PIPESIM 2021.1 Fundamentals Course Overview

PIPESIM 2021.
1 Fundamentals
Renato Vallejo
Senior Production Engineer
Schlumberger-Private
Course overview
Every day:
Test
Theory and exercises
Lunch
Theory and exercises
* Break every 1.5 hrs
Content
Day 1 Day 2
➢ Introduction to PIPESIM ➢ Generation of main simulations

➢ PIPESIM 2021 New features ▪ Nodal analysis
➢ Creation/Updating of well model: ▪ P-T Profile
▪ Survey configuration ➢ Loading and downloading of well models to
▪ PVT Fluid model and from ProdOps
▪ Influx model
▪ ALS
DAY 1
Test
PIPESIM Multiphase flow simulator
Introduction to PIPESIM
Production optimization over the complete lifecycle

Years Months Days Hours
Field development Production operations

◼ Well design ◼ Well optimization
◼ Pipeline design ◼ Pipeline optimization
◼ Network design ◼ Network optimization
Prevent Flow assurance Manage
PIPESIM 2021 New features
8
Total production system
Compressor
Separator
Pump
Choke Riser
Gas
Flowline Export lines
Oil
Safety Valve
Tubing
Completion Reservoir
9
9
Pressure changes DP Compressor
DP Riser
DP Wellhead choke
DP Pump
DP Flowline
DP Oil export
DP Safety valve
◼ Flow in porous media
◼ Artificial lift
◼ Multiphase flow in pipes DP Gas export
DP Tubing
◼ Chokes/restrictions
◼ Pumps/compressors
DP Reservoir drawdown
10
DP Completion 10
Temperature changes
DT Compressor
DT Riser
DT Wellhead choke
DT Pump
DT Flowline
DT Safety valve DT Oil pipeline

◼ Convection (free, forced)
◼ Conduction
◼ Elevation DT Gas pipeline
DT Wellbore ◼ JT cooling/heating
◼ Frictional heating
11
DT Completion 11
Pressure changes: Single-phase flow
dp  dp   dp   dp 
=  +   +  
dL  dL  elev.  dL  fric.  dL  acc.
dp g fv 2 dv
=  sin  + +
dL gc 2gcd g c dl
where:
 = friction factor
 = fluid density
 = fluid velocity
g = acceleration because of gravity
gc = gravitational conversion constant
 = flow angle (from horizontal)
d = pipe internal diameter
Phases present
0.00001 < Liquid volume fraction < 0.99
Single-phase gas Multiphase Single-phase liquid
Inclination angle
If the inclination angle is > + 45° or < - 45°, vertical flow

patterns and correlations apply.
Otherwise, horizontal flow patterns and correlations

apply.
Oil-water flow
Schlumberger Cambridge flow loop

◼ 6 in pipe
◼ 1,500 BOPD
◼ 1,500 BWPD
◼ 1.5 cp Oil
2 degrees 0 degrees -2 degrees
Add some gas and try 45 degrees!
Flow patterns
Horizontal flow Vertical flow
Horizontal flow regime map: Taitel-Dukler
Flow patterns are determined from maps of superficial liquid velocity versus superficial gas velocity.
75.0
Bubbly
10.0
Intermittent
vsL
1.00 Annular
(ft/s)
0.10 Stratified Stratified

Smooth Wavy
0.01
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 900.0
vsG (ft/s)
Liquid holdup
◼ Liquid Holdup, HL:

– Holdup = 0 → All gas flow AG
– Holdup = 1 → All liquid flow AL

◼ Gas Holdup, HG : 1 – HL
◼ No-Slip Liquid Holdup, L:
– Liquid holdup if gas and liquid travel at the same velocity
– Also known as the Input Liquid Content qL
L =
qL + q g
PIPESIM Multiphase flow models
Prediction of:
◼ Flow regime
◼ Liquid holdup
◼ Pressure gradient
◼ Slug characteristics
State-of-the-art mechanistic flow models:

◼ OLGA-S
◼ TUFFP
◼ LedaFlow
20
Multiphase flow models: Approaches (2)
Mechanistic models
“A method for describing complex flow phenomena that combines macroscopic conservation
principles with empirical closure relationships.”
◼ Comprehensive models (1st generation)
– Separate models for flow pattern and pressure gradient predictions
– Flow regime transition criteria are decoupled (solved explicitly) from the solution of the momentum equations
– Examples: Taitel-Dukler flow pattern, Xiao et al. Mechanistic model, Ansari, Petalas & Aziz, OLGA-S
◼ Unified models (2nd generation)
– One consistent seamless model for flow pattern and pressure gradient predictions
– Flow regime transition criteria are coupled (solved implicitly) with the solution of the momentum equations
– Example: TUFFP Unified Model
21
Multiphase flow models: Approaches (3)
Next generation
◼ Mechanistic models
– Integrated unified modeling of heat transfer and fluid flow
◼ Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
– Attempts to model the system by solving the fundamental transport equations that govern fluid
dynamics.
– Generally involves a numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations using a finite difference
approach.
– Has been used to analyze only very specific, small-scale problems. Because of the complexity of
multiphase flow, it has not yet been applied in the petroleum industry to model multiphase flow in
pipes beyond academic studies.
22
LedaFlow PM
OLGA-S
Mechanistic
Taitel & Dukler
(Phenomenological) Xiao Ansari Petalas&Aziz TUFFP Unified
Govier, Aziz & Hasan &
Fogarasi Kabir
Empirical Category C
Beggs & Brill
Slip Duns & Orkiszewski
Mukherjee & Brill
Flow Regime Ros
SLB Drift-Flux
More Physics
Empirical Category B Dukler, Eaton & Flanigan Gray

Hagedorn &
Slip Brown
Flow Regime Zuber & Findlay
Drift Flux
Empirical Category A Baxendell &

Poettmann&
Carpenter Thomas
Slip
Flow Regime Lockhart &
Martinelli
Single-Phase
Homogeneous 2-Phase (Gas-Liquid) 3-Phase (Gas-Oil-Water) Inclination Angle Evolutionary
(Mixture Reynolds Key:
No.) Darcy-Weisbach-Moody
1800 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Empirical Period Awakening Years Modeling Period
Examples of published/public references for multiphase flow correlations
(1)
1. PIPESIM Help
2. Shippen, M., Bailey, W.J., “Steady-State Multiphase Flow – Past, Present, and Future, with a Perspective on Flow Assurance”,
Energy & Fuels Journal (2012) 26, 4145-4157.
3. Beggs, H. D., Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis textbook, OGCI and Petroskills Publications, Tulsa, OK,
83 – 93.
4. Aziz, K., Govier, G. W., and Forgasi, M.: “Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept., 1972),
38-48.
5. Beggs H . D., and Brill, J. P.: “A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech., (May 1973), 607-617.
6. Dukler, E. A., et al.: “Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, I. Research Results,” AGA-API Project NX-28 (May 1969).
7. Duns, H., and Ros, N. C. J.: “Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells,” 6th World Pet. Congress (1963), 452.
8. Aziz, K., Govier, G. W. and Fogarasi, M.: “Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas,” J. Cdn., Pet. Tech. (July-Sept.,
1972) 38-48.
(2)
9. Eaton, B. A.: “Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in
Horizontal Pipelines,” Trans. AIME (1967) 815.
10. Flanigan, O.: “Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of Two-Phase Gathering Systems,” Oil and Gas J. (March 10,
1958) 56, 132.
11. 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.
12. Lockhart, R. W. and Martenelli, R. C.: “Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal Two-phase, Two-Component Flow in Pipes,”
Chem. Eng. Prog. (January, 1949) 45, 39.
13. Manhane, J. M., Gregory, G. A., and Aziz, K.: “A Flow Pattern Map for Gas-Liquid Flow Pattern in Horizontal Pipes,” Int. J. of
Multiphase Flow.
14. Oliemans, R. V. A.: “Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Transmission Pipeline,” ASME paper 76-Pet-25, presented at Pet. Div. ASME
meeting Mexico City (Sept., 1976).
15. Orkiszewski, J.: “Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech. (June 1967) 829-838.
(3)
16. Palmer, C. M.: “Evaluation of Inclined Pipe Two-Phase Liquid Holdup Correlations Using Experimental Data”, M. S. Thesis, The
University of Tulsa. (1975).
17. Payne, G. A.: “Experimental Evaluation of Two-Phase Pressure Loss Correlations for Inclined Pipe”, M.S. Thesis, The U. of
Tulsa (1975).
18. Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A. E.: “A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow,” AICHE Jour., Vol.22,
No.1 (January, 1976) 47-55.
19. Scott, S. L., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P.: “Prediction of Slug Length in Horizontal Large-Diameter Pipes,” SPE 15103, (April,
1986).
20. Brill, J. P. et al.: “Analysis of Two-Phase Tests in Large Diameter Flow Lines in Prudhoe Bay Field”, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal (June) 1981.
21. Norris, L.: “Correlation of Prudhoe Bay Liquid Slug Lengths and Holdups Including 1981 Large Diameter Flowlines Tests”,
Internal Report Exxon (October, 1982).
(4)
22. Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: “Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two-Phase Flow”, Journal of Petroleum Technology (May,
1983) 1003-1008.
23. Minami, K. and Brill, J. P.: “Liquid Holdup in Wet Gas Pipelines”, SPE Journal of Production Engineering (May, 1987).
24. Ansari, A., Sylvester N. D., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P.: “A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow in
Wellbores”, paper SPE 20630, SPE Annual Technical Conference (Sep, 1990).
25. Xiao, J. J., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P.: “A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines”, paper SPE
20631, SPE Annual Technical Conference (Sep, 1990).
26. Baker, A. C., Nielsen, K., and Gabb, A.: “Pressure loss, liquid-holdup calculations developed”, Oil & Gas Journal (Mar 14, 1988).
27. Gray, W. G.: “Vertical flow correlation - gas wells”, API Manual 14BM (January, 1978).
28. Bendiksen, K. H., `, D., Moe, R. and Nuland, S.: “The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application”, paper SPE
19451 (March, 1990).
Select the best flow correlation to use
*Currently available
up to PIPESIM 2012
Field
Internal
measurements
Y preferred flow Flow Correlation
Use N of flowing Y
correlations Comparison
them pressures vs.
from field (PIPESIM 2012*)
D or L available
history?
(FGS, PL)?
N
Data Matching
Literature review (Parity in PIPESIM
PIPESIM Help 2017)
Other references: SPE, JIP NOTE: As well conditions change,
studies the appropriate flow correlation to use
also might change.
You must continuously evaluate the The best

Select the best correlation correlation has the
appropriateness of flow correlations.
based on accuracy and lowest RMS error
similarities between your post-regression
flow conditions and regions
of applicability
PIPESIM workspace options:
Network-centric or Well-centric
You can seamlessly switch between the network-centric and well-centric
perspectives.
You can run well-centric tasks from the Network-centric workspace.
Well tools
Sliding Completion Downhole Rod pump

Tubing sleeve user equipment
Packer
ESP
Tubing plug Spot report
SSSV Engine keywords
Separator PCP
Casing Injection point Gas lift Artificial lift
injection User equipment
Choke Nodal point
Network tools
Three-phase separator Injection point Connector

Junction Compressor
Sink Multiphase
Generic equipment Engine Riser
Check valve booster
keywords
Generic User
pump equipment
Well Two-phase
Source separator Expander Spot report Flowline
Choke Heat exchanger

Multiplier/adder Nodal point
Current tasks available in PIPESIM
◼ Pressure/temperature profile calculation ◼ Perforation design

◼ Nodal analysis ◼ Network simulation
◼ System analysis ◼ Network optimizer
◼ Data matching
◼ VFP tables (vertical flow profile table
generation)
◼ ESP design
◼ Gas lift
– Deepest injection point
– Gas lift response
– Gas lift design
– Gas lift diagnostics
Pressure/temperature profile calculation
Nodal analysis
System analysis
Data matching
VFP tables (generate reservoir tables)
ESP design
Gas lift: Deepest injection point
Gas lift: Gas lift diagnostics (Fixed Qinj and InjP)
Perforation design
Network simulation
◼ Identify production
bottlenecks and
constraints.
◼ Benefits of new wells,
pipelines, compression
◼ Deliverability from field
gathering systems
◼ Predict pressure and
temperature profiles.
Network optimization
◼ Maximize production at lowest cost

◼ Honor facility handling capacity
◼ Increase reservoir recovery
◼ Maintain asset integrity
Steps to build a well model in PIPESIM
Visualization /
Results and
Well model Analysis
calibration
Flow
correlations
To define a PVT
Model
Build the
physical model
Creation/Updating of well model
PIPESIM Tools
Home
Insert
Format
47
Steps to create a well model
Create a New well
Select New Well
48
Enter Survey information

Go to Deviation survey section
49
Enter Tubulars information
Click to add a casing

or liner
In Tubulars section you should enter information about:

• Casings
• Liners
• Tubings
50 Select Tubulars
Survey exercise
- Load the tubular information according to the diagram.

- Load the survey data. Show the table with the angles generated and the graph of TVD (ft) vs
Horizontal displacement (ft).
51
Fluid modeling alternatives
◼ Black oil: Uses published black oil correlations to determine fluid physical properties.
◼ Compositional: Uses equation of state modeling with pure library components and composite
petroleum fractions.
53
Black oil modeling
▪ Valid for fluids with initial GOR less than 1,500 scf/STB.
▪ Valid for hydrocarbon with no significant compositional

changes
▪ Based on the simplest equation of state: PV = ZnRT,

which is accurate for gases at low pressures and high
temperatures.
▪ Empirical correlations used to determine derived

properties (Rs, Bo).
▪ Derived properties are then used to calculate fluid

physical properties such as oil density and oil viscosity.
54
Go to Fluid Manager
Black oil modeling: Essential input data
◼ Stock tank water cut

◼ Stock tank GOR
◼ Stock tank gas specific gravity
◼ Stock tank water specific gravity Select Black Oil
◼ Oil API gravity (or dead oil density)
55
Black oil modeling: Optional calibration data
▪ Measured saturation solution gas at a corresponding

bubblepoint pressure and temperature.
▪ Measured dead oil viscosity at one or two temperatures.
▪ Measured OFVF at a pressure and temperature above
the bubblepoint pressure.
▪ Measured OFVF, live oil viscosity, gas viscosity, and/or
gas compressibility each at a pressure and temperature
equal to or lower than the bubblepoint pressure.
▪ Measured solution GOR, OFVF, live oil viscosities at a
series of pressures from PVT lab experiments.
56
PVT data Go to Completions section
Click to add a new completion
- None
- Dry Gas
- Light Oil + Gas
- Heavy Oil + Gas
- Dead Oil
- Water
Enter PVT information

57
How to run a nodal analysis on PIPESIM
Select Nodal analysis
58
PVT exercise 1
Reservoir Data: Modelo de Fluido Blackoil -1 Modelo de Fluido Blackoil -2
- Cpl @ 9800ft - BSW: 50% - BSW: 50%

- Pr:4700 psi - GOR: 124Scf/STB - GOR: 124Scf/STB
- Temp: 200degF - API: 18.5 - API: 18.5
- P.I.: 1 - Gas gravity: 0.7 - Gas gravity: 0.8
- AOFP without Vogel? - How much is the Pb?

- AOFP with Vogel?
- How much is the Pb?
59
Properties
Calibration
Viscosity
Thermal
61
Black Oil Calibration
Dead Oil Viscosity
Dead oil is oil at stock tank pressure or oil with no dissolved gas; for example, an oil in which gas has been removed
by a separator and pumped through an export line.
Correlations (example):
➢ Beggs and Robinson
62
Live Oil Viscosity
Live oil is defined as an oil which containing dissolved gas in solution that may be released from solution at surface
conditions. Live oil is above stock tank pressure and contains dissolved gas.
Correlations
63
Undersaturated Oil
For pressures above the bubble point, there is no vapor phase. The oil is undersaturated because more gas could be
dissolved in the oil, if the gas were available.
Correlations: i.e., Vasquez and Beggs
64
PVT exercise 2
Please calibrate the PVT by using the following data:
- Pb: 845 psi

- Rs: 124 SCF/STB
- Live Oil Viscosity: 8.7 cP @Pb
- Bo: 1.16 @ Pb
- Verify the bubble point pressure with a PT profile task

- What happened and why?.
65
Mixture, Emulsion Viscosity Method
Liquid viscosity and Oil / Water emulsions
• An emulsion is a mixture of two immiscible liquid phases. One phase (the dispersed phase) is carried as droplets in the other (the
continuous phase).
• In Oil / Water systems at low watercuts, oil is usually the continuous phase.
• As watercut is increased there comes a point where phase inversion occurs, and water becomes the continuous phase. This is the
Critical Watercut of Phase Inversion, otherwise called the cutoff.
• It occurs typically between 55% and 70% watercut. The viscosity of the mixture is usually highest at and just below the cutoff. Emulsion
viscosities can be many times higher than the viscosity of either phase alone
Correlations and methods

The methods available for calculating the Oil / Water mixture viscosity are:
In addiction a number of emulsion correlations are available:
66
Black oil modeling: Oil/water mixtures viscosity
Emulsion
Mixture
correlation
viscosity
µ (oil)
Volume ratio µ (water)

Inversion
method
method
(default)
0% Water cut 100%
67
PIPESIM emulsions options
Emulsion Viscosity options Inversion Point

◼ Set to viscosity of continuous phase ◼ User-defined
◼ Volume ratio of oil and water viscosities ◼ Brauner & Ullman equation
◼ User-defined emulsion tables
◼ Correlations:
– Woeflin Loose/Medium/Tight
– Brinkman
– Vand, Vand coefficients
– Vand, Barnea & Mizrahi coefficients
– Vand, user-defined coefficients
– Richardson
– Leviton & Leigton
68
Emulsions exercise
Please change the emulsion viscosity method and the inversion watercut offset (55, 60, 65, 70).
Then use Water cut sensitivities to see if there is any changes in a System Analysis Task.
69
Completion design:
The Darcy equation
▪ The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) relates 0.00708ko h(PR − Pwf )

the pressure drop between the reservoir boundary Qo =
  re  
and the wellbore entry point to the fluid flow rate m o Bo ln  − 0.75 + S + DQ 
produced by the reservoir.   rw  
▪ For single phase flow (oil, gas, or water), the IPR
can be expressed using Darcy’s Law for Qo = Stock tank oil rate, stb/d
PR = Static reservoir pressure, psia
pseudosteady- state, radial flow. Pwf= Well bottomhole flowing pressure, psia
▪ The Darcy equation for single phase oil flow in ko = Effective permeability to oil, md (ko = kkro)
Oilfield units is shown. Several other IPR equations k = Absolute reservoir permeability, md
kro= Relative permeability to oil
are available. h = Net pay, ft
re = Drainage radius, ft
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
mo = Oil viscosity, cp
Bo = Oil formation volume factor, rb/stb
S = Laminar/Mechanical skin
70 DQ = Rate-dependent/Non-Darcy skin, 1/stb/d
Completion design:
The Darcy equation
S + DQ m o Bo
0.00708ko h(PR − Pwf )

Qo = PR
  re  
m o Bo ln  − 0.75 + S + DQ  h
  rw   rw
k
k ro
re
71
Oil reservoir IPR equations
▪ Well PI (Pwf > PB)
― For undersaturated oil reservoirs q = J ( PR − Pwf )
― Can also be applied to flow below bubblepoint with
minor changes
2
▪ Vogel (Pwf < PB) q Pwf  Pwf 
= 1 − 0.2 − 0.8 
― Empirical relationship qmax PR  PR 
▪ Fetkovich/Backpressure
q = C ( PR − Pwf ) n
2 2
― Where n ranges from 0.5 to 1 and represents the
degree of turbulence
▪ Jones*
― Modified PI and Darcy equation accounting for PR − Pwf = Aq + Bq 2
turbulent flow
0.00708kh(PR − Pwf )
▪ Darcy Pseudosteady State (Pwf > PB) q=
  re  
72
― Based on Darcy IARF mB ln  − 0.75 + S 
  rw  
IPR: Vertical completions
Oil reservoirs Gas and condensate reservoirs

◼ Well productivity index ◼ Well productivity index
◼ Vogel ◼ Back pressure
◼ Fetkovich ◼ Jones
◼ Jones ◼ Forchheimer
◼ Forchheimer ◼ Hydraulic fracture
◼ Hydraulic fracture ◼ Darcy
◼ Darcy – Pseudosteady state

– Pseudosteady state – Transient
– Transient
73
IPR: Horizontal completions
Single point fluid entry: Distributed fluid entry:

◼ Steady-state solution ◼ Distributed PI
– Joshi (Oil) ◼ Steady-state solution
– Joshi (Gas) – Joshi (Oil)
◼ Pseudosteady-state solution – Joshi (Gas)
– Babu & Odeh (Oil) ◼ Pseudosteady-state solution
– Babu & Odeh (Gas) – Babu & Odeh (Oil)
– Babu & Odeh (Gas)
74
IPR Equations for vertical completions (1)
◼ Well Productivity Index

QL = Stock tank liquid rate
QL = J L ( PR − Pwf ) - Liquid based QG = Stock tank gas rate
NOTE: Corrections are applied for water and below bubblepoint flowing PR = Static reservoir pressure
conditions. Pwf = Well bottomhole flowing pressure
JL = Liquid productivity index
QG = J G ( PR − Pwf ) - Gas based
2 2
JG = Gas productivity index
◼ Vogel Equation
2 Q = Stock tank liquid rate
Q Pwf Pwf  Qmax = Absolute openhole flow potential
= 1 − (1 − C ) − C   - Liquid based
C = Vogel’s coefficient (0.8 by default)
Qmax PR  PR 
C = Flow coefficient
◼ Fetkovich Equation n = Exponent depending on well characteristics
Q = C ( PR − Pwf ) n - Liquid based
2 2
75
◼ Jones’ Equation
QL = Stock tank liquid rate
PR − Pwf = AQL + BQL - Liquid based
2
QG = Stock tank gas rate
PR = Static reservoir pressure
NOTE: Corrections are applied for water and below bubblepoint flowing conditions.
Pwf = Well flowing bottomhole pressure
A = Laminar coefficient
PR − Pwf = AQG + BQG - Gas based
2 2 2
B = Turbulent coefficient
◼ Forchheimer’s Equation B = Laminar coefficient

F = Turbulent coefficient
PR − Pwf = BQG + FQG - Gas based
2
C = Backpressure constant
◼ Back Pressure Equation n = Backpressure exponent
(n ranges from 0.5 to 1; the lower the value of
Q = C ( PR − Pwf ) n - Gas based
2 2
n, the higher the turbulence)
76
Darcy Pseudosteady-state Equation

2kh(PR − Pwf ) Qo = Stock tank oil rate
QG = Stock tank gas rate
Qo =
 r   - Liquid based PR = Static reservoir pressure
C1m o Bo ln e  − 0.75 + S  Pwf = Well bottomhole flowing pressure
  rw   k = Formation permeability
NOTE: Darcy equation is based on the assumption that the rock is 100% saturated h = Net pay
with one fluid. Vogel correction is available for below bubblepoint conditions. re = Drainage radius
rw = Wellbore radius
QG =
(
2kh PR − Pwf
2 2
) - Gas based
mo = Oil viscosity
mG = Gas viscosity
  re   Bo = Oil formation volume factor
C2 mG ZT ln  − 0.75 + S + DQG  T = Reservoir temperature
  rw   Z = Gas compressibility factor
S = Laminar/mechanical skin
NOTE: This equation is the low pressure form of the gas equation. The pseudo D = Rate-dependent/Non-Darcy skin
pressure form, which is valid for all pressures, is also available. Refer to the
C1 and C2 = Unit conversion factors
PIPESIM help.
77
Completion design:
Vogel correction
▪ For cases in which reservoir pressure drops below the bubblepoint pressure, two-phase flow exists.
▪ The Vogel correlation (based on empirical data) predicts the pressure loss below the bubblepoint and
is expressed as:
2
q Pwf  Pwf 
= 1 − 0.2 − 0.8 
qmax PR  PR 
Where qmax is the Absolute openhole

flow potential (AOFP); that is, q when
Pwf = 0.
78
Completion design:
Vogel water cut correction (Composite IPR model)
The Vogel water cut correlation is based on a composite IPR model (Brown 1984), which combines the Vogel’s equation with a linear water
productivity considering oil and water fractions.
79
Artificial lift
Enter Artificial lift information Go to AL section
80
Validation
Check the validations
81 It means that your Well Model was succesfully defined

Summary
Steps to build a model

1. Build the physical model. 4. Run the task.
― Wells/Sources
5. View and analyze results.
― Equipment
― System results
― Tubing/Flowlines
― Profile results
2. Define the fluid model. ― Node/Branch results (Network only)
― Black oil ― Auxiliary results (MPB/ESP/Spot report only)
― Compositional ― Output summary
3. Choose the flow correlation.
― Output details
Note: You can repeat some steps in any order.
82
ESP Exercise
In the current Model please use the ESP design task, and recommend a ESP PUMP
Outlet pressure:100 psi
Design production rate: 2500 bpd
It is needed:
a. ESP Model recommended?

b. Qliq and Pwf
83
ESP, Rod Pump exercise
With the following data construct the well model considering:
- Natural flow
- The following artificial lift systems: ESP, Rod Pump
84
ROD PUMP DATA
YACIMIENTOS PRUEBA TUBERIA

Pws (psia) 356 Q (bbl/d) 45 Revestidor Superficial 50’ 9 5/8”- N-80 47 lb/ft
Pwf (psia) 280 WHP (psig) 45
T (F) 101 Revestidor Intermedio 450’ 7” - N-80 26 lb/ft
WHT (F) 86
Liner 721’ 4 ½” - J-55 9.5

lb/ft
FLUIDOS
Tuberia de produccion 706’ 2 7/8” - N-80 6.5
Corte de agua (%) 0 lb/ft
RGP (scf/stb) 2.15 Empacadura 460’ -
Gravedad Esp. Gas 0.65 PMP 705’ -
Gravedad Esp. Agua 1.05
Gravedad API 17
Visc @ 104 F (cp) 298 Bombeo mecanico Nominal Flowrate (bbl/d) Maximum DP (psia) Drive rod diameter (inches) Gas Separator Efficiency (%)
Visc @ 86 F (cp) 5042 Profundidad = 675’ 60 200 1 25
85
ESP DATA

Pws (psia) 3440 Q (bbl/d) 1886 Revestidor Superficial 500’ 13 5/8” 88.2
lb/ft / P-110
Revestidor Intermedio 6500’ 9. 5/8” 47
T (F) 220 WHT (F) 70
lb/ft / N-80
Liner 10293’ 7” 26
lb/ft / N-80
Tuberia de produccion 8593’ 3 1/2” 9.2
FLUIDOS BOMBA ELECTROSUMERGIBLE lb/ft / L-80
Corte de agua (%) 56 Profundidad (ft) 8493 Empacadura 8400’ -
RGP (scf/stb) 2.02 Frecuencia (hz) 45 PMP 9800’ -
Gravedad Esp. Gas 0.65 Modelo CENTRILIFT FC 1600

Gravedad API 25.3
Visc @ 220 F (cp) 5.7
Visc @ 70 F (cp) 64.77
86
Jet Pump

Pws (psia) 3440 Q (bbl/d) 1886 Revestidor Superficial 500’ 13 5/8” 88.2
lb/ft / P-110
Revestidor Intermedio 6500’ 9. 5/8” 47
T (F) 220 WHT (F) 70
lb/ft / N-80
Liner 10293’ 7” 26
lb/ft / N-80
Tuberia de produccion 8593’ 3 1/2” 9.2
FLUIDOS BOMBA JET lb/ft / L-80
Corte de agua (%) 56 Proveedor Sertecpet Empacadura 8400’ -
RGP (scf/stb) 2.02 Modelo 45 PMP 9800’ -
Gravedad Esp. Gas 0.65 Modelo CENTRILIFT FC 1600

Gravedad API 25.3
Visc @ 220 F (cp) 5.7
Visc @ 70 F (cp) 64.77
87
How to add a new pump in PIPESIM
88
ALS exercise
From the ESP exercise data, change the pump to a P23 CENTRILIFT
89
DAY 2
Test Review
91
Nodal analysis
Psep
PR
Inflow
Outflow
ESP
Pwf
Hydraulic Fracture
Pwf PR Psep
92
Flow rate
Current tasks available in PIPESIM
◼ Pressure/temperature profile calculation ◼ Perforation design

◼ Nodal analysis ◼ Network simulation
◼ System analysis ◼ Network optimizer
◼ Data matching
◼ VFP tables (vertical flow profile table
generation)
◼ ESP design
◼ Gas lift
– Deepest injection point
– Gas lift response
– Gas lift design
– Gas lift diagnostics
93
Nodal Analysis
Nodal analysis is a methodology that views the total producing system as a group of components potentially encompassing the reservoir,
completions, tubing and surface equipment, restrictions, flow lines, and risers. An improper design of any one component, or a mismatch of
components, adversely affects the performance of the entire system. It identifies bottlenecks and serves as a framework for the design of
efficient field-wide production systems. Together with reservoir simulation and analytical tools, nodal analysis is commonly used in planning
new field developments.
You can use nodal analysis to:
• Estimate production potential of an oil/gas well

• Identify system bottlenecks, such as skin (inflow) and
plugged tubing (outflow) and assist in remedial action.
• Optimize system design, such as completion design or
determining tubing size.
• Determine status of well, whether it is stable or unstable.
• Identify flow assurance issues, if any (by combining other
modules in PIPESIM).
• Quantify the benefits of Artificial Lift.
• Analyze abnormal flow restrictions in an existing system
94
How to run a nodal analysis on PIPESIM
Select Nodal analysis
95
P/T Profile
Enter the properties for the pressure/temperature profile (T/P Profile) task, including the branch endpoint, calculated variable, and any
sensitivity variables.
General properties
In this area, enter the endpoint that defines the selected branch for the P/T Profile.
Default profile plot properties

In this area, define the X and Y axes that will appear by default on the Profile plot tab, which displays the results of the P/T Profile task.
Double click the resulting plot to configure it.
96
P/T Profile
Select the Default profile plot
97
P/T Profile exercise
98
Velocidad crítica de erosión
La velocidad erosional del fluido es calculada usando la siguiente ecuación:
EVR = Vf / Vapi
Donde:
Vapi: Velocidad erosional del fluido API
C: Constante adimensional (valor empleado 100)
ρ: densidad promedio del fluido considerado (valor empleado: 1.02g/cc = 63.67 lb/ft3)
99
YACIMIENTOS
Pws (psia) 3050
T (F) 200
H(ft) 42
Rw (in) 4.25
K(md) 200
Piny (psia) 2000
re 1800ft
1. Compute the EVR.

2. Pwh and Injection for safety EVR?
3. Recommended actions to inject at least 15KBPD, and have a safety EVR
100

PIPESIM 2021.1 Fundamentals Course Overview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

PIPESIM 2021.1 Fundamentals Course Overview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIPESIM 2021.

Theory and exercises

Theory and exercises

* Break every 1.5 hrs

➢ Introduction to PIPESIM ➢ Generation of main simulations

Production optimization over the complete lifecycle

Field development Production operations

Prevent Flow assurance Manage

DT Safety valve DT Oil pipeline

0.00001 < Liquid volume fraction < 0.99

Single-phase gas Multiphase Single-phase liquid

If the inclination angle is > + 45° or < - 45°, vertical flow

Otherwise, horizontal flow patterns and correlations

Schlumberger Cambridge flow loop

2 degrees 0 degrees -2 degrees

Horizontal flow Vertical flow

0.10 Stratified Stratified

◼ Liquid Holdup, HL:

– Holdup = 1 → All liquid flow AL

State-of-the-art mechanistic flow models:

Empirical Category B Dukler, Eaton & Flanigan Gray

Empirical Category A Baxendell &

1800 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Empirical Period Awakening Years Modeling Period

You must continuously evaluate the The best

You can run well-centric tasks from the Network-centric workspace.

Sliding Completion Downhole Rod pump

SSSV Engine keywords

Three-phase separator Injection point Connector

Choke Heat exchanger

◼ Pressure/temperature profile calculation ◼ Perforation design

◼ Maximize production at lowest cost

Create a New well

Select New Well

Enter Survey information

Enter Tubulars information

Click to add a casing

In Tubulars section you should enter information about:

- Load the tubular information according to the diagram.

▪ Valid for hydrocarbon with no significant compositional

▪ Based on the simplest equation of state: PV = ZnRT,

▪ Empirical correlations used to determine derived

▪ Derived properties are then used to calculate fluid

◼ Stock tank water cut

▪ Measured saturation solution gas at a corresponding

Click to add a new completion

Enter PVT information

Select Nodal analysis

Reservoir Data: Modelo de Fluido Blackoil -1 Modelo de Fluido Blackoil -2

- Cpl @ 9800ft - BSW: 50% - BSW: 50%

- AOFP without Vogel? - How much is the Pb?

Dead Oil Viscosity

Live Oil Viscosity

Correlations: i.e., Vasquez and Beggs

- Pb: 845 psi

- Verify the bubble point pressure with a PT profile task

Correlations and methods

In addiction a number of emulsion correlations are available:

Volume ratio µ (water)

0% Water cut 100%

Emulsion Viscosity options Inversion Point

▪ The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) relates 0.00708ko h(PR − Pwf )

0.00708ko h(PR − Pwf )