Gas Well Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis

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
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.
ii
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.
iii
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
2.2
Mathematical Modeling ................................................................................11

2.1.1
History Match ....................................................................................11
2.1.2
Future Performance Prediction..........................................................15
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
iv
CHAPTER III
IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................29
3.1
Computer Program.........................................................................................29
3.2
Models and Correlations ................................................................................30
3.3
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
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
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
4.2.1.2.1
Future Performance Prediction

Using Different Well head
Pressure Values ............................................. 88
4.2.1.2.2

Using Different Skin Values ..................... 91
4.2.1.2.3
Future Performance Prediction for

Different Density of
Perforation .................................................... 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

Pressure Values ........................................... 108
4.2.2.2.2

Using Different Skin Values ................... 111
4.2.2.2.3

Using Different Perforated
Interval Values............................................ 114
vii
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

4.2.3.2.1

Pressure Values ........................................... 127
4.2.3.2.2.
Future Performance Prediction for

Different Perforation Density
Values ........................................................... 130
4.2.3.2.3

Using Different Perforated
Interval Values............................................ 133
4.2.4
CHAPTER V
Case #4: Use of the Last Two Years of Production Only...............136

4.2.4.1
History Match................................................................138
4.2.4.2

4.2.4.2.1
Reduction in Well Head Pressure ................. 143
4.2.4.2.2
Reduction in Tubing Size............................... 146
4.2.4.2.3
Choke Installation............................................ 149
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................152
viii
RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................154
NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................................................155
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................158
ix
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
ix
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
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
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

Respect to
4.1.6
Tolerance ..................................................................................60

with Respect to
Tolerance..........................................................................61
xi
4.1.7

Respect to
4.1.8
Errors in the Rate Data.............................................................63

with Respect to
4.1.9
Synthetic Data #2: Sensitivity of Rate History Match with

Respect to
4.1.10
Errors in the Rate Data.....................................................64
Errors in the Rate Data.............................................................66
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
xii
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

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
xiii
4.2.3.2
Case #3: Converted Rate....................................................................................123
4.2.3.3
4.2.3.4
4.2.3.5
4.2.3.6

Head Pressure ..............................................................................................129
4.2.3.7
Case #3: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Density of

Perforation ....................................................................................................131
4.2.3.8

Density of
4.2.3.9
Perforation ............................................................................132
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
4.2.4.2
4.2.4.3
4.2.4.4

Head Pressure ..............................................................................................145
4.2.4.5
Case #4: Sensitivity of Rate with Respect to Tubing Size ................................147
xiv
4.2.4.6

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
xv
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.
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 al26,27. 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
surface pipeline
separator
Figure 1.1: System Description and Pressure Losses (after Brown et al.)1
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 Tobs1, Tobs2,, Tobs j,, Tobs n, the corresponding observed rate
Qobs1, Qobs2, , Qobsj, , Qobsn is known.
2. Assume that at time Tj the following data are known:
reservoir pressure Pj.
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 Tj is computed as:

Gj =
Vb * * S g
Bgj
(2.1)
where
Bgj =
Z j * TR * Psc
Pj * Tsc
(2.2)
4. Calculate the rate Qj 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 Pj. The new reservoir pressure is then
Pj+1 = Pj- Pj . At this reservoir pressure , calculate the new gas in place Gj+1
G j +1 =
Vb * * S g
Bg j+1
(2.3)
The total amount of gas produced when the reservoir pressure decreases from Pj to Pj+1
is:
G = G j G j +1
(2.4)
6. Calculate the rate Qj+1 at which the well will produce under the present reservoir
pressure Pj+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 Qj and Qj+1 at
reservoir pressures Pj and Pj+1, we can calculate the elapsed time T required to reach
that production.
For exponential decline:

D=
Q j Q j +1
G
T =
Q j Q j +1
G j G j +1
Qj
1
ln
D Q j +1
(2.5)
(2.6)
For harmonic decline:

D=
T =
Qj
G
ln
Qj
(2.7)
Q j +1
1 Q j Q j +1
[
D
Q j +1
(2.8)
For hyperbolic decline:

Q 1b
D=
* 1 j +1
(1 b) * G Q j
Qj
Q j +1
1

T =
* 1 +
Q
b*D
j
(2.9)
(2.10)
The total calculated time when the reservoir pressure is Pj+1 can be calculated as:
T j +1 = T j + T .
(2.11)
14
8. Assume a new reservoir pressure Pj+1 :

Pj+1 = Pj-P where P is the pressure decrement.
Repeat the process from step 4 to step 7 until the total calculated time Tj+k is greater or
equal to the observed production time.
9. At this point, we have the model predicted times
T1, T2, , Tj, Tj+k,
and the corresponding rates:
Q1, Q2, , Qj, , Qj+k,
For each observed time Tobs j, we calculate the corresponding model predicted rate Qj
by interpolating the model predicted rates.
At this point, we check how the calculated flow rate Qj compares with the historical
observed production rate Qobs j at the same time Tobs 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 LMDIF133, 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 LMDIF133 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 F1(), F2(), , Fm () 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 = Fj2 .
The functions Fj 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 Fj is presented
below.
Function F1
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,
F1 ( ) = (Qobs , Qmod ) 1
(Qobs , Qmod ) =
COV (Qobs , Qmod )

Qobs * Qmod
FVEC (1) = F1 ( ) .
(2.12)
(2.13)
(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 F2
This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the plot of Qmod versus Qobs is a
straight line of slope one ( with intercept equal to zero).
FVEC (2) = F2 ( ) = SLOPE 1

SLOPE =
COV (Qobs , Qmod )

2 obs
(2.15)
(2.16)
where COV is the covariance between the observed and model predicted rates. So,
FVEC (2) =
COV (Qobs , Qmod )

1 .
2 obs
(2.17)
Function F3
This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the intercept of the straight line
Qmod versus Qobs is equal to zero.
INTERCEPT = Q mod SLOPE * Q obs = 0
FVEC (3) =
Q mod
Q obs
(2.18)
(2.19)
because ideally the slope is equal to 1: SLOPE=1.

F3 = FVEC (3) .
(2.20)
19
Function F4
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,
F1 ( ) = ( Pr , obs , Pr , mod ) 1
( Pr , obs , Pr , mod ) =
COV ( Pr , obs , Pr , mod )

Pr , * Pr ,
obs
(2.21)
(2.22)
mod
FVEC (4) = F1 ( ) .
(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 F5
This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the plot of Pmod versus Pobs is a
straight line of slope one ( with intercept equal to zero).
FVEC (5) = F5 ( ) = SLOPE 1
(2.24)
20
SLOPE =

2 Pr obs
(2.25)
where COV is the covariance between the observed and model predicted rates. So,
FVEC (5) =

2 Pr obs
1.
(2.26)
Function F6
This function is chosen to represent the fact that ideally the intercept of the straight line
Pmod versus Pobs is equal to zero.
INTERCEPT = Pr , mod SLOPE * Pr , obs = 0
FVEC (6) =
P r , mod
1
P r , obs
(2.27)
(2.28)
because ideally the slope is equal to 1: SLOPE=1.

F6 = FVEC (6) .
(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,
Fj2, 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 algorithm33 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 Kmax and Kmin.
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 extension19 procedure is used.
2.2.1.1 Imaging Extension Method19

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 LMDIF133 to the corresponding physically constrained value of the
parameter c is the following:
For LMDIF1 > max , compute :
N = int LMDIF 1 min

max min
(2.30)
1 .
(2.31)
For LMDIF1 < min , compute :
min
N = int LMDIF 1
max min
After calculating N, c can be obtained as:
For N odd:
23
c = min + max + N ( max min ) LMDIF 1 .
(2.32)
c = LMDIF 1 N ( max min ) .
(2.33)
For N even
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 hole16. 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:
Q
PWF
versus
Qmax
Pr I
(2.34)
where
P r PWFS
PWF
= 1
Pr
Pr I
PWFS PWF

Pr

P P
= 1 r WFS
Pr
Pperf
P
r
Pgp
P (2.35).
r

24
Qmax 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:
PWF
P
r
Q
versus
QMAX
O
(2.36)
where
P P
PWF
= TBG + REST
P r O P r Pr
PSV
+
P
r
PCHOKE
+
P
r

PPIPELINE
+

Pr

(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:
PWF
P
r
PWF
=
P
I r
(2.38)
This equation is solved numerically using the secant method16.

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 Curves16.
27
Pwf

Pr
Inflow curve
Outflow curve
C
0
Unstable rate
Figure 2.2
Example of an Unstable Production Condition (Liquid Loading)
Qmax
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
Start
Select option
-Dynamic nodal analysis
-New well
-Conventional analysis
Dynamic nodal analysis
New well
Conventional nodal analysis
Select option
-Input/Display data
-Modify data
-History match
-Forecast
-Conventional nodal analysis
Select option
-Input/Display data
-Modify data
-Forecast
Select option
-Input/Display data
-Modify data
Results
No
Do you want to save results in
a restart file?
Yes
Enter a restart file name

End
Figure 3.1
Structure of the computer program
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
Glazes12 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.
m( PR ) m( Pwfs ) = a * Q 2 + b * Q
(3.1)
where Q is in MMscf/D. The coefficients a and b are defined as,
a=
3.166 * 10 6 * * g * T
H p * Rw *
2
(3.2)
32
b=
1.424 *106 * T
K *H
Re 3
ln
+ S
Rw 4
(3.3)
where is defined as,

2.33 *1010
=
.
K 1.201
(3.4)
The pseudo-real pressure is defined as follows:

P
m( P ) =
Pbase
2* P
* dP .
g * Z
(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
Table 3.1
Gas reservoir inflow performance relationship used
IPR
Range of
Applicability
Requirements
Darcy's law single phase flow Properties describing the

modified by
reservoir
Jones et al.
Advantages
May be expressed in terms of

pseudo-real pressure. Damage
and high velocity effects are
included.
34
3.2.2 Perforations
The computer program computes the pressure drop across the perforations using Mc-Leods
method11. 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:
m( Pwfs ) m( Pwf ) = a * Q 2 + b * Q
(3.6)
where Q = flow rate/perforation (Mscf/D). The coefficients a and b are defined as,
1
1
3.16 * 10 12 * * * T *
RP RC
a=
Lp 2 *
(3.7)
35
R
1.424 * 10 3 * T * ln C
RP
b=
K P * LP
(3.8)
where
2.33 *1010
=
.
1.201
Kp
(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:
m( Pwfs ) m( Pwf ) = a * Q 2 + b * Q
(3.10)
where Q is in Mscf/D. The coefficients a and b are defined as,
a=
1.247 *10 10 * * g * T * L
A2 *
(3.11)
39
Figure 3.4. Gravel Pack Schematic (after Brown et al)1
40
b=
8.93 * 10 3 * T * L
KG * A
(3.12)
where
1.47 * 10 7
KG
0.55
Figure 3.5 provides the details to calculate the linear flow path L.
(3.13)
41
Figure 3.5: Details of L (after Brown 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 correlations2 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, Brown1 gives
the following suggestions:
Poettman and Carpenter correlation and Beggs and Brill correlation for dry gas and
Grays correlation9 for wet gas.
In the computer program the temperature gradient across the tubing is assumed to be
constant.
43
Table 3.2
Correlations for multiphase flow in pipes
Correlation
Considerations
Recommended ranges
of slip conditions and
flow regime
Vertical flow
Hagedorn and
Brown
Beggs and Brill
Considers slip conditions All pipe sizes, all fluids

and no flow regime
and flow regime
All angles of inclinations
Considers slip conditions Pipe size <=3.5 in.
and no flow regime
Condensate <= 50 BBL/MMscf
Water <=350 BBL/MMscf
Horizontal flow
Gray
Beggs and Brill

Dukler
(with Eaton et al.
holdup correlation)

and flow regime
and no flow regime
Inclined flow
Beggs and Brill

and flow regime
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.
Table 3.3
Correlations for flow across chokes and restrictions
Correlation
Recommended range
Two-phase flow
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
Single phase gas flow
Adiabatique expansion Critical-subcritical flow boundary determined from

equation
a specific heat ration
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.
Table 3.4
Correlations for multiphase subcritical flow
in subsurface safety valves
Correlation
API 14B
Tulsa university
Model No. 2
3.2.7 Well Head Choke
Discharge coefficient limitations

Discharge coefficient calculated by no-slip
weighting average of specified liquid and gas
single phase discharge coefficients
Empirical relations for discharge coefficient,
for Otis J valves (8/64 in. to 32/64 in.)
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
Table 3.5
Correlations for fluid physical properties.
Fluid property
Correlation
Validity considerations
Two-phase flow
Solution Gas-Oil Lasater

ratio
Standing
Vasquez and
Beggs
Formation volume Standing
factor
Vasquez and Beggs
Surface tension
Oil viscosity
Compressibility
Viscosity
Suggested for crude with API>=15

Suggested for crude with API<=15
Two correlations for crudes with API
above and below 30
For black oils below bubble-point
pressure
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
Baker and Swerdoff empirical data interpolation
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
Gas
Yarborough and Hall Fitting to Standing and Katz
reduced pressure - reduced temperature curves
Lee et al.
Empirical correlation. Good for wide ranges
of pressure and temperature
(from 100 to 8000 psia, and from 100 to 340 F)
Water
Formation volume Gould

factor
Viscosity
Beggs and Brill
Correlates value of pure water and gas saturated

water.
Expression to fit temperature effect on viscosity
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 Qobs (T j) / Qmod (T j) is sensibly constant for all time Tj, 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
Pressure decrement [psia]
Optimization tolerance
= exponential
=
50
=
0.000001
Reservoir
Initial pressure [psia]

Initial temperature [F]
Pay [ft]
Skin
Drainage radius [ft]
Permeability [md]
Porosity [fraction]
Water saturation [fraction]
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
5010.98
212
64.454
116.454
9107.852
11.057
0.06
0.533
Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas
Oil density [API]
Specific gravity of produced water
=
=
=
0.646
51.080
1.0
Completion
Hole diameter [in]
Casing diameter [in]
Perforated interval [ft]
Perforation diameter [in]
Perforation tunnel length [in]
Perforation density [SPF]
Mode of perforation
Tubing inside diameter [in]
Tubing roughness [ft]
Tubing length [ft]
Hole inclination angle [degree]
Pressure drop correlation:
=
8.496
=
5
=
17
=
0.36
=
12.33
=
4
= overbalance
=
1.945
=
0.00015
=
8688.0
=
90
Beggs and Brill
Production
Oil/Gas ratio, [SBBLO/MMscf]
Water/Gas ratio, [SBBLW/MMscf]
Well head pressure, [psia]
Well head temperature, [F]
Reference separator pressure, [psia]
Reference separator temperature, [deg F]
=
=
=
=
=
=
145.0
0.0
2250.0
111.0
14.7
60.0
52
PERMIN [md]
SMIN
REMIN [ft]
=
=
=
Limits of regression parameters

0.0
PERMAX [md] =
-5.0
SMAX
=
2500.0
REMAX [ft]
=
100.0
175.0
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
[days] [Mscf/D]
Reservoir
Pressure
[psia]
Time
Rate
[days]
[Mscf/D]
Reservoir
pressure
[psia]
1987.263
5010.98
1064
1819.304
4811.30
31
61
92
122
153
184
212
243
273
304
334
365
396
426
457
518
549
577
608
638
669
699
730
761
791
822
852
883
914
942
973
1003
1034
1982.147
1977.195
1972.079
1967.128
1962.012
1956.895
1952.274
1947.158
1942.254
1937.206
1932.321
1927.273
1922.225
1917.34
1912.292
1902.405
1897.619
1893.296
1888.510
1883.879
1879.093
1874.462
1869.676
1864.890
1860.289
1855.635
1851.131
1846.477
1841.823
1837.620
1832.966
1828.462
1823.808
5004.82
4998.85
4992.69
4986.72
4980.56
4974.40
4968.83
4962.67
4956.86
4950.92
4945.18
4939.24
4933.30
4927.56
4921.62
4909.98
4904.26
4899.10
4893.39
4887.86
4882.14
4876.61
4870.90
4865.19
4859.71
4854.21
4848.89
4843.40
4837.90
4832.93
4827.44
4822.12
4816.62
1095
1126
1156
1187
1297
1248
1279
1307
1338
1368
1399
1429
1460
1491
1551
1581
1611
1642
1672
1703
1734
1763
1794
1824
1814.686
1810.070
1805.603
1800.987
1796.520
1791.904
1787.289
1783.119
1778.504
1774.088
1769.659
1765.373
1760.943
1752.227
1747.941
1743.654
1739.368
1734.938
1730.681
1726.390
1722.098
1718.083
1713.791
1709.638
4806.01
4800.73
4795.62
4790.34
4785.23
4779.95
4774.67
4769.90
4764.62
4759.57
4754.51
4749.61
4744.54
4739.47
4729.67
4724.77
4719.86
4714.80
4709.94
4705.08
4700.23
4695.69
4690.83
4686.13
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
Initial
value
value
Permeability [md]
11.054
10.8
From well test
Skin
116.454
101
From well test
2500.0
Estimated
Radius of drainage [ft] 9107.852
Comment
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
Observed rate
Predicted rate
2050
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
0
500
1000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.1
Synthetic data : production history match
1500
2000
56
Observed reservoir pressure
predicted reservoir pressure
5050
5000
4950
4900
4850
4800
4750
4700
4650
0
500
1000
1500
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.2.
Synthetic data: reservoir pressure history match.
2000
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
Observed rate
Predicted rate [DP=200 psia]

2050
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.3.
Synthetic data: sensitivity of production history match with respect to

pressure decrement.
59
Predicted reservoir pressure [DP=50 psia]

Predicted reservoir pressure {DP=200 psia]

5050
5000
4950
4900
4850
4800
4750
4700
4650
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.4.
Synthetic data: sensitivity of pressure history match with respect to

pressure decrement
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
Observed rate
Predicted rate [Tolerance= 10^-1]
Predicted rate [Tolerance=10^-6]

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

tolerance
62
Observed pressure [psia]

Predicted rate [Tolerance = 10^-1]
Predicted reservoir pressure [Tolerance=10^-6]

Predicted reservoir pressure [Tolerance = 10^-3]
5100
4900
4700
4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.6.
Synthetic data: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to tolerance
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
Observed rate [well head pressure = 2250 psia]

Well head pressure = 2250 psia
Predicted rate [well head pressure = 2250 psia]

Well head pressure=500 psia
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.11.
Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure
9000
75

Well head pressure = 2250 psia]
Predicted rate [well head pressure = 2250]

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.12.
Synthetic data: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head

pressure.
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
Observed rate
History match [skin=134.459]
Skin=134.459
Skin=50.0
Skin=0.0
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.13.
Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin factor.
8000
9000
78
Observed rate
History match [skin=134.459]
Skin=134.459
Skin=50
Skin=0.0
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Time [days]
Figure 4.1.14.
Synthetic data: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to skin.
9000
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
50
0.000001

Reservoir temperature [F]
Pay [ft]
Skin
Permeability [md]
Porosity [fraction]
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2083
110
51.589
4.101
4141.645
26.858
0.19
0.15
Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas [fraction]
Oil density [API]
Specific gravity of produced water [fraction]
=
=
=
0.7
52.0
1.0
Reservoir
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]
Mode of perforation
Well inclination [degree]
Tubing length [ft]
Pressure drop correlation:
=
12.240
=
9.625
=
80.0
=
0.720
=
12.33
=
4
= overbalance
=
2.992
=
0.00015
=
90.0
=
7682.0
Beggs and Brill
Production
Oil/Gas ratio [SBBLO/MMscf]
Water/Gas ratio [SBBLW/MMscf]
Well head pressure [psia]
Well head temperature [F]
Reference separator pressure, [psia]
=
=
=
=
=
=
PERMIN [md]
SMIN
REMIN [ft]
Limit of regression parameters

= 20.0
PERMAX [md]
=
4.0
SMAX
= 500.0
REMAX [ft]
0.0
0.0
870.0
70.0
14.7
60.0
=
=
=
45.0
10.0
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
Pressure
[days]
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
570
600
630
660
690
720
750
780
810
840
870
900
930
[Mscf/D]
8520.0
12977.235
12243.839
10463.684
12625.0
12812.0
14953.5
14521.097
12580.733
14147.193
13874.323
13317.464
12657.258
12736.467
12773.258
12267.2
11836.5
12250.516
12038.933
10934.935
10815.8
11196.548
10794.645
10499.0
10513.645
9867.133
10665.096
12686.1
12639.709
12529.870
12300.1
12339.097
pressure
[psia]
[days]
[Mscf/D]
2108
960
990
1020
1050
1080
1110
1140
1170
1200
1230
1260
1290
1320
1350
1380
1410
1440
1470
1500
1560
1590
1620
1650
1680
1710
1740
1770
1800
1830
1860
1890
1920
12107.5
12030.484
11663.323
11203.964
10776.935
10335.3
10276.645
10089.167
10076.548
10279.580
9733.178
9544.839
9423.3
9389.742
9550.581
9688.966
9458.452
9285.633
9111.167
8700.742
8573.148
8147.767
8063.193
8262.1
8069.097
8073.806
8202.214
8060.129
7873.7
7979.613
8035.333
7898.516
1880
Reservoir
[psia]
1663.75
1569
82
1950
1980
2010
2040
2070
2100
2130
2160
2190
2220
2250
2280
2310
2340
2370
2400
2430
7551.258065
7509.655172
7321.322581
7206.733333
7055.903226
7036.16129
7113.928571
7058.064516
6821.466667
6480.16129
6382.206897
6570.419355
6478.387097
5897.2
5593.677419
5925.5
5662.903226
1492
1355
2460
2490
2520
2550
2580
2610
2640
2670
2700
2730
2760
2790
2820
2850
2880
2910
2940
5508.742
5575
5672.839
5634.4
5472.548
5275.6
5222.580
5073.742
4975.867
5953.963
5169.0
4805.581
4523.387
4208.345
4043.032
3523.633
3302.588
1326
4.2.1.1 History Match

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
Observed rate
Predicted rate
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.1.
Case #1: production history match
2500
3000
3500
84
Predicted reservoir pressure
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
Figure 4.2.1.2.
1000
1500
2000
Time [days]
2500
Case #1: reservoir pressure history match.
3000
3500
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
Initial
Comment
value
value
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 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
Observed rate
Predicted rate
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.A
Case #1: production history match
2500
3000
3500
88
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.B.
4.2.1.2 Future Performance Predictions
2500
3000
3500
89
4.2.1.2.1 Future Performance Prediction Using Different Well Head Pressure Values.
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
Observed rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia]

Well head pressure= 870 psia
Predicted rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia]]


16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.3.
Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure.
7000
91
Observed reservoir pressure [ well head pressure = 870 psia]

Predicted reservoir pressure [well head pressure = 870 psia]
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.4
Case #1: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head

pressure
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
Observed rate
Predicted rate [S=4.148]
Skin=4.148
Skin=0.0
Skin=-5
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.5.
Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin factor
6000
94

Skin=4.148
Predicted reservoir pressure [S=4.148]

Skin=0.0
Skin= -5
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.6.
Case #1: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to skin.
6000
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
Observed rate [SPF=4]
Predicted rate [SPF=4]
SPF=4
SPF=8
SPF=12
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.7.
Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to perforation density.
7000
97
Observed pressure [SPF=4]
Predicted pressure [SPF=4]
SPF=4
SPF=8
SPF=12
6000
7000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.1.8.
Case #1: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to perforation

density
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
50
0.000001
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
5010.98
212.0
64.454
116.441
9107.845
11.053
0.060
0.533
=
=
=
0.646
51.080
1.0
Lasater
Standing
Reservoir
Pay [ft]
Skin
Permeability [md]
Porosity [fraction]
Fluid properties
Specific gravity of produced gas [fraction]
Oil density [API]
Specific gravity of produced water [fraction]
99

Hall and Yarborough
Completion
Hole diameter [in]

Mode of perforation
Tubing length [ft]
Well inclination angle [degree]
Pressure loss correlation:
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
8.496
5.0
17.0
0 .73
12.33
4
overbalance
1.945
0.00015
8688.0
90.0
Gray
=
=
=
=
=
=
145.0
0.0
2250.0
111.0
14.7
60.0
Limits of regression parameters

=
1.0
PERMAX [md] =
=
-5.0
SMAX
=
=
2500.0
REMAX [ft]
=
100.0
175.0
10000.0
Production
Well head temperature[F]
Reference separator pressure , [psia]
PERMIN [md]
SMIN
REMIN [ft]
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:
Q1
[P
=
[P
Q2
]
]
PWF 1
.
2
2
R PWF 2
2
(4.2.2.1)
Q1 is the actual constant flow rate corresponding to the flowing bottom hole pressure Pwf1.
Since Q1 and Pwf1 are known, the flow rate Q2 can be computed by assuming a fixed value
of the corresponding bottom hole pressure Pwf2.
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
[days]
0
31
61
92
122
153
184
212
243
273
304
334
365
396
426
457
518
549
577
608
638
669
699
730
761
791
822
852
883
914
942
Rate
[mscf/D]
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1000
2000
Reservoir
pressure
[psia]
5010.980
5004.158
4997.165
4990.452
4983.572
4976.750
4970.637
4963.925
4957.484
4950.885
4944.554
4938.068
4931.640
4925.475
4919.160
4913.105
4900.760
4895.261
4889.228
4883.444
4877.524
4871.849
4866.043
4860.294
4854.785
4849.149
4843.751
4838.229
4832.765
4827.879
4822.524
Time
Rate
[days]
[mscf/D]
Reservoir
pressure
[psia]
973
1003
1034
1064
1095
1126
1156
1187
1217
1248
1279
1307
1338
1368
1399
1429
1460
1491
1521
1551
1581
1611
1642
1672
1703
1734
1763
1794
1824
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
4817.397
4812.156
4807.139
4802.011
4796.940
4792.089
4787.133
4782.391
4777.548
4772.762
4768.489
4763.814
4759.344
4754.781
4750.421
4745.972
4741.581
4737.388
4733.246
4729.159
4725.127
4721.017
4717.094
4713.097
4709.158
4705.525
4701.697
4698.048
4694.334
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
[days]
[Mscf/D]
0
31
61
92
122
153
184
212
243
273
304
334
365
396
426
457
518
549
577
608
638
669
699
730
761
791
822
852
883
914
942
1986.358
1980.588
1974.662
1968.962
1976.169
1970.287
1965.088
1946.560
1941.056
1947.993
1942.497
1936.857
1931.354
1925.976
1919.835
1914.602
1891.111
1899.131
1893.881
1888.841
1883.673
1878.711
1873.626
1868.582
1863.754
1858.791
1854.030
1849.153
1844.655
1829.030
1835.480
Reservoir
Pressure
[psia]
5010.98
4883.44
Time
Rate
[days]
[Mscf/D]
973
1003
1034
1064
1095
1126
1156
1187
1217
1248
1279
1307
1338
1368
1399
1429
1460
1491
1521
1551
1581
1611
1642
1672
1703
1734
1763
1794
1824
1830.879
1826.169
1821.655
1817.036
1812.463
1797.912
1803.601
1798.710
1794.287
1779.319
1786.016
1781.735
1777.639
1773.455
1769.782
1765.722
1761.709
1757.872
1754.080
1750.335
1736.368
1742.858
1739.327
1735.530
1731.907
1728.546
1724.934
1721.685
1718.249
Reservoir
pressure
[psia]
4772.76
4725.13
4694.33
103
Original field data

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.1.
Case #2: Original field data.
2000
2500
3000
104
Observed rate
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.2.
Case #2: converted rate
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
105
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.
parameters are shown in Table 4.2.2.4.
Table 4.2.2.4
History Match for Case #2
Calculated value
Calculated
Initial
value
value
Permeability [md]
12.888
10.8
From well test
Skin
147.0
101
From well test
2500.0
Estimated
Radius of drainage [ft] 9204.837
Comment
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
Observed rate
predicted rate
2050
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1750
1700
1650
0
500
1000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.3.
Case #2: production history match.
1500
2000
108
5050
5000
4950
4900
4850
4800
4750
4700
4650
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.4.
Case #2: reservoir pressure history match
1400
1600
1800
2000
109
4.2.2.2.1 Future Performance Prediction Using Different Well Head Pressure Values
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.
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
Observed data [well head pressure=2250 psia]

well head pressure=2250 psia
History match [well head pressure=2250 psia]

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.5.
Case # 2: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure
3500
4000
111
Observed data [well head pressure = 2250 psia]
History match [well head pressure =2250 psia ]
Well head pressure = 2250


5100
5000
4900
4800
4700
4600
4500
4400
4300
4200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.6.
Case # 2: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to well head

pressure.
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
Observed rate
History match [S=116.44]
Skin=116.4
Skin=50.0
Skin=0.0
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.7.
Case #2: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin factor.
3500
4000
114
Observed bottom hole reservoir pressure

Skin=116.4
Skin=0.0
History match [S=116.44]

Skin=50.0
5100
5000
4900
4800
4700
4600
4500
4400
4300
4200
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.8.
Case #2: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to skin.
4000
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
Observed rate [Perforated interval= 17 ft]

Perforated interval= 17 ft
History match [Perforated interval= 17 ft]

2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
900
700
500
0
500
Figure 4.2.2.9.
1000
1500
2000
2500
Time [days]
3000
3500
Case #2: Sensitivity of rate with respect to perforated interval.
4000
117
Observed pressure
History match [perforated interval=17ft]
Perforated interval = 17 ft
5100
perforated interval = 64 ft
5000
4900
4800
4700
4600
4500
4400
4300
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.2.10.
Case #2: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to perforated

interval.
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
50
0.000001

Pay [ft]
Skin
Permeability [md]
Porosity [fraction]
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
5164.7
216.0
174.48
0.922
4936.265
6.484
0.086
0.288
Fluid properties
Oil density [API]
=
=
=
0.66
52.26
1.0
Reservoir
119
Lasater
Standing
Robinson Dranchuck and Purvis
Hall and Yarborough
Completion
Hole diameter [in]
CSG diameter [in]
Mode of perforation
TBG inside diameter [in]
TBG roughness [ft]
Tubing length [ft]
Well inclination angle [degree]
Pressure loss correlation
Production
Reference separator temperature , [deg F]
PERMIN [md]
SMIN
REMIN [ft]
=
=
=
Limits for regression variables

0.0
PERMAX [md]
-1.0
SMAX
2500.0
REMAX [ft]
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
6.0
5.0
44.0
0.73
12.33
4
overbalance
1.945
0.00015
8826
90.0
Gray
=
=
=
=
=
=
143.0
0.0
3200.0
111.0
14.7
60.0
=
=
=
7.0
7.0
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:
Q1
[P
=
[P
Q2
]
]
PWF 1
.
2
2
R PWF 2
2
(4.2.3.1)
Q1 is the actual constant flow rate corresponding to the bottom hole pressure Pwf1. Since Q1
and Pwf1 are known, the flow rate Q2 can be computed by assuming a fixed value of the
corresponding bottom hole pressure Pwf2.
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
[days] [mscf/D]
0
30
61
91
122
1 53
183
214
244
275
306
334
365
426
456
1000
1000
1000
5000
6000
5000
4000
5000
6000
5000
3000
2000
3000
2000
2000
Reservoir
Pressure
[psia]
5168.100
5160.786
5153.285
5146.081
5138.693
5131.363
5124.325
5117.108
5110.179
5103.076
5096.031
5089.717
5082.781
5069.302
5062.755
Time
Rate
[days] [mscf/D]
Reservoir
pressure
[psia]
1064
1095
1125
1156
1186
1217
1248
1278
1309
1339
1370
1401
1429
1460
1490
4941.702
4936.124
4930.781
4925.317
4920.084
4914.732
4909.440
4904.371
4899.192
4894.234
4889.168
4884.159
4879.685
4874.786
4870.1
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
2000
2000
2000
2000
121
487
518
548
579
609
640
671
699
730
760
791
821
852
883
913
944
974
1005
1036
1000
1000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
3000
2000
1000
3000
3000
3000
3000
2000
2000
2000
5056.046
5049.395
5043.013
5036.476
5030.204
5023.78
5017.414
5011.713
5005.456
4999.456
4993.313
4987.423
4981.393
4975.421
4969.696
4963.837
4958.222
4952.477
4946.790
1521
1551
1582
1613
1643
1674
1704
1735
1766
1794
1825
1855
1886
1916
1947
1978
2008
2038
2068
1000
3000
2000
2000
2000
2000
3000
2000
2000
2000
1000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
4865.314
4860.738
4856.066
4851.452
4847.041
4842.540
4838.240
4833.852
4829.522
4825.661
4821.441
4817.412
4813.306
4809.386
4805.393
4801.458
4797.704
4794.004
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
[days]
Mscf/D]
0
30
120
180
240
270
300
330
4954.999
4625.527
4869.370
4330.156
4205.933
4252.592
4313.037
4177.194
Reservoir
Pressure
[psia]
Time
Rate
[days]
Mscf/D]
5164.3
1500
1530
1560
1590
1620
1650
1680
1710
3490.987
3457.712
3425.802
3393.117
3353.956
3229.772
3199.266
3170.008
Reservoir
pressure
[psia]
4830
122
360
390
420
450
810
840
870
900
930
960
990
1020
1050
1080
1110
1140
1170
1200
1260
1290
1320
1350
1380
1410
1440
1470
4057.840
4102.713
4267.720
4346.216
4193.768
4237.993
4200.233
4313.851
4271.649
4085.903
4189.687
4151.635
4109.156
3936.359
3904.164
3868.797
3722.768
3795.545
3878.464
3619.289
3584.966
3552.015
3518.240
3589.217
3555.106
3521.284
4960
4890
1740
1770
1800
1830
1860
1890
1920
1950
1920
1950
1980
2010
2040
2070
2100
2130
2160
2190
2220
2250
2310
2340
2370
2400
2430
2460
2490
2520
3140.049
3111.324
3081.919
3142.278
3115.699
3086.544
3058.604
3129.203
3058.604
3129.203
2915.950
2974.621
2946.907
2920.370
2893.242
2782.703
2840.745
2814.517
2791.091
2861.306
2740.927
2715.895
2691.969
2667.556
2643.458
2620.441
2597.723
2575.306
4775
123
Original field data

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.1.
Case #3: Original field data.
2000
2500
124
Observed data
6000
Rate [Mscf/D]
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
T ime [days]
Figure 4.2.3.2.
Case #3: converted rate.
2000
2500
3000
125

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.
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
5186.181
3000.0
Estimated
126
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.3.
Case #3: Production history match
2000
2500
3000
127
Observed data [perforated interval = 44 ft]
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.4.
2000
2500
3000
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.
4.2.3.2.1 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.
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
Observed rate [well head pressure= 3200 psia]

Predicted rate [well head pressure= 3200 psia

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.5.
Case # 3: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure
5000
130
Observed reservoir pressure [well head pressure= 3200 psia]

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

pressure.
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
Observed rate [perforation density=4 spf]

Perforation density = 4 spf
Perforation density =12 spf
Predicted rate [perforation density=4 spf]

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.7.
Case #3: sensitivity of rate with respect to density of perforation.
4500
5000
133
Observed pressure
History match [perforation density = 4 spf]


6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.8.
Case #3: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with density of perforation.
5000
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

H istory match [perforated interval= 44 ft]

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.9.
Case #3: Sensitivity of rate with respect to perforated interval.
5000
136

History match [perforated interval = 44 ft]

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.3.10.
Case #3: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to perforated

interval.
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
Pressure decrement
Optimization tolerance [FTOL]
=
=
=
exponential
25.0
0.000001
=
=
=
=
=
=
576.0
177.0
32.0
3015.0
69.9
0.16
Reservoir
Initial temperature [F]
Pay [ft]
Permeability [md]
Porosity [fraction]
138
Water saturation [fraction ]
0.15
Fluid properties
=
0.65
Oil density [API]
=
52.6
=
1.0
Lasater
Standing
Hall and Yarborough
Completion
Hole diameter [in.]
Casing diameter [in.]
Perforation diameter [in.]
Perforation tunnel length [in.]
Mode of perforation
TBG inside diameter [in.]
TBG roughness [ft]
Length of tubing [ft]
Pressure drop correlation
=
5.0
=
2.992
=
25.0
=
0.73
=
12.33
=
4
= Overbalance
=
2.992
=
0.00015
=
8187.0
= Beggs & Brill
Production
Reference separator temperature , [deg F]
=
=
=
=
=
=
3.555
0.526
90.0
77.0
14.7
60.0
Limits for regression parameters

60.0
PERMAX =
4.0
SMAX
=
1000.0
REMAX
=
80.0
50.0
3000.0
PERMIN =
SMIN
=
REMIN =
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
[days]
0
31
60
91
121
152
182
213
244
274
305
335
366
397
425
456
485
Rate
[Mscf/D]
1073.714
1071.461
1104.928
1035.828
928.006
899.623
1004.964
1086.213
1060.120
995.614
1015.550
948.457
1027.111
932.107
968.0
954.286
866.233
Reservoir pressure
[psia]
576
517
446

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
Observed rate
History match
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
100
200
300
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.4.1.
Case #4: Production history match.
400
500
600
142
Oberved reservoir pressure
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.4.2.
400
500
600
143
The regressed parameters values obtained are presented in Table 4.2.4.3.

Table 4.2.4.3
History Match for Case #4
Calculated value
Calculated
initial
Comment
value
value
Permeability [md]
67.498
69.9
From well test
Skin
29.534
5.34
From well test
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.
4.2.4.2.1 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
Observed rate [ Well head pressure = 90 psia ]

Predicted rate [ well head pressure = 90 psia ]

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.4.3.
Case #4: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head pressure.
146
Oberved reservoir pressure [well head pressure = 90 psia]

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

pressure
1600
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.
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.
production where a risk of loading exists. This analysis will ultimately be integrated in an
economic evaluation .
148
Observed rate [ tubing inside diameter= 2.992 in.]

Predicted rate [tubing inside diameter = 2.992 in.
Tubing inside diameter = 2.992 in.
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
500
1000
1500
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.4.5.
Case #4: sensitivity of rate with respect to tubing size.
2000
2500
149
Obseved reservoir pressure [ tubing inside diameter = 2.992 in]

Predicted reservoir pressure [tubing inside diameter= 2.991 in.]
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.4.6.
Case #4: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to tubing size.
2500
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.
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.
production where loading problems exist.
151
Observed rate [ no choke]

No choke
Choke inside diameter = 0.38 in. (24/64)
Predicted rate [ no ckoke]

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.4.7.
Case #4: sensitivity of rate with respect to choke size.
2500
152
Observed reservoir pressure [no choke]

No choke
Predicted reservoir pressure [No choke]

Choke inside diameter= 0.5 in. (32/64)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Time [days]
Figure 4.2.4.8.Case #4: sensitivity of reservoir pressure with respect to choke size
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, ft2
Bg
gas formation volume factor, cf/scf
COV
covariance
Fk
functions used in the definition of the objective function
FVEC
function vector. Its components are the functions Fk
gas in place, Mscf
pay, ft
Hp
perforated interval, ft
INFO
convergence criteria under which the program terminates.
reservoir permeability, md
KG
gravel pack permeability, md
Kp
permeability of compacted zone, md
gravel pack linear flow path, ft
Lp
perforation tunnel length, ft
pressure, psia.
pressure drop, psia
Qmod
Qobs
flow rate predicted from model, Mscf/D

observed flow rate, Mscf/D
157
Re
drainage radius, ft
Rc
radius of compacted zone, ft
Rp
radius of perforation, ft
Rw
well radius, ft
Sg
gas saturation, fraction
skin factor, dimensionless
temperature, R
TR
reservoir temperature, K
Tsc
temperature at standard conditions, K
Tobs
Observed production Time, days
elapsed time, days
compressibility factor, dimensionless
set of 3 independent regression variables
turbulence factor, ft-1
specific gravity, dimensionless
viscosity, cp
standard deviation
porosity
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
gas
inflow
outflow
max
maximum value of variable
min
minimum value of variable
perf
perforations
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 ThreePhase 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,
8th 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 DeclineCurve 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, 10651077.
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

Gas Well Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gas Well Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL

Bitsindou Arsene (Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering)

TITLE PAGE .............................................................................................................................i

Mathematical Modeling ................................................................................11

History Match ....................................................................................11

Future Performance Prediction..........................................................15

Regression Analysis .......................................................................................16

Imaging Extension Method.............................................22

Nodal Analysis Technique .............................................................................23

Models and Correlations ................................................................................30

Tubing String ....................................................................................41

Subsurface Device (Subsurface Restriction).....................................43

Subsurface safety valve .....................................................................44

Well Head Choke...............................................................................45

Surface Pipeline .................................................................................45

Sensitivity Studies With Respect to Input Parameters .................................47

Sensitivity With Respect to Pressures Decrement ...........................47

Sensitivity With Respect to Tolerance .............................................47

Sensitivity with Respect to Input Parameters in Order to

Synthetic Data ...............................................................................................49

Sensitivity of History Match Results With

Sensitivity of History Match Results With

Verification of the Robustness With

Future Performance Simulations.......................................................72

Future Performance Simulations for

Future Performance Simulations for

Field Data .......................................................................................................78

Case #1: Dry Gas Well Producing at a Constant Well

Future Performance Predictions .....................................88

Future Performance Prediction

Future Performance Prediction

Future Performance Prediction for

Case #2: Conversion of Original Data from Constant

Future Performance Predictions ...................................108

Future Performance Prediction

Future Performance Prediction

Future Performance Prediction

4.2.3. Case #3: Conversion of Original Data from Constant

Future Performance Predictions ...................................127

Future Performance Prediction

Future Performance Prediction for

Future Performance Prediction

Case #4: Use of the Last Two Years of Production Only...............136

Future Performance Predictions ...................................143

Reduction in Well Head Pressure ................. 143

Reduction in Tubing Size............................... 146

Choke Installation............................................ 149

Gas Reservoir Inflow Performance Relationship ...............................................32

Correlations for Multiphase Flow in Pipes ..........................................................42

Correlations for Flow across Chokes and Restrictions .......................................43

Correlations for Multiphase Subcritical Flow in Subsurface

Correlations for Fluid Physical Properties ...........................................................46

Synthetic Data: Input Parameters.........................................................................50

Production Synthetic Data....................................................................................52

History Match for Synthetic data .........................................................................53

History Match for Synthetic data #2 ....................................................................65

System description Data for Synthetic Data #2 ...................................................68

Well Performance and Reservoir Pressure Data for Synthetic

System description Data for Case #1 ...................................................................78

Well Performance and Reservoir Pressure Data for Case #1 ..............................80

History Match for Case #1 ...................................................................................84

System Description Data for Case #2 ..................................................................97