Sie sind auf Seite 1von 169

i

THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA


THE GRADUATE SCHOOL


GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL
ANALYSIS
BY
ARSENE BITSINDOU

A THESIS
APPROVED FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
By Thesis Committee

, Chairperson



i i
ABSTRACT

Bitsindou Arsene (Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering)
Gas well Production Optimization using Dynamic nodal Analysis.
Directed by Dr. Mohan Kelkar
(130 words)
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.

i i i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Mohan Kelkar for his invaluable
guidance and support during the course of my Masters study. I also express my gratitude to
Dr Leslie G. Thompson of the University of Tulsa, and Stuart Cox of Marathon Co. for their
comments and suggestions and for serving on my dissertation committee.
I am grateful to Marathon Co. for providing the field data used during the test of the
computer program.
I would like to express my appreciation to all the other faculty members who
contributed to my education as a TU graduate student. I would also like to thank my
graduate student colleagues who made my life easier at TU, especially Harun Ates with who
I shared the office during the preparation of this thesis.
This dissertation is dedicated to my family whose support and encouragement will
always be appreciated.

i v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE .............................................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................x

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...............................................................................1

CHAPTER II PROCEDURE ...................................................................................11
2.1 Mathematical Modeling ................................................................................11
2.1.1 History Match ....................................................................................11
2.1.2 Future Performance Prediction..........................................................15
2.2 Regression Analysis .......................................................................................16
2.2.1 Parameter constraints.........................................................................21
2.2.1.1 Imaging Extension Method.............................................22
2.3 Nodal Analysis Technique.............................................................................23
2.4 Summary ........................................................................................................28

v

CHAPTER III IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................29
3.1 Computer Program.........................................................................................29
3.2 Models and Correlations ................................................................................30
3.1.1 Reservoir ...........................................................................................30
3.1.2 Perforations........................................................................................33
3.1.3 Gravel Pack........................................................................................37
3.1.4 Tubing String ....................................................................................41
3.1.5 Subsurface Device (Subsurface Restriction).....................................43
3.1.6 Subsurface safety valve .....................................................................44
3.1.7 Well Head Choke...............................................................................45
3.1.8 Surface Pipeline.................................................................................45
3.1.9 Fluid Properties..................................................................................45
3.3 Sensitivity Studies With Respect to Input Parameters .................................47
3.3.1 Sensitivity With Respect to Pressures Decrement ...........................47
3.3.2 Sensitivity With Respect to Tolerance .............................................47
3.3.3 Sensitivity with Respect to Input Parameters in Order to
Get the Match .............................................................................48

CHAPTER IV RESULTS/VALIDATION................................................................49

vi
4.1 Synthetic Data ...............................................................................................49
4.1.1 History Match ....................................................................................53
4.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis ...........................................................................56
4.1.2.1 Sensitivity of History Match Results With
Respect to Pressure Decrements
Values .......................................................................56
4.1.2.2 Sensitivity of History Match Results With
Respect to Tolerance Values ...................................59
4.1.2.3 Verification of the Robustness With
Respect to Errors.......................................................62
4.1.3 Future Performance Simulations.......................................................72
4.1.3.1 Future Performance Simulations for
Different Well Head Pressure Values ......................72
4.1.3.2 Future Performance Simulations for
Different Skin Values ...............................................75
4.2 Field Data .......................................................................................................78
4.2.1 Case #1: Dry Gas Well Producing at a Constant Well
Head Pressure ..............................................................................78
4.2.1.1 History Match..................................................................81
4.2.1.2 Future Performance Predictions .....................................88

vi i
4.2.1.2.1 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on
Usi ng D i f f er ent Wel l head
Pr essur e Val ues............................................. 88
4.2.1.2.2 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on
Usi ng D i f f er ent Ski n Val ues ..................... 91
4.2.1.2.3 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on f or
D i f f er ent D ensi t y of
Per f or at i on .................................................... 94
4.2.2 Case #2: Conversion of Original Data from Constant
Flow Rate to Constant Well Head Pressure................................97
4.2.2.1 History Match................................................................104
4.2.2.2 Future Performance Predictions ...................................108
4.2.2.2.1 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on
Usi ng D i f f er ent Wel l head
Pr essur e Val ues........................................... 108
4.2.2.2.2 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on
Usi ng D i f f er ent Ski n Val ues ................... 111
4.2.2.2.3 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on
Usi ng Di f f er ent Per f or at ed
I nt er val Val ues............................................ 114

vi i i
4.2.3. Case #3: Conversion of Original Data from Constant
Flow Rate to Constant Well Head Pressure..............................117
4.2.3.1 History Match................................................................124
4.2.3.2 Future Performance Predictions ...................................127
4.2.3.2.1 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on
Usi ng D i f f er ent Wel l head
Pr essur e Val ues........................................... 127
4.2.3.2.2. Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on f or
D i f f er ent Per f or at i on D ensi t y
Val ues........................................................... 130
4.2.3.2.3 Fut ur e Per f or mance Pr edi ct i on
Usi ng D i f f er ent Per f or at ed
I nt er val Val ues............................................ 133
4.2.4 Case #4: Use of the Last Two Years of Production Only...............136
4.2.4.1 History Match................................................................138
4.2.4.2 Future Performance Predictions ...................................143
4.2.4.2.1 Reduct i on i n Wel l H ead Pr essur e................. 143
4.2.4.2.2 Reduct i on i n Tubi ng Si ze............................... 146
4.2.4.2.3 Choke I nst al l at i on ............................................ 149

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................152

i x
RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................154

NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................................................155

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................158


i x
LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Gas Reservoir Inflow Performance Relationship ...............................................32
3.2 Correlations for Multiphase Flow in Pipes..........................................................42
3.3 Correlations for Flow across Chokes and Restrictions .......................................43
3.4 Correlations for Multiphase Subcritical Flow in Subsurface
Safety Valves..................................................................................................44
3.5 Correlations for Fluid Physical Properties...........................................................46
4.1.1 Synthetic Data: Input Parameters.........................................................................50
4.1.2 Production Synthetic Data....................................................................................52
4.1.3 History Match for Synthetic data .........................................................................53
4.1.4 History Match for Synthetic data #2 ....................................................................65
4.1.5. System description Data for Synthetic Data #2...................................................68
4.1.6. Well Performance and Reservoir Pressure Data for Synthetic
Data #2............................................................................................................70
4.2.1.1 System description Data for Case #1...................................................................78
4.2.1.2 Well Performance and Reservoir Pressure Data for Case #1..............................80
4.2.1.3 History Match for Case #1 ...................................................................................84
4.2.2.1 System Description Data for Case #2 ..................................................................97
4.2.2.2 Original Field Production Data for Case #2 ......................................................100

x
4.2.2.3 Converted Production Data for Case #2 ............................................................101
4.2.2.4 History Match for Case #2 .................................................................................104
4.2.3.1 System Description Data for Case #3 ................................................................117
4.2.3.2 Original Field Production Data for Case #3 ......................................................119
4.2.3.3 Converted Production Data for Case #3 ............................................................120
4.2.3.4 History Match for Case #3 .................................................................................124
4.2.4.1 System Description Data for Case #4 ................................................................136
4.2.4.2 Production Data for Case #4 ..............................................................................138
4.2.4.3 History Match for Case #4 .................................................................................142




xi
LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 System Description and Pressure Losses. ..............................................................8
2.1 Typical Inflow and Outflow Curves ....................................................................26
2.2 Example of an Unstable Production Condition (Liquid Loading) ......................27
3.1 Structure of the Computer Program.....................................................................34
3.2 Typical Perforated Hole .......................................................................................35
3.3 Perforated Hole Turned 90*.................................................................................36
3.4 Gravel Pack Schematic.........................................................................................38
3.5 Details of L...........................................................................................................40
4.1.1 Synthetic Data: Production History Match..........................................................54
4.1.2 Synthetic Data: Reservoir Pressure History Match .............................................55
4.1.3 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Production History Match with
Respect to Pressure Decrement......................................................................57
4.1.4 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure History Match
with Respect to Pressure Decrement .............................................................58
4.1.5 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Production History Match with
Respect to Tolerance..................................................................................60
4.1.6 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure History Match
with Respect to Tolerance..........................................................................61

xi i
4.1.7 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Production History Match with
Respect to Errors in the Rate Data.............................................................63
4.1.8 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure History Match
with Respect to Errors in the Rate Data.....................................................64
4.1.9 Synthetic Data #2: Sensitivity of Rate History Match with
Respect to Errors in the Rate Data.............................................................66
4.1.10 Synthetic Data #2: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure History
Match with Respect to Errors in the Rate Data .............................................67
4.1.11 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Well Head
Pressure...........................................................................................................73
4.1.12 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to
Well Head Pressure........................................................................................74
4.1.13 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Skin Factor ........................76
4.1.14 Synthetic Data: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to
Skin Factor .....................................................................................................77
4.2.1.1 Case #1: Production History Match.....................................................................82
4.2.1.2 Case #1: Reservoir Pressure History Match ........................................................83
4.2.1.A Case #1: Production History Match.....................................................................86
4.2.1.B Case #1: Reservoir Pressure History Match ........................................................87
4.2.1.3 Case #1: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Well Head Pressure......................89

xi i i
4.2.1.4 Case #1: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to Well
Head Pressure.................................................................................................90
4.2.1.5 Case #1: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Skin Factor ...................................92
4.2.1.6 Case #1: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to Skin .......................93
4.2.1.7 Case #1: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Perforation Density......................95
4.2.1.8 Case #1: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to
Perforation Density ........................................................................................96
4.2.2.1 Case #2: Original Field Data..............................................................................102
4.2.2.2 Case #2: Converted Rate....................................................................................103
4.2.2.3 Case #2: Production History Match...................................................................106
4.2.2.4 Case #2: Reservoir Pressure History Match ......................................................107
4.2.2.5 Case #2: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Well Head Pressure....................109
4.2.2.6 Case #2: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to Well
Head Pressure...............................................................................................110
4.2.2.7 Case #2: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Skin Factor .................................112
4.2.2.8 Case #2: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to Skin .....................113
4.2.2.9 Case #2: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Perforated Interval......................115
4.2.210 Case #2: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to
Perforated Interval ........................................................................................116
4.2.3.1 Case #3: Original Field Data..............................................................................122

xi v
4.2.3.2 Case #3: Converted Rate....................................................................................123
4.2.3.3 Case #3: Production History Match...................................................................125
4.2.3.4 Case #3: Reservoir Pressure History Match ......................................................126
4.2.3.5 Case #3: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Well Head Pressure....................128
4.2.3.6 Case #3: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to Well
Head Pressure ..............................................................................................129
4.2.3.7 Case #3: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Density of
Perforation....................................................................................................131
4.2.3.8 Case #3: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to
Density of Perforation ............................................................................132
4.2.3.9 Case #3: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Perforated Interval......................134
4.2.310 Case #3: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to
Perforated Interval ........................................................................................135
4.2.4.1 Case #4: Production History Match...................................................................140
4.2.4.2 Case #4: Reservoir Pressure History Match ......................................................141
4.2.4.3 Case #4: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Well Head Pressure....................144
4.2.4.4 Case #4: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to Well
Head Pressure ..............................................................................................145
4.2.4.5 Case #4: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Tubing Size ................................147

xv
4.2.4.6 Case #4: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to
Tubing Size .................................................................................................148
4.2.4.7 Case #4: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Choke Size .................................150
4.2.4.8 Case #4: Sensitivity of Reservoir Pressure with Respect to Choke
Size............................................................................................................................151
1
CHAPTER I
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 1.1]. The rate at which pressure is calculated at the node from
both ends must be the same. 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


2
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 techniques 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 also
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


3
material balance technique. The inclusion of time in terms of predicting the future
performance is critical from 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.


4
Optimize the producing well configuration so that the net profit over the life of
the well is maximized.
Some specific examples where the proposed technique can be applied are:
Effect of Installing the Gas Compressor: As the well head pressure declines, there
may be a need to install a gas compressor at the well head. The compressor allows the
reduction of well head pressure, and hence increase in production. Various installation
alternatives that can be considered are the timing (when it will be installed), and what
capacity. Nodal analysis may indicate the possible rate of production at the existing
condition, but it does not indicate how the well will perform in the future. Installation
of the compressor will allow the operator to accelerate the production and increase the
reserves by lowering the abandonment pressure. However, for the cost benefit analysis,
we need to know how the gas production rate will change as a function of the
installation as well as the capacity of the compressor. Currently, no method is available
to evaluate the effect of compressor installation on the gas production as a function of
time.
Fracturing or Stimulating a Gas Well: A service company will always compare the
production with and without stimulation to sell a particular stimulation procedure.
However, stimulation, typically, does not increase the reserves. It only accelerates the
production. Therefore, after stimulation, the gas well will decline faster then at the
current conditions. For proper economic evaluation, it is critical that we examine the
incremental gas production. difference between production with stimulation minus


5
production without stimulation (which is positive at the beginning but will become
negative at later times) as a function of time.
Changing the Production Components: The prediction of the gas well performance
in the future is critical under existing as well as modified conditions. For example, for a
condensate gas reservoir, we would like to know when the gas well will start loading
under existing conditions so that appropriate production components can be changed
before the actual loading occurs. These alterations include changing choke size,
changing the tubing size or reducing the well head pressure. Based on the production
scenarios under existing as well as altered conditions, a proper method can be selected
for continued gas production.
History Matching of Prior Production Data: To instill confidence in the predictive
ability of any program, the user should be able to match the prior production from the
same gas well. Decline curve analysis essentially matches the prior production data by
using a specific model and then predicts the future performance based on prior data. In
reality, we know that significant uncertainties exist with respect to the input parameters
used for predicting the past performance. For example, the same prior production data
can be matched by either altering the permeability or skin factor, or by changing the
tubing correlation or the roughness factor. Changing the drainage area or thickness or
the porosity or saturation can all alter the possible reserves the well is capable of
producing. However, of these four components, the productivity of the well can only be
significantly affected by the thickness of the reservoir. If we want to quantify the
uncertainties in predicting the future performance, we need to develop alternate


6
scenarios all matching the prior performance. Subsequently, these scenarios can be
used to predict the future performance of a gas well under existing as well as modified
conditions. This type of information is extremely useful in economic risk and
uncertainty analysis.
In our approach, we will assume that the operator has already conducted a decline curve
analysis using many of the commercial programs readily available. Therefore, the type of
decline (exponential, hyperbolic or harmonic) is already known. If the information is
unavailable, we can use the recommended values by Fetkovich et al
26,27
. For example,
Fetkovich et al. recommend exponential decline for high pressure gas wells (>5000 psia),
Hyperbolic decline with b value between 0.4 and 0.5 for typical gas wells, and a value
greater than 0.5 and less than 1.0 for multiple layered reservoirs.
The system considered in this work is shown in figure 1.1. 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


7
surface pipeline
separator


8

Fi gur e 1.1: Syst em D escr i pt i on and Pr essur e Losses (af t er Br own et al .)
1



9

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.
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 curve.
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.


10
It is assumed that the gas flows from the reservoir into the well only through a
tubing consisting of a constant inside pipe diameter. The pressure drop between
the tubing shoe and the producing interval is assumed to be negligible.
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. These
limitations are presented in Chapter III.
This thesis is divided into several chapters. After this introduction chapter, Chapter
II describes the algorithm for the dynamic nodal analysis technique and details the
mathematical models as well as the regression analysis used in this technique. Chapter III
discusses the implementation of this technique into a computer program and provides
sensitivity studies with respect to input parameters. Chapter IV presents the results of the
application of the computer program to several field cases and validates the dynamic nodal
analysis technique. Finally, in Chapter V, conclusions and recommendations are provided.



11
CHAPTER II
PROCEDURE

2.1 Mathematical Modeling
The mathematical scheme used to perform dynamic nodal analysis for gas reservoirs
can be summarized in two different parts: the history match and the forecast analysis.

2.1.1 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,
T
obs2,
, T
obs j
,, T
obs n
,

the corresponding observed rate
Q
obs1
, Q
obs2
, , Q
obsj,
, Q
obsn
is known.
2. Assume that at time T
j
the following data are known:
reservoir pressure P
j
.
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 these are not known, assume exponential decline.


12
The pressure drop correlations as a function of rate for each Q.
3. The gas in place at this time T
j
is computed as:

gj
g b
j
B
S V
G
* *

(2.1)
where

sc j
sc R j
gj
T P
P T Z
B
*
* *
. (2.2)
4. Calculate the rate Q
j
at which the well will produce under the existing conditions. 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 presented in section 2.3 of
this chapter.
5. Assume a small decrement in reservoir pressure P
j
. The new reservoir pressure is then
P
j+1
= Pj- P
j
. At this reservoir pressure , calculate the new gas in place G
j+1 :


1
* *
1
+

+
j
g
g b
j
B
S V
G

. (2.3)
The total amount of gas produced when the reservoir pressure decreases from P
j
to P
j+1

is:

1 +

j j
G G G (2.4)
6. Calculate the rate Q
j+1
at which the well will produce under the present reservoir
pressure P
j+1
. This is done by nodal analysis at bottom hole.


13
7. Knowing the total amount of gas produced (G) and the gas flow rate Q
j
and Q
j+1
at
reservoir pressures P
j
and P
j+1
, we can calculate the elapsed time T required to reach
that production.
For exponential decline:

1
1 1
+
+ +

j j
j j j j
G G
Q Q
G
Q Q
D (2.5)

1
ln
1
+

j
j
Q
Q
D
T (2.6)
For harmonic decline:

1
ln
+

j
j j
Q
Q
G
Q
D (2.7)
[ ]
1
1
1
+
+


j
j j
Q
Q Q
D
T (2.8)
For hyperbolic decline:

1
1
]
1

,
_

+
b
j
j j
Q
Q
G b
Q
D
1
1
1 *
* ) 1 (
(2.9)

1
1
]
1

,
_

+
b
j
j
Q
Q
D b
T
1
1 *
*
1
(2.10)
The total calculated time when the reservoir pressure is P
j+1
can be calculated as:
T T T
j j
+
+1
. (2.11)


14

8. Assume a new reservoir pressure P
j+1
:
P
j+1
= P
j
-P where P is the pressure decrement.
Repeat the process from step 4 to step 7 until the total calculated time T
j+k
is greater or
equal to the observed production time.
9. At this point, we have the model predicted times
T
1
, T
2
, , T
j
, T
j+k
,
and the corresponding rates:
Q
1
, Q
2
, , Q
j
, , Q
j+k
,
For each observed time T
obs j
, we calculate the corresponding model predicted rate Q
j

by interpolating the model predicted rates.
At this point, we check how the calculated flow rate Q
j
compares with the historical
observed production rate Q
obs j
at the same time T
obs j
. This check represents the history
match of the observed data.
If significant differences exist between the calculated and the observed production, then
some selected reservoir parameters have to be adjusted in order to match the historical
performance.
In order to match the historical observed performance, a non-linear regression
calculation is performed to minimize the difference between calculated and observed
production. This regression analysis is discussed in section 2.2 of this chapter.


15
Once a satisfactory match between the predicted and the observed performance is
obtained, we can proceed with forecast of future performance calculations.

2.1.2 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.


16
2.2 Regression Analysis
The basic objective of using the non-linear regression in this problem is to determine the
optimum set, , of reservoir/completion parameters such that the observed data match as
closely as possible to the calculated data from the model.
In this study, the parameters on which the regression is performed consist of any set of 3
independent variables chosen among the following parameters: permeability, skin, radius of
drainage, pay, perforated interval, radius of perforations, diameter of perforations, porosity,
water saturation, and density of perforations. For example, one can choose such that
={permeability, skin, radius of drainage }. In this case the regression calculations will be
performed on the following variables: permeability, skin and radius of drainage.
In this study, the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm LMDIF1
33
, has been used. This algorithm
has been selected because it does not require to provide the derivatives of the functions to
minimize.
The purpose of LMDIF1
33
is to minimize the sum of the squares of m non-linear functions
in n variables. This is done by the more general least square solver LMDIF. The user must
provide the subroutines that compute the functions. The jacobian is then calculated by a
forward-difference approximation.
As stated earlier, in this work, the variables on which to regress are any set of 3 independent
variables chosen by the user among the following parameters: permeability, skin, radius of
drainage, pay, perforated interval, radius of perforations, diameter of perforations, porosity,
water saturation, and density of perforations.


17
So, n is equal to 3.
The m non-linear functions F
1
(),

F
2
(), , F
m
() can be considered as the components
of a vector FVEC. The objective function is then computed as the square of the euclidian
norm of FVEC, that is:
Objective function = F
j
2
.
The functions F
j
are chosen such that the computation is more resistant to errors in the
observed data and is less sensitive to outliers. The definition of the functions F
j
is presented
below.
Function F
1
This function compares observed data with the predicted data. Ideally the correlation
coefficient between the observed and model predicted performance is equal to 1.
Mathematically,

1 ) , ( ) (
mod 1
Q Q F
obs
(2.12)

mod
*
) , (
) , (
mod
mod
Q Q
obs
obs
obs
Q Q COV
Q Q

(2.13)
) ( ) 1 (
1
F FVEC . (2.14)
The advantage of using the correlation coefficient is that it is resistant to noise in the data. It
is not sensitive to outliers. It should be noted that high correlation coefficient does not
necessarily mean that the values are similar.


18
The basic assumption here is that we are modeling the measured data correctly that the
errors in the measured data are normally distributed with mean zero, and the errors are not
correlated.
Function F
2

This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the plot of Q
mod
versus Q
obs
is a
straight line of slope one ( with intercept equal to zero).
1 ) ( ) 2 (
2
SLOPE F FVEC (2.15)

obs
obs
Q Q COV
SLOPE
2
mod
) , (

(2.16)
where COV is the covariance between the observed and model predicted rates. So,
1
) , (
) 2 (
2
mod

obs
obs
Q Q COV
FVEC

. (2.17)
Function F
3

This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the intercept of the straight line
Q
mod
versus Q
obs
is equal to zero.
0 *
mod

obs
Q SLOPE Q INTERCEPT (2.18)
1 ) 3 (
mod

obs
Q
Q
FVEC (2.19)
because ideally the slope is equal to 1: SLOPE=1.
) 3 (
3
FVEC F . (2.20)


19

Function F
4
This function compares observed reservoir pressure with the predicted reservoir pressure.
Ideally the correlation coefficient between the observed and model predicted reservoir
pressure is equal to 1. Mathematically,

1 ) , ( ) (
mod
, , 1

r
obs
r
P P F (2.21)

mod
, ,
*
) , (
) , (
mod
, ,
mod
, ,
r
obs
r
P P
r
obs
r
r
obs
r
P P COV
P P

(2.22)
) ( ) 4 (
1
F FVEC . (2.23)
The advantage of using the correlation coefficient is that it is resistant to noise in the data. It
is not sensitive to outliers. It should be noted that high correlation coefficient does not
necessarily mean that the values are similar.
The basic assumption here is that we are modeling the measured data correctly that the
errors in the measured data are normally distributed with mean zero, and the errors are not
correlated.
Function F
5

This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the plot of P
mod
versus P
obs
is a
straight line of slope one ( with intercept equal to zero).
1 ) ( ) 5 (
5
SLOPE F FVEC (2.24)


20

obs
P
r
obs
r
r
P P COV
SLOPE
2
mod
, ,
) , (

(2.25)
where COV is the covariance between the observed and model predicted rates. So,
1
) , (
) 5 (
2
mod
, ,

obs
P
r
obs
r
r
P P COV
FVEC

. (2.26)
Function F
6

This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the intercept of the straight line
P
mod
versus P
obs
is equal to zero.
0 *
,
mod
,

obs
r r
P SLOPE P INTERCEPT (2.27)
1 ) 6 (
,
mod
,

obs
r
r
P
P
FVEC (2.28)
because ideally the slope is equal to 1: SLOPE=1.
) 6 (
6
FVEC F . (2.29)

Also, the user specifies the tolerance FTOL which is used in the regression. The program
terminates when the algorithm estimates either that the relative errors in the sum of squares,
F
j
2
, is at most FTOL or that the relative error between in the regression variables is at most
FTOL. On termination, the regression algorithm output an integer variable INFO whose
value means the following.
INFO = 0: improper input parameters.


21
INFO = 1: algorithm estimate that the relative error in the sum of squares is at most
FTOL .
INFO = 2: algorithm estimates that the relative error between the calculated values of the
regression parameters and the ideal solution is at most FTOL.
INFO = 3: condition for info =1 and info = 2 both hold.
INFO = 4: FVEC is orthogonal to the columns of the jacobian to machine precision.
INFO = 5: number of calls to the function that compute FVEC has reached or exceed
200*(n+1).
INFO = 6: FTOL is too small. No further reduction in the sum of squares is possible.
INFO = 7: FTOL is too small. No further improvement in the approximate solution is
possible.

2.2.1 Parameter Constraints
The Levenberg Marquardt algorithm
33
that we use is unconstrained : i.e., variables can
be chosen to minimize the objective function with value between infinite. Obviously, for
our problem, we need to ensure that the values of the variables lie in the predefined interval
of uncertainty and that these values are meaningful. For example we may want the regressed
permeability value to be between K
max
and K
min
.
In order to keep the values of the regression variables in certain predefined intervals, we can
use a couple of methods. It has been shown that the use of the penalty function improves the


22
convergence of the iterative procedure; however, it is also reported that the penalty function
method may not prevent the values of the regression variables to be out of the predefined
domain when the initial estimates of the regression variables are far from the solution. In
this study, the imaging extension
19
procedure is used.

2.2.1.1 Imaging Extension Method
19

The idea behind the method is to extend the objective function in such a way that the new
objective function is defined everywhere (i.e., unconstrained) and that the solution of this
new unconstrained problem is related to the solution of the original constrained problem.
The procedure for translating the unconstrained variable estimate
LMDIF1
calculated by the
regression algorithm LMDIF1
33
to the corresponding physically constrained value of the
parameter
c
is the following:
For
LMDIF1
>
max
, compute :

,
_

min max
min 1
int


LMDIF
N . (2.30)
For
LMDIF1
<
min
, compute :
1 int
min max
min 1

,
_



LMDIF
N . (2.31)
After calculating N,
c
can be obtained as:
For N odd:


23

1 min max max min
) (
LMDIF
c
N + + . (2.32)
For N even
) (
min max 1
N
LMDIF
c
. (2.33)
For more details about the imaging extension method, the reader is referred to the
reference 19.
2.3 Nodal Analysis Technique
Nodal analysis provides a method to determine the rate at which a producing system will
perform under certain applied conditions. In order to evaluate that producing rate, the
production system is divided into two parts at a fixed node and the performance curves of
each part are compared. These two performance curves are denoted as inflow (flow into the
node) and outflow (flow out of the node) performance curves. For convenience, the node is
chosen at the bottom hole
16
. This choice does not affect the results of the performance
computations.
With the node at bottom hole, the inflow performance curve represents the pressure loss
across the reservoir, the perforations and the gravel pack. It can be mathematically
expressed in dimensionless form as:

max
Q
Q
versus
P
P
I
r
WF

,
_

(2.34)
where

,
_

,
_

,
_

,
_

,
_


,
_

r
gp
r
perf
r
WFS r
r
WF WFS
r
WFS
r
I
r
WF
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P P
P
P P
P
P
1 1 (2.35).


24
Q
max
is the maximum flow rate at which the well can flow.
The outfow performance curve describes the pressure loss in the tubing, the bottom hole
restriction (subsurface device), the safety valve, the well head choke and the surface
pipeline. It can be mathematically expressed in dimensionless form as:


MAX
O
r
WF
Q
Q
versus
P
P

,
_

(2.36)
where

,
_

,
_

,
_

,
_

+
,
_



,
_

r
PIPELINE
r
CHOKE
r
SV
r
REST
r
TBG
O
r
WF
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
. (2.37)
A typical plot of the inflow curve as well as the two commonly observed outflow curves is
shown in Figure 2.1.
The overall performance of the producing system is obtained when the inflow and outflow
curves intercept. This implies that the flow rate and the bottom hole flowing pressure are
obtained by solving the equation:

O
r
WF
I
r
WF
P
P
P
P

,
_

,
_

(2.38)
This equation is solved numerically using the secant method
16
.
As can be seen on Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, this equation can have two different roots or
one single root.


25
If the equation has two different roots, the root corresponding to the lower flow rate
represents an unstable production condition while the root corresponding to the higher flow
rate represents a stable production condition. This situation is typical of system producing in
two-phase flow with high gas velocity.
If the equation has a single root, one of the following situations can happen:
The derivative of the outflow curve at the root is positive. In this case the system
produces under a stable condition. This is typical of systems close to single-phase flow.
The derivative of the outflow curve at the root is negative. In this case the system
produces under an unstable condition (liquid loading).


26












Figure 2.1. Typical Inflow and Outflow Curves
16
.








27

Figure 2.2 Example of an Unstable Production Condition (Liquid Loading)

C
Inflow curve
Outflow curve
Unstable rate
P
P
wf
r

_
,

Q
Q
max

_
,

0


28

2.4 Summary
In this chapter, the dynamic nodal analysis procedure has been presented. The mathematical
models used in the history match and forecast algorithms have been detailed. In addition,
the regression analysis method used in the computer program has been discussed. Finally, a
brief description of the conventional nodal analysis technique has been reviewed.


29
CHAPTER III
IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Computer Program
A computer program has been developed that implements the mathematical procedures
discussed in the previous section. After all the data describing all the components of the
system has been provided, the computer program can conduct the dynamic nodal analysis
calculations (history match, sensitivity analysis) as well as classic static nodal analysis. The
computer program described in this section is tested with synthetic as well as field data; the
results of these test are presented in Chapter IV. The general structure of the computer
program is presented in Figure 3.1. An important consideration in the computer program
development has been to provide a user-friendly environment and an algorithmic
architecture which is easy to maintain and expand. This is realized by providing a flexible
and interactive procedure to input, modify and view the data describing each component of
the system as well as allowing to save the results in the restart files which can be used for
future sensitivity analysis and forecast studies. The program is easy to maintain because of
its modularity which allows each specific problem to be handled by specific subroutines.


30



Figure 3.1 Structure of the computer program


Select option
-Dynamic nodal analysis
-New well
-Conventional analysis
Dynamic nodal analysis
Select option
-Input/Display data
-Modify data
-History match
-Forecast
-Conventional nodal analysis
Conventional nodal analysis
Select option
-Input/Display data
-Modify data
-Conventional nodal analysis
New well
Select option
-Input/Display data
-Modify data
-Forecast
-Conventional nodal analysis
Results
Do you want to save results in
a restart file?
End
Enter a restart file name
Start
No
Yes


31
In addition, an error file is included which contains eventual error messages if the ranges or
the limitations of the correlations and model selected are surpassed.

3.2 Models and Correlations
In this section the models and correlations used in the computer program to compute the
pressure drops in each components of the system are presented. A special consideration is
given to the limitations involved in these models and correlations.
3.2.1 Reservoir
The flow in the reservoir is considered to be single phase gas. This assumes that the
reservoir pressure is above the dew point throughout the well production time in the case of
wet gas reservoirs. The pressure drops across the reservoir porous media are computed by
an inflow performance relationship (IPR) using Darcys law modified by Jones, Blount and
Glazes
12
and expressed in terms of pseudo-real pressure. This equation which takes into
account the turbulent effect as well as the damage effect (skin), relates the reservoir pressure
to the sand-face pressure.

Q b Q a P m P m
wfs R
* * ) ( ) (
2
+ (3.1)
where Q is in MMscf/D. The coefficients a and b are defined as,


* *
* * * 10 * 166 . 3
2
6
w p
g
R H
T
a

(3.2)


32

,
_

+ S
R
R
H K
T
b
w
e
4
3
ln
*
* 10 * 424 . 1
6
(3.3)
where is defined as,

201 . 1
10
10 * 33 . 2
K
. (3.4)
The pseudo-real pressure is defined as follows:
dP
Z
P
P m
P
P g
base
*
*
* 2
) (

. (3.5)
It should be noted that, in general, the IPR calculated with data obtained from well test
analysis usually gives a better description of the reservoir performance.


33


IPR Range of Requirements Advantages
Applicability
Darcy's law single phase flow Properties describing the May be expressed in terms of
modified by reservoir pseudo-real pressure. Damage
Jones et al. and high velocity effects are
included.
Table 3.1
Gas reservoir inflow performance relationship used


34
3.2.2 Perforations
The computer program computes the pressure drop across the perforations using Mc-Leods
method
11
. This equation takes into account the pressure losses across the compacted zone. It
does not account for the converging effect of the flow near the well bore.
Several assumptions are made in this method such as:
1. The permeability of the crushed zone or compacted zone is:
10 % of the formation permeability if the well is perforated under overbalanced
conditions.
40 % of the formation permeability if the well is perforated under underbalanced
conditions.
2. The thickness of the crushed zone is inch.
3. The small perforation hole is producing under steady state conditions.
Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 show a typical perforated hole.
The equation for the pressure losses across the perforations is:
Q b Q a P m P m
wf wfs
* * ) ( ) (
2
+ (3.6)
where Q = flow rate/perforation (Mscf/D). The coefficients a and b are defined as,


*
1 1
* * * * 10 * 16 . 3
2
12
Lp
R R
T
a
C P

,
_

(3.7)


35

P P
P
C
L K
R
R
T
b
*
ln * * 10 * 424 . 1
3

,
_

(3.8)
where

201 . 1
10
10 * 33 . 2
p
K
. (3.9)



36


Figure 3.2: Typical Perforated Hole (after Brown et al.)
1










37





Figure 3.3: Perforated Hole Turned 90* (after Brown et al)
1







38
3.2.3 Gravel Pack
The pressure drop across the gravel pack is computed using the Jones, Blount and Glazes
equation modified by Brown for single-phase gas. This simple model takes into account the
pressure losses from the perforation tunnel to the liner. It also accounts for the turbulent
flow regime (high velocity flow). In addition, Brown provides some guidelines about the
estimation of the gravel pack effective permeability as a function of the gravel size. Figure
3.4 displays the typical gravel pack schematic.
The equation is:
Q b Q a P m P m
wf wfs
* * ) ( ) (
2
+ (3.10)
where Q is in Mscf/D. The coefficients a and b are defined as,


*
* * * * 10 * 247 . 1
2
10
A
L T
a
g

(3.11)


39


Figure 3.4. Gravel Pack Schematic (after Brown et al)
1



40

A K
L T
b
G
*
* * 10 * 93 . 8
3
(3.12)
where

55 . 0
7
10 * 47 . 1
G
K
. (3.13)
Figure 3.5 provides the details to calculate the linear flow path L.


41




Fi gur e 3.5: D et ai l s of L (af t er Br own et al )
1



42
3.2.4 Tubing String
The pressure drop across the tubing string is computed with commonly used multiphase
flow correlations in the literature. Table 3.2 summarizes the correlations
2
used in the
computer program. Also shown, in that table, are the ranges of applicability of each
correlation.
It should be noted that for a given production system, the choice of the appropriate
correlation for tubing pressure drop computations is generally based on field experience and
on the correlation limitations. However, in the absence of any information, Brown
1
gives
the following suggestions:
Poettman and Carpenter correlation and Beggs and Brill correlation for dry gas and
Grays correlation
9
for wet gas.
In the computer program the temperature gradient across the tubing is assumed to be
constant.


43



Correlation Considerations Recommended ranges
of slip conditions and
flow regime
Hagedorn and Considers slip conditions All pipe sizes, all fluids
Brown and no flow regime
Beggs and Brill Considers slip conditions All pipe sizes, all fluids
and flow regime All angles of inclinations
Gray Considers slip conditions Pipe size <=3.5 in.
and no flow regime Condensate <= 50 BBL/MMscf
Water <=350 BBL/MMscf
Beggs and Brill Considers slip conditions All pipe sizes, all fluids
and flow regime All angles of inclinations
Dukler Considers slip conditions All pipe sizes, all fluids
(with Eaton et al. and no flow regime
holdup correlation)
Beggs and Brill Considers slip conditions All pipe sizes, all fluids
and flow regime All angles of inclinations
Inclined flow
Table 3.2
Correlations for multiphase flow in pipes
Vertical flow
Horizontal flow


44
3.2.5 Subsurface Device (Subsurface Restriction)
The pressure drop across the subsurface restriction is calculated using one of the
correlations listed in Table 3.3. The choice of the appropriate correlation for the subsurface
restriction depends on the type of gas phase flowing across the component.







Correlation Recommended range
Sachdeva Critical-subcritical flow boundary determined by model.
Uses discharge coefficient equal to 0.85 or 0.75 in the
presence of an upstream elbow
Adiabatique expansion Critical-subcritical flow boundary determined from
equation a specific heat ration
Table 3.3
Correlations for flow across chokes and restrictions
Two-phase flow
Single phase gas flow


45
3.2.6 Subsurface Safety Valve
The pressure losses across the subsurface safety valve are computed with the correlations
listed in Table 3.4. These correlations take into account the subcritical two-phase flow
regime under which the subsurface safety valves are normally operated.






3.2.7 Well Head Choke
Correlation Discharge coefficient limitations
API 14B Discharge coefficient calculated by no-slip
weighting average of specified liquid and gas
single phase discharge coefficients
Tulsa university Empirical relations for discharge coefficient,
Model No. 2 for Otis J valves (8/64 in. to 32/64 in.)
Table 3.4
Correlations for multiphase subcritical flow
in subsurface safety valves


46
The pressure losses across the wellhead choke are computed by using one of the
correlations listed in Table 3.3 depending upon the type of flow regime (subcritical or
critical) and the type of phase ( dry gas or wet gas.)

3.2.8 Surface Pipeline
The pressure losses across the surface pipeline are computed using the multiphase
correlations in Table 3.2. As in the case of tubing string, the selection of pressure drop
correlation is usually based on field experience and the limitations of the correlations.
However, in absence of any field information, Brown and Lea recommend the use of Beggs
and Brill correlation or Dukler correlation for horizontal and inclined pipeline.

3.2.9 Fluid Properties
The correlations used in the computer program to estimate the physical properties of the
fluids are listed in Table 3.5. These experimental correlations are function of temperature,
pressure, type of fluid (gas, oil or water), densities of the different phase which are present
in the flow. It should be noted that fluid properties obtained from direct measurement on
fluid sample should be preferred if available. However, when used properly, fluid
correlations are generally good enough for well performance estimations.



47
Fluid property Correlation Validity considerations
Solution Gas-Oil Lasater Suggested for crude with API>=15
ratio Standing Suggested for crude with API<=15
Vasquez and Two correlations for crudes with API
Beggs above and below 30
Formation volume Standing For black oils below bubble-point
factor pressure
Vasquez and Beggs Two correlations for crudes with API
above and below 30
Glaso Developed for North Sea oils.
May be valid for other crudes after
correction for CO2,N2 and H2S
Surface tension Baker and Swerdoff empirical data interpolation
Oil viscosity Beggs and Robinson Correlates dead and live oil viscosity
Vasquez and Beggs Correlation for viscosity above
bubble point pressure.
Glaso Developed for North Sea oils.
May be valid for other crudes after
correction for CO2,N2 and H2S
Compressibility Yarborough and Hall Fitting to Standing and Katz
reduced pressure - reduced temperature curves
Viscosity Lee et al. Empirical correlation. Good for wide ranges
of pressure and temperature
(from 100 to 8000 psia, and from 100 to 340 F)
Formation volume Gould Correlates value of pure water and gas saturated
factor water.
Viscosity Beggs and Brill Expression to fit temperature effect on viscosity
Water
Table 3.5
Correlations for fluid physical properties.
Two-phase flow
Gas


48
3.3 Sensitivity Studies With Respect to Input Parameters

3.3.1 Sensitivity With Respect to Pressure Decrement
The pressure decrement P is used to calculate the reservoir pressures at which the
calculations are performed during the history match and the forecast computations.
Typically the value of P can be chosen between 50 to 500 psia. This choice depends on
the magnitude of the reservoir pressure decrease during the period of time of the history
match and/or the forecast. In general, a pressure decrement of 50 psia can be used in most
cases.
It should be noted that the computations are longer when using small reservoir pressure
decrement values and this may provide an improvement of the results. However it has been
noticed that for some production systems, the use of smaller increments does not improve
the match. For example, the results obtained were the same for pressure decrement of 100
psia as for a decrement of 300 psia but the computation was more intensive for 100 psia
decrement. A numerical example of this problem is shown in section 4.1.2.1, chapter 4.
3.3.2 Sensitivity with Respect to Tolerance
The tolerance used to calculate the pressure drops across each component of system as well
as to converge the regression procedure, is very important. The results obtained as well as
the duration of the computations are directly affected by the tolerance. In general, a
tolerance value of 0.001 to 0.000001 will be required to get a good match . Although it is
advisable to choose the highest precision possible, it should be noted that for some


49
production system it is still possible to get results which are good enough for engineering
purposes at lower precision. Section 4.1.2.2 of Chapter 4 gives a numerical example of this
problem.
3.3.3 Sensitivity with Respect to Input Parameters in Order to Get the Match.
If the model predicted performance does not match with the observed data, it may be
advisable to modify certain reservoir parameters. The following guidelines can be used in
an attempt to improve the match.
If Q
obs
(T
j
) / Q
mod
(T
j
) is sensibly constant for all time T
j
, the reservoir productivity needs
to be modified. This can be accomplished by changing either the permeability or the pay
range.
If the decline rate is predicted to be greater than the observed value, pore volume can be
increased. If the decline rate is smaller than the observed value, the pore volume can be
decreased.
If the changes do not show consistent behavior, for fine tuning purposes only, we can
change the pressure drop correlations, the relative roughness of the pipes, the fluid
properties and the correlations for individual components in the system.



50

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS/VALIDATION

In this chapter the dynamic nodal analysis described in Chapter II is applied to several
production systems. Those production systems include synthetic data as well as actual field
data. The results obtained from the computer program that are presented in this chapter
validate the dynamic nodal analysis technique.

4.1 Synthetic Data

Synthetic data represent an ideal production system which is used to verify the robustness of
the computer program. 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 4.1.1.




51
Table 4.1.1

Synthetic data: input parameters.


Type of decline = exponential
Pressure decrement [psia] = 50
Optimization tolerance = 0.000001

Reservoir
Initial pressure [psia] = 5010.98
Initial temperature [F] = 212
Pay [ft] = 64.454
Skin = 116.454
Drainage radius [ft] = 9107.852
Permeability [md] = 11.057
Porosity [fraction] = 0.06
Water saturation [fraction] = 0.533

Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas = 0.646
Oil density [API] = 51.080
Specific gravity of produced water = 1.0

Completion
Hole diameter [in] = 8.496
Casing diameter [in] = 5
Perforated interval [ft] = 17
Perforation diameter [in] = 0.36
Perforation tunnel length [in] = 12.33
Perforation density [SPF] = 4
Mode of perforation = overbalance
Tubing inside diameter [in] = 1.945
Tubing roughness [ft] = 0.00015
Tubing length [ft] = 8688.0
Hole inclination angle [degree] = 90
Pressure drop correlation: Beggs and Brill

Production
Oil/Gas ratio, [SBBLO/MMscf] = 145.0
Water/Gas ratio, [SBBLW/MMscf] = 0.0
Well head pressure, [psia] = 2250.0
Well head temperature, [F] = 111.0
Reference separator pressure, [psia] = 14.7
Reference separator temperature, [deg F] = 60.0


52

Limits of regression parameters
PERMIN [md] = 0.0 PERMAX [md] = 100.0
SMIN = -5.0 SMAX = 175.0
REMIN [ft] = 2500.0 REMAX [ft] = 10000.0



The production and the reservoir pressure as functions of time are presented in table 4.1.2.
Notice that reservoir pressure is not available at each time step.


53
Table 4.1.2
Production synthetic data
Time Rate Reservoir Time Rate Reservoir
Pressure pressure
[days] [Mscf/D] [psia] [days] [Mscf/D] [psia]

0 1987.263 5010.98 1064 1819.304 4811.30

31 1982.147 5004.82 1095 1814.686 4806.01
61 1977.195 4998.85 1126 1810.070 4800.73
92 1972.079 4992.69 1156 1805.603 4795.62
122 1967.128 4986.72 1187 1800.987 4790.34
153 1962.012 4980.56 1297 1796.520 4785.23
184 1956.895 4974.40 1248 1791.904 4779.95
212 1952.274 4968.83 1279 1787.289 4774.67
243 1947.158 4962.67 1307 1783.119 4769.90
273 1942.254 4956.86 1338 1778.504 4764.62
304 1937.206 4950.92 1368 1774.088 4759.57
334 1932.321 4945.18 1399 1769.659 4754.51
365 1927.273 4939.24 1429 1765.373 4749.61
396 1922.225 4933.30 1460 1760.943 4744.54
426 1917.34 4927.56 1491 1752.227 4739.47
457 1912.292 4921.62 1551 1747.941 4729.67
518 1902.405 4909.98 1581 1743.654 4724.77
549 1897.619 4904.26 1611 1739.368 4719.86
577 1893.296 4899.10 1642 1734.938 4714.80
608 1888.510 4893.39 1672 1730.681 4709.94
638 1883.879 4887.86 1703 1726.390 4705.08
669 1879.093 4882.14 1734 1722.098 4700.23
699 1874.462 4876.61 1763 1718.083 4695.69
730 1869.676 4870.90 1794 1713.791 4690.83
761 1864.890 4865.19 1824 1709.638 4686.13
791 1860.289 4859.71
822 1855.635 4854.21
852 1851.131 4848.89
883 1846.477 4843.40
914 1841.823 4837.90
942 1837.620 4832.93
973 1832.966 4827.44
1003 1828.462 4822.12
1034 1823.808 4816.62


54
4.1.1 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 4.1.1 and
figure 4.1.2 and table 4.1.3
Table 4.1.3
History Match for Synthetic Data
Calculated value Calculated
value
Initial
value
Comment
Permeability [md] 11.054 10.8 From well test
Skin 116.454 101 From well test
Radius of drainage [ft] 9107.852 2500.0 Estimated

The parameter INFO equals 2 when the program terminates.
Several runs of the program were conducted in order to assess the sensitivity of the history
match with respect to the following input parameters: pressure decrement, tolerance and
eventual errors in the input historical production data.





55

1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [days]
Observed rate Predicted rate

Figure 4.1.1 Synthetic data : production history match






56

4650
4700
4750
4800
4850
4900
4950
5000
5050
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure predicted reservoir pressure

Figure 4.1.2. Synthetic data: reservoir pressure history match.




57
4.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis
4.1.2.1 Sensitivity of History Match Results with Respect to Pressure Decrements
Values.
Pressure decrements values of 50 psia, 100 psia, 200 psia, and 300 psia were used to
perform history match calculations. The results are shown in Figure 4.1.3 and Figure 4.1.4.
As it can be seen, the production history match as well as the pressure history match are
excellent for all the pressure decrement values used. So, the use of a lower value for
pressure decrement does not necessarily improve the history match results but may instead
increase the computational intensity compared to the use of greater pressure decrement
value. For this particular synthetic well, the computational time for all these decrement
values is very small. However, in general the computational intensity may notably increase
when the pressure decrement value decreases.


58



Figure 4.1.3. Synthetic data: sensitivity of production history match with respect to
pressure decrement.

1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time [days]
Observed rate Predicted rate [DP=50 psia] Predicted rate [DP=100 psia]
Predicted rate [DP=200 psia] Predicted rate [DP=300 psia]


59



Figure 4.1.4. Synthetic data: sensitivity of pressure history match with respect to
pressure decrement

4650
4700
4750
4800
4850
4900
4950
5000
5050
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time [days]
Predicted reservoir pressure [DP=50 psia] Predicted reservoir pressure [DP=100 psia]
Predicted reservoir pressure {DP=200 psia] Predicted reservoir pressure [DP=300 psia]


60


4.1.2.2 Sensitivity of History Match Results with Respect to Tolerance Values.
In order to verify the sensitivity of the history match results with respect to the tolerance
used in the calculations, different runs of the program have been conducted using tolerance
values of 0.1, 0.001, 0.000001. The results obtained are shown in Figure 4.1.5 and Figure
4.1.6.
As it can be noted, the production history match as well as the pressure history match are
excellent for tolerance values of 0.000001 and 0.001. Instead, the results obtained using the
tolerance value of 0.1 are clearly not acceptable. This particular example shows that the
result of the history match calculations may be affected by the tolerance value used for the
computations. In general, the history match results are better when using a lower tolerance
value. However, as it can be noted in this particular synthetic case, the quality of the history
match is acceptable for both tolerance values of 0.001 and 0.000001 but the computational
intensity is greater for the tolerance value of 0.000001.
For practical purposes, a tolerance value of 0.000001 can be used for most cases. A value of
tolerance lower than 0.000001 is generally not necessary to achieve an acceptable history
match results.





61


Figure 4.1.5. Synthetic data: sensitivity of production history match with respect to
tolerance
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [days]
Observed rate Predicted rate [Tolerance=10^-6]
Predicted rate [Tolerance= 10^-1] Predicted rate [Tolerance=10^-3]


62



Figure 4.1.6. Synthetic data: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to tolerance

3500
3700
3900
4100
4300
4500
4700
4900
5100
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [days]
Observed pressure [psia] Predicted reservoir pressure [Tolerance=10^-6]
Predicted rate [Tolerance = 10^-1] Predicted reservoir pressure [Tolerance = 10^-3]


73
4.1.3 Future Performance Simulations
4.1.3.1 Future Performance Simulations for 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 2250 psia, 1000 psia, 500 psia and 100 psia were used for the
forecasting. The well was producing at a well head pressure of 2250 psia. The results of
these simulations are shown in figure 4.1.9 and figure 4.1.10.
As can be seen, the decrease of the well head pressure from 2250 psia to 1000 psia provided
an increase in flow rate of about 1000 Mscf/D. However a further decrease of well head
pressure from 1000 psia to 500 psia provided an increase of only 200 Mscf/D. Moreover,
the gain resulting from an eventual decrease of the well head pressure from 500 psia to 100
psia can be considered to be negligible. This sensitivity analysis can be used in deciding
whether or not to install a compressor and under what optimum conditions it can be
operated.


74



Figure 4.1.11. Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure



0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Time [days]
Observed rate [well head pressure = 2250 psia] Predicted rate [well head pressure = 2250 psia]
Well head pressure = 2250 psia Well head pressure = 1000 psia
Well head pressure=500 psia Well head pressure=100 psia


75



Figure 4.1.12. Synthetic data: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head
pressure.

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure Predicted rate [well head pressure = 2250]
Well head pressure = 2250 psia] Well head pressure = 1000 psia
Well head pressure = 500 psia Well head pressure = 100 psia


76
4.1.3.2 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
134.459, 50 and 0.0 has been used in the forecast computations. The results of this
sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure 4.1.11 and Figure 4.1.12.
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 134.459.
This is due to the fact that the removal of the skin does not increase the reserves, but
accelerates the gas recovery.












77



Figure 4.1.13. Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin factor.


0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Time [days]
Observed rate History match [skin=134.459] Skin=134.459 Skin=50.0 Skin=0.0


78

Figure 4.1.14. Synthetic data: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to skin.




0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Time [days]
Observed rate History match [skin=134.459] Skin=134.459 Skin=50 Skin=0.0


79
4.2 Field Data
Four cases of actual field well data are presented in this section. Each of those cases exhibits
a specific problem and gives the solution to overcome it.

4.2.1 Case #1: Dry Gas Well Producing at a Constant Well Head Pressure.
Case #1 represents a dry gas well, open to production since 1989 in Beluga reservoir
(Alaska), which has been produced at a constant well head pressure. The initial reservoir
pressure is estimated to be 2083 psia. The characteristics of the reservoir as well as the
description of the reservoir are summarized in Table 4.2.1.1.

Table 4.2.1.1

System description data for case #1

Type of decline = exponential
Pressure decrement [psia] = 50
Optimization tolerance = 0.000001

Reservoir
Initial pressure [psia] = 2083
Reservoir temperature [F] = 110
Pay [ft] = 51.589
Skin = 4.101
Drainage radius [ft] = 4141.645
Permeability [md] = 26.858
Porosity [fraction] = 0.19
Water saturation [fraction] = 0.15

Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas [fraction] = 0.7
Oil density [API] = 52.0
Specific gravity of produced water [fraction] = 1.0


80
Solution gas/oil ratio correlation: Lasater
Oil formation volume factor: Standing
Oil viscosity correlation: Robinson Dranchuck and Purvis.
Z-factor correlation: Hall and Yarborough

Completion
Hole diameter [in] = 12.240
Casing diameter [in] = 9.625
Perforated interval [ft] = 80.0
Perforation diameter [in] = 0.720
Perforation tunnel length [in] = 12.33
Perforation density [SPF] = 4
Mode of perforation = overbalance
Tubing inside diameter [in] = 2.992
Tubing roughness [ft] = 0.00015
Well inclination [degree] = 90.0
Tubing length [ft] = 7682.0
Pressure drop correlation: Beggs and Brill

Production
Oil/Gas ratio [SBBLO/MMscf] = 0.0
Water/Gas ratio [SBBLW/MMscf] = 0.0
Well head pressure [psia] = 870.0
Well head temperature [F] = 70.0
Reference separator pressure, [psia] = 14.7
Reference separator temperature, [deg F] = 60.0

Limit of regression parameters
PERMIN [md] = 20.0 PERMAX [md] = 45.0
SMIN = 4.0 SMAX = 10.0
REMIN [ft] = 500.0 REMAX [ft] = 5000.0



The production performance and the reservoir pressure in function of time are presented in
Table 4.2.1.2.




81
Table 4.2.1.2
Well performance and reservoir pressure data for case #1
Time Rate Reservoir Time Rate Reservoir
Pressure pressure
[days] [Mscf/D] [psia] [days] [Mscf/D] [psia]
0 8520.0 2108 960 12107.5
30 12977.235 990 12030.484
60 12243.839 1020 11663.323
90 10463.684 1050 11203.964
120 12625.0 1080 10776.935
150 12812.0 1110 10335.3
180 14953.5 1140 10276.645
210 14521.097 1170 10089.167
240 12580.733 1200 10076.548
270 14147.193 1230 10279.580
300 13874.323 1260 9733.178 1663.75
330 13317.464 1290 9544.839
360 12657.258 1320 9423.3
390 12736.467 1350 9389.742
420 12773.258 1380 9550.581
450 12267.2 1410 9688.966
480 11836.5 1440 9458.452
510 12250.516 1470 9285.633
540 12038.933 1500 9111.167
570 10934.935 1560 8700.742
600 10815.8 1590 8573.148 1569
630 11196.548 1620 8147.767
660 10794.645 1650 8063.193
690 10499.0 1680 8262.1
720 10513.645 1710 8069.097
750 9867.133 1880 1740 8073.806
780 10665.096 1770 8202.214
810 12686.1 1800 8060.129
840 12639.709 1830 7873.7
870 12529.870 1860 7979.613
900 12300.1 1890 8035.333
930 12339.097 1920 7898.516





82

1950 7551.258065 2460 5508.742
1980 7509.655172 1492 2490 5575
2010 7321.322581 2520 5672.839
2040 7206.733333 2550 5634.4
2070 7055.903226 2580 5472.548
2100 7036.16129 2610 5275.6
2130 7113.928571 2640 5222.580
2160 7058.064516 2670 5073.742
2190 6821.466667 2700 4975.867
2220 6480.16129 2730 5953.963 1326
2250 6382.206897 1355 2760 5169.0
2280 6570.419355 2790 4805.581
2310 6478.387097 2820 4523.387
2340 5897.2 2850 4208.345
2370 5593.677419 2880 4043.032
2400 5925.5 2910 3523.633
2430 5662.903226 2940 3302.588


4.2.1.1 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 4.2.1.1
and Figure 4.2.1.2.


83



Figure 4.2.1.1. Case #1: production history match




0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time [days]
Observed rate Predicted rate


84



Figure 4.2.1.2. Case #1: reservoir pressure history match.

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure Predicted reservoir pressure


85
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 of those
parameters are shown in Table 4.2.1.3.

Table 4.2.1.3
History Match for case #1
Calculated value Calculated
value
Initial
value
Comment
Permeability [md] 32.974 24 From well test
Skin 4.148 6.4 From well test
Radius of drainage [ft] 4532.738 1000 Estimated

The parameter INFO equals 2 when the program terminates.
The skin exhibits a good agreement between the observed value and the calculated value.
The permeability and radius of drainage calculated from the program are higher than the
corresponding observed values. This is 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.


86
The change in rate observed at time 750 days is simply due to a well head pressure
perturbation that was very limited in time.

Note
Figure 4.2.1.A and Figure 4.2.1.B represent the history match results obtained when the
objective function used is simply the sum of squares of differences between the observed
rates and the predicted rates and differences between the observed reservoir pressure and
predicted reservoir pressure.
As can be seen, the rate history match is very good. However the reservoir history match is
not very good. This is due to the fact that this objective function assigns the same weight to
each rate and reservoir pressure data point. As the number of rate data points is greater than
the number of reservoir pressure data points, the rate history match is better than the
reservoir pressure history match.


87


Figure 4.2.1.A Case #1: production history match



0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time [days]
Observed rate Predicted rate


88


Figure 4.2.1.B. Case #1: reservoir pressure history match.




4.2.1.2 Future Performance Predictions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time [days]
Predicted reservoir pressure Observed reservoir pressure


89

4.2.1.2.1 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 4.2.1.3 and Figure 4.2.1.4.
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 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.



90


Figure 4.2.1.3. Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure.

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time [days]
Observed rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia] Predicted rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia]]
Well head pressure= 870 psia Well head pressure = 700 psia
Well head pressure = 500 psia Well head pressure = 300 psia
Well head pressure= 100 psia


91


Figure 4.2.1.4 Case #1: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head
pressure


0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure [ well head pressure = 870 psia]
Predicted reservoir pressure [well head pressure = 870 psia]
Well head pressure = 870 psia
Well head pressure = 700 psia
Well head pressure = 500 psia
Well head pressure = 300 psia
Well head pressure = 100 psia


92

4.2.1.2.2 Future Performance Prediction Using Different Skin Values.
In order to simulate the effect of a stimulation job (acidizing, fracturation, ..) on the
performance of the well, the program was run with different skin factors. The skin values of
4.101, 0.0 and -5 were used in the forecast computations. The results of this sensitivity
analysis are shown in Figure 4.2.1.5 and Figure 4.2.1.6.
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 4.101.
This is due to the fact that the removal of the skin does not increase the reserves, but
accelerates the gas recovery.



93



Figure 4.2.1.5. Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin factor

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time [days]
Observed rate Predicted rate [S=4.148] Skin=4.148 Skin=0.0 Skin=-5


94



Figure 4.2.1.6. Case #1: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to skin.


0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure Predicted reservoir pressure [S=4.148]
Skin=4.148 Skin=0.0
Skin= -5


95

4.2.1.2.3 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 4.2.1.7 and Figure 4.2.1.8.
As it 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 skin (acidizing / fracturation) or by reducing the well head pressure (by
installing a compressor for example).



96



Figure 4.2.1.7. Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to perforation density.

0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time [days]
Observed rate [SPF=4] Predicted rate [SPF=4] SPF=4 SPF=8 SPF=12


97



Figure 4.2.1.8. Case #1: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to perforation
density

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time [days]
Observed pressure [SPF=4] Predicted pressure [SPF=4] SPF=4 SPF=8 SPF=12


98
4.2.2 Case #2: Conversion of the Original Data from Constant Flow Rate to Constant
Well Head Pressure.

Case #2 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 5010.98 psia. The PVT analysis estimates the dew point pressure at 5025 psia.
The decline curve analysis indicates that the well produces with exponential decline. The
characteristics of the reservoir as well as the description of the completion are summarized
in Table 4.2.2.1.
Table 4.2.2.1
System description data for case #2
Type of decline = exponential
Pressure decrement [psia] = 50
Optimization tolerance = 0.000001

Reservoir
Initial pressure [psia] = 5010.98
Reservoir temperature [F] = 212.0
Pay [ft] = 64.454
Skin = 116.441
Drainage radius [ft] = 9107.845
Permeability [md] = 11.053
Porosity [fraction] = 0.060
Water saturation [fraction] = 0.533

Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas [fraction] = 0.646
Oil density [API] = 51.080
Specific gravity of produced water [fraction] = 1.0
Solution gas/oil ratio correlation: Lasater
Oil formation volume factor: Standing


99
Oil viscosity correlation: Robinson Dranchuck and Purvis.
Z-factor correlation: Hall and Yarborough

Completion
Hole diameter [in] = 8.496
Casing diameter [in] = 5.0
Perforated interval [ft] = 17.0
Perforation diameter [in] = 0 .73
Perforation tunnel length [in] = 12.33
Perforation density [SPF] = 4
Mode of perforation = overbalance
Tubing inside diameter [in] = 1.945
Tubing roughness [ft] = 0.00015
Tubing length [ft] = 8688.0
Well inclination angle [degree] = 90.0
Pressure loss correlation: Gray

Production
Oil/Gas ratio [SBBLO/MMscf] = 145.0
Water/Gas ratio [SBBLW/MMscf] = 0.0
Well head pressure [psia] = 2250.0
Well head temperature[F] = 111.0
Reference separator pressure , [psia] = 14.7
Reference separator temperature, [deg F] = 60.0

Limits of regression parameters
PERMIN [md] = 1.0 PERMAX [md] = 100.0
SMIN = -5.0 SMAX = 175.0
REMIN [ft] = 2500.0 REMAX [ft] = 10000.0





100

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 conversion
equation used is the following:


[ ]
[ ]
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
WF R
WF R
P P
P P
Q
Q

. (4.2.2.1)

Q
1
is the actual constant flow rate corresponding to the flowing bottom hole pressure P
wf1
.
Since Q
1
and P
wf1
are known, the flow rate Q
2
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.
The production data before and after conversion are shown in Table 4.2.2.2, Table 4.2.2.3,
Figure 4.2.2.1 and Figure 4.2.2.2.











101
Table 4.2.2.2

Original field production data for case #2.

Time Rate Reservoir Time Rate Reservoir
pressure pressure
[days] [mscf/D] [psia] [days] [mscf/D] [psia]

0 1000 5010.980 973 2000 4817.397
31 1000 5004.158 1003 2000 4812.156
61 1000 4997.165 1034 2000 4807.139
92 1000 4990.452 1064 2000 4802.011
122 2000 4983.572 1095 2000 4796.940
153 2000 4976.750 1126 1000 4792.089
184 2000 4970.637 1156 2000 4787.133
212 1000 4963.925 1187 2000 4782.391
243 1000 4957.484 1217 2000 4777.548
273 2000 4950.885 1248 1000 4772.762
304 2000 4944.554 1279 2000 4768.489
334 2000 4938.068 1307 2000 4763.814
365 2000 4931.640 1338 2000 4759.344
396 2000 4925.475 1368 2000 4754.781
426 2000 4919.160 1399 2000 4750.421
457 2000 4913.105 1429 2000 4745.972
518 1000 4900.760 1460 2000 4741.581
549 2000 4895.261 1491 2000 4737.388
577 2000 4889.228 1521 2000 4733.246
608 2000 4883.444 1551 2000 4729.159
638 2000 4877.524 1581 1000 4725.127
669 2000 4871.849 1611 2000 4721.017
699 2000 4866.043 1642 2000 4717.094
730 2000 4860.294 1672 2000 4713.097
761 2000 4854.785 1703 2000 4709.158
791 2000 4849.149 1734 2000 4705.525
822 2000 4843.751 1763 2000 4701.697
852 2000 4838.229 1794 2000 4698.048
883 2000 4832.765 1824 2000 4694.334
914 1000 4827.879
942 2000 4822.524


For the conversion computation, the bottom hole flowing pressure has been fixed to 3200
psia.


102

Table 4.2.2.3
Converted production data for case #2.

Time Rate Reservoir Time Rate Reservoir
Pressure pressure
[days] [Mscf/D] [psia] [days] [Mscf/D] [psia]

0 1986.358 5010.98 973 1830.879
31 1980.588 1003 1826.169
61 1974.662 1034 1821.655
92 1968.962 1064 1817.036
122 1976.169 1095 1812.463
153 1970.287 1126 1797.912
184 1965.088 1156 1803.601
212 1946.560 1187 1798.710
243 1941.056 1217 1794.287
273 1947.993 1248 1779.319 4772.76
304 1942.497 1279 1786.016
334 1936.857 1307 1781.735
365 1931.354 1338 1777.639
396 1925.976 1368 1773.455
426 1919.835 1399 1769.782
457 1914.602 1429 1765.722
518 1891.111 1460 1761.709
549 1899.131 1491 1757.872
577 1893.881 1521 1754.080
608 1888.841 4883.44 1551 1750.335
638 1883.673 1581 1736.368 4725.13
669 1878.711 1611 1742.858
699 1873.626 1642 1739.327
730 1868.582 1672 1735.530
761 1863.754 1703 1731.907
791 1858.791 1734 1728.546
822 1854.030 1763 1724.934
852 1849.153 1794 1721.685
883 1844.655 1824 1718.249 4694.33
914 1829.030
942 1835.480




103


Figure 4.2.2.1. Case #2: Original field data.



0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time [days]
Original field data


104


Figure 4.2.2.2. Case #2: converted rate
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time [days]
Observed rate


105
4.2.2.1 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 4.2.2.3 and Figure 4.2.2.4.
An excellent production history match is obtained. The reservoir pressure history match is
also very good.
The calculated values of the regressed parameters as well as the observed values of those
parameters are shown in Table 4.2.2.4.

Table 4.2.2.4
History Match for Case #2
Calculated value Calculated
value
Initial
value
Comment
Permeability [md] 12.888 10.8 From well test
Skin 147.0 101 From well test
Radius of drainage [ft] 9204.837 2500.0 Estimated


The parameter INFO equals 2 when the program terminates.


106
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 volumetric.


107



Figure 4.2.2.3. Case #2: production history match.

1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [days]
Observed rate predicted rate


108


Figure 4.2.2.4. Case #2: reservoir pressure history match


4650
4700
4750
4800
4850
4900
4950
5000
5050
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure Predicted reservoir pressure


109
4.2.2.2 Future Performance Predictions

4.2.2.2.1 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 2250 psia, 1500 psia, 1000 psia, 500 psia, and 100 psia have
been used in the forecast computations. The well has been producing at a well head pressure
of 2250 psia. The results of these simulations are shown in Figure 4.2.2.5 and Figure
4.2.2.6.
As it 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 1500 psia to 1000 psia is about 350 Mscf/D, whereas the increase in the well
performance is only 200 Mscf/D when the well head pressure is reduced from 1000 psia to
500 psia. The gain in gas rate is almost negligible (about 50 Mscf/D) when the well head
pressure is decreased further from 500 psia 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.



110


Figure 4.2.2.5. Case # 2: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time [days]
Observed data [well head pressure=2250 psia] History match [well head pressure=2250 psia]
well head pressure=2250 psia well head pressure=1500 psia
well head pressure=1000 psia well head pressure=500 psia
well head pressure=100 psia


111



Figure 4.2.2.6. Case # 2: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head
pressure.

4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time [days]
Observed data [well head pressure = 2250 psia] History match [well head pressure =2250 psia ]
Well head pressure = 2250 Well head pressure = 1500 psia
Well head pressure = 1000 psia Well head pressure=500 psia
Well head pressure=100 psia


112

4.2.2.2.2 Future Performance Prediction for Different Skin Values
In order to simulate the effect of a stimulation job (acidizing, fracturing,...) on the
performance of the well, the program has been run with different skin factors. The skin
values of 116.441, 50 and 0.0 has been used in the forecast computations. The results of this
sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure 4.2.2.7 and Figure 4.2.2.8.
The improvement of the well performance as the skin factor is reduced is clearly seen. 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 116.4. This is due to
the fact that the removal of the skin does not increase the reserves, but accelerates the gas
recovery.



113


Figure 4.2.2.7. Case #2: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin factor.

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time [days]
Observed rate History match [S=116.44] Skin=116.4 Skin=50.0 Skin=0.0


114


Figure 4.2.2.8. Case #2: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to skin.



4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time [days]
Observed bottom hole reservoir pressure History match [S=116.44]
Skin=116.4 Skin=50.0
Skin=0.0


115

4.2.2.2.3 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 4.2.2.9 and
Figure 4.2.2.10.
As it can be seen, the well performance increases as the perforated interval increases.



116


Figure 4.2.2.9. Case #2: Sensitivity of rate with respect to perforated interval.

500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time [days]
Observed rate [Perforated interval= 17 ft] History match [Perforated interval= 17 ft]
Perforated interval= 17 ft Perforated interval= 64 ft


117


Figure 4.2.2.10. Case #2: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to perforated
interval.

4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time [days]
Observed pressure History match [perforated interval=17ft]
Perforated interval = 17 ft perforated interval = 64 ft


118
4.2.3 Case #3: Conversion of the Original Data from Constant Flow Rate to Constant
Well Head Pressure

Case #3 represents a condensate gas production system. The well, open to production since
1989, exhibits a very high condensate yield of 150 BBL/MMscf. The initial reservoir
pressure is 5164.3 psia. The PVT analysis estimates the dew point pressure at 5040 psia.
The decline curve analysis indicates that the well produces with exponential decline. The
characteristics of the reservoir as well as the description of the completion are summarized
in Table 4.2.3.1.

Table 4.2.3.1
System description data for case #3.
Type of decline = exponential
Pressure decrement [psia] = 50
Optimization tolerance = 0.000001

Reservoir
Initial pressure [psia] = 5164.7
Reservoir temperature [F] = 216.0
Pay [ft] = 174.48
Skin = 0.922
Drainage radius [ft] = 4936.265
Permeability [md] = 6.484
Porosity [fraction] = 0.086
Water saturation [fraction] = 0.288

Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas = 0.66
Oil density [API] = 52.26
Specific gravity of produced water = 1.0


119
Solution gas/oil ratio correlation: Lasater
Oil formation volume factor: Standing
Oil viscosity correlation: Robinson Dranchuck and Purvis
Z-factor correlation: Hall and Yarborough


Completion
Hole diameter [in] = 6.0
CSG diameter [in] = 5.0
Perforated interval [ft] = 44.0
Perforation diameter [in] = 0.73
Perforation tunnel length [in] = 12.33
Perforation density [SPF] = 4
Mode of perforation = overbalance
TBG inside diameter [in] = 1.945
TBG roughness [ft] = 0.00015
Tubing length [ft] = 8826
Well inclination angle [degree] = 90.0
Pressure loss correlation Gray

Production
Oil/Gas ratio [SBBLO/MMscf] = 143.0
Water/Gas ratio [SBBLW/MMscf] = 0.0
Well head pressure [psia] = 3200.0
Well head temperature [F] = 111.0
Reference separator pressure , [psia] = 14.7
Reference separator temperature , [deg F] = 60.0

Limits for regression variables
PERMIN [md] = 0.0 PERMAX [md] = 7.0
SMIN = -1.0 SMAX = 7.0
REMIN [ft] = 2500.0 REMAX [ft] = 7000.0



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 #3 does not satisfy this requirement as it is producing with constant rate
but not with constant well head pressure. For this well, the data have been converted from


120
constant rate to equivalent constant well head pressure. Again, the conversion equation used
is the following:

[ ]
[ ]
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
WF R
WF R
P P
P P
Q
Q

. (4.2.3.1)
Q
1
is the actual constant flow rate corresponding to the bottom hole pressure P
wf1
. Since Q
1

and P
wf1
are known, the flow rate Q
2
can be computed by assuming a fixed value of the
corresponding bottom hole pressure P
wf2
.
The production data before and after conversion are shown in Table 4.2.3.2, Table 4.2.3.3,
Figure 4.2.3.1 and Figure 4.2.3.2.

Table 4.2.3.2
Original field production data for case #3

Time Rate Reservoir Time Rate Reservoir
Pressure pressure
[days] [mscf/D] [psia] [days] [mscf/D] [psia]

0 1000 5168.100 1064 2000 4941.702
30 1000 5160.786 1095 2000 4936.124
61 1000 5153.285 1125 2000 4930.781
91 5000 5146.081 1156 2000 4925.317
122 6000 5138.693 1186 2000 4920.084
1 53 5000 5131.363 1217 3000 4914.732
183 4000 5124.325 1248 3000 4909.440
214 5000 5117.108 1278 3000 4904.371
244 6000 5110.179 1309 3000 4899.192
275 5000 5103.076 1339 3000 4894.234
306 3000 5096.031 1370 3000 4889.168
334 2000 5089.717 1401 2000 4884.159
365 3000 5082.781 1429 2000 4879.685
426 2000 5069.302 1460 2000 4874.786
456 2000 5062.755 1490 2000 4870.1


121
487 1000 5056.046 1521 1000 4865.314
518 1000 5049.395 1551 3000 4860.738
548 2000 5043.013 1582 2000 4856.066
579 1000 5036.476 1613 2000 4851.452
609 1000 5030.204 1643 2000 4847.041
640 1000 5023.78 1674 2000 4842.540
671 2000 5017.414 1704 3000 4838.240
699 2000 5011.713 1735 2000 4833.852
730 2000 5005.456 1766 2000 4829.522
760 3000 4999.456 1794 2000 4825.661
791 2000 4993.313 1825 1000 4821.441
821 1000 4987.423 1855 2000 4817.412
852 3000 4981.393 1886 2000 4813.306
883 3000 4975.421 1916 2000 4809.386
913 3000 4969.696 1947 2000 4805.393
944 3000 4963.837 1978 2000 4801.458
974 2000 4958.222 2008 2000 4797.704
1005 2000 4952.477 2038 2000 4794.004
1036 2000 4946.790 2068 2000 4790.359


For the conversion computation, the bottom hole flowing pressure has been fixed to 4400
psia.

Table 4.2.3.3
Converted production data for case #3.

Time Rate Reservoir Time Rate Reservoir
Pressure pressure
[days] Mscf/D] [psia] [days] Mscf/D] [psia]

0 4954.999 5164.3 1500 3490.987
30 4625.527 1530 3457.712
120 4869.370 1560 3425.802
180 4330.156 1590 3393.117
240 4205.933 1620 3353.956
270 4252.592 1650 3229.772
300 4313.037 1680 3199.266 4830
330 4177.194 1710 3170.008


122
360 4057.840 1740 3140.049
390 4102.713 1770 3111.324
420 4267.720 1800 3081.919
450 4346.216 1830 3142.278
810 4193.768 1860 3115.699
840 4237.993 1890 3086.544
870 4200.233 1920 3058.604
900 4313.851 1950 3129.203
930 4271.649 1920 3058.604
960 4085.903 1950 3129.203
990 4189.687 1980 2915.950
1020 4151.635 4960 2010 2974.621
1050 4109.156 2040 2946.907
1080 3936.359 2070 2920.370
1110 3904.164 2100 2893.242
1140 3868.797 2130 2782.703
1170 3722.768 2160 2840.745
1200 3795.545 2190 2814.517
1260 3878.464 2220 2791.091
1290 3619.289 2250 2861.306
1320 3584.966 2310 2740.927
1350 3552.015 2340 2715.895
1380 3518.240 4890 2370 2691.969 4775
1410 3589.217 2400 2667.556
1440 3555.106 2430 2643.458
1470 3521.284 2460 2620.441
2490 2597.723
2520 2575.306



123


Figure 4.2.3.1. Case #3: Original field data.



0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time [days]
Original field data


124


Figure 4.2.3.2. Case #3: converted rate.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time [days]
R
a
t
e

[
M
s
c
f
/
D
]
Observed data


125

4.2.3.1 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 4.2.3.3 and Figure 4.2.3.4.
An excellent production history match is obtained. The pressure history match deviates
slightly from the observed pressure data in the end. This is probably due to the fact that the
computer program uses volumetric drive mechanism and it has been reported that the
reservoir drive mechanism for case #3 is not volumetric.
The calculated values of the regressed parameters as well as the observed values of those
parameters are shown in Table 4.2.3.4. The parameter INFO equals 2 when the program
terminates.
Table 4.2.3.4.
History Match for case #3
Calculated value Calculated value Initial value Comment
Permeability [md] 6.992 5.2 From well test
Skin 5.855 6.5 From well test
Radius of drainage [ft] 5186.181 3000.0 Estimated



126


Figure 4.2.3.3. Case #3: Production history match
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure Predicted reservoir pressure


127


Figure 4.2.3.4. Case #3: reservoir pressure history match.


0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time [days]
Observed data [perforated interval = 44 ft] Predicted reservoir pressure


128
The regressed value of the permeability agrees with the value obtained from well test. Also,
the skin agrees with the value obtained from well test.

4.2.3.2 Future Performance Predictions

4.2.3.2.1 Future Performance Prediction Using Different Well Head Pressure Values
Different runs of the program have been 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 3200 psia, 2000 psia, 1000 psia, and 500
psia have been used in the forecast computations. The well has been producing at a well
head pressure of 3200 psia. The results of these simulations are shown in Figure 4.2.3.5 and
Figure 4.2.3.6.
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 3200 psia to 2000 psia is about 4000 Mscf/D whereas the increase in the well
performance is only 2000 Mscf/D when the well head pressure is reduced from 2000 to 500
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.



129


Figure 4.2.3.5. Case # 3: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time [days]
Observed rate [well head pressure= 3200 psia] Predicted rate [well head pressure= 3200 psia
Well head pressure = 2000 psia Well head pressure = 1000 psia
Well head pressure = 500 psia Well head pressure = 3200 psia


130


Figure 4.2.3.6. Case # 3: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head
pressure.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure [well head pressure= 3200 psia]
History match [well head pressure=3200 psia]
Well head pressure = 2000 psia
Well head pressure = 1000 psia
Well head pressure= 500 psia
Well head pressure = 3200 psia


131
4.2.3.2.2 Future Performance Prediction for Different Perforation Density Values
In order to simulate the effect of the perforation density on the performance of the well, the
program has been run with different perforation density values. The perforation density
values of 4 spf, 8 spf and 12 spf have been used in the forecast computations. The results
of this sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure 4.2.3.7 and Figure 4.2.3.8.
The improvement of the well performance as the density of perforation is increased is
clearly seen. The forecast performance declines faster as the density of perforation is higher.
For example the decline rate corresponding to the density of perforation 12 spf is greater
than the one corresponding to the density of perforation 4 spf. This is due to the fact that the
increase of the perforation density does not increase the reserves, but accelerates the
recovery.
Note that the production of the well stops at time 4290 days when the perforation density is
12 spf. This is due to liquid loading.



132


Figure 4.2.3.7. Case #3: sensitivity of rate with respect to density of perforation.

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time [days]
Observed rate [perforation density=4 spf] Predicted rate [perforation density=4 spf]
Perforation density = 4 spf Perforation density = 8 spf
Perforation density =12 spf


133


Figure 4.2.3.8. Case #3: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with density of perforation.



0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time [days]
Observed pressure History match [perforation density = 4 spf]
Perforation density = 4 spf Perforation density = 8 spf
Perforation density = 12 spf


134
4.2.3.2.3 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 44 ft and 106 ft are used in the forecast computations. The actual perforated
interval of the well is 44 ft. The results of the simulations are summarized in Figure 4.2.3.9
and Figure 4.2.3.10.
As it can be seen, the well performance increases as the perforated interval increases.
However, the well production stops at time 4290 days due to liquid loading when the
perforated interval is extended to 106 ft.



135



Figure 4.2.3.9. Case #3: Sensitivity of rate with respect to perforated interval.


0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time [days]
Observed data [perforated interval = 44 ft] History match [perforated interval= 44 ft]
Perforated interval = 44 ft Perforated interval = 106 ft


136



Figure 4.2.3.10. Case #3: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to perforated
interval.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time [days]
Observed data [perforated interval = 44 ft] History match [perforated interval = 44 ft]
Perforated interval= 44 ft Perforated interval = 106 ft


137
4.2.4 Case #4: Use of the Last Two Years of Production Only

Case #4 provides one of the most difficult cases used to validate the computer program.
This well is open to production since 1989. The initial reservoir pressure is 5149 psia. An
exponential decline behavior is assumed.
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 #4 does not satisfy this requirement as it is not produced with constant
well head pressure throughout his past production life. For this well, only the data
corresponding to the last two years of production are considered in the history match.
During this period of time the well head pressure is reasonably constant. The reservoir
pressure at the beginning of this period of time is 576 psia. The characteristics of the
reservoir as well as the completion are summarized in Table 4.2.4.1

Table 4.2.4.1
System description data for case #4.
Type of decline = exponential
Pressure decrement = 25.0
Optimization tolerance [FTOL] = 0.000001

Reservoir
Initial pressure [psia] = 576.0
Initial temperature [F] = 177.0
Pay [ft] = 32.0
Drainage radius [ft] = 3015.0
Permeability [md] = 69.9
Porosity [fraction] = 0.16


138
Water saturation [fraction ] = 0.15

Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas = 0.65
Oil density [API] = 52.6
Specific gravity of produced water = 1.0
Solution gas/oil ratio correlation: Lasater
Oil formation volume factor: Standing
Oil viscosity correlation: Robinson Dranchuck and Purvis.
Z-factor correlation: Hall and Yarborough

Completion
Hole diameter [in.] = 5.0
Casing diameter [in.] = 2.992
Perforated interval [ft] = 25.0
Perforation diameter [in.] = 0.73
Perforation tunnel length [in.] = 12.33
Perforation density [SPF] = 4
Mode of perforation = Overbalance
TBG inside diameter [in.] = 2.992
TBG roughness [ft] = 0.00015
Length of tubing [ft] = 8187.0
Pressure drop correlation = Beggs & Brill

Production
Oil/Gas ratio [SBBLO/MMscf] = 3.555
Water/Gas ratio [SBBLW/MMscf] = 0.526
Well head pressure [psia] = 90.0
Well head temperature [F] = 77.0
Reference separator pressure , [psia] = 14.7
Reference separator temperature , [deg F] = 60.0

Limits for regression parameters
PERMIN = 60.0 PERMAX = 80.0
SMIN = 4.0 SMAX = 50.0
REMIN = 1000.0 REMAX = 3000.0


The historical performance of the well as well as the observed reservoir pressure are
summarized in Table 4.2.4.2



139
Table 4.2.4.2
Production data for case #4.
Time Rate Reservoir pressure
[days] [Mscf/D] [psia]
0 1073.714 576
31 1071.461
60 1104.928
91 1035.828
121 928.006
152 899.623 517
182 1004.964
213 1086.213
244 1060.120
274 995.614
305 1015.550
335 948.457
366 1027.111 446
397 932.107
425 968.0
456 954.286
485 866.233


4.2.4.1 History Match
The computer program was run with the regression parameters selected to be radius of
drainage, skin and permeability.
The results are shown in Figure 4.2.4.1. and Figure 4.2.4.2.
A satisfactory production history match is obtained. The predicted pressure deviates from
the observed data in the end. The predicted reservoir pressure remains higher than the
observed values. The difference in the drive mechanism between the model which assumes


140
natural depletion drive and the actual drive mechanism of the reservoir may be the cause of
that deviation in reservoir pressure. Also, this case is difficult because the observed rate
decline is small during the period of time considered for the history match.



141


Figure 4.2.4.1. Case #4: Production history match.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time [days]
Observed rate History match


142

Figure 4.2.4.2. Case #4: reservoir pressure history match.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time [days]
Oberved reservoir pressure Predicted reservoir pressure


143

The regressed parameters values obtained are presented in Table 4.2.4.3.
The parameter INFO equals 2 when the program terminates.
Table 4.2.4.3
History Match for Case #4
Calculated value Calculated
value
initial
value
Comment
Permeability [md] 67.498 69.9 From well test
Skin 29.534 5.34 From well test
Radius of drainage [ft] 2475.269 3015.0 Estimated








144
The permeability value exhibits a good agreement between the observed data and the
predicted value. The calculated skin value is higher than the observed value.

4.2.4.2 Future Performance Predictions

4.2.4.2.1 Reduction of Well Head Pressure
The well head pressure has been decreased from 90 psia to 50 psia and 15 psia in order to
simulate the possibility to avoid the liquid loading which occurs after 515 days when the
well head pressure remains 90 psia.
The results are shown on Figure 4.2.4.3 and Figure 4.2.4.4.
As it can be seen on Figure 4.2.4.3, the well produces at a flow rate of 875 Mscf/D when the
well head is reduced to 50 psia; the rate is 890 Mscf/D when the well head pressure is
reduced to 15 psia. The production stops for liquid loading after 515 days if the well head
pressure remains at 90 psia.
This kind of sensitivity analysis may be important when trying to optimize a gas well
production where a risk of loading exists.


145



Figure 4.2.4.3. Case #4: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure.




0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time [days]
Observed rate [ Well head pressure = 90 psia ] Predicted rate [ well head pressure = 90 psia ]
Well head pressure = 90 psia Well head pressure = 50 psia
Well head pressure = 15 psia


146

Figure 4.2.4.4. Case #4: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head
pressure
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time [days]
Oberved reservoir pressure [well head pressure = 90 psia]
Predicted reservoir pressure [ well head pressure = 90 psia]
Well head pressure = 90 psia
Well head pressure = 50 psia
Well head pressure = 15 psia


147

4.2.4.2.2 Reduction of Tubing Size
The inside tubing diameter has been reduced from 2.992 in. to 1.995 in. and 1.049 in. in
order to simulate the possibility to avoid the liquid loading which occurs after 515 days
when the well produces through a 2.992 inches inside diameter.
The results are shown on Figure 4.2.4.5 and Figure 4.2.4.6.
As it can be seen on Figure 4.2.4.5, the rate is 665 Mscf/D when the well produces through
a 1.995 in. inside diameter tubing. The rate is 215 Mscf/D when the inside tubing diameter
is1.049 inch. If the tubing inside diameter remains 2.992 inches, the well production stops
for liquid loading after 515 days.
This kind of sensitivity analysis may be important when trying to optimize a gas well
production where a risk of loading exists. This analysis will ultimately be integrated in an
economic evaluation .



148



Figure 4.2.4.5. Case #4: sensitivity of rate with respect to tubing size.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time [days]
Observed rate [ tubing inside diameter= 2.992 in.]
Predicted rate [tubing inside diameter = 2.992 in.
Tubing inside diameter = 2.992 in.
Tubing inside diameter = 1.995 in.
Tubing inside diameter = 1.049 in.


149



Figure 4.2.4.6. Case #4: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to tubing size.


0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time [days]
Obseved reservoir pressure [ tubing inside diameter = 2.992 in]
Predicted reservoir pressure [tubing inside diameter= 2.991 in.]
Tubing inside diameter = 2.992 in.
Tubing inside diameter = 1.995 in.
Tubing inside diameter = 1.049 in.


150

4.2.4.2.3 Choke Installation
In order to avoid the liquid loading which occurs after 515 days of production, a well head
choke is installed. The program is run with different choke inside diameter. The values of
0.5 inch (32/64) and 0.38 inch (24/64) have been used.
The results are shown on Figure 4.2.4.7 and Figure 4.2.4.8.
As it can be seen on Figure 4.2.4.7, the well production stops after 515 days if there is no
well head choke. However if a well head choke of 0.38 (24/64) inch is installed, the well
produces at a rate of about 773 Mscf/D and eventually will stop due to liquid loading at
time of 845 days. If a 0.5 inch (32/64) well head choke is installed, the well will produce at
about 744 Mscf/D without any risk of liquid loading for about 5 years.
This kind of sensitivity analysis may be important when trying to optimize a gas well
production where loading problems exist.



151



Figure 4.2.4.7. Case #4: sensitivity of rate with respect to choke size.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time [days]
Observed rate [ no choke] Predicted rate [ no ckoke]
No choke Choke inside diameter = 0.5 in. (32/64)
Choke inside diameter = 0.38 in. (24/64)


152



Figure 4.2.4.8.Case #4: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to choke size
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time [days]
Observed reservoir pressure [no choke] Predicted reservoir pressure [No choke]
No choke Choke inside diameter= 0.5 in. (32/64)
Choke inside diameter = 0.38 in. (24/64)


153
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS

In this thesis, dynamic nodal analysis technique has been discussed. This 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.


154
The computer program presented in this study 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
definitely provides a logical improvement in conventional nodal analysis.


155

RECOMMENDATIONS

This thesis can be complimented by implementing the following features in the
computer program.
Different drive mechanisms rather than natural depletion can be implemented. Water
drive as well as compaction drive can easily be added to the program.
Horizontal gas wells inflow performance can be added to the computer program in order
to expand its use to gas wells that have this geometry.
The dynamic nodal analysis method can be expanded to oil reservoir producing with a
reservoir pressure above the bubble point. In this condition, the single phase flow in the
reservoir can be easily described.
The program can be expanded to production system where the flow in the reservoir is
two-phase flow. For example a condensate gas reservoir where the reservoir pressure is
well below the dew point or an oil reservoir with a reservoir pressure below the bubble
point pressure. However, these situations are more complex and difficult.
Time increment T can be used instead of pressure decrement P in the Dynamic
Nodal Analysis algorithm. By doing so, the algorithm will be directly used for
production system where the well head pressure varies during the period of time
considered for the history match.
156




NOMENCLATURE

Symbol
A total area open to flow, ft
2

B
g
gas formation volume factor, cf/scf
COV covariance
F
k
functions used in the definition of the objective function
FVEC function vector. Its components are the functions F
k

G gas in place, Mscf
H pay, ft
H
p
perforated interval, ft
INFO convergence criteria under which the program terminates.
K reservoir permeability, md
K
G
gravel pack permeability, md
K
p
permeability of compacted zone, md
L gravel pack linear flow path, ft
L
p
perforation tunnel length, ft
P pressure, psia.
P pressure drop, psia
Q
mod
flow rate predicted from model, Mscf/D
Q
obs
observed flow rate, Mscf/D
157
R
e
drainage radius, ft
R
c
radius of compacted zone, ft
R
p
radius of perforation, ft
R
w
well radius, ft
S
g
gas saturation, fraction
S skin factor, dimensionless
T temperature, R
T
R
reservoir temperature, K
T
sc
temperature at standard conditions, K
T
obs
Observed production Time, days
T elapsed time, days
Z compressibility factor, dimensionless
set of 3 independent regression variables
turbulence factor, ft
-1

specific gravity, dimensionless
viscosity, cp
standard deviation
porosity

c
constrained variable estimate

LMDIF1
unconstrained variable estimate calculated by LMDIF1

max
maximum value of the variable

min
minimum value of the variable
158



Subscript
gp gravel pack
g gas
I inflow
O outflow
max maximum value of variable
min minimum value of variable
perf perforations
r reservoir
REST restriction
SV safety valve
TBG tubing
WF at bottom hole in well flowing conditions
WFS at sand face in well flowing conditions







159
REFERENCES

1. Brown, K.E. et al.: The technology of artificial lift methods. Pennwell Publishing
Company, Tulsa (1984), volume 4
2. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, J. Pet.
Tech. (May 1973), 607-617.
3. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring
During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical Conduits, J. Pet.
Tech. (April 1965), 475-484.
4. Pudjo Sukarno: Inflow Performance Relationship Curves In Two-Phase and Three-
Phase Flow Conditions, PHD Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa (1986)
5. Perez, G.. Overall Performance of Oil and Gas Production Systems, M.S. Thesis, The
University of Tulsa, 1988.
6. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems,
8
th
Printing, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1977, P.121
7. Vasquez, A.: Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction, M.S. Thesis, The
University of Tulsa.


160
8. Thomas, G.W.: Principles of Hydrocarbon Reservoir Simulation, International
Human Resources Development Corporation, Boston.
9. Gray, H.E. Vertical Flow Correlation in Gas Wells, In User Manual for API 14B,
Subsurface Controlled Safety Valve Sizing Computer Program, App. B. (June 1974)
10. Havlena, D. Odeh, A.S. The material Balance as an Equation of a straight line,
Transactions of the AIME (1963)
11. McLeod, Harry O. Jr. The effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance, J.
Pet. Tech. (January 1983)
12. Jones, L.G., Blount, E.M. and Glaze, C.E.: Use of Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Test
to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence, paper SPE 6133 presented at the
1976 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
13. Dukler, A.E.: Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, I. Research Results, AGA-API Project
NX-28 (May 1969).
14. Users Manual for API 14B Subsurface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valves Sizing
Computer Program, API Manual 14BM (June 1974) Sec. B4.
15. Brill, J.P. Beggs, H.D. and Sylvester, N.D.: Orifice Coefficients for Two-Phase Flow
Through Velocity Controlled Subsurface Safety Valves, Final Report on API OSAPR
Project No. 1 (April 1976).
16. Perez, G. and Kelkar, B.G.: A Simplified Method to Predict Over-all Production
Performance, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, January-February, 1990,
Volume 29, No. 1


161
17. Sachdeva, R., Schmidt, Z., Brill, J.P. and Blais, R.N.: Two-Phase Flow Through
Chokes, paper SPE 15657 presented at the 1986 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct, 5-8.
18. Beggs, H.D.: Gas Production Operations, Oil and Gas Consultants International
Publications, Tulsa (1984).
19. Carvalho, R. Thompson, L.G., Redner, R. and Reynolds, A.C.: Simple Procedure for
Imposing Constraints for Nonlinear Least Square Optimization, paper SPE 29582
20. Lasater, J.A.: Bubble Point Pressure Correlation, Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 379-381
21. Vasquez, M. and Beggs, H.D.: Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction,
JPT (June 1980) 968-970.
22. Arthur, J.E., Chhina, H.S. and Temeng. K.O.: Material Balance Modelling and
Performance Prediction of a Composite Gas Reservoir, paper SPE 26194 presented at
the 1993 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta , Canada, June 28-30.
23. Glas, .: Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations, JPT (May, 1980)
785-795
24. Baker, O. and Swerdloff, W.: Finding Surface Tension of Hydrocarbon Liquids, Oil
and Gas J. (Jan. 2 1956) 125.
25. Beggs H.D. and Robinson, J.R.: Estimating the viscosity of Crude Oil Systems, JPT
(Sept. 1975) 1140-1141.


162
26. 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
27. Fetkovich, M.J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves, JPT, June 1980, 1065-
1077.
28. Yarborough, L. and Hall, K.R.: How to Solve Equation of State for Z-Factors, Oil and
Gas J. (Feb. 18 1974) 86-88.
29. Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H. and Eakin, B.E.:The Viscosity of Natural Gases, JPT
(Aug. 1966) 997-1000.
30. Gould, T.L.: Vertical Two-Phase Steam-Water Flow In Geothermal Wells, JPT (Aug.
1974) 833-842.
31. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, Tulsa (Feb. 1984).
32. Frick, T.C. and Taylor, R.W.: Petroleum Production Handbook,McGraham-Hill Book
Company, Inc. (1962), Volume 2
33. Garbow, B.S., Hillstrom, K.E. and More J.J.: LMDIF1, Argonne National Laboratory.
Minpack Project, March 1980.
34. Chierici, G.L.: Principi di Ingegneria dei Giacimenti Petroliferi, AGIP (1990), Volume
2.
35. Carvalho, R.: Nonlinear Regression: Application to Well Test Analysis, PHD
Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa (1993)


163