● ✎ ✎✎

SPE 24791
m
‘ soclutYdP9trofulmErMeors

Dynamic Production System Nodal Analysis

R,F. Stoisits, ARCO Alaska Inc.
SPE Member II
Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc,

This paper WEEprepared for presenfatlon at the 671hAnr.ud Technlcnl Conference end Exhibition of the Sodety al Petroleum Engitwerrr held In V&Mnglon, OC, Oclober 4-7, 1S$2,

This peper wee selected for preser!fation by an SPE Program CCmmMeSfollowing review of Information ccntaltwcf in an aba’ract submitted by the aufher(s). Centents of fhe paper,
as preaentti, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subiaot !Ocorrection by the au!hor(s). The malerlol, M preeanted, dose not naceeaarlfy reflect
any pcai!ion of the SocIely oi Petroleum Engineers, 1!sofficers, or memtws. Paper8 preeented at$PE mseflng$ are mubjeclto publication review by Editorial Oemmk!eea of the society
of PetroleumEnglnwte. Permis.slonto coPyISrestrictedto enabstract of not mom than NO WordatIllustrationsmey not be COPM The ebetracfshould contain conspkueua acWowle@rnant
of where and by whom Ihe papar Is presented. Write Librariao, SPE, P.O. SOXI?3SS2S,Richsrdaon, TX 750SW3S2SUS,A. Telex, 7S0SS9SPEDAL,

Ahtssct For each time step the DPSNA Simuiator

converges on flow rates that satisfy reservoir and
inflow er%ormance models and surface Iinc and
A+k%Rwi T%$w%s%xrdgi!!!
ve:lded, and applied to we IS (n the Kuparuk ver
tubing $ ydraulics correlations. Flow rates and
pressvrcs for the entire prodtwtlon system are
,, reported throu h lime, Mechanisms uru provided
to simulate f nfill drillin $ producti on zone
This analytical lechnlque combines control strategies, well stimu ution, and gas Iiil,
reservoir ~]erformancc models, nodal analysis for
incilvkhmf weils, and calculation of ressure drop Figure 1 illustrates a typical incrcmcmtal rate
in the network of surface lines to o ~ tain a globai stream for a rate acceleration N) ‘ as a
analysis of the production system through Ume. surface line loop. tJsin {;heei$>#t ‘U”h
A Simulator
this information can ncmtcd with two
Evaluation of the DPSNA Technique was simulations, one run which 3 ocs not incorporate
performed using well test data from twenty-five the effeets of the project under evaluation, and
wells in the Ku ruk River Field. Each well in the another run which models the project under
anal sis conta ned two reductive interwals, The consideration. This incremental rate stream can
I)PS Lrt
A Technique was a le to predict the effect of then be used in an economic cvahmtion to
a producing zone control strate on 011,gas, and determine the present value of the project.
water production from these \ cr s,
The reservoir performance modei allows for
Introduction the inclusion of results of rvrwrvoir simulation in
the producUon system analysis, This Is achtcved
The ob ectivc of DPSNA is to determine the without the disadvan\agcs of cxccssive
incrcmenta { rate impact of a production s stem computation time and convergcncw problems
pm cct or projects, Applications of this nna {ytlcai associated with Lhc combinat!ort O( rwwwoir and
tcc Anlquc include cwduation OE surfiic~ Iirw production systcm simu!ntlon In a single
looping, production zone control strategies, WCII simulator program (4, 5)0
stimulation, and gas lift.
Reeenroix Simulation
Inessence, the DPSNA Ttwhni uc IS a nodul
analysis of all the producing wells ‘1n the systcm The Kuparuk River flcld on the Alaskan
throu h time, The t picaf nodal anal sis (1, 2, 3) North Slo c produces from two stratfgraphtcrtlly
Is per f{
ormed on a s nglc well for a grfven olnt In indepcn $ ent sands of the Kuparuk River
time, Nodal armlysis invohws the slmu taneous FormatIon. A full field rcscwolr model was
solution of inflow performance and tubin and constructed to su port field mmmgcmcnt tmd
surface Iinc pressure loss correlation;.:. to o%tain development plann rng (@,
pressures smd flow rates through the system. In
this analysis the entire production system is The Kuparuk Full Field ftcwwvolr Model
mmlyzcd simultaneously, This allows the (KFFM) was assigned overall areal dimcnrnions of
analysis to include the Im act of a given well’s 19 and 22 miles In the x and dlrcctlons,
production on the other welsr In the system, respectively, to encompuss the cnt 1’n! field. ‘l’he
model contains 20,004 ridbloeks (40 am-es each)
f3ecause DPSNA has a time dimension, in a uniform grid dlstt%uied over three la~rs,
changes in rescrvotr ressurc, water saturation TWO layers for the rclatlwdy high crmca illty
and as oii ratio i [ rough iime need to be upper sand (C Sand) and onc Iuyer ?or the lower
conral3 wed, This :s accomplished by intcrfacin producing sand (A Sand), The grtd was oriented
the inflow er(ormancv ccwmputation in the noda f with the major north/south faul~ trend to capture
analys% v%h a re.cmdr perforsnsance model. in the directional inimcncu of structural and
this analysis the reasmoir performance model is stratigraphlc aspects on fluid movcrnent.
simpl tb.e aumrnatlon of the results of a reserwoir Currently the slmulutor models a total of 719
,simu 1ation run, Since the rojectu bein evahiaied wells,
will have the effeet of’ti,ccerc$
eraUng pro uction, the
reservoir simulation rwsults are summarized with
reapcci to cumulative prod +wtion rather than
time,
26s
 -.

2 Dynamic Production System Nodal Analysis SPE 24791

dro correlations for flow through Iincs. ‘l’he

Formation properties were derived from m J cl starts at the outlet of the syswrn where the
wireline log sigrmturcs calibrated to laboratory pressure is dcflncd and travcvxws backward
core data with approprtatc cutoffs, ‘f’he resultant through the entire gathering systcm to calcuiate
log formation data were vertically aver-a ed over pressure at cdl the nodes of the system including
the gross sand intewal represented by eac% model the ir” nodes,
layer. Average formation layer properties at 160
acre well locations included structural depth, Rasemml.r Simulator Summation For Use in
gross sand thickness, net/gross ratio, and X)PSNA
porosity.
The Kupark Full Field Rmcrvoir Model
The full field model uscs a four component, Simulator is used to evaluate various field
Itmited, com osltional reservoir simulator (7) development projects. Through this annlysts a
based on a &ack oil formulation that models future development Ian is formulated, The
immiscible and miscible displacement. For DPSNA Simulator ma c cs use of the KfWM rate
misctble simulations, the model assumes first projections for ihc approved project development
contact miscibility between the reservoir fluid case. The spedtlc data used arc oil, water, and gas
and solvent. A Todd -Longstaff (8) mixing rates. S!nce The DPSNA %nulator’s pur se is to
parameter formulation accounts for displacement evaluate potcntlal rate accclcratlon pror ccts, the
instabilities, mimfckin data from The KfWM Simulator is input to The
grfdblocks due to viscous t%g$~#.al ‘weep ‘f DPSNA Simulator as a function of cumulative
production. This input IS csscntlally a look u
Nodal Analysis table of cumulative production versus gas o r I
ratio, water saturation, and a normalized liquid
Nodal analysis (1, 2, 31 is an approach for production rate.
applyin systems analysis LO the complete WCII
sifstcm rom the outer boundary of the reservoir to The change in rcswvoir conditions ihrou h
t c sand face, across the perforations and time impacts the system nodal analysis %y
completion section, up the tubing strtng, the flow alteration of the well Inflow pcr[ormoncc
line and sep;[~tor. To predict system relationship Inflow relationships for the w-IIs
arc establis Rcd based on well test dntn obtiiirtd at
{~$~~$~~’obtnine~r~~~~2 $%s &ca~& the beginnin of the time period for mmlys!s. In
of various nodes. The node is classified as a this study T\ c Vogel Equation (9) was used to
functional node when a pressure differential dcscrlbc the inflow relationships for the
exists across it and the pressure or flow rate producing zones.
res onst can be rcprcscnted by some
mat { ematical or physical function. The inflow rclatlonshlp is modiflcd to
account for changes In reservoir eondillons by
III the system there arc two pressures that arc means of a normalized lic uid production rate.
not a function of flow rate. They are the reservoir The normahzcd Ii uld pro uclion is simply the
and separator or system outlet pressure. total liquid pro 34uetion rate at any ivcn
Production analysis consists of solving for the cumulative production divided by the total fiquid
flow rate which yields the pressure drops in each production mte at the cumulative roductlon for
component of the system such that pressu:c which the inflow erformarwc rc rri~tionsht was
obtained at the functional node is within a gm-wrakxi. f3y de ?inltlon ihc normalized iquid
specified error tolerance for solution paths production rate equals one at ihc oint in
starting at the rewn-voir and outlet node. Most production history when the inflow per formancc
frequently the bottom of the WCIIis designated as relationship was developed. For any given
the functional node. In this case the analysis cumulative production the effcctlve Inflow
consists of solvln for a flow rate which satfsftes performance relationship is slmpl the inflow
both the inflow ? completion performance and performance rclationshi iit th~ {eginntnf of
tubing/tlowHnc correlations. The pro ‘r flow rate analysis multiplied by t \ c curruni norms ized
is obtained when the bottom ho rc pressure liquid pmductton rate,
com utcd
rclat onshi s matches the bottom hole pressure Solutlon Algorithm
computed
r From‘rem
the tubing/flowline
‘h’ correlations
‘nflowtcomp’etion
in the region of stable opcmttng conditions. This Figure 5 outllncs Lhc so!utlon algorithm used
solution point IS graphically rcprcscntcd in by The DPSNA Simulator, Input dalu consists of
Figure 3, reservoir simulntlon oulput, WCII illfh
performance rclattonshtps, surfncc Ilrw and
surfaceL&a GathalingSjmtem proriuctktn tubing geometry datu, current
cumulative production for cnch well’s produein
The surface IInc !~athcrtng system consists of zones, system outlet or scpnralor pressure, an !
the network of Ihws from the WCI1head of the timing data for dcvciopment projcw!.+.
prodttctng WCUSbetnfj analyzed to the outlet of the
system bclng analyzed which is typically the gas After data inittallzalion, DPSf!A pi~sseti
hqutd se arator. F’liurc 4 represents such a relevant information (gas 011 ffitio, wuter
system, &e may dc?lnc each junction tn the saturation, and normcdizcd production rtttc for
s stem where two or niorc Ilnes meet as a “node”. each WC1l’Sproductng zones) from the rcswvolr
f&h node tn a c:twork is in matcrtal balance; model section to the production systctn nodal
that IS, what ente~-s tie node, Icaves the node, The anafysts scettonl The nodal armlysls computation
model sets up matcrtal balance cquatlons for each is represented b the Inner loop of the id orith m
node. dta am (F@ure i ), ‘l%c systcm nodal wur~ SIS for
eat% time step proceeds through the fo lowing
When the material balance equattons are set sequence,
up, their simultaneous solution
values in all the lines cntertng an d%%’; EC{ 1, A bottom hole pressure IS calcuhitcd by
node or junction, assumtng a small ftnlte drawdown for each well’s
After the flow rates in each line are established producin zone and a corrmipondtng !low mtc is
throu bout the gathertng system cakulat~ from the effecthm inflow performance
‘n’sum
can ‘ror ated us $ng multlphase flow pressure
be calcu relationship for the ghwn producing zone,

266
 a-’

SPE 24791 Rich F. Stoisits 3

In this work ressure drop in lhe production

2. With tlm-~rates defined at every inlet node tubing was calcu Yatcd usin $ the IIagedorn and
mate~.al ‘.-lance calculations are performed at Brown Correlation (i 0). ‘1‘k Q Bcggs and 13rill
each junction in the gatherin f system. At this Correlation (11 was used for computing rcssure
point the flow rates in each we 1 and line in the drop in sur f’ace lines. Selcwtion o? these
entire production sysiem are deftncd. correlations was based on comparisons to
production tubing and surface Iinc pressure drop
3. Pressure drop throughout the gathering system data from the Kuparuk River- Field.
is calculated usin multiphase ilow pressure drop
correlations. Ca fculation begins at the fixed In order to ascertain whether the simulator
pressure at the system outlet and proceeds back could predict interaction effects of the var!ms
through the network to the inlet nodes or the producin zones, results from the simulato were
bottom of the wells. compar~toweil tcstdataat twodistirtcigo~$ in
time. During the time period c een
4. The bottom hole pressures at the various com arisons, t e C Sand pr-wlucing zones in Wdis
reducing zones obtained from the effective 2W-a 1 and 2U- 12 WCrCshut in, Whik the C Sarids
~nflow ~erforrnance relationship and the system producing zones in Wells 2U -02 and 2u-08 were ,
hydrau ics calculations are compared. If these opened,
pressures have converged, the system nodal
analysis for the current time step is complete and Table ! summarizes lhc total system response
the simulator asses out of the inner loop to the che,n es in producing zone status, ‘fhc first
illustrated in F rgure 5. If convergence is not 4
two entries n the table compare rate predictions
from the simulator to production rates based on
achieved, the drawdown for each producing zone
is ad usted and steps one through four are well test data durtng June ‘91, Agrwmcnl between
mpeal!ed.Thealgorithrn used to adjust drawdowns test and simulation oil rate is good, while the as
and conver e on flow rates which satisfy inflow and water predictions arc rcasonablu. It shou It be
and hydrau 5 ics correlations is a modificatjor, of noted that the WCHtest data used to gcncratc the
the procedure used by Mnrsovsky et al (4). inflow performance relationships are not the
same as the well test data usd for comparison in
When convergence of the system nodal this verification cxereisc. l’hc !tu+l two entries in
analysis is achieved for a given time step, the table are tnktm from u time period after the
cumulative production rates for each well s four producing zone ~hilng~’s were made.
reducing zones m-e updated. Mso at this point in Simulator predictions for oil, gas, and wi.ttcr are
~he analysis, a report detaili~ flow rates and in good agreement with the well tcsL dutu. The
pressures throughout the pro uction gathering simulator was able 10 predict the upward u-end trr
s stem is generated. The simulator then checks to oil and gas production, and [he ckwrcase in
&terrnine if it has reached the end of the produced water.
simulation time. If the simulation is complete a

I
final report is enerated which yields total
production from t%e system through time. If the
simulation is not complete time is incremented
and control is passed to the resemoir module to
=ta~~tioa S~tem Andyais

The DPSNA Simulator was used to twzaluate

get an update on gas oil ratio, water saturation,
and normalized production rate for the wells. At
this point the simulator also checks to determine
if any producing zones have been shut in due to
com lete recove of reserves or if any additional
pro&cingzones%sweb ccnadded to the system duc
to peripheral or infill development.
The net rate im act of a given rate
acceleration ro ect suc E as a surface line loop
may be obta~~e~ by making two runs with The
DPSNA Simulator. One run without the pro cct
(base case) and onc run which includes the pro ) ect.
The output from the two runs can be used to
compute an incremental rate stream to be used in
an economic evaluation of the project,
Roduetlon Syatsm Am&al. Veritlcation
I
the incremental rate benefit associated with a
surface line loop pmjcwt for the twenty-ftvc well
gathering systcm (Fi urc 6] which was USCXIto
validate the model. ~cserwir perlbrmancc data
for the analysis was obtuincd from a rwlictive
run of the Kupuruk Full Field ILwrvoir
Simulator. The proposcxi line loop cxtords from
Drill $itc 2V to the Cenlral Processing Facili[y
and has an internal diameter of fifteen inches.
The line loop pro ect UITUCLS production in the
followtn manner. ‘J hc incrcasccl flow capacit
due to t%e line ]oop results in. krwur fri(!liona ! I
losses in transporting the crude from the unction
at Drill Site 2V to the Central Prrxxsslng 1kwility.
This in turn mduccs a lower backprewmrc at
Drill Sites 2~, 2V, and 2W, which results in
increased pmducilon,

I
Verification of the production
analysis technique was erformcd using
system
data
from twenty-five wells in 1[ e Kuparuk River Field.
The system under analysis is dcpictcd in Fl urc 64
Each well in the artalysis has two pro f uctive
intervals.
The Vcgel Relationship (9) was used to model
inflow performance of the producing zones. This
rquirecl a reservoir ressure, well test flow rate
and corresponding 1owing bottom hole pressure
for each zone. Resenroir pressures were obtslned
from pressure build up and fluid level data, Test
flow rates and well head pressure were obtained
from a well testdatabase. The corres riding
flowlng bottom hole pressures were calcu Yated by
exeeuting a production tubing mukiphase flow
pmssurw drop simulator.
The incremental rate strwtrn t’or Lhc ro cct
was cnerated with two runs of [he IH1) NA
Simu fator; one including and one wtlhout the line
I
loop. Figure 7 prcsenls the incremental I
production rate stream associtttcd with this
m ect. lmmediatel after installation ol’ the line,
LLnerrtal oil pmrkion rtite is 600 IX3PI>.This
incremental rate declines through ywtr four of the
line loop reject, as production zones wv shut in
due to h rgh water saturation. As less fluid is
transported down the line, Ow i.rnpac! of the line
loo on production rate dcsilncs c&! to a decrease
in & e preesure reduction elkt of the line loop, In
year k the impact of the Iinc bop becomes more
pronounced as production increttscs due to tnllll
‘projects. AS the infill projects come to an end
mductton again decreases und tht$ im act of the
fine loop on production declines, l?Iis cffwt
occurs in year eight.

267
 - b

4 Dynamic Production System Nodal Analysis SPE 24791

ceaeluaioaa Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter

Vcrttcal Condutta, J, Pet. Tech., Apr. 1865, p 47S,
The Production System Nodal Analysis
Technique was able to predict the impact of a 11. Be s H. D., Brtll J. P., A Study ofllvo Phase
reducing zone control strategy on oil production Flow in Ynclined Ptpes, Tlans. AIME, 1973, p 607.
fmm a system of twenty -ftve wells. These results
instill confidence In this techniaue’s ab!litv to
predict the increment+ rate im~act of vurious
projects such as: surface line looping, well
stimulation, gas litl, and producing zone control
stnategtes, on the production system,
Dynamtc Production System Nodal Analysjs
models resemoir/production system interaction
while eliminating the problems of excessive
computation time and convergence problems
associated with combining reservoir and
production system simulation in a single
computer simulation ptogram.
kkmowladglnaata
The author would like to express his
appreciation to: J. D. Bolltng for his support of
Ma work; M. J. F&@ for providin output data
from the Ku aruk Full Field Model: & I%spisil, G.
, g, A. Toth for roviding production
&&%%. Ga!vtn,J. Smtth~or their assistance in
m artng the manusctipti and ARCO Alaska, Inc.
* ~or&anttngpermtssion to publish this paper.
r“ .
1. Mach J., Proano E., Brown K. E., A Nodal
A preach for Ap lytn Systems Anal sis to the
F owln and Artl cial ift 011 or Gas & ells, paper
S!E45. g f

2. Mach J., Pmano, E., Brown K. E., Ap licatian of

Production Systems Analysis to &termine
Completion Sensitivi ~ on Gas Well Production
a r ASME El1-Pet- 1 , presented at the Ener
&&es Technology Conf. and Exhibition of %e_
ASME, Houston, Text ~an. 18-22, \981),
3 Mach, J., Apply Nodal Analysis to Production
Systems, Well Servicing Jan/Feb pp. 38-45
(1981).
4. Mrosovsky 1,, Wong J. Y., Lampc H. W.,
Construction of a Large Field Simulator on a
Vector Computer, JPT Dee, 1980, p. 2253-2264,
5, Emanuel A. S., Rarmey J. C., Studies of Offshorw
Reservoir With an Interfaced Reservoir/Pi ing
Network Simulator, JPT Mar, 1981, p. 399-4 d,
6, Stadey G. P., Masino W. H. Jr,, Weiss J, L.,
Boiling J. D., Full Field a~~mulation for
Development
Management at &l~%~&ver Field,~%r~~
1891, p, 974-982
7. Bollin J. D., Dcvelo ment & A pllcation of a
Limited (?omposittonal hisiciblc Ffood Reservoir
Strnulator, pa r SPE 15998 presentcxl at the 19S7
SPE SymJros urn zm Reservoir Simulation, San
Antonio, eb. 1-3,
Todd M. R., and Longstaff W. J,, The
D’cvelo ment, Testing, & Ap lication of a
‘r
Numer cal Simulator for Pre Cf’
Icting Miscible
Flood Performance, JPT July 1972, p. 874.82,
Trans. AIME, 263,
9, Vo 1,J* V., Inflow Performance Relationships
for Sorution Gas Drive Wells, J, Pet. Tech,, Jan,
1968, pp.63-93.
10. Ha edrmn A. II, Brown K, E,, Experimental
Study of Pressure Gradients Occurrtng During

268
 SPE 24792

TABLE 1

DYNAMIC PROWCTION SYSTEM NODAL ANALYSIS

2U, 2V, 2W PRODUCTION PREDICTION

WURCE CIAT~ !211m JuIfm

(MBOPD) (MSiiPD) (MBOPO)
WELL TESTS 6/91 49.3 63.1 42.7
SIMULATION 6/91 48.2 71.4 35.8

WELL TESTS 9i91 53.9 72.7 33.4

!31MULATION 9/91 52.2 76.1 33.0
 Ill r #

1
I

a BASE CASE -- , ————

K
z 6ASE CASE PLUS NODE LOCATION
o
/INcREMEIWAL PmJECT ~ SEPARATOR
2 Pwh
r
() 3 P~f
I
2 4 P~
o
g

t— ---
FIGURE 2- WeB9 System Ana!ysis
FIGLJRE 1. ProJect Incremental Oil Rate

..

N
-.2
0

WEL 22 WELL #Z
2500 WELL M WELL M

++’
2000 , DRILL
WELL #S
\
WELL *

A\

/’ [
FA~lUTIES
J

WE d a ~R{LL

500 SITE #1 : DRILL

0
0 500
FLOW RATE BPD
1000 1500
WELL U2
“?+-,
WELL ●O WELL ill 1

ffilJRE 3. TypicalSolutionto Wall SystemsAnalysis

FIGURE4. ProductionGatheringSystem
w
 ,-
*
RESERVCMI WRFCM4MANCX
MODEL ufOATE
W.os

L.
w.01

— . -=-.*
I--c --
SPE 247c)1
-CUU WiOOLJCT ON ..**
-GORS
+QO FRAC
-MOOLJCTION FACTOR .

W.*1

=.9?

CAI_CUATE BOTTOMKME
W.*1

&
PRESSUFUF
F- W.7S
VDB —
HVDRALLLCS CORRELATKXS 2s0?.

ST w
No
CALC WP
U3?OE
V*S Vts
VEs
wWIE REPUIY FOR
U.**

u-n

u -9*
U.** u-lb

w
4
Ed&&l FIGURE 6. Drill Site 2U, 2V, 2W Analysis

FIGURE 5. SolutionAlgorithm

FtWRE 7. ~H H#’&?l#’MW’h’&rqrtei Oil Reto Due To