Open Ended Lab Report

2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Open Ended Lab Report
Petroleum Production -II
Submitted to: Engr. Muhammad Kashif Ali
Submitted by: Abdullah Ishaq
(2017-PET-3)
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM & GAS ENGINEEIRNG

UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY LAHORE
1|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Contents
Open Ended Lab .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Looped gas gathering network ........................................................................................................................ 3
Objectives: ................................................................................................................................................... 3
PIPESIM Work: ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Reasons for EVR > 1 ................................................................................................................................... 14
1. Low Tubing size: ............................................................................................................................ 14
2. High Production rates: ................................................................................................................... 14
Possible Solutions for EVR > 1 ................................................................................................................... 14
Solution for Well 1: ................................................................................................................................ 14
Implementation on Well 1..................................................................................................................... 14
Solution for Well 2 ................................................................................................................................. 15
Solution for Well 3 ................................................................................................................................. 16
Implementation of Tubing sizes on Well 1, Well 2 & Well 3: .................................................................... 17
Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................................ 18
2|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Open Ended Lab

Looped gas gathering network
Objectives:
• To establish the deliverability of a production network.
• Screen the network for branches that exceed the erosion velocity limit.
The network consists of three gas wells producing into a looped gathering system, which delivers
the commingled streams to a single delivery point.
PIPESIM Work:
1. Construct the network model by using:
• 3 wells (Use the Simple Vertical template for all wells).

• 4 junctions
• 1 3-phase separator
• 1 compressor
• 1 heat exchange
• 3 sinks
Compressor and Heat Exchanger are connected through connector while the rest of the
component are connected through flowlines.
Figure 1 Network Model
3|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
2. Add the composition of fluid in well 1 and well 2 which are same, phase envelope, phase
composition and phase properties as shown in figures.
Figure 2 Mole Fraction of Fluid A
Figure 3 Phase Envelope for Fluid A
Figure 4 Phase Composition of Fluid A
4|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
3. Add the composition of fluid in well 3, phase envelope, phase composition and phase
properties as shown in figures.
Figure 5 Mole Fraction of Fluid B
Figure 6 Phase Envelope for Fluid B
Figure 7 Phase Composition for Fluid B
5|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
4. Add horizontal distance, IDs, wall thickness and roughness of flowlines.
Figure 8 Flowlines Data
5. Add the details of well 1 like tubulars, downhole equipment, heat transfer and completions
details.
Figure 9 Tubular Detail of well 1
Figure 10 Downhole Equipment of well 1
6|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Figure 11 Heat Transfer Value of well 1
Figure 12 Completion Details of Well 1
Figure 13 IPR Curve of Well 1
7|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
6. Add the details of well 2 like tubulars, downhole equipment, heat transfer and
completions details.
Figure 14 Tubular Details of Well 2
Figure 15 Downhole Details of Well 2
Figure 16 Completion details of Well 2
Figure 17 Heat Transfer Value of Well 2
8|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Figure 18 IPR Curve of Well 2
7. Add details of compressor its pressure differential and efficiency and heat exchanger
details.
Compressor Details
(Pressure differential of (370 + 3) psia and an Efficiency of 70%)
Figure 19 Compressor Details
9|Page
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Figure 20 Heat Exchanger Details
8. Go to network simulation and put the outlet pressure of gas sales, oil storage and treatment
as 800 psia, 250 psia and 160 psia.
Figure 21 Outlet Pressures of Gas Sales, Oil Storage and Treatment
9. Now run the network simulation and select the path flow from well 3 to the gas sales and
measure the pressure boost around the compressor
Figure 22 Pressure boost across compressor
10 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Pressure Boost by Compressor = 875.204 – 502.2404 = 373 psia
Figure 23 Plot of Pressure Boost Provided by Compressor
➢ The above graph shows that there is decrease in pressure up to the compressor that is
502.2404 psia but when it passes through the compressor there is a boost in pressure
provided by it from 502.2404 psia to 875.2404 psia which is 373 psia. So, the production
of gas also increases.
10. Now Measure the gas flowrate to gas sales, oil flowrate going to oil storage and water
flowrate to treatment. So, the table below shows the flowrates of gas , oil and water.
Figure 24 Flow Rates of Gas, Oil and Water @ Gas Sales, Oil Storage, and Water Treatment
11 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Parameters Values
Gas flowrate to Gas Sales (MMscf/d) 44.11944
Oil flowrate going to Oil Storage (STB/d) 5829.687
Water flowrate to treatment (STB/d) 673.3674
11. Now measure the gas sales without compressor by deactivating the compressor.
Figure 25 Gas Sales Without Compressor
Figure 26 Plot of Gas Sales Without Compressor
12 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
➢ The graph also shows that there is a gradual decrease in the pressure and also a drop in
gas production by deactivating the compressor from 44.1194 mmscf/day to 39.23806
mmscf/day which is almost 4.88134 mmscf/day.
Parameter Value
Gas sales without compressor (MMscf/d) 39.23806
12. Now activate the compressor and measure the erosional velocity ratio of well 1, well 2
and well 3.
Figure 27 EVR Plots
Figure 28 EVR of Well 1, 2 &3
EVR of Well 1 EVR of Well 2 EVR of Well 3

1.569398 1.63342 1.846309
13 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
➢ We want to know that which well erosional velocity ratio is less than 1 because the well
which has erosional velocity less than 1 is good and it will not cause erosion but all the
wells have erosional velocity ratio greater than 1 so we have to find some solutions for it
that its erosional velocity becomes less than 1.
Reasons for EVR > 1

Why do these specific branches have the highest EVR?
These specific branches have highest EVR because of
1. Low Tubing size:
Smaller the tubing size, higher the flow rate and EVR will be greater than 1.
2. High Production rates:
If the Production Fluid Velocity exceeds the tubing erosion velocity, then the EVR will
be greater than 1 and it cause erosion.
Possible Solutions for EVR > 1

Determine possible solutions to get rid of the erosion issues and implement them in the network.
Solution for Well 1:
We will optimize tubing size by increasing from 2.441 in to 5 in and then we will select one
optimum size that is 4 in at which EVR is less than 1 and the production rate is optimum.
Figure 29 EVR of Well 1 by changing Tubing Size
Implementation on Well 1
After Implementation of 4 in Tubing Size, we get the following plot at which the EVR is less
than 1, so 4 in tubing is the possible solution for Well 1.
14 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Figure 30 EVR of Well 1 after Implementation
Solution for Well 2

optimum size that is 4 in at which EVR is less than 1 and the production rate is optimum.
After Implementation of 4 in Tubing Size, we get the following plot at which the EVR is less
than 1, so 4 in tubing is the possible solution for Well 2.
15 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Solution for Well 3

optimum size that is 4.4 in at which EVR is less than 1 and the production rate is optimum.
After Implementation of 4.4 in Tubing Size, we get the following plot at which the EVR is less
than 1, so 4.4 in tubing is the possible solution for Well 3.
16 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Implementation of Tubing sizes on Well 1, Well 2 & Well 3:

After implementation of Tubing size 4 in for Well 1, 4 in for Well 2 & 4.4 in for Well 3, we got
the following results.
Figure 35 EVR of Well 1, Well 2 & Well 3 after Implementation
17 | P a g e
2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020
Figure 36 EVR Of Well 1, Well 2 & Well 3
EVR of Well 1 EVR of Well 2 EVR of Well 3

0.707796 0.7564894 0.910968
Conclusion:
After Implementation of Possible solution, that is increasing tubing size of Well 1, Well 2 &
Well 3, we have gotten the EVR values less than 1.
For Well 1 & Well 2, the optimum tubing size is 4 in and for Well 3, the optimum tubing size is
4.4 in at which the values of EVR is less than 1.
18 | P a g e

Open Ended Lab Report

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

Open Ended Lab Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017-PET-3 November 25, 2020

Open Ended Lab Report

Petroleum Production -II

Submitted to: Engr. Muhammad Kashif Ali

Submitted by: Abdullah Ishaq

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM & GAS ENGINEEIRNG

Open Ended Lab

• To establish the deliverability of a production network.

1. Construct the network model by using:

• 3 wells (Use the Simple Vertical template for all wells).

Figure 1 Network Model

Figure 2 Mole Fraction of Fluid A

Figure 3 Phase Envelope for Fluid A

Figure 4 Phase Composition of Fluid A

Figure 5 Mole Fraction of Fluid B

Figure 6 Phase Envelope for Fluid B

Figure 7 Phase Composition for Fluid B

4. Add horizontal distance, IDs, wall thickness and roughness of flowlines.

Figure 8 Flowlines Data

Figure 9 Tubular Detail of well 1

Figure 10 Downhole Equipment of well 1

Figure 11 Heat Transfer Value of well 1

Figure 12 Completion Details of Well 1

Figure 13 IPR Curve of Well 1

Figure 14 Tubular Details of Well 2

Figure 15 Downhole Details of Well 2

Figure 16 Completion details of Well 2

Figure 17 Heat Transfer Value of Well 2

Figure 18 IPR Curve of Well 2

Figure 19 Compressor Details

Figure 20 Heat Exchanger Details

Figure 21 Outlet Pressures of Gas Sales, Oil Storage and Treatment

Figure 22 Pressure boost across compressor

Pressure Boost by Compressor = 875.204 – 502.2404 = 373 psia

Figure 23 Plot of Pressure Boost Provided by Compressor

Figure 25 Gas Sales Without Compressor

Figure 26 Plot of Gas Sales Without Compressor

Figure 27 EVR Plots

Figure 28 EVR of Well 1, 2 &3

EVR of Well 1 EVR of Well 2 EVR of Well 3

Reasons for EVR > 1

Possible Solutions for EVR > 1

Figure 29 EVR of Well 1 by changing Tubing Size

Figure 30 EVR of Well 1 after Implementation

Solution for Well 2

Figure 31 EVR of Well 2 by changing Tubing Size

Figure 32 EVR of Well 2 after Implementation

Solution for Well 3

Figure 33 EVR of Well 3 by changing Tubing Size

Figure 34 EVR of Well 3 after Implementation

Implementation of Tubing sizes on Well 1, Well 2 & Well 3:

Figure 35 EVR of Well 1, Well 2 & Well 3 after Implementation

Figure 36 EVR Of Well 1, Well 2 & Well 3

EVR of Well 1 EVR of Well 2 EVR of Well 3

You might also like