-— –- -

UNSOLKXTEE’)‘
~MAR 51979
ABSTRACT

A NODAL APPROACH FOR APPLYING SYSTEMS ANALYSIS TO THE

FLOWING AND ARTIFICIAL LIFT OIL OR GAS WELL . .

by

Joe
Eduardo Proano
~~rmit E, Ezown .

A nodal and new approach is presented for applying systems

analysis to the complete well system from the outer boundary of
the reservoiz to the sand face, across the perforations and com-
pletion section to the tubing intake, up the ~~bing string in-
cluding any restrictions and down hole safety valves, the surface
. .
choke, the flow line and separator.
Fig. 1 shows a schematic of a simple producing system. This
system consists of three phases: .t]
(1) F1OW through porous medium.
(2) Flow through vertical or directional conduit.
(3) FIow through horizontal pipe.
Fig. “2 shows the vari”ouspressure losses that can occur in the sys-
tem from the reservoir to the separator. Beginning from the reser-
voir, these are noted as:
API = ~r - Pkfs = Pressure Loss in Porous Medium
AP2 = Pwf~- Pwf = Pressure Loss Across Completion

AP3 = PUR - PDR Pressure Loss Across Regulator, Choke

=
or Tubing Nipple
AP4 = PUSV- PDSV = Pressure Loss Across Safety Valve
AP5 = pwh - PDSC = Pressure Loss Across Surface Choke
AP6 = PDSC- PSEP = Pressure Loss in Surface Flow Line
AP7 = Pwf - Pwh = Total Pressure Loss in Tubing String
●
Which Includes AP3 and AP4

AP8 = Pwh - P~3p = Total Loss in Surface Flow Line Includ-

ing Surface Choke
.
 2“

The v:: ‘.OUSwell configurations may vary from the very simple
system of Fig. 1 to the more complex system of Fig. 2, or any Com-
bination thereof, and present day completions more realistically
include the various configurations of Fig. 2.
This paper will discuss the manner in which to interrelate
the various pressure losses. In particular, the ability of the
well to produce fluids willbe interfaced with the ability of the
piping system to take these fluids. The manner in which to treat
the effect of the various components will be shown by a new nodal
concept.
In order to solve the total producing system problem, nodes
are placed to se.,znentthe portion defined by different equations
or correlations.
Figure 3 has been prepared showing locations of the various
nodes. This figure is the same as Figure 2 except only the node
positions are shown. The node is classified as a functional node
when a pressure differential exists across it and the pressure or
flow
, rate response can be represented by some mathematical or phys- ‘
-,
ical function.
Node 1 represents the separator pressure which is usually reg-
ulated at a constant value. There are two pressures that are not
a function of flow rate. They are F= at Node 8 and PSEP at Node 1.
For this reason, any trial and error solution to the total system
problem must be started at Node 1 (PSEP), Node 8 (~r), or both
Node 1 and 8 if an intermediate node such as 3 or 6 is selected as
the solution node. Once the solution node is selected, the pres-
sure drops or gains from the starting point are added until the
solution node is reached. Example problems are worked to show
the nodal system approach. For example, the flow rate possible
can be determined by utilizing Node 8 (~r), Node 6 (Pwf), Node 3

(Pwh), or Node 1 (Psep). The nade selec%ed depends upon which com-
ponent we want to evaluate. The effect of tapered strings, suri~ace
chokes and safety
. valves can also be evaluated in this ma. ner.
In summary, a new (nodal) system has been presented in order
., . .. ’’,.”’”

● ✎

to effectively evaluate a complete producing’system. All of the

components in the well, starting fxom the static pressure (~=)
and ending at the separator, are considered. This includes flow
through the porous medium, flow across the perforations and comple-
tion, flow up the tubing string with passage through a possib2e
down-hole restriction and safety valve, flow in the horizontal
flow line with passage through a surface choke and on to the sep-
arator. .
Various positions and/or components are selected as nodes and
the pressure losses are converged on that point from both direc-
tions. Nodes can be effectively selected to better show the effect
of inflow ability, perforations, restrictions, safety valves,
surface chokes, tubing strings, flow lines and separator pressures.
The appropriatemultiphase flow correlations and equations
for restrictions, chokes, etc. must be incorporated in the solution.
An effective means of analyzing an existing well, making rec-
ommended changes or planning properly for a new well can be accom-
plished by the nodal systems analysis. This procedure offers a
means to more economically optimize producing wells.
●

,..
 ,.q,if~t,i.f
“4-.

A NODAL APPROACH FOR APPLYING SYSTEMS ANALYSIS TO THE , ● i c

FLOWING AND ARTIFICIAL LIFT OIL OR GAS WELL

by Joe Mach, “Eduardo pro~~o,

Kermit E. Brown

1.1 INTRODUCTION

A nodal and naw approach is presented for applying systemsanalysis to the complete wel I

system from the outer boundary of the reservoir to the sand face, across the perforations and completion

section to the tubing intake, up the tubing string including any restrictions and down h~le safety

va Ives, the surfsce choke, the flow Ii ne and separator.

Fig. 1 showsa schematic of a simple producing system. This system consists of three phases:

(1) Flow thraugh porous medium.

(2) Flow through vertical or directional conduit.

(3) Flow through horizontal pipe.

Fig. 2 shows the various pressure losses that can occur in the system from the reservoir to the separator.

Beginning From the reservoir these are” noted as:

API = F - Pwfs “= Pressure LQss!n Porous Medium

r

AP2 = Pwfs - Pwf = Pressure LossAcross Completion

~p3 = puR. pDR = Pressure LossAcross Regulator, Choke or Tubing Nipple

AP4 = P~Sv- PDSV= Pressure LossAcross Safety Va Ive

AP5 = Pwh - PDSC= Pressure LossAcress Surface Choke

AP6 = P = Pressure Lossin Surface Flow line

DSC- ‘SEP
AP7 = pwf - pwh = Total Pressure Lossin Tubing Str;ng which includes AP3 and AP4

AP8 = pwh - PSE~ Total Lossin Surface Flow line including Surface Choke

The various well configurations may vary from the very simple system of Fig. 1 to the more

~omplex system of Fig. 2P or any combination thereof, and present d~y completions more realistically
%
include the various configurations of Fig. 2.
 . . . .,
,.. . -2”
0 ●

This paper will d[scuss themanner in which tointerrelate the various pressure losses. In

particular the ability of the well toproduce fluids will beinterfaced with the ability of the piping

systernt otakethesefluids. Themanner inwhich totreat theeffect oftkevarious components will

beshown byanew nocial conceptas explained infhe next section.

1.2 NODAL CONCEPT

1.21 Introduction

In order to solve the tot~! producing system problem, nodes are placed to segment

the portion defined by different equations or correlations.

Figure 3 has been prepared showing Iocationsof the various nodes, This figure is

the same as Fig. 2 except ordy the node positions are shown. The node is classified as a functional

node when a pressure differential exists across it and the pressure or flow rate response can be

represented by some mathemati co I or physics I function.

Node 1 represents the separator pressure which is usuaI Iy regulated at a constant

value. The pressure ~ node 1A is usually constant at either gas soIes Ii nes pressure or gas compressor

suction pressure. The pressure at node 1B is usually constant at O psig. Therefore, the separator

pressure wi 11be held constant at the higher of the two pressures needed to flow singIe phase gas

from node 1 to node 1A or to flow single phase liquid from node 1 to node 1B. For the remainder

of our discussion it will be assumed that he separator-pressure is constant for any flow rate, and it

wi !1 be designated as nade 1.
.
Notice now that im the system there are two pressures that are not a function of flow

rate. They are *~r at node 8 and P at node 1. For this reason any trial and error solution to the
SEP
total system problem must be started at node 1 (PSEP), node 8 (~r) or both node 1 and 8 if an inter-

mediate node such as 3 or 6 is selected as the solution node. Once the solution node is selected the

pressure drops o; gains from the s;arting point are added until the solution node is reached. The

fol Iow{ng four examples shew this procedure for the four possible nodes shown in Figure 4. Although

al I nodes are not shown the same node numbers wi I I be maintained as shown in Figure 3.

* ~. can be a function of flow rate or drainage distribution in th’e reservoir, however for the flow
 . . -3: . . .. .
. .
1.22 Example Problem #l

~ade 8 = ~)
Using Node f~ to Find the Flow Rate Possible (

Given Data: Flowing oil well

. .
Separator pressure: 100 psi

Flow line: 2“, 300.0 ft long

WOR: O

Depth: 5000 ft mid perf.

GOR: 400 scf/B

F: 2200 psi
r

IPR: PI = 1.0. B/D/psi (assume constant)

Tubing size: 2-3/8”

Find the oil flow rate using node f$asthe solution point.

Procedure:

1. Select flow rates foratrial and error procedure: Assume flow rates of200, 400,

600, 800, 1000, and 1500 B/D.

2. For each rate start at PSEP= 100 and dci al I the pr~ssure lossesuntil reaching ~
r
at node$. From Fig .“4 we note that these losseswould .be AP3-1 + AP
6-3 + ‘&6

or loss in surface flow line + loss in tubing string + loss in porous medium. These

various lossesfor the assumed rates are noted in Table 1.22.

TABLE 1.22
PRESSURELOSSES FOR EXAMPLE #l
t
Horiz. MultitAase Flow , Vertical Mul~iDhase Flow II IPR IIM I m4
q ‘SEP P3
“’P3-1 :4_ ‘P6-3

200 100 115 15 750 635 950 850

400 100 140 40 880 740 ?280 400 1180
600 100 180 80 1030 850 1630 600 1530
800 100 230 130 1220 990 2020 800 “1920
1000 100 275 175 1370 1095 2370 1000 2270
1500 100 8 420 1320 1840 1420 3340 1500 3240
●
 , ..
● .”” “4-

3. Plot thecreated pressure vs. flowrate (Fig. 5). This represents th~system

. performance from the separator to ~r.

4. Plot ~r at the given 2200 psi (Fig. 5).

,5. The intersection of the reservoir pressure Iineand the system performance l;ne

gives the predicted flow rate (900’ BOPD). ;

,.
1.23 Example Problem#2

Using scdution node #6 to find the flow rate (fl.w;g b%: hol~?r-wt
Given data: Same as Example Problem #l

For thfs solution pressure drops must be added from node 1 to node 6 and subtracted

from node 8 to node 6.

Procedure:

(1) Since ~be prix!ieied flow rate is already known from Example 1, the same flow

rates will be assumed: 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500 B/D.
.
(2) Determine the pressure Ioss from node 1 (sepamtor) tonode6(Pw,,). For each

assumed flow rate stortat node 1 (PSEP) and add 4P

3-1 + ‘P6-3”
The following Table 1.23 shows these results.

TABLE 1.23(A)
PRESSURELOSSES IN FLOWLINE AND TUBING
FOR EXAMPLE PROBLE
Horiz. Multi Dhase Flow Vertica 1 MI ti~hase Flow
I — Assumed’
I Rate 1 ‘SEP

100
IP
wh
I
‘P3-1
II
‘6 ‘P6-3
115 15 750 635
400 100

I.
140 40 880 740
600 100 180 80 1030 850
800 100 230 130 1220 990
1000 100, 275 175 1370 1095
1500 100 420 320 1840 1420

3. Determine the pressure loss (AP&6) from node 8 (FJto node 6 (Pwf). For
1
a constant PI assumption this can be CUICUIated from’ the equation ~P84 =

Assumed Rate
These values are noted in Table 1.23(B).
PI ●
 TABLE 1.23(B)
1

Assumed
Rate
Fr ‘P8-6 ‘ ‘6= ‘wf

200 2200 200 2000

400 2200 400 1800
600 2200 600 1600
800 2200 800 1400
1000 2200 1000 1200
1500 2200 1500 700
i .

4. Piot P6 vs. q from both step 2 and step 3 (Fig. 6). Node 6 is called the intake

node since this pw”nt is the i ntak’e from the reservoir into the production tubing.

5. The intersection of the PI !ine and the so-called intake curve is the predicted

..
flow rate for this system (900 BOPD) (Fig. 6). The presentation based on the

selection of node 6 as the solution node is good if it is desired to evaluate

changing Pr’s or different IPR curves. Notice the answer is the same as Example

1 and this is true regardless of the node selection.

1 ~24 Example Problem f3

Using solution node 3 to find the flow rate [l~ew,tij wet/l?~4d pass+
.
Given Data:

Same as Example Problem #l.

For this solution we have selected the wellhead as the location of the solution node.

Therefore this is a common point at which we add the pressure lossesfrom node 1 to 3 and subtract

pressure losses from node 8 to 3.

Procedure:

1. Assume the same flow rates as for the previous examples: 200, 400, 600, 800,

1000, 1500 B/D.

2. Determine the pressure !OSSfrom node 1 (separator) to node 3 (wel Ihead). For

each assumed rate and for PSEP = 100 psi we find AP3-1 and P3 (Pwh). These

values are tabulated in Table 1.24(A).

 .
-,,”’ -69
‘,
TABLE 1.24(A)
PRESSURELOSSES IN FLOWLINE FOR ‘EXAMPLE PROBLEM %

‘P3-1 ‘or “
‘SEP Hdz. Multiphase F!ow ‘3 = ‘wh
.—. — ---- ..— .
1
200 100 15 115
400 100 40 14fl
600 100 180
800 100 !!9 230
1000 100 175
1500 1(H3 I 329
I
Ii -- .-.1

3. Determine t~e pressure loss from node 8 (~r) to node 3 (pwh). For each assumed

rate start at ~r and add AP8-6+ 4P6-3. These values are tabulated in Table

1.24(B).

TABLE 1.24(B)
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 8 (~/.TO NODE 3 (Pwh)

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 3
h

I F- ‘6 ‘P*6 ‘3 ‘P6-3
200 2200 2000 200 610 1390
400 2200 1800 400 440 1250
600 2200 1600 600 450 1150
800 2200 1400 800 330 1070
1000 2200 1200 1000 180 1020
1500 2200 700 1500
4

4. Plot P3 vs. q from both step 2 and step 3 (Fig. 7). Node 3 is called the flowing

wel Ihead pressure (pwh).

5. The intersection of the flow line pressure drop line and the downhole performance

curve is the predicted flow rate for the system (900 BOPD) (Fig. 7). The

presentation based on the selection of node 3 as the solution node is good if it

is desired to evaluate different flow lines or wel Ihead back pressure. Notice the

predicted rate of 900 BOPD remains the same.

 ‘9 7=”
1.25 Example Problem #4 ,“ ,“
,.

Using solution mde #l to find the flow rate.

(iepdab+
Given Data:

Same as Example Problem”1.

a
In this example the separator pressure is held constant at 100 psi and is designated as

node 1. ., and then

Ther6fore all pressure lossesfrom node 8 (~r) to node 1 (separator) are determined

subtracted from node 8.

Procedure:
,,
1. Assume flow rates of: 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1500 B/D.

2. For each rate, start at ~ = 2200psiand subtract

~p8-6+ AP6-3+ AP
r ~-1. This
information is noted in Table 1.25.

TABLE
——- 1.25
----
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 8 @r) TO NODE 1 (PSEP)

From Horizontal
+--’, !’ ‘:0” ‘?’ s1
Fr -@is Multiphase Flow
1’

200
II II. I
.1 r

2200 2000 200

‘P8-6
II ‘3

‘“6 10
‘P6-3 ‘1 ‘P3-I

.Illl)
1390
409 I 2200 1800 400 Ssf) 125!)
600 2200 1600 600 450 1150
800 2200 1400 800 330 1070
1000 2200 1200 1000 180 1020
!’ 150(j 2200 700 1500 Iyo
.— — [ .
—. Is .. ---

3. Plot PI from Table 1.25 VS, q (Fig. 8),

4. Plot P~Ep at the given 100 psi (Fig. 8).

5. The intersection of the separator pressure line and the system performance line is

the predicted flow rate (900 BOPD) (Fig. 8). The presentation based on the

selection of node 1 as the solution node is good if it is desired to evaluate different

separator or header pressures,

Notice that the predicted rate of 900 BOPD remains

the same.
 .’, . .,, -8-

1.26 Discussion of Exomple Problems 1.22 Through 1.25

It is important to notice that when starting at the reservoir (node 8), the slope of the

resuIting system curve on the pressure-flow rate diagram at the solution node is zero or negative, his

can be observed clearly in Figures5 through 8. This is expected since any system curve developed by

starting at ~r (regardless of the solution node) i ncfudes reservoir performance in the form of PI ~r IPR.
,.
A pressure-flow rate curve generated by starting at F’ actually displays the “required” pressure at the

solutl on node for the reservoir to produce the stated flow rate. For example, the vertical and IPR

curve shown on Fig. 7 shows that if a flowing we I lhead pressure of 100 psi cou Id somehow be created,

.
the reservoir and wel I would produce 1100 B/D.

In contrast, notice that when starting at the separator pressure (node l), the slope of

the resuIting systems curve on the pressure-flow rate diagram at the solution node is zero or negative.

This is again sl,ewn clearly in Figures 5 through 8. The pressure-flow rate curve generated by starting

at the sepurator pressure displays the “created” pressure at the solution node for each flow rate. For

example, the flowline curve shown on Figure 7 shows that for a production rate of 1100 BOPD the

“created” wel Ihead pressure is 300 psi. .-.,.

The total producing system wi I I produce only where the “created” pressure at any node

k equaltothe “required” pressure at that node for the stated producing rate. This occurs where the

twocurves
intersect as shown in Figures 5 through 8. Notice on Fig. 7 for 1100 BOPD the “required”

pressure is 100 psi at node 3 (wel Ihead pressure) and the “created” pressure is 300 psi. Therefore,

this system wi 1I not produce 1100 B:2PD. Obviously, the rate possible must be the same irrespective

of the node selected to solve the problem. Different nodes are selected for convenience based on

which system parameter is to be studied. For example, suppose in our example problem it is desired to

know what this well will produce with a 3“”lD flow line. A new flow line system curve could be

generated and overlayed on F!g. 7 as shown on Fig. 9. Node 3 was selected for the solution node

because of clarity of presentation showing the flow line pressure loss. Notice that the same vertical

and IPR curve applies regardless of the flow line system.,

.—
.—
 ,,,
.-9-’ ”’”
.“
1.3 CHANGES IN FLOW CONDUIT SIZE

1.31 Introduction

Thus far the discussion has pertained to the rather simple system shewn in Fig. 4.

Notice on this system there is only one flow line size and one tubing size. Of course it is possible

and sometimes advantageous to change one of these pipe sizes in the middle of the string ~ To

evaluate a system of this nature, the solutlon node could be placed at the point where the p!pe size

changes.

1.32 Example Problem #5 - Tapered Tubing Strings

5uppcxe in the previous example that for some reason it was necess~ry to set o liner

from near 3S00’ through the producing zone at 5000’ and this liner was of such ID that 2-3/8” tubing

was the largest size tubing that cou Id be installed. Let us investigate the possible production rate

increases by insta I Iing larger than 2-3/8” tubing above the liner from 3500’ to the surface. Refer I

to Figure 10.

Given Data: Same as Example 1.

The solution node (node 5) selected to solve this probienl is located at the tubing

taper (Fig. 10). In this example the pressure drops must be added from node 1 to ncxk 5 and

subtracted from node 8 to node 5. In keeping with the same nomenclature as Fig. 3, we have

designated the tapered connection as node 5.

Procedure:

1. Assume flow rates of 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1500 B/D.

2. Determine the pressure loss from node 1 (seprator) to node 5 (taper connection).

For each assumed rate and starting with PSEP= 100 psi we add AP3-, +AP5-3.

Table 1.26 summarizes these results, and both 2-7/8” and 3“ tubing are evaluated

above the taper connection.

., . . .
-1o-

TABLE 1.26(A)
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 1 TO NODE 5 ●

(EXAMPLE PROBLEM #5)

I
(2-7/81’ tubing)
Horiz. Multi has= Flow Vertical Mu Itiohase

q ‘SEP ‘3 ‘P3-I ‘5 ‘P5-3

‘T”
““W
‘
l“
i 2M ;i-
400 140 40’ 500 360
i 600 180 89 690 429 “
800 230 13~ 718 488
I 1000 ? 275 175 “ 820 545
.
I
1500
II .1
970 550
II . .
I
(3” ID tubing) \
Vertical Mu! tjphase Flow

‘SEP ‘5 ‘P5-3
1

100 ~~f’) – 3n5

T-
lo f-) 14f) 40 475 335
lqo 180 80 ::; ~~o
100 230 130 43f)
100 275 175 78~ . 505
109 420 320 .900 4$0
q____ I

3. Determine the pressure losses from node 8 to node 5. For each rate start at

~r = 2200 p~i’and subtract AP~6 + AP6-5. These results are noted in Table 1.26(B),

TABLE 1.26(B)
PRESSURELOSSES FROM NODE 8 TO NODE 5
(EXAMPLE PROBLEM #5)

! Frem PI From Vertical Multi phase F!ow

\
q , F“~ “ : AP8-6
‘6 ‘5 ‘P6-5
.
2r)fl 220f) 2Qm 209 —lmv ;“-m
4f’)f) 2200 1800 400 13f)f) 500
fiWl 22(10 1600 6f)o 1170 43Q
800 2200 14!M 89 f) lnf)o 400 ● i
1000 2200 12f)~ l~no ; 820 380
1.500 2209 ‘ 700 1590 ~; “360 340
, ●
4I ..1 l=..’ i d
 i ‘(-;) ;{); j,?< ,’ ..,.
[ei (* .?]]-,...
,’
4. Plot P5 vs. q from both step 2 and step 3 (Fig. 11).

5. The intersection the two performance curves ~t the taper connection predict a

flow rate of about 1020 BOPD for 2.5” ID tubing and 1045 BOPD for 3“ ID tubing. Remember for a

2.0” ID tubing string the predicted rate was 900 BOPD. 2.fY’ ID

tubing string the predicted rate was 900 BOPD. Notice the increase in rate from 2.0” ID to 2.5” ID

is much more significant than the increase in rate from 2.5” ID to 3“ ID. As pointed out previously

this problem could have been solved by placing the solution node at any point in the system. However,

this approach can simplify the procedure depending on the manner in which the curves or computer

programs avai fable are formated. This same procedure cou Id be used if a change in flow line con-

figuration occurs at some point along the path of the horizonta I system.

1.4 THE FUNCTIONAL NODE

1.41 Introduction

In the previous discussion it has been assumed that no pressure discontinuity exists

across the so!ution node. However, in a total producing system there is usually at least one point or

node where this assumption is not true. When a pressure differential exists across a node, that node

is termed a “functional node” since the pressure flow rate response can be represented by some physical

or mathematical function. Figure 3 shows examples of some common system parameters which are
. 1

functional nodes.

Of course there are many other surface or downhole tools or completion methods which

cou Id create pressure drops with flow rate as those shown in Figure 3. However, the ensuing discussion

wi I I be limited to the surface we! Ihead choke. Other system restrictions such as safety valves,

perforations, etc., are discussed in separate publ iccationsby the authors of this paper.

It is important to notice that for each restriction placed in the system shown on Figure

3 the calculation of pessure drop across that node as a function of flow rate is represented by the same

general form.
.*,
.
& ~ qn ---------- ----- .--v- /*o
,. .,
●
-12-

That is, the pressure drop, AP, is proportiona I to the flow rate. In fact, there

are many equations avai lab Ie in the litemture to describe these pressure drops for common system

restrictions. It is not the purpose of the paper to discuss the merit of the different equations but

rather to show how to use them once the selection has been made, conside;i ng the entire producing

system.

1.42 Surface Wellhead Choke

Refer to Figure 12 for a physical description of the wel with a surface choke installed.

, The same nodes as set out in Figure 3 are maintained.

Since the wel !head choke is usuaI Iy placed at node 2, this wi 1I be the solution node

selected to solve the problem. It is necessary to solve this problem in two parts. The first part of

the solution is exactly the same as previously shown in Example 3. For the given data used in the

previous examples the resuIts of this analysis are shovn in Fig. 7. Inspection of Figures 12 and 7 show

that the “vertica I and IPR performance curve” actuul Iy represents the upstream pressure from node 2

(Pwh, Fig. 7) and the “horizontal system performance curve” actua I Iy represents the downstream

pressure from node 2 ((PD5C, Fig. 7). Thus far, we have considered no pressure drop across the node

and therefore the predicted rate is where upstream pressure equals the downstream pressure (Pwh =

p~s~).However, we know the wellhead choke wi 1I “create” a pressure drop across functional node

2 for each flow rate. This created LP can be ca!cu Iated with one of many pressure drop equations

for choke beans. Therefore, the solution procedure is to find and plot the required AP vs. q from

Figure 7 and overlay the created AP vs. q from the choke bean performance calculations.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 16- Determine Effect of Surface Choke Sizes Using Node 2 m the Solution Node

Given Data: Same as Example 1.

Procedure:

1. Generate the total system analysis curve using node 2 as the solution node exactly

as don~ in Example 3 (Fig. 7). ‘i

2. Select arbitrary re~~ired pressure drops across node 2 (AP = pwh -PDSC) and

determine the flow rate for each AP as shown in Figure 13. (Notice Figure 13
 -13-
“ ‘“””
.“

is the sam~ as Figure 7 with 4P’s displayed. )

These results are noted in Table 1.27(A).

TABLE 1.27(A)
RESULTS OF EXAMPLE PROBLEM f6

1
I
Ap = ~wh - ‘~sc q, B/D

Iflo 800
200 69 f’)
300 560
400 410
1 J
,,

3. From step 2 plot the required AP vs. q as shown on Figure 14.

4. Calculate the created pressure drop vs. flow. rate forchoke beans of interest.

The equation used for these calculation sis:

P
wh
=LK

,2
q
(from Gi lbert)z ------., -A. -
-z
-

P Flowing we!lhead pressure, psi “

wh =

R = GLR, MCF,/STB

Gross liquid rate, STB/D

Choke bean size, 64th’s of an inch

c= Constant, assume 500 for this problem.

Gi Ibert noted that his formula was good when the downstream pressure (P
Dst)

was. less than 7W0 of the upstream pressure (pwh) or pDSC/pwh ~ 0.7.

Suppose we are interested in investigating wel I performance for the following

choke bean sizes: 16/64, 20/64, 24/64, 28/64. Table 1.27(B) is prepared

showing these resuIts.

 ., . . . . . .
b -14-:
“.

TABLE 1.27(B)
AP VS RATE FOR DIFFERENT CHOKE SIZES (PROBLEM 6)

=!2= JDs&’&
BOPD From From
Fig . 13 Ea.2
128 370 .35 242
140 494 .28 354
160 617 .26 457
180 741 .24 561

AP =~ wh “-PD5C
Fig. i.3 Eclo 2

300 128 237 .54 199

500 160 395 .41 235
7WI 200 553 .36 353
900 250 711 .35 461

..
b,

Ci ‘“Dsc
From
‘Wh ~-
From
Ap = ‘Dsc”rwh”
Fig. 13 ??0. 2

500 160 274 .58 114

700 200 384 .52 184
900 250 4~4 .51 244
119!) 300 6c13 .59 303

q. r .? psl Ap ‘tDsc-pw~
wh
From
Fig. 13 Eq. 2 .
800 227 322 . 7fl 95
1000 275 4f13 .68 128
i 1202 330 484 .68 154
1__”.. .L. . A_ .i

,
 , -1.5-, .
.“

The 6P’s calculated are unique to the example sys~emsince the downstream

pressureswere calculated fortheexomple system. Notice that in each casea

check was made to ensure P s 0;7so that Gilbert’s equation would

DSC’pwh

apply. If this is not the case a subcritical flow equation must be used to

calculate ~? across the choke.

5. From the tables generated, plot the choke bean performance as shown on

Fig. 15.

6. Overlay t~e results shown on Figure 14 and Figure 15 (Fig. 16).

Figure 16 c@Ays the total system performance for different wel lhead choke sizes.

The system performance curve shows the “required” AP for various flow rates considering the entire

system from reservoir to separator. The choke performance curves show the “created” AP for

various flow rates considering choke performance for different choke sizes. The intersection points

of the created and required AP’s repr~sent the possible solutions. For example the rate will drop

from 900 BOPD to715 BOPD with the installation of a 24/64 welihead choke.

Figure 17 shows another presentation that is often used to evaluate wellhead choke’s,

The. presentation shows the entire system performance which sometimes is advantageous. The same

techniques discussed in this paper are used to generate this type of analysis. Notice that this

solution gives the same answer.

.
1.5 Summary and Conclusions

A new Cnodal) system has been presented in order to effectively

evaluate a complete producing system. All of the components in the
well, starting from the static pressure (~r) and ending at the sepa-
rator, are considered. This includes flow through ~he porous medium,
flow across the perforations and completion, flow up the tubi~g
string with passage through a possible down-hole restrict-on and
safety valve, flow in the horizontal flow line with passage through
a surface choke and on to the separator.
Various positions and/or components are selected as nodes and
the pressure losses are converged on that point from both directions.
Nodes can be effectively selected to better show the effect of in-
flow ability, perforations, restrictions, Safety valves, surface
chokes, tubing strings, flowlines and separator pressures.
The appropriate multiphase flow correlations and equations for
restrictions, chokes, etc. must be incorporated in the solution.
In conclusion, an effective means of analyzing an existing well,
making recommended changes or planning properly for a ne=wwell can
be accomplished by the nodal systems analysis. This procedure’
offers a means
to more economically optimize producing wells.
 .
,. .
.
s
,.4 .

z
UJ
1-
U)
U >
to (n
● ✎

c!)
z

m
C@
0

@l
R’ilIN ‘A
1 OA
z
Hvi I ML\’i\\E!
z
\\
z
 —-

.
.

ii? = (~sv-pDSC) –

API = Pr - P~fs = LOSS Ihl POROUS MEDIUM

AP* = P~f~-P~f = LOSS ACROSS COMPLETION
t?w;
- Pih AP~ = pu~- po~ = “
II
RESTRICTION
01 II
BOTTOM HOLE Al?$ = p~v ‘po~v = SAFETY” VALVE
RESTRICTION, II
/ APiJ = p~h- ~o~~ = “ SURFACE CHOKE
‘DF1
&p6 = pose-p~~p = “ IN FLOWLINE
APT = P~f -P~h = TOTAL LOSS IN TUBING
AP~ = Pwh- p~ep = “ II “ FLOWLINE

.-. —
...—
FIG. 2 POSSIBLE PRESSURE LOS-SES–” IN COMPLETE
❑✌ ✎✎
I .
1

.-
,

v)
m
w
n
h
h 0

u)
-i3 3
f-
0
e
.

#-
(n”
a
\
;L2
nl&cs
a
>

L
0

0 d-.
0Lo ,
++
t+
*+
z
0

)fi\\\\&J\ \AA\\\ \ s\\\ \h\wP

1
F++
h+
b++
l.+
}++
F++
l.++
~.

.
 n.-
HORIZONTAL FLOWLINE
.

NODE LOCATION
@ SEPARATOR
@ p~h
@) Pwf

bp6.3= @ F,
“p~h)

. .

.—-. —.. .. .

FIG. 4 NOD E-S FOR SIMPLE- PRODUCING S-YSTE-iih

 .,, .

..

o
0
u) -
-

o
1-

o Z
0 0
0

ho
w
IILJ
0

lSd ‘ ‘cJ
 ..

n
o
. m
o
0
m
d 0 u
0
0
——— ——
o
m
m

?$O
o
1-

o 2
0 0
Ln

,.

0 o
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
CJ lo g m
c yn
lSd d .
●
 4
0
u’)

0m 0
:
0
IA! 0
n ~ “-l
0 \
z

o
0
lo

I I I I I 0
c) 0 0 0 0 0.
0 0 0 CJ 0 ~>
C9 tn *“ w
. . .. lSd ‘J+d
. .
.0
 G

o
0

, [

‘o
1-

C5
L

o o 0 0 o
0 C& o 0 0
(9 . e IQ N

lSd
ctj~sd
.,

- .. \
 iw

“u)
n
Q
0 w
m ●

z
‘m I 0
k_\ d- i
71 -
s
o
al
k

‘z

jn
“w
0
0
c)
0 0 ‘E
CD
J

., .*,
. . lSd ‘ ‘+d
.
..
 1
HORIZONTAL FLOWLINE ~~ n.
.

AF
0
NODE LOCATION
#
%ep
12-7/8° OR 3“
. TUBING
@ TAPER CONNECTION

2-318”
TUBING
LINER —
dP “5

++
I++
1+
t+

‘1
.
I
,

.
. -. ..... .... .. . . ..- —.. . . . . ....

FIG. 10 TAPERED STRINGS

.
. 2500

P
●
TAPERED STRING
5000’-3500’ 2“ TUBING
3500’- o’ 2-7/8” TUBING
2000 3500’- o’ 3“ TUBING

TUBING
.
~ 2- 7/8m

500 -“

1020 BOPD -Ji 1045 BOP!) :

0 I I
. ——
0 500 1000 1500

q., BOPD

FIG. ;“l- TAPERED STRING SOLUTION (EXAMP-iE NO. 5)

,., ..- r

..

LLl
‘c)
$
CJ
.!

LLl
I&
IC2

d
\\

..
 . R.%
. .*

. .- ,.

Ptf , Psl
,- -P cm m
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0,

i
410
i BOPD — +
-—
%
m
o -q = 560 0
0 4
BOPD
———
q = 690
—BOPD—— !@
q = 800
0= —BOPD ——

o D
0

-0
a

o
z
b
 500
9

400 .

.
300

200

!00 .
v
.
,

q.= 900 BOPD AT AP = O

.
,.
— —— — m
‘o 1000 1500

. q o, BOPD
., . ..-. -.— .. . ..— —. ---- -. .. .... . .+- . —... ---- . . —- .

FIG. 14 TOTAL SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR

400

300

200
28/64

~ 100

0
‘o 500 1000 1500

qo, BOPD
..——— ....... . .-..—-----
_.
FIG. .15 CHOKE BEAN PERFORMANCE
 , “

500 .-’ .’
,.
,</
* 4
16164 . e’
.

400 m

300 m .
. 24/64
-
.

>
200 D

28/64

loo .

0
‘o 500 1000 i500
.
q *, BOPD . .

.
—.—-. .-=- - .-.
.
FIG. 16 SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE FOR VARIOUS
 2000

-
Cn 1500
Q

w“
a
=
m
m
“U&
1000
QD

50C

o I I I
‘o 500 1000 1500

q., BOPD
.-—
~lGe 17- “&jR~AcE - CHOKE ~vA~’j~TloN