SPF=4
12000 Predicted rate SPF=8
10000 SPF=12
10000
Rate [Mscf/D]
Rate {Mscf/D]

8000
8000

6000
6000

4000
4000

2000
2000

0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time [days]
Time [days]

Fig. 5-Case #1: production history match. Fig. 8-Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to perforation
density.
SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS 9

3000
Observed rate [Perforated interval= 17 ft]
2000
History match [Perforated interval= 17 ft]
Perforated interval= 17 ft
Observed rate 2500
1950 Perforated interval= 64 ft

Predicted rate

Rate [Mscf/D]
1900 2000
Rate [Mscf/D]

1850 1500

1800
1000

1750
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1700
Time [days]
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [days]
Fig. 11-Case #2: sensitivity of rate with respect to perforated
interval.
Fig. 9-Case #2: production history match.

5050 2000
Observed rate [tubing size = 1.995 in.]
5000 Predicted reservoir pressure 1800 Predicted rate [Tubing size = 1.995 in.]

1600 Tubing size = 1.049 in.

4950 Observed reservoir pressure
Tubing size = 1.995 in.
Reservoir Pressure [psia]

1400 Tubing size = 2.441 in.

4900
1200
Rate [Mscf/D]

4850
1000

4800 800

4750 600

400
4700
200
4650
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Time [days] Time [days]

Fig. 10-Case #2: reservoir pressure history match. Fig. 12-Case #2: sensitivity of rate with respect to tubing inside
diameter.