See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339327444

Optimization of Oil and Gas Production using Nodal Analysis Technique

Preprint · December 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29161.03680

CITATIONS READS

0 6,969

4 authors, including:

Sardam Ahmed Khalid Khairy

The American University of Iraq, Sulaimani The American University of Iraq, Sulaimani
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Las Ahmed Mohammed

The American University of Iraq, Sulaimani
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oil and Gas Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis Technique View project

Paper review on fatigue View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sardam Ahmed on 18 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering Department- Energy & Mechanical Engineering
ENGR 492-Design II

Design project
Date: Dec 12th ,2019

Project Title:

Optimization of Oil and Gas

Production Using Nodal Analysis
Technique

Prepared by:

Sardam Akram Ahmed 14-00523

Khalid Khairy Ahmed 14-00194
Las Ahmed Mohammed 14-00133
Ali Ghazi Zalam 14-00223

Advisor: Dr. Umer Javed

Co-Advisor: Dr. Abdelaziz Khalifat

Semester of Submission: Fall 2019

 Table of Contents

Chapters Page #

Acknowledgments i
Abstract ii
1. Introduction& Literature Review 1
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Literature Review 3
2. Designing Process & drawings 9
2.1. Problem Statement 9
2.2. Principle behind design 9
2.3. Drawings &Dimensions 12
3. Manufacturing & prototype testing 29
3.1. Manufacturing process of the prototype 29
3.2. Challenges 36
3.3. Prototype Testing Data 40
4. Nodal Analysis Technique for Oil and gas production Optimization 42
4.1. Problem Statement 42
4.2. methodology of Optimization &Data Analysis using nodal analysis
technique 42
4.3. The data used in Prosper software 43
4.4. Equations &Formulas 47
4.5. Data Analysis 48
5. Conclusions & Recommendations 58
5.1. Conclusions about nodal analysis technique 58
5.2. Conclusions about the prototype made 59
5.3. Recommendations for future working in this model 60
Nomenclature 61
References 62
 Acknowledgment:
We are highly appreciating the help which we have got from our design II supervisor
Dr. Umer Javed, and we are really happy that Dr. Umer have stayed positive, motivated us,
and provided continuous support for us.
Also, we want to thank Dr. Abdelaziz Khlaifat who was our design I supervisor for all
the information he provided us. Also, we are really thankful for both of the supervisor,
without them we could not have accomplished anything.
Finally, we would to give credit to Eng. Hanar Hadi who is lab assistance in
American University of Iraq, Sulaimani in which she helped us a lot in our design project
especially in building the prototype. We are really grateful for all the care she given to our
design project.

i
 Abstract:

Oil and gas is the core of the economy of the Middle Eastern countries that are
rich of oil and gas reservoirs in general and Iraq and Kurdistan in particular. Petroleum
production optimization is managed through well deliverability analysis that is
determined by the combination of well inflow performance and wellbore flow
performance. Optimization of the flow of oil and gas production is designed to maintain
the pressure inside the reservoir in a cost effective matter by using some techniques. The
petroleum system analysis for determination of fluid production rate and pressure at
specified location (node) is called “Nodal Analysis”. Nodal Analysis is helpful in
understanding the cause and effect of different parameters. Using Nodal Analysis to find
the effect of each parameter on the pressure drop and flow rate at different nodes in the
production system is our main objective. Examination of the inflow performance
relationship with vertical flow performance will be carried out for steady state flow
regimes. It is expected that real cumulative production data from oil and/or gas field in
Kurdistan or Iraq will be used for the sake of nodal analysis.

ii
 Chapter 1:
Introduction & Literature Review
1.1. Introduction

Oil and gas are the core of the economy of the Middle Eastern countries that are

rich of oil and gas reservoirs in general and Iraq and Kurdistan in particular. Petroleum

production optimization is managed through well deliverability analysis that is

determined by the combination of well inflow performance and wellbore flow

performance. Optimization of the flow of oil and gas production is designed to maintain

the pressure inside the reservoir in a cost-effective matter by using some techniques. The

petroleum system analysis for determination of fluid production rate and pressure at

specified location (node) is called “Nodal Analysis”. Nodal Analysis is helpful in

understanding the cause and effect of different parameters. Figure 1-1 shows how

different nodes are identified and different parameters calculated in Nodal Analysis

technique. Using Nodal Analysis to find the effect of each parameter on the pressure

drop and flow rate at different nodes in the production system was our main objective in

this project. A prototype representing an oil production system was also built.

Examination of the inflow performance relationship with vertical flow performance were

carried out for steady state flow regimes.

Finding the optimum value for production of oil and gas is a difficult task which

is currently the problem for most of the oil and gas fields. Also, producing gas and oil at

the maximum capacity of the reservoir (or highest possible flow rate) depletes the

reservoir very rapidly. Beside depleting the reservoir, the reservoir gets damaged when

the flow rate is at maximum in which it might create connate water and gas inside the

reservoir. Moreover, we don’t want to produce oil and gas at the minimum flow rate

1
because it is not in interest of oil field companies as the value of oil and gas fluctuates

over time. In addition, to find optimum value for producing oil and gas, there are certain

parameters that affect the production, such as tubing diameter, well head pressure, skin,

… etc. Therefore, we have to consider each parameter and optimize it in order to get the

desired value for each specific parameter which gives a healthy production of oil and gas.

Then, combine all the suitable parameters in order to get the best possible flow rate of oil

and gas regarding time and money.

Figure 1-1: The diagram of process of nodal Analysis in petroleum production process

[12]

2
1.2. Literature Review

Nodal analysis is a modern technique in which helps optimizing oil and gas

production of a wellborn. It is used to calculate the pressure drop at different nodes by

changing various parameters within the production system, so the pressure difference is

calculated from the bottom hole to the separation units on the top of the surface [1].

Nodal analysis can be more helpful by using computer software. Conclusions about

optimum point of petroleum production can be drawn from the intersections of the IPR

(Inflow performance relationship) and OPR (Outflow performance relationship) curves

also known as VFP( Vertical lift performance relationship) curves. Figure 1-2 shows the

symbolic relationship between Inflow and outflow curves. The study of inflow and

outflow of petroleum production optimization is based on some parameters such as

tubing, flow line, and separator pressure. Hydrocarbons have great rule in the petroleum

production. The objective of optimization is maximizing hydrocarbon production and

minimizing operation costs under economic circumstances. Petroleum production

optimization should meet the requirements in technical, economic and environmental

criteria [2].

3
Figure 1.2 : Relationship between Inflow and Outflow curves for nodal analysis

technique [13]

Nodal analysis is the method used to evaluate the performance of combined

production systems. There are two curves that represent the capacities of the inflow and

of the outflow, and the intersection of the two curves gives the optimum value of

production. There are some limitations of traditional nodal analysis. For example, results

are shown only at a snapshot, not as a function of time. Another limitation is that Inflow-

performance-relationship (IPR) models are not available for shale gas wells. Similarly,

analysis is done on a well-by-well basis, with no account of multi-well interference [3].

Drilling production wells and allowing pressure gradient to push up the fluids into

the production wells reservoir pressure are needed to make full use of the commercially

recoverable amount of reservoir fluids. However, sometimes the natural reservoir

pressure is not enough and artificial methods are needed. Therefore, artificial lift is

necessary in oil wells when there is not enough pressure in the reservoir to force or lift

4
the produced fluids to the surface. Similarly, artificial lift methods are commonly used in

removing water in gas wells in order to keep the production in the desired level.

Production optimizations is helpful in minimizing capital and operating costs and

maximizing cumulative oil production in the most cost-effective manner for the entire

field, which is what most operators want. Nodal analysis can be used to look at the field’s

production systems from the reservoir outer boundary to surface facilities Production

optimization means keeping the balance between production deliverability of the wells

and demand. That means increasing the flow rate from the reservoir to the surface storage

tanks without restriction and obstacles. The objective of using nodal analysis in

optimizing oil and gas production is to achieve the greatest possible efficiency [4].

The bigger the pressure difference, the better the flow rate. It is mainly concern on

the inflow and outflow rate performance of the reservoir. It shows that relationship and

connection through two main graphs which are the Inflow Performance Relationship

(IPR) and the Vertical Lifting Performance (VLP). Therefore, Nodal analysis combines

the IPR with the tubing curve capacity [5]. In order to reach the optimum goal which is to

optimize the production of oil and gas from a wellborn many tests should be taken into

consideration. Changing diameter of the tubing, the pressure of the well head, the type

and size of the choke, the density, the number and shapes of perforations, skin, shapes of

the tubing and horizontal or complex wells are all parameters in which changes must be

done on them to reach the sweet spot of which the ultimate goal can be obtain by [6].

Modeling of production profile for big reservoirs has a long plateau phase instead

of having sharp peaks that have been noticed in small fields. The end of plateau phase is

marked to be the point of declining phase of petroleum production. One type of

5
petroleum production modelling is known as decline curve analysis. The decline curve

analysis is used for modeling field behaviors, and forecast of petroleum production

future. The decline curve analysis has many advantages including that we can apply this

method without depending on the size and shape of the reservoir or the actual drive

mechanism. By using this technique, we assume each field owns a constant decline rate,

and the production of an oil field fluctuates around some average value over time. We

can obtain the decline curve in three different forms of exponential, hyperbolic, or

harmonic. Mostly, we assume that the production curve we obtain is smooth [7].

Nodal analysis technique is used for the oil and gas industry, especially, in the

production of oil and gas from a wellborn. Nodal analysis plays a big role in many

applications of which are mandatory for the oil and gas extraction process. It is helpful

for planning the daily working in the oilfields because nodal analysis is one of the

methods that helps production engineers in forecasting the performance of different

elements in the reservoir [8]. However, Nodal analysis technique can work properly in

oilfields that have few wells. The reason goes back to the trial errors that exist in that

technique. As was explained above that the nodal analysis is about making changes to

different parameters in order to reach the sweet spot that fits to our ultimate goal which is

to optimize the production in a cost-effective manner and without damaging the reservoir.

Therefore, with that being said, the more wells the files have, then the more parameters

there is which also mean the higher the error might be due to the huge number of

calculations and graphs [8].

The lifetime of the petroleum production is divided into three different stages

which are the ramp-up, plateau and decline phases. The ramp-up phase is when new wells

6
are drilled and completed and the rate of production increased steadily. In the plateau

phase, the production stays in a constant level. In the decline phase, the production

cannot maintain for longer time, so the production rate decreases at this level [9].

Sometimes we might face problems where oil flow is very low or does not flow

because of low bottom hole pressure. One of the methods to lift the oil or increase the

production of oil is to use gas lift in order to lift the oil. Moreover, Nodal analysis is also

helpful in finding the optimum value for gas injection in order to give the optimum

production. In addition, it can stabilize the production of oil. Another way to increase the

production of oil is to not open fully (close to closing the choke) the choke of the well-

head. In these two ways, we can stabilize the production of oil which is beneficial

because in unstable production we might face surges during production that can have

negative impact on production system [10] There are money drawbacks that we face

during production of petroleum, and energy consumption is one the of the ways which

can be optimized to reduce the energy consumption. There is energy consumption inside

the reservoir and lifting system and in oil gas gathering transportation system. It has been

shown that the most energy is wasted near well bottom. One way to decrease the loss of

energy near the well bottom is to decrease the seepage resistance [11].

The problem which we were trying to solve was the decline in production of gas

and oil. This was done using nodal analysis to optimize the production. Basically, we

were trying to manipulate each of the parameters which effects the production of gas and

oil to see how each one of them is changing with the flow rate. Additionally, after

selecting and plotting the parameters versus flow rate, we found the optimum value for

each parameter. Then, we applied all the optimum values theoretically to oil fields in

7
order to get the optimum production rate. Most importantly, we want to prolong the life

of a reservoir by having optimum production rate of gas and oil.

Our solution for the problem was by using PROSPER software in order to plot the

effect of each parameter versus flow rate. We tried to get oil and gas field data, but we

could not get any, so we got data from Dr. Abdelaziz Khlaifat, and he was the one who

provided us most of the data that we need as well as verifying the plots that we got from

PROSPER.

8
 Chapter 2:
Designing process and drawings

2.1 . Problem Statement :

In this prototype, we want to show how production of oil is working in real-life. By

that, the prototype contains a fluid mixture of oil and water in the reservoir. The fluid
mixture is pumped up to the separators which separate the oil and water by the act of
gravity. Since water is denser than oil, water goes down and oil floats on the top of the
water.

2.2. Principle behind Design :

The objective behind making this prototype is to showcase the process of getting
oil from a reservoir. This prototype will give a simplified idea yet logical behind the
process of producing oil and gas from a reservoir. The design was made using transparent
material to show the flow of the liquids from the first step (oil under the ground) up to the
last one (separating and filtering the oil).

We wanted to measure the pressure in both the reservoir and the pipe used for
pumping up the fluid. We have placed four pressure gages all over the vertical pipe, and
the fluid reservoir in the bottom base. Due to the fact that real reservoir underground have
high pressure that allows the liquid to flow up to the highest point in the field, it’s clearly
impossible to get this pressure naturally so we fixed this problem using two pumps in
which will put enough pressure on the system and get the flow in a nice continuous cycle.

To make things even more realistic, we have placed a flow rate gage on top of the
assembled prototype, last stage before the separators, to give us clear idea on the speed of
the flow and the amount that has been carried through the pipes to reach up to the
separators in which also will allow us do the right and enough calculations need to get to
the conclusion on how the factors that we manipulated affected the results

After this stage we have placed the two separators. From the first place we have
placed water and oil in the reservoir so that we can be close enough to the real reservoir
factors. When the liquid flows through the pipes it goes all the way up to the flow rate

9
gage and then it enters the filtration stage of which the liquid enters the first stage of
separating the oil from the water. We have used the different densities principle to reach
to our demands of having the two liquids separated. We have placed a pipe on the lower
section of the 1st separator to get the water with the highest density and push it to the
second container and push it again as pure water to the system. We have also placed a
pipe on the upper stage of the 1st separator so that it allows oil that has lower density,
which will flow, to pass purely and pushed directly back to the system.

The water and oil that have been separated will be pushed back to the system
through two different pumps with two different flexible transparent pipes that would
enter the circular transparent reservoir from the exact opposite location to give an equal
pressure around the rocks and material inside. This was not enough because this would
have put higher pressure on the inlets of the two places rather than all around. So, we
have created a plastic wall with uniform wholes size and placed it inside the reservoir
between the formation and the incoming liquid from the pumps which will equalize the
pressure all over the reservoir.

 For designing the prototype, we have ordered the following materials to be bought
for manufacturing the prototype, and most of the parts have been bought in
Sulaimani and Erbil cities.
o Battery
o 2 rectangular wood pieces (roof and base)
o 2 long wood pieces (supporters)
o 2 thin Iron tubes ½ Inch(supporters)
o 4 pressure gages
o 1 water flow rater reader
o 2 pumps (one for oil and one for water)
o One big plastic transparent container acting as a reservoir
o Plastic wall with uniformed wholes inside the plastic container
o 6 kg of normal sized stones
o 1 inch transparent tube for 1.5 meters
o 2 plastic trans[parent containers (acting as separates)

10
o Rectangular piece of wood (set the 1st separator stage on)
o 1 inch choke (1 piece)
o ½ inch chokes(2 pieces)
o Screws
o pins
o glue
o Teflon
o Silicon
o Wax
o White paint
o Wood paint
o Flexible thin iron for stabilizing

11
 2.3. Drawings & Dimensions
This part includes all drawings required for the
prototype dimensions

All Dimensions showed are in inches

12
 0.79

23.23
19.69

0.
43
0.
45

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Base
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 13 SCALE:1:10 SHEET 1 OF 1

 0.79

23.23

2
1.2
19.69

0.4
3

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Base-Top
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 14 SCALE:1:10 SHEET 1 OF 1

 TRUE R0.23

1.42
0.12
1.38

TRUE R0.12
63
0.
1.99
1.57

1.65
1.50

0.12

2.13 12
.
2.36 R0 1.10

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Caster Wheel Assembly

Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 15 SCALE:1:1 SHEET 1 OF 1

 2.17

1.77
1.18

0.59
0.59
0.53
0.59

0.57
2.56
2.17

2.95

0.62
1.77
R0
.1
0

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Flowmeter AssemblyA4
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.

WEIGHT: 16 SCALE:1:2 SHEET 1 OF 1

 0.46

0.50

0.75
0.04

0.85

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Joint
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 17 SCALE:2:1 SHEET 1 OF 1

0.39

0.32

0.7
9
R0

0.43
.3
9

5
0.4

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Nut
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 18 SCALE:2:1 SHEET 1 OF 1

 0.05
TRUE R0.06

0.64
0.59
1.61
1.57

0.20

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Pressure Gauge Assembly

Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 19 SCALE:1:1 SHEET 1 OF 1

 0.79
2.32

0.3
5

2.36
0.79
5.12

0.98

0.39

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Pump
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 20 SCALE:1:2 SHEET 1 OF 1

 1.1
8

1.
02
44.09

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

PVC Pipe
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 21 SCALE:1:10 SHEET 1 OF 1

 18
1.
14.33

4.18

14.15
13.28
0.31
0.20
5.99

8.33
9
.3

9.08
R0

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Reservior Assembly A4
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.

WEIGHT: 22 SCALE:1:10 SHEET 1 OF 1

 TRUE R0.25
7.77
5.02
4.65

8.66
9
.3

5.91
9
R0

.3

9.45
R0

6.69

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Separators AssemblyA4
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.

WEIGHT: 23 SCALE:1:5 SHEET 1 OF 1

 7.68
4.92
7.28
4.53
4.72
4.33

R0
.2
0

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Wood Block
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 24 SCALE:1:5 SHEET 1 OF 1

 3.94

0.59
37.80

0.24

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND

DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D

MFG

Wood Support
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.
A4

WEIGHT: 25 SCALE:1:10 SHEET 1 OF 1

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: FINISH: DEBUR AND
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING REVISION
DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS BREAK SHARP
SURFACE FINISH: EDGES

Design II Capstone Project

TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:

NAME SIGNATURE DATE TITLE:

Sardam Ahmed
Las Ahmed
DRAWN

CHK'D

APPV'D Khalid Khairy

MFG Ali Zalam

Prototype AssemblyA4
Q.A MATERIAL:
DWG NO.

WEIGHT: 26 SCALE:1:20 SHEET 1 OF 1

The Solid Work of the prototype

27
28
 Chapter 3:
Manufacturing and Prototype Testing
3.1. Manufacturing Process of the Prototype
Prototype: includes the process of pumping underground fluid up and separation of oil
and water.
In the first stage of capstone project in Design I class, we decided to present
our project with a prototype displaying how the mixture is pumped up from the
underground using electric pumps. The design and manufacturing process of this
prototype consisted of several stages, as explained below:

First Stage: In April 2019, our budget request was accepted, and we finalized the
design for building the prototype. The final design we suggested to follow is shown in
figure 3-1. By the end of month April 2019, we obtained all the parts we needed.
Because of the summer break we decided to start working on the prototype in July
2019.

Fig. 3-1: The First plan for building the prototype of the project

29
Second Stage: In June 2019, we started working on building the prototype. The work
was in Fabrication Shop of the university. We began with making the bottom and top
basements of the model using the wood sections available in the fabrication shop in
the university. The dimensions of the basements are shown in the drawing’s parts of
the project. After making the basements ready, the reservoir was fixed on the bottom
base by using screws. The pumps are also fixed with the steel rods. One of the pumps
was designed to pump the water up while the other pump was designed to pump oil
up to the separators. After fixing the pumps, the two separators were fixed on the top
wood support, one to separate oil from water by gravity and the other to collect water
and directing it again to the pumps. After setting the separators, connections between
separators and valves and the bottom part reservoir were made by using transparent
hose. The work on this stage has been done in 28 days in the months of June and July.
The Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the process of the second stage steps of manufacturing
the prototype.

Figure 3-2: The prototype at the Figure 3-3: The prototype at the end of
beginning of the second stage the second stage.

30
Third Stage: After summer break, we resumed working on manufacturing the
prototype in September 2019. In this stage, the other connections between the pipes,
hose parts, separators were completed. At first, the connections were done using
Silicon named "Al-Najar" made in China for connecting the hose with the reservoir,
made of PP plastic. All the closure and joints have been closed using the silicon of Al
Najar. After we finished all the connections of the prototype as it is shown in figure 4,
we decided to do the first test of leakage and connections stability by the end of
September 2019. During this first test, we have noticed the leakage in different places
of the prototype, and the major noticeable leakages were from the pressure gauge
connected to the reservoir as well as the hose parts connected to the reservoir. We
have thought that the quality of the Silicon has effects on creating the leakages, thus
leading to new holes. Figure 3-4 shows the working process, and prototype stand at
the third stage.

Figure 3-4: Working on the Prototype in the Third Stage Using Al-Najar
Silicon

31
Forth Stage: After the failure noticed in the third stage, we have started working for
the prototype in the fourth stage, which was about removing the previous Silicon used
and using a stronger silicon type. After asking for a new type of Silicon, we have used
a Silicon named "Soudal" which was made in Turkey with high quality for resisting
about 320 kg of load. The old Silicon has been removed from all the joints where
leakage was coming from, and substituted with new silicon. Even though, the leakage
has been decreased by approximately 25%, they couldnot be controlled. Figure 3-5
and 3-6 remarks the beginning and the end of working in the fourth Stage.

Fig 3-5: Working at the begging of the Fig 3-6: The prototype finished at the
Forth Stage end of the Forth Stage.

32
Fifth Stage: After the fourth stage, the problem of leakage continued , and we could
not solve the problem. With the help of lab assistant Ms. Hanar we decided to use
Wax glue for complete closure of the system. Fixing all joints took us about two
weeks from the middle of October till the end of October. By that time, all the joints
of the prototype have been filled with wax. After several tests during this stage of
work, we have noticed this can be a solution for fixing the joints and controlling the
leakage at the joints connected to the reservoir, but using wax was not successful in
closure of the reservoir at the bottom base.

Sixth Stage: After many problems we have faced in fixing the prototype, in this stage
we have decided to use the help of a technician working at the Bazar of Sulaimani.
With his experience of about 15 years in working in this field, he has used some great
ideas for making the joints in the valves and connecting hose to the reservoir and
separators. Also, he has used resistant tape for closing the reservoir as well as using
screws to fix the cap of the reservoir to the tank. By the end of November, we had the
prototype ready for testing after we made sure that the leakage is controlled in about
99%. Figure 3-7 & 3-8 shows the prototype at its final stage of manufacturing in the
fabrication shop of technician.

33
Figure 3-7: The prototype at the Figure 3-8: The prototype at the
Fifth Stage end of the sixth stage.

Seventh Stage: By the beginning of December we have did the test, and we have
tried to use equal amount of water and oil in the reservoir. In the test of this stage we
have noticed that, because the amount of oil added to the reservoir was very high, it
was hard for the pump to pump up the mixture of oil and water collected at the
reservoir. In this stage also we couldn't see the success of the project.

Final Stage: In December 2nd, we have tested the prototype again after decreasing the
amount of oil added and making a balance between the amount of water and oil in the
reservoir. By using two different DC power supplies, we did the final test and we
have achieved the success of the project. The fluid was pumped up very sufficiently
and the required cycle was completed in a period of time. Also, the separation was
noticed to be done very sufficiently, and the hoses connected to oil pump were filled
with oil and the water hoses were filled with water. For this test we have used
synthetic oil, representing real oil in the reservoirs, because synthetic oil is less
viscous and using it make the pumping process easier, and it helps the prototype to
work more sufficiently. Figures 3-9 and 3-12 shows the prototype's standing level at
the final stage.

34
Figure 3-9: The separators part in Figure 3-10: The reservoir of the
separation process prototype while pumping the fluid up.

Figure 3-11: The complete assembly of Fig ure3-12: The prototype standing
the prototype of oil reservoir and level while the fluid was pumping up in a
separators complete circle.

35
3.2. Challenges
We have faced many big problems that took a lot of time and effort to solve
during the process of making of the shown prototype and the shown data in this
report. Our project did not require a physical prototype due to the fact that it is a
research paper work that deals only with graphs, numbers and changing variables
around to reach best understanding on how to maximize the production of oil and gas
in a well using nodal analysis. We thought that building a prototype would attract
more people to come and visit our booth when we present it. Our supervisor Dr.
Abdelaziz Khlaifat admired the idea and since spring of 2019 our team started
working on the making of the structure of this prototype. The prototype objective is to
mainly showcase the principle behind the functionality of a well. We are simplifying
the process of the production of oil and gas from the raw liquid underground up to the
filtration process.
The idea of the prototype might sound simple (and that’s what we thought at
first too), yet once we started working on them a lot of challenges showed up. We
worked during spring 2019 and we met 2 to 3 times every week. Not only that but
even in summer when we did not have any classes we were coming to the university
with a permission from the facility to work on our prototype and finalizing it in the
fabrication shop of the university.
We have ordered the materials that we needed through the university and we
knew that this will take a lot of time so we did not want to waste any time. We started
working on building the structure of the prototype from wood, metal and plastic. All
of these materials were available in the fabrication shop of the university. By the time
we finalized all the assembly of the available material to build up the structure of the
design we received the material and items that we have orders through the university
which was delivered by the end of the semester. So, we were super happy about our
decision of not waiting but in fact working with the available items.
The spring semester was done and we had a deal on working on summer to
finalize the design so that when the fall semester comes in, we are already done.
Three out of four of our group members were luckily in the same city, Sulaimani. For
12 weeks of the summer break we were meeting 3 times per week to work on
assembling the items that we have ordered. Everything went smoothly and
successfully and we were super happy with the outcomes and the look of the design.

36
 On the fall of 2019 we had very small unfinished details so we collaborated on
fixing them as a group. The main objective of the plan for that semester was to finish
the details and keep testing our design to make sure it’s solid and functional.
The first Test disappointed us a lot. There was a lot of leakages in every join
all around the prototype. Everything was going great and we had no problem but only
this one. The material that we were using was Silicone. We spotted the places that had
leakages and on the following week after letting it dry, we worked hard on it again
and tried to fill up all the gapes and wholes. We worked for 4 days in a row and on the
5th day we decided to test it again. Unfortunately, we ended up with similar results but
with less leakages, so we thought that our plan was working but we need to use more
of this material in some areas.
We kept repeating the same process over and over again which took us weeks.
The fact that when we were testing our project, we were only checking the lower part
of the prototype which had many problems back then. In each time of testing we
stopped after spotting leakages. We did not use the motors to pump up water to the
upper part (filtration process). We finally spotted and fixed all the problems that the
prototype had and tried to give it a final test. The test was perfect and never had a
drop of liquid coming out of it from anywhere. We were so happy about the results
and we decided to attach the motors to the 12 V battery that was meant to supply both
of our motors with enough electricity. Once the motors were on, we could see
leakages all over the prototypes. After analyzing the problem, we reached to a
conclusion that no matter how hard we are trying with this material it will never work
due to the high amount of pressure.
The deadline of submitting the prototype and testing it officially with AUIS
was only a month away. We had no choice but to make a game changer decision.
After a lot for thinking with our group members and our supervisor we decided on
disassembling everything and create new containers. We immediately started working
on the plan. We took off all the silicon and all the other material that was useless of
preventing the leakage problem. We made new holes for the containers, but to prevent
breaking it we used a new technique this time which was heat. Then, to connect the
flexible pipes with the containers through the pumps and back to the filtration
process, we have made super well-designed items (created with super high details)
that can connect all the part together from the inside and outside. We have designed
those connections for every single joint in the prototype which had more than 15

37
joints. Each one of those took us 15 to 20 minutes depends on the details that each
required. We have used silicon and other materials to stick the joints with the
containers and other parts while already having mechanical techniques to strengthen
the bonding of the joints from the out and inside.
We have attached a rubber layer on top of each of the containers and then used
screws to attach the top of the containers with the lower part to ensure that there will
never be any leakage. This process took us a lot of time and we had to take our
prototype outside of university due to the fact the we were lacking a lot of important
material and machines in our fabrication shop in campus. Daily visits that was
distributed between our team members was required to make this mission successful.
However, due to the pressure of the classes and since were in the last weeks of classes
which meant a lot of deadlines for many other projects, exams and quizzes, yet were
successful at managing all of that pressure.
Finally, the prototype was ready for a test. We have tested it slowly and
smartly this time. We filled up the lower part of the prototype with water only to
avoid any mess that the oil will make it there was a leakage. Thankfully there was
zero leakage this time. However, and to make things certain, we had to think about
the time Vs. pressure factor. So, we used a blue marker and marked the level of water
in the pipe. We let it rest and came back after 10 hours and found out the water level
was still the same! We were extremely happy about the results that not even one
single drop was coming out of our prototype.
Although we were so happy, but we had to do a full test and see a full cycle.
We finalized and checked all parts individually. We spent so much time analyzing the
process and imagining what might go wrong with the design. We reached a
conclusion that we are in need of making a small hole for atmospheric pressure and
that can be also used as an inlet for the added water and oil liquid to the process.
We brought back the prototype to campus and booked a time with our
supervisor to do our pre final test. We met and started filling up the 13 L of water and
5 L of oil. The process went so well and very smooth and net. The mix of the oil with
water created a tiny problem and it was mixing and reacting in a weird way that turn
the oil to be even thicker. This cause a problem because the oil was not going through
the flexible pipes and the oil pump was unable to pump that thick oil.
Finally, we realized that our pipes are not being used to their fullest potential
which was 24V each! The battery that we were using to supply both pipes was only

38
12V which means each pump was getting 6V only. Which also means that its 25% of
its fullest potential. So, a simple and easy solution to this problem was to connect
each pump to a power supply and slowly increase the voltage to 24V. Once we did
this, everything worked perfectly. Our fluids cycle was finally complete and our
filtration stages worked so well in which the oil was pushed to its oil pipe and water
was pushed to its own pipe. We couldn’t be any happier with the ending of our
project.

39
3.3. Prototype Testing Data
Prototype testing: After we considered that the prototype is working completely, we
have tested the prototype with applying different voltage and volume of water and
synthetic oil we have tested the prototype and table 3-1 shows the results of the
testing done and data collected at the day of testing.

Table 3-1 the data collected at the test date.

Volume of Volume of Voltage Voltage Time Time

Water Oil (Liters) applied to applied to required required
(Liters) water oil pump for for
pump(volts) (volts) completing completing
a pumping a
cycle (Sec) separation
cycle (min)
14 4 18 21 Failed **
16 2 21 19.3 4.5 10
16 2 20 Turned off 11.2 10
16 2 22 21 3.9 10
16 2 Turned Off 19.5 18 10

From the data we have obtained from our testing we have observed multiple
points. Firstly, we have observed that the pumping process cannot be easy if the
amount of oil is not less than 1/7 of the amount of water. We also have noticed that
pumping process cycle will be different when only one pump is turned on. Based on
the fluid passing through the pump if each pump works separately, it will have
different effects on completing the cycle of pumping the fluids.
As we have noticed, pumping with water pump lonely is much easier than
pumping with oil pump alone, and it takes shorter time. This occurs as a result of high
level of viscosity of oil which is much higher than water's viscosity. Also, it has been
noticed working with both oil and water pumps gets better results, and the cycle
finishes earlier than using only one pump. Moreover, using separators at the top base
of the prototype the oil and water separated with taking advantage of gravity. Also,
we have noticed that the cycle has not had a great effect on the cycle made in the oil-
water reservoir. The time required for oil and water to be fully separated was about 10
minutes. Finally, we had each separator with the high amount of fluid that is supposed

40
to be in. For example, there was a high amount of water in the bottom level separator,
and high level of oil in the top-level separator.
Using this prototype, and applying different voltages and using two different
volumes of water and synthetic oil , we have simplified the view of two important
processes in Petroleum engineering field , the first of them is the process of pumping
the fluid underground up , and the second process is separating water from oil using
gravity after the fluid is pumped up from the reservoir.

41
 Chapter 4:
Nodal Analysis Technique for oil and gas production optimization

4.1. Problem Statement

One of the most important industries in Iraq, Kurdistan Region in which the
country economically depends on is oil industry. The amount of petroleum that is
available underground is abundant, but the amount of oil produced doesn't meet with
the demand for better economic situation in the country. As a result, we have decided
to use nodal analysis technique in order to observe the changes in different parameters
and its effects on improving the production rate in oil field sector.

4.2. Methodology of optimization and data analysis using nodal analysis

technique
A- After making a huge contact, we have obtained the data about a particular
oil field named "Aziz Field"
B- Beside the production data, we also have obtained all related fluid
properties required to use in prosper software.
C- After entering all the data and preparing the program, we have decided to
use two different models which are Darcy and Jones Model.
D- We have decided to give six different values for each parameter.
E- The variables we changed for Darcy Model are the following :
a. Reservoir Temperature
b. Skin
c. Tubing diameter
d. Reservoir Thickness
e. Reservoir Permeability
f. Tubing Roughness
F- The variable we have changed for Jones Model is the following:
a. Perforation Interval
G- Each figure in Data Analysis part includes a chart which illustrates the
intersections of IPR and VLP curve in each value of each parameter.
H- The curves in green color are IPR curves
I- The red curves show VLP curves.

42
 4.3.The data used in Prosper software

Table 4-1 : Description of the fluid and well

Fluid Description
Fluid Oil & Water
Method Black Oil
Separator Single Stage separator
Emulsions No
Hydrates Disable warning
Water Viscosity Default Correlation
Viscosity Model Newtonian Fluid
Well Description
Flow Type Tubing Flow
Well Type Producer
Well Completion
Type Cased Hole
Reservoir
Inflow type Single Branch
Calculation Type
Pressure & Temperature
Predict
(Offshore)
Model Rough Approximation
Range Full System
Output Show Calculating Data

Table 4-2: Input parameters entered in Prosper software

Input Parameters
Parameter Value Unit
Solution
2.57 Mscf/STB
GOR
Oil
40 API
Gravity
Gas sp.
0.611
Gravity Gravity
Water
20000 ppm
Salinity

Table 4-3 : Tubing and casing data

Type Xmas Tree Tubing Casing
Rate Multiplier 1 1 1
Measured depth (feet) 0 7799.95 8000
True Vertical Depth (feet) 0 7799.95 8000
Pipe length (feet) 7799.95 200.05
Tubing Inside diameter (inches) 3.9
Tubing Inside Roughness (inches) 0.0006
casing inside diameter 8
Casing Inside Roughness 0.006

43
Table 4-4 :Darcy model parameters entered in Prosper software
Darcy Model Parameters
Reservoir Pressure 3650 psig
Reservoir Temperature 250 deg F
Water Cut 1 Percent
Total GOR 172.8 Mscf/STB
Reservoir Permeability 200 md
Reservoir Thickness 40 feet
Drainage Area 3000 acres
Dietz Shape Factor 31.6
Wellbore Radius 0.433 feet
Skin 5

Table 4-5 : PVT Match data

44
 Table 4-6 : Parameters used for Jones model
Jones Model Parameters
Reservoir Pressure 3650 psig
Reservoir Temperature 250 deg F
Water Cut 1 Percent
Total GOR 172.8 Mscf/STB
Reservoir Permeability 200 md
Reservoir Thickness 40 feet
Drainage Area 3000 acres
Dietz Shape Factor 31.6
Wellbore Radius 0.433 feet
Perforation Interval 7 feet
Skin 5

Table 4-7 :Aziz field Well No. 1 Production Performance

Reservoir Pressure 3650 psi

API 40

Date Water
Gross Net Gas Rate GOR
𝑷𝒘𝒉 , 𝒑𝒔𝒊 Cut
bbl/d .Bopd Mcf/d Mcf/bbl
(%)

January-16 100.0 923 914 1 2343.2 2.57

February-16 99.9 922 912 1 2340.3 2.56
March-16 72.2 666 659 1 2323.4 3.53
April-16 92.0 849 841 1 3054.0 3.63
May-16 71.3 658 651 1 2370.7 3.64
June-16 53.8 497 492 1 1790.4 3.64
July-16 42.7 394 390 1 1200.7 3.07
August-16 42.3 390 386 1 1188.0 3.08
September-16 41.4 382 378 1 1163.3 3.08
October-16 37.5 346 342 1 1498.4 4.38
November-16 41.1 379 375 1 1641.6 4.38
December-16 42.0 388 384 1 1680.5 4.38
January-17 41.5 383 379 1 1657.7 4.38
February-17 43.1 398 394 1 1678.2 4.26
March-17 40.6 375 371 1 1713.2 4.62
April-17 64.2 593 587 1 2710.5 4.62
May-17 67.2 620 614 1 2835.0 4.62
June-17 66.8 617 611 1 2822.3 4.62
July-17 78.5 725 630 1 2900.6 4.62
August-17 80.8 746 685 1 2950.3 4.50
September-17 83.5 771 722 1 2988.2 4.01

45
 October-17 85.0 785 777 1 3014.0 3.88
November-17 109.0 1006 996 1 3646.2 3.66
December-17 110.1 1016 1006 1 3683.1 3.66
January-18 112.5 1038 1028 1 3761.1 3.66
February-18 109.5 1011 1001 1 3664.7 3.66
March-18 109.4 1010 1000 1 3658.6 3.66
April-18 110.6 1021 1011 1 3698.6 3.66
May-18 119.8 1106 1094 1 4172.1 3.81
June-18 120.8 1115 1104 1 4207.6 3.81
July-18 121.3 1120 1108 1 4225.0 3.81
August-18 120.9 1116 1105 1 4212.0 3.81
September-18 117.6 1085 1075 1 4096.4 3.81
October-18 117.3 1083 1072 1 4087.3 3.81
November-18 105.3 972 963 1 3669.5 3.81
December-18 118.4 1093 1082 1 4125.9 3.81
January-19 104.6 965 955 1 3641.4 3.81
February-19 103.8 958 948 1 3614.6 3.81
March-19 108.5 1001 991 1 3776.4 3.81
April-19 114.5 1057 1046 1 3987.8 3.81
May-19 112.6 1039 1029 1 3921.2 3.81
June-19 83.1 767 759 1 2894.2 3.81
July-19 119.8 1106 1095 1 4172.6 3.81
August-19 102.6 947 938 1 3574.9 3.81
September-19 94.3 870 862 1 3284.8 3.81

46
 4.4. Equations and Formulas

Even though we have used the prosper software for calculating the parameters , but
the equation number 1 is one of the main equations in calculating production rate ,
and it is based on the parameters of permeability, time, skin, viscosity.

−1
kh(Pi − Pwf ) k
q= (log t + log − 3.23 + 0.87 s) (1)
162.6Bµ Φµct r 2 w

The other equations that can be used for finding kinetic , potential (hydrostatic ),
frictional pressure drop , based on calculation of faming friction and Reynolds
number are the following:
ρ
∆pKE =
2g c (∆u2 ) (2)
2ff ρu2 L (3)
∆PF =
gcD
∆pPE = 0.433γw ∆z (4)
1 ε 1.2613 (5)
= −4 log(3.7605 + )
ff NRe √ff

1.48qp (6)
NRe =
Dµ

47
4.5. Data Analysis:
Nodal Analysis Using petroleum expert ( Prosper ) Software
The relationship between IPR curve and VLP is widely used in petroleum
engineering, and it carries out most of the important information about a specific
reservoir. It gives the fundamental characteristic point which is the intersection point
between them. It might be repetitive that the intersection point is mentioned again and
again. However, in petroleum engineering, all the analysis are done in order to change
the intersection point. Basically, we care about the flow of oil that we obtain on the
surface. That is the reason in which it has been studied very well in order to obtain the
optimum value for. We use different parameters to increase or moderate the flow of
oil and gas. The graph that we obtained is very basic and represents the property of
the oil and gas at specific conditions.
As we know that the conditions such as pressure, temperature, permeability,
skin factor, oil well ratio, water content of the reservoir changes with respect to time.
For the data we have obtained about a specific reservoir, the figure 4-1 is drawn in
order to show the initial situation for the reservoir in intersection occurred between
IPR and VLP with the following data set up:

Top node pressure 1300 psig

Water Cut 1 percent
Total GOR 1.8 Mscf/STB

Figure 4-1 set for these data (figure 4-1) shows the intersection point without
changing any parameter in the reservoir which is 8539.49 STB/day with pressure
drop of 2877.69 Psi.

48
Fig 4-1: The relationship between IPR and VLP curve without changing any variables
in the oil reservoir.

Changing parameters in Darcy's model:

Using Darcy's model we have changed several parameters including reservoir
temperature, Skin Factor, tubing diameter, reservoir thickness, reservoir permeability.
Reservoir temperature: is the temperature of the reservoir containing the fluids (Oil
and water) , and sometimes it contains free gas. The readings for the experiment have
been calculated for 5 different temperatures which were (70,106, 142,178,214,250) F
degrees as it is shown in figure 4-2.

49
Fig 4-2: IPR and VFP relationship at Darcy model Reservoir with different 6
temperatures.
It is observed from the graph that both IPR and VFP curves are affected by
changing the reservoir temperature, but the effect is greater on IPR curve. When the
liquid rate reaches 1300 STB/day, the change in VFP curve affected by temperature
disappears and the curve becomes uniform for all the temperatures. The most obvious
effect of temperature on this case is found in the IPR curve which each temperature
effect is shown in a different IPR curve. From the intersections obtained in the figure
4-1, we can investigate some points. Firstly, with higher temperature, we can obtain
higher value of liquid rate and the production will have greater values with having
higher temperature values. In the range we have selected the highest temperature was
250 ℉, the highest production rate was about 2416.3STB/day, and the lowest
temperature was about 70 ℉ , and it gave us the lowest production rate which was
about 7821.3 STB/day. Since the temperature of the reservoir is not a factor to be
changed easily, we cannot choose an optimum value for the temperature. However, it
is preferable that the reservoir temperature to be high because the flow rate to
borehole will be more.

50
Skin: in petroleum production is defined as the condition of the near-wellbore region
because at that region, most of the pressure drop happens there. Also, while drilling
the borehole, the formation gets damaged, and the permeability of the rock changes.
Positive skin indicates less flow to the bottom hole, and more pressure drop.
Likewise, negative skin means less pressure drop and more flow to the bottom hole.
Usually, we will have negative skin while we perform perforation to the casing from
downhole by sending a gun down to the borehole. The action of perforation makes
more holes on the sides of the casing in which permeability increases and more flow
will be in the bottom hole. Negative skin does not come with only perforation, also,
we can get negative skin by sending chemical acids to interact with the rock or
formation. Therefore, the interaction of the acid with the formation rises the
permeability, and oil and gas flows more to the bottom hole. However, we get the
positive skin from drilling the bore hole. In another words, sometimes the drill bit of
the auger damages the formation or the rocks, and this changes the permeability in
which less oil and gas will flow to the borehole. The relationship of IPR and VFP
curve in different skin values is shown in figure 4-3.

Fig 4-3: IPR and VFP relationship at Darcy model Reservoir with different 6 skin
values.

51
 Based on the figure we obtained (figure 4-3), it is clear that as the flow rate
decreases, the skin factor increases which we get less flow to the borehole. The
intersection point between the IPR and VFP or VLP shows the flow of oil and gas on
the surface. As we increase the skin factor or value, the intersection point between
IPR and VLP or VFP shifts to the right. Likewise, while the skin value decreases, the
intersection between IPR and VLP shifts to the right. As the intersection point shifts
to the right, we get more flow on the surface. It is more desirable the intersection
point between IPR and VLP to be on the right side. Usually we will have negative
skin values when the pressure of the reservoir is low and flow to the wellbore is very
low.

Tubing diameter : is the diameter of the tubes used in petroleum production

processes and sent downhole, for taking oil from the reservoir. We have used different
range of tubing diameters in order to know which diameter is more helpful for
obtaining better production in petroleum field. We have set the range of tubing
diameters to be between 4.00-5.5 inches. We have observed that the changes in tubing
diameter only had effects on VLP curve , and lower tubing diameter gave us low in
level VLP curve. The figure 4-4 shows the relationship between IPR and VLP curve.

Figure 4-4: IPR and VFP relationship at Darcy model Reservoir with different 6
tubing diameter values

52
 It is illustrated from figure 4.3 that when we increase the tubing diameter, the
intersection point between the IPR and VLP shifts to the right. When the intersection
shifts to the right, we get more flow rate of oil and gas on surface. However, we
cannot use very big tubing diameter because it would be impossible to extract oil and
gas out. Since the 5.5 inch tubing diameter gives the best possible situation or flow
rate, it would also be the optimum value for oil and gas production system.

Reservoir thickness: is one of the other important variables that has great effects on
the production rate of petroleum . In reality, knowing the reservoir thickness is such a
difficult job, and it requires a lot of sophisticated tools. Intuitively, the more reservoir
thickness, the better because it entraps more oil and gas. The figure 4-5 shows the IPR
and VLP curve relationships in different values of reservoir thickness, and clarifies
how the reservoir thickness has the role in petroleum production process.

Figure 4-5 The Relationship between IPR and VLP with the effect of different
reservoir thickness.

53
 In the graph of figure 4-5, the reservoir thickness effects the bottom hole
pressure or more specifically, it effects the IPR curve. The reservoir thickness ranges
from 35 to 80 ft, and in this case, we want to examine how will impact the pressure or
the IPR. As it is shown from the figure, the intersection between IPR and VLP goes to
the right which again gives us more flow of oil and gas on surface. However, the
reservoir thickness is not in our hands to control it or change it. Moreover, this figure
only demonstrates how will the thickness of the reservoir affects the pressure and IPR
curve. There is no optimum value here because the bigger reservoir thickness
provides more oil and gas to the surface. In other words, the highest value in this case
is 80 ft would be the optimum value for the reservoir thickness.

Reservoir permeability: is one the most vital factors in oil and gas field because it is
measured by how much fluids can pass through a medium over a period of time. We
wanted to discover the effect s of reservoir permeability on the IPR and VLP curves
and show its effect on the flow rate as it is illustrated in figure 4-6.

Figure 4-6 The Relationship between IPR and VLP with the effect of different
reservoir permeability.

54
 Moreover, permeability changes from vertical and horizontal layers. From the
data that we have obtained, and as it is illustrated by the figure, permeability affects
the IPR curve because we take the permeability of the rocks or formation into
consideration when fluid passes from the formation to the bottom hole. Moreover, it is
clear that a higher value of permeability permits more flow of fluids. Plus, from the
graph, it can be observed the intersection point goes to the right as the value of the
permeability increases. In Prosper Software, we used the values in a range from 200
md to 500 md (measured as Milli-Darcy which is the most common unit in the oil
field companies). We prefer the value of K (permeability) to be the highest because in
that case we can get most of the oil and gas entrapped from the reservoir. For our
specific case, the chose the optimum value of permeability to be the 500 md which
gives the highest flow rate of the oil and gas.

Tubing Roughness: It is noticed that it is not that easy to have a tubing process with
smooth tubes and no roughness existing inside the tubes. So, we decided to use some
different values of tubing roughness in inches to optimize the production rate and
pressure value for better petroleum production process . Figure 4-7 shows the IPR and
VLP curves relationship for different tubing roughness values.

Figure 4-7 The Relationship between IPR and VLP with the effect of different tubing
roughness.

55
 As we know, the pipe roughness changes over time, but the important factor is
that how much will it impact the flow rate and pressure as the value of roughness
changes. Moreover, it is really difficult for the roughness of the pipe to stay as it has
just been manufactured at factory. We have used different values ranging from
1 ∗ 10−6 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠to 0.99 inches. From the Figure 4-7, as it is illustrated that the values
of pipe roughness impacts the VLP curves, and the effect is dramatic. The flow rate
changes considerably large between the values. For example, for pipe roughness of
0.198, the flow rate would be 5164 STB/day, however, for pipe roughness of 0.396 it
gives 4476 STB/day. The difference between them is about 688 STB/day which is a
huge difference for very small different value of 0.198 of the roughness. This data
shows us that roughness of pipe is an important parameter in production. Moreover,
the best condition or value of pipe roughness would be 1 ∗ 10−6 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 in our case
because it leads to the maximum flow rate on the VLP curve. In addition, the
smoother the pipe, the more flow rate would be given. Also, the value of pipe
roughness of 1 ∗ 10−6 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 would be the optimum value for our case.

As the final parameter changed , we wanted to use Jones model instead of Darcy's
model and we decided to change the parameter of perforations range.
Perforation interval : is the distance of perforations occur inside the reservoir during
production process. The effects of Perforation interval in the IPR and VLP curves are
illustrated in figure 4-8.

Figure 4-8: The Relationship between IPR and VLP with the effect of different
perforation interval.

56
 From figure 4-8, we have observed that as most of the previous variables in
Darcy model, different perforation interval effects the IPR curve. From the figure we
obtained, different perforation intervals have been used ranging from 2ft to 12ft in
order to see the effect of it on the IPR curve. There is a big difference between 2 ft
perforation interval and 4 ft interval based on the graph in which the intersection point
between IPR and VLP curve shifted to right. However, as the perforation interval
increases, the effect on the IPR curve gets smaller. In other words, there will not be
such a big difference on the pressure when the perforation interval increases.
Specifically, the difference between perforation interval of 10 ft and 12 ft is very
small compared to the difference between 2ft and 4ft. More importantly, as we
increases the perforation interval, we can get more flow on surface because the
intersection point between the IPR and VLP curve shifts to right side of the graph.
Clearly, having bigger perforation interval gives more flow of oil and gas on surface,
so the optimum value of the perforation interval would be 12 ft in that case.

57
 Chapter 5:
Conclusions& Recommendations

5.1. Conclusions about nodal analysis technique

A- Nodal Analysis is one of the beneficial methods used for optimizing petroleum
production rate , and it helps engineers to decide the suitable situations for
production in order to get the highest rate of production with less negative
effects on other parameters.
a. Reservoir temperature (using with Darcy model) is one of the
parameters that only affects IPR curve . Increasing in the value of the
reservoir temperature leads to increasing the production rate and the
best optimum value is given in higher values of reservoir temperature.
b. The skin value (using with Darcy model) is another parameter that
only affects IPR curve . Increasing in the value of the skin leads to
decreasing the production rate and the best optimum value is given in
lower values of skin .
c. Tubing diameter (using with Darcy model) is the parameter that affects
VLP curve . Having higher tubing diameter leads to increasing the
production rate and the best optimum value is given in higher values of
tubing diameter.
d. Reservoir thickness (using with Darcy model) is another parameter that
only affects IPR curve . Increasing in the value of reservoir thickness
leads to increasing the production rate and the best optimum value is
given in higher values of reservoir thickness.
e. Reservoir permeability (using with Darcy model) is one of the
parameters that only affects IPR curve . Increasing in the value of the
reservoir permeability leads to increasing the production rate and the
best optimum value is given in higher values of reservoir permeability.
f. Tubing roughness (using with Darcy model) is one of the parameters
that only affects VLP curve . Increasing in the value of the tubing
roughness leads to decreasing the production rate and the best optimum
value is given in lower values of tubing roughness.

58
 g. Perforation Interval (Using Jones model) is one of the parameters that
only affects IPR curve . Increasing in the value of the perforation
interval leads to increasing the production rate and the best optimum
value is given in higher values of perforation interval.
h. The parameters of (Reservoir temperature, Skin, Tubing diameter,
Reservoir Thickness, reservoir permeability , tubing roughness) are
available in most of the petroleum production models.
i. In opposite of other mentioned parameters, the parameter (Perforation
interval is only available In Jones petroleum production model.
B- There are many software available in companies and petroleum fields for
using them in Nodal analysis technique and drawing the required graphs such
as SNAP, Pipe sim, Petroleum expert (prosper).
C- The most suitable software to be used for nodal analysis optimization is
Petroleum expert (Prosper), because it can be approached for free , and it's
using is less complex than other software used in huge companies.

5.2. Conclusions about the prototype made (Pumping up petroleum and

separation process)
A- Using Silicon as a leakage resistant material is not that beneficial as it is
beneficial for fixing two parts together.
B- It is very hard to find a type of Silicon in Iraqi Bazars that can be applied on
PP Plastic material.
C- One of the common problems that occurs in the drilling and production
processes is leakage problem , and fixing it cost high amounts of money.
D- The fluid underground is commonly a mixture of water and oil, if the amount
of oil is higher than water's amount it will require high force in order to pump
the fluid up.
E- The viscosity and density also are the factors effecting pumping the water and
oil up.
F- When a pump containing water as the main fluid used for pumping the fluid
up, the circulation process of pumping the fluid will be easier and it will
require less amount of time.
G- More viscous oil would be helpful for faster separation process , but it may be
very hard to be pumped up.

59
5.3. Recommendations for future working in this model
A- Instead of buying the parts from the Bazar, it is better to ask a factory to make
the required parts such as (reservoir, and separators used in the prototype
model ) to make them in closed way such that there is no chance for any
leakage at all, and use either stronger plastic or glass instead of PP plastic.
B- Finding a stronger glue than silicon for stabilizing the parts in the model.
C- For collecting more accurate data, the model should be made with bigger scale
design so the process is more clear and higher amounts of fluid used for
circulating and separation .

60
 Nomenclature
𝑞 Flow rate (STB/day)
𝑘 Permeability (md)
ℎ Height (ft)
𝑃𝑖 Initial pressure of the reservoir (psi)
𝑃𝑤𝑓 Bottom hole pressure (psi)
𝐵 Formation of volume factor (res bbl/STB)
𝑡 Time (sec, hour, day, month, year) depending on the situation
𝑐𝑡 Total Compressibility factor (𝑝𝑠𝑖 −1 )
𝑟𝑤 Drainage radius (𝑓𝑡, 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛. )
∆𝑝𝐾𝐸 Kinetic pressure drop (psi)
∆𝑢 Change in velocity (𝑓𝑡/𝑠)
∆𝑃𝐹 Frictional pressure drop (psi)
𝐼. 𝐷 Internal diameter (inches)
𝐿 Length (ft)
∆𝑝𝑃𝐸 Potential pressure drop (psi)
∆𝑧 Gross height (ft)
𝑃𝑡𝑓 Well head pressure (psi)

Greek Symbols
µ Vicosity (cp)
𝜌 Density (𝑙𝑏𝑚 /𝑓𝑡 2 )
Φ Porosity
𝛾𝑤 Specific gravity

Non-dimensional Numbers
Re Reynolds number
𝑠 Skin factor
𝑔𝑐 Gravity correction
𝑓𝑓 Fanning Friction factor
𝜀 Relative Roughness

61
 References
[1] Ben Mahmud, Hisham & Abdullah, Aman. (2017). Investigate a Gas Well
Performance Using Nodal Analysis. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering. 217. 012022. 10.1088/1757-899X/217/1/012022.

[2] Hashmet, Muhammad & Tan, Isa & Arif, Muhammad & Raza, Arshad &
Bashir, Arsalan & Ali, Mohamed. (2012). Production Optimization Using
Nodal Analysis-A Case Study.

[3] Zhou, W., Banerjee, R., & Proano, E. (2016, February 1). Nodal Analysis
for Unconventional Reservoirs--Principles and Application. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/171768-PA

[4] Sylvester, O., Bibobra, I., & Augustina, O. (2015). Gas Lift Technique a Tool
to Production Optimization. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal
Engineering,3(3), pp. 40-42. doi:10.11648/j.ogce.20150303.12

[5] Shah, M.S. and Hossain, H.M.Z. (2015) Evaluation of Natural Gas Production
Optimization in Kailashtila Gas Field in Bangladesh Using Decline Curve
Analysis Method. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research,
50, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjsir.v50i1.23807

[6] Igwilo, K.C., Okoro, E.E., Nwude, A.A., Mamudu, A.O. and Onuh, C.Y.
(2018) A Review on Gas Well Optimization Using Production Performance
Models—A Case Study of Horizontal Well. Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and
Oil, 3, 57-67. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojogas.2018.31005

62
 [7] Shah, N., & Mishra, P. (2012). Oil production optimization: A mathematical
model. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology,3(1),
37-42. doi:10.1007/s13202-012-0040-z

[8] Khor, C. S., Elkamel, A., & Shah, N. (2017). Optimization methods for
petroleum fields development and production systems: A review. Optimization
and Engineering,18(4), 907-941. doi:10.1007/s11081-017-9365-2

[9] Foss, B., Knudsen, B. R., & Grimstad, B. (2018). Petroleum production
optimization – A static or dynamic problem? Computers & Chemical
Engineering,114, 245-253. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.10.009

[10] Camargo, Edgar & Aguilar, Jose & Rios, Addison & Rivas, Francklin
& Aguilar-Martin, Joseph. (2008). Nodal analysis-based design for improving
gas lift wells production. 5.

[11] Lu, Y.F. (2017). The Integral Optimization Method of Oilfield

Production System. Advances in Petroleum Exploration and Development, 13
(1), 57-6

[12] Gardner, Berniece. “Lecture 10 Production Engineering - Ppt Video

Online Download.” SlidePlayer, 4 July 2017,
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10660395/.

[13] “Petroleum Production Optimization.” Oil&Gas Portal,

http://www.oil-gasportal.com/petroleum-production-optimization/.

63
View publication stats