Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PIPESIM 2009 1 Artificial Lift-545457UTU
PIPESIM 2009 1 Artificial Lift-545457UTU
and Optimization
Schlumberger Public
Workflow/Solutions Training
Version 2009.1
Disclaimer
Use of this product is governed by the License Agreement. Schlumberger makes no
warranties, express, implied, or statutory, with respect to the product described herein and
disclaims without limitation any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose. Schlumberger reserves the right to revise the information in this manual at any
time without notice.
Trademark Information
Software application marks, unless otherwise indicated, used in this publication are
trademarks of Schlumberger. Certain other products and product names are trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective companies or organizations.
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Table of Contents
Schlumberger Public
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Lesson 3: Performance Forecasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Exercise 1: Forecasting Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Exercise 2: Determining Choke Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Lesson 4: ESP Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Electric Submersible Pump Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Exercise 1: Placing an ESP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Lesson 5: Multiphase Booster Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Exercise 1: Placing a Multiphase Booster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Lesson 6: Gas Lift Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Overview of Gas Lift Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Evolution of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Exercise 1: Evaluating Gas Lift Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Exercise 2: Determining the Deepest Injection Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Exercise 3: Determining the Future Gas Lift Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Exercise 4: Bracketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Exercise 5: Designing for Gas Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Exercise 6: Forecasting Gas Lift Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Appendix B: Recommendations
Related Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Learning Objectives
After completing this training, you will know how to:
• select a completion design
• size a subsea tieback
• perform a multiphase booster design
• perform an ESP design
• perform a gas lift design
• evaluate design scenarios by performing production fore-
Schlumberger Public
casts
• determine the optimal allocation of gas lift among a network
of wells.
What to Expect
In each module within this training material, you will encounter the
following:
• Overview of the module
• Prerequisites to the module (if necessary)
• Learning objectives
• A workflow component
• Lesson(s), which explain about a subject or an activity in the
workflow
• Procedure(s), which show the sequence of steps needed to
perform a task
Course Conventions
Characters typed in Bold Represents references to dialog box
names and application areas or com-
mands to be performed.
For example, "Open the Open
Asset Model dialog." or “Choose
Components.”
Used to denote keyboard commands.
For example, "Type a name and press
Enter."
Identifies the name of Schlumberger
software applications, such as
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Icons
Throughout this manual, you will find icons in the margin represent-
ing various kinds of information. These icons serve as at-a-glance
reminders of their associated text. See below for descriptions of what
each icon means.
Schlumberger Public
Summary
In this introduction, we have:
• defined the learning objectives
• outlined what tools you will need for this training
• discussed course conventions that you will encounter within
this material.
In the following module, you will learn how to use PIPESIM to
create a conceptual design and forecast performance.
Schlumberger Public
NOTES
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Prerequisites
To successfully complete this training, you must:
• Have a working knowledge of PIPESIM
• Be familiar with production engineering concepts including
artificial lift methods
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will use PIPESIM to analyze the following
production engineering objectives:
• completion design – perforated vs. Frac-Pack
• field performance forecasting
• subsea flowline/riser sizing (EVR)
• arrival temperature limits
• evaluation of gas lift feasibility
• gas lift design.
where:
Schlumberger Public
EVR = erosional velocity ratio
Source Data
Flowline Data
ID (initial assumption) 8 in
Undulations 0/1000’
Elevation change 0’
Length 8 miles
HTC 2 BTU/hr/ft2/F
Riser data:
Schlumberger Public
Water cut 0%
Gas SG 0.71
c. Arrival Temperature
The crude has a high wax content with a cloud point of
78 degF. Deepstar research, however, has shown that
wax deposition can occur above the dead oil cloud point
in some systems.
Therefore, to avoid wax deposition altogether, the system
temperature should remain at 20 degF above the cloud
point (at least 98 degF). If wax is allowed to deposit and
be removed though pigging operations, the minimum
system temperature needs to be above 78 degF to
maintain a manageable pigging schedule.
7. The performance forecast for the field, as obtained through
reservoir simulation is shown below:
0 12000 0
5 11000 0
10 10200 0
Schlumberger Public
15 9500 0
20 8800 0
25 8200 0
30 7600 0
35 7100 0
40 6600 5
45 6200 10
50 5800 15
55 5450 25
60 5100 35
65 4800 45
70 4500 60
75 4250 70
80 4000 80
85 3800 84
90 3620 87
95 3480 89
100 3340 90
Single flowline
10
11
12
Dual flowline
Schlumberger Public
7
10
11
12
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• For a given line size, how does the water cut affect:
• The arrival temperature
• Liquid holdup
• Liquid viscosity
• Pressure gradient
• Explain how and why the following quantities vary as a
function of line size:
• Manifold pressure
• Maximum erosional velocity ratio
• System outlet temperature
where:
Schlumberger Public
k = Permeability (md)
h = Thickness of reservoir (ft)
Pws = Static reservoir pressure (psia)
Pwf = Flowing bottomhole pressure (psia)
μL = Liquid Viscosity (cp)
While the Darcy model is valid for single phase liquid flow (a
single phase gas form exists as well), for cases where reservoir
pressure falls 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 in
terms of flowrate as follows:
Vogel Equation:
where:
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Figure 5 Frac-Pack completion
Reservoir Data
Thickness 120 ft
Wellbore ID 6 in
0 0.9 0
0.1 0.9 0
0.2 0.9 0
0.9 0 0.5
1 0 0.5
Completion Options:
Schlumberger Public
Perforated Completion
Perforated Interval 60 ft
5. Enter the tubing data based on the table below using the
Simple Tubing Model.
Tubing Data
Tubing ID 4.67 in
Casing ID 7.625 in
SSSV 4 in @ 500 ft
KOP 5000 ft
TVD 12000 ft
MD 14000 ft
HTC 2 BTU/hr/ft2/F
Tamb @ wh 38 degF
AOFP (BPD)
11. Repeat the Nodal Analysis operation for the Frac-Pack option
based on the design parameters given below.
Frac-Pack Completion
Deviation 39 degrees
Schlumberger Public
completion parameters. Determine which completion design
parameters most influence the well performance.
Perforated completion:
____________________________________
Frac-Pack completion:
____________________________________
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• Which completion option should be used?
• Is it valid to characterize the IPR with a liquid PI rather than
the pseudo-steady-state model?
• Which parameters in the pseudo-steady-state model change
over time? How will this affect the PI over time?
• How does water cut relate to water saturation used in the
relative permeability table?
0 12000 0
5 11000 0
10 10200 0
15 9500 0
20 8800 0
25 8200 0
Schlumberger Public
30 7600 0
35 7100 0
40 6600 5
45 6200 10
50 5800 15
55 5450 25
60 5100 35
65 4800 45
70 4500 60
75 4250 70
80 4000 80
85 3800 84
90 3620 87
95 3480 89
100 3340 90
Reservoir Performance
120
100
watercut %
Reservoir Pressure (psia/100)
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cumulative Oil (MMSTBD)
Schlumberger Public
Assume that the economic watercut limit for the wells is 90%,
which will allow for a total recovery of 100 MMSTB of liquid from
the reservoir, corresponding to approximately 70 MMSTB oil or
$3.5 billion at a price of ($50/bbl) (Figure 6).
To forecast a performance:
1. Save the model as base_forecast.bps.
2. Setup the physical model as shown below.
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Your plot should appear similar to the one shown below:
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• How long will the wells be able to produce at the 60,000 BPD
target if no artificial lift is employed? (Use Excel to calculate
based on the cumulative recovery at the inlet pressure at
which the rate falls off plateau.)
Time on plateau: _________________.
Critical?
Predominant flow
regime in tieback
Schlumberger Public
7. Compare liquid holdup plots.
8. Save the model as choke_lcoation.bps.
Question
During the initial production time, is it better to choke at the
wellhead or topsides?
Schlumberger Public
the fluid (qΔp) to the power of the pump, has a maximum at some
pump, defined as the ratio of the hydraulic power transferred to
flow rate for a given pump. The developed head and efficiency
for a centrifugal pump depend on the particular design of the
pump and must be measured. These characteristics are provided
by the pump manufacturer as a pump curve, such as that shown
in Figure 9.
Schlumberger Public
Figure 9 Typical ESP performance curve
Schlumberger Public
• Gas and solids are problematic
• Lack of production rate flexibility unless equipped with
variable speed drives
• Casing size limitation
• Requires electric power source and high voltages
• Impractical for low volume wells
• High intervention costs (requires rig to remove ESP)
You will now install an ESP to boost the production as the wells
come off plateau. Prior to 2003, ESPs were not rated to operate
in temperatures of more than 350 degF. However, recent
advances have pushed this limit to approximately 435 degF
(http://www.slb.com/media/services/artificial/submersible/
hotline_br.pdf). Therefore, the ESP will be placed as deep as
possible to reduce the likelihood of vapor presence at the pump
intake later in the life of the well.
To place an ESP:
1. Starting with the model from the previous exercise, clear any
choke settings for the wellhead and topsides chokes by
setting these values to be equal to that of the upstream pipe
diameter.
2. Save the model as ESP_design.bps.
3. Perform an ESP design using the reservoir conditions
corresponding to the first point that the system was unable to
produce any fluid (Pr = 6600; wc% =5; GOR = 400 scf/STB):
Schlumberger Public
HP required
GVF at inlet
Schlumberger Public
7. Click the install pump button to install the pump.
Schlumberger Public
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• Change the x-axis to inlet pressure and invert the axis. Based
on the cumulative production table, how long will the wells be
able to produce at the 60,000 BPD target if an ESP is
employed?
Time on plateau: ______
Schlumberger Public
increased overall efficiency. As the gas is compressed though
successive stages, the geometry of the impeller/diffuser changes
to accommodate the decreased volumetric rate.
The impeller clearances are sufficient to allow production of small
amounts of sand particles. While helico-axial pumps are more
prone to stresses associated with slugging, installation of a buffer
tank upstream of the pump is generally sufficient to dampen
slugging effects so that they are not a problem.
The helico-axial pump model characterizes pump performance
using three correlating parameters. The flow parameter (FQ) and
the head parameter (FZ) characterize the size of the impellers
and the number of impellers respectively, thus defining a specific
pump.
A speed parameter representing the percentage of maximum
speed is then adjusted based on the desired differential pressure
for a given rate (or vice-versa). The requirement is calculated
based on a combination of pump performance and drive
mechanism. Drive options include a hydraulic turbine drive,
electric air-cooled drive and an electric oil-cooled drive.
Unlike single-phase pumps and compressors, no generalized
model exists that is able to accurately characterize the
performance of multiphase pumps. This is due in part to complex
and highly proprietary internal pump geometries.
Additionally, the variety of fluid properties and in-situ phase
distributions makes it extremely difficult to rigorously describe the
thermo-hydraulics occurring within the pump. For these reasons
Schlumberger Public
3. Set the completion properties and black oil properties to
reflect the first point that the non-lifted base case system was
unable to produce any fluid (Pr = 6600; wc% =5).
4. Ensure that the nodal analysis point at the bottomhole is
inactive and the nodal analysis point at the manifold is active.
5. Perform a Nodal Analysis Operation to determine the liquid
rate can be produced by the multiphase booster, multiphase
booster in combination with the ESP, and the ESP by itself.
a. Define ESP speed as the inflow sensitivity variable and
set it to 0 Hz (to effectively ignore the ESP) and 60 Hz for
full speed.
b. Define MFB pressure differential as the outflow sensitivity
variable and set to 0 psi (to effectively ignore the MFB)
and to 1000 psi to model maximum boosting pressure
differential.
c. Ensure that the outlet pressure is set to 200 psia.
Run the case and record the liquid rate in the table below:
MPB dP (psi) 0 60
1000
Result
TIP: Plot ESP & MFB power vs. inlet pressure and
Schlumberger Public
copy data tab into excel. Sum the MFB power
and the ESP power times four for each pressure
to determine total power requirement.
8. Save the model as MFB_design.bps.
The depth at which the operating gas lift valve can be located
depends on the gas injection pressure available. The more
pressure available, the deeper the injection point can be. Also, as
the depth of the injection gas is increased, less injection gas is
required to achieve the same bottomhole pressure.
Figure 14 on page 50 illustrates the concept of a continuous gas
lift well in terms of the pressure values, pressure gradients, well
depth and depth of injection. With the available flowing
bottomhole pressure and the natural flowing gradient (dp/xz)b,
the reservoir fluids would only ascend to the point indicated by
the projection of the pressure profile in the well. This would leave
a partially filled wellbore.
Addition of gas at the injection point would reduce the pressure
gradient (dp/dz)a, thereby allowing the fluids to be lifted the
surface. The intersection of the casing pressure gradient with the
lower tubing pressure gradient (dP/dz)b is shown as the “balance
point”. However, to the pressure loss across the lift valve, the
valve must be located at an injection depth higher than the
balance point.
As shown by the intersection of the bottomhole flowing pressure
and the (sideways projected) IPR curve, the flowrate is given.
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Figure 15 Gas lift vs. Liquid production
Evolution of Technology
New deepwater subsea high-pressure gas-lift technology has
recently been developed by Schlumberger to minimize the risks
associated with traditional, bellows-operated gas-lift valves.
Subsea high-pressure gas lift valves can improve project
economics through increased production and enhanced reliability
at higher pressures. Utilizing unique bellows technology, these
valves can be set deeper in the well to provide additional
drawdown and increased production, depending on the
application.
The new high-pressure gas-lift technology rates reliable bellows
operation for 5,000 psi at the valve depth compared to the
previous 2,500 psi limit typically present with traditional gas lift
valves.
Relative advantages of gas lift include the following:
• Can handle large volumes of solids
• Handles large flowrates
• Power source can be remotely located
• Easy to obtain downhole pressures and gradients
• Serviceable with wireline unit
• Suitable for deviated wells
• Corrosion usually not as adverse
Determine how deep gas can be injected in the tubing using the
reservoir conditions corresponding to the first point that the
system was unable to produce any fluid (Pr=6600; wc% =5).
To evaluate gas lift feasibility:
1. Starting with the MFP_design.bps model completed in the
previous exercise, save the model as GL_design.bps.
2. Deactivate the Multiphase Booster by right-clicking on the
icon and selecting Active.
3. In the Tubing menu, remove the depth entry associated with
the ESP. This will effectively ignore the ESP, though it can
easily be reinstated later.
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
NOTE: The liquid rate on the y-axis represents the
liquid rate at the topsides and therefore
incorporates production from all 4 wells.
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• There is no data point corresponding to a gas lift injection rate
of 0. What does this suggest?
• Explain the shape of the liquid flowrate curve. Why not inject
12 mmscfd?
• Explain the shape of the gas injection depth curve. Why does
Schlumberger Public
You now need to ensure that the gas lift injection pressure
corresponding to the gas lift rate determined above does not
exceed the 5000 psia limit.
To determine the deepest injection point:
1. Select Artificial Lift > Gas Lift > Deepest Injection Point.
2. Enter an Outlet Pressure of 200 psia, Injection Gas Rate
corresponding to the rate determined in the previous
exercise.
Schlumberger Public
From the plot above, it is observed that the casing pressure
at the gas lift injection point is approximately 4700 psia, which
is within the operating limit for the valve. The predicted
Deepest Injection Point (DIP) True Vertical Depth (TVD) is
9500 ft. which reaffirms the results produced by the Gas Lift
Response Curve.
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• Why does the production pressure (blue) curve change slope
above the injection point?
• Based on the results of your analysis, is gas lift feasible in
this case? ___________
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• Why is the gas lift injection depth line flat?
• How will increasing watercut affect the efficiency of the gas
lifting process?
• How will the declining reservoir pressure affect the efficiency
Schlumberger Public
of the gas lifting process?
Exercise 4 Bracketing
Example:
(QL initial = 38,650/4 wells or 9,660/well)
With the above considerations in mind for the particular well the
next step is to initially design the well at the worst-case
conditions for gas lift. Positioning the mandrels for the worst case
design allows for well unloading and for the well to be gas lifted,
though not necessarily optimized as well conditions change.
The worst-case conditions for gas lift design are:
• High reservoir pressure
• High productivity index (PI)
• High water cut percentage
In this case, while the high watercut does not occur until late in
the life of the wells, the worst case conditions correspond to the
time when the reservoir pressure is high as well as the
productivity index. Recall from the earlier analysis that the well PI
is the highest initially and declines over time.
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
5. Click Perform Design. You will see a result like the following.
Schlumberger Public
4. Record your results in the table below.
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• Why is the gas lift injection depth zero even as production
falls off the plateau?
• Why does the production rate increase as the reservoir
pressure declines from 4500 to 4250 psia?
• Would it be advantageous to supplement gas lift with
multiphase boosting? Explain.
Extended Exercises
Currently, the system is set up to inject a constant value of 8
mmscfd throughout the life of the system. From earlier analysis,
you know that the ideal gas injection rate will increase to
approximately 10 mmscfd late in life. To specify the gas injection
rates for each set of conditions, a new sensitivity column can be
added to the system analysis. Rerun the forecast with gas lift
injection rates that vary over time.
Re-activate the multiphase booster and repeat the performance
forecast.
Schlumberger Public
Review Questions
• Based on the results of the various artificial lift options
analyzed, what are the advantages and disadvantages of gas
lift compared to ESPs for this system?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of
supplementing wellbore artificial lift with a multiphase
booster?
Summary
In this module, you learned how to:
• select a completion design
• size a subsea tieback
• perform a multiphase booster design
• perform an ESP design
• perform a gas lift design
Schlumberger Public
NOTES
Schlumberger Public
Prerequisites
To successfully complete this training, you must have familiarity
with:
Schlumberger Public
• Network modeling with PIPESIM
• Gas lift concepts
• Production operations
Learning Objectives
After completing this training, you will know how to:
• construct a network model for a gas lifted production system
• specify the operating parameters and constraints that dictate
system performance
• determine the optimal allocation of gas lift among a network
of gas lifted wells.
Gas lift optimization at the field level is far more complex than
that for individual wells (Figure 16). The production system must
be modeled as an interconnected network to account for the
interaction among the wells. Additionally, field equipment must be
incorporated into the model and operating constraints properly
accounted for.
Schlumberger Public
Basic Principle
The basic principle behind gas lift injection in oil wells is to lower
the density of the produced fluid in the tubing. This results in a
reduction of the elevational component of the pressure gradient
above the point of injection and a lower bottomhole pressure.
Lowering the bottomhole pressure increases reservoir drawdown
and thus production rate.
In terms of the overall pressure gradient, the trade-off to the
increased presence of gas is an increased frictional pressure
gradient. As shown in Figure 17 on page 69, as the rate of
injection gas increases, a point is reached where the benefits of
reducing the elevational gradient equals the drawback of
increasing the frictional gradient.
Schlumberger Public
In practice, when dealing with a network of many gas lifted wells,
the optimal injection rate is largely dependent on the flowline
hydraulics where a reduced elevational pressure gradient may
provide little benefit.
Additionally, the complex interaction of wells producing into a
common gathering network determines the backpressure against
which the individual wells must produce. Furthermore, operating
constraints may restrict the amount of gas that can be injected
into the well.
Thus, optimization of the complete system necessitates an
optimal allocation of the available lift gas amongst all the gas
lifted wells. For networks with hundreds of wells this becomes a
mathematically complex problem.
Constraints
• Compression limits
• Gas limits due to fuel gas and gas sales
Solution Approach
Schlumberger Public
discussed above, there may be many constraints imposed on the
system.
Several well established techniques exist for the treatment on
non-linear constrained problems, including, for example,
Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) or Augment
Lagrangian Methods (ALM). Alternately, stochastic based
solvers, such as the Genetic Algorithm (GA), can be employed.
However, one shortcoming of simply applying these solvers for
direct optimization (optimizing the system as given) is the cost
associated with running the network simulation for each objective
function call. If numerical derivatives are required the problem is
further compounded. To overcome this computational and time
burden, a new solution approach is presented that uses an
iterative offline-online procedure to provide greater solution
flexibility and performance.
Optimization Methods
Two methods are available to determine the optimal allocation of
lift gas. These are the Newton Reduction Method (NRM) and the
Genetic Algorithm (GA). The choice of which method is used
depends on the constraints applied to the network model.
Selection can be made automatically.
In general terms, the NRM technique does not handle mid-level
constraints, such as those imposed on a manifold. The GA on the
other hand, penalizes those solution candidates that exceed the
constraint. Following is a description of each of these methods.
SDR Lexico
Schlumberger Public
following network diagram and name the branches and
junctions by right-clicking and selecting General:
7. Move the topsides choke and pipe to the correct branch in the
network model.
a. Double-click Well 1.
b. Hold down Shift and select the following objects:
• Topsides flowline upstream of choke
• choke
• Topsides flowline downstream of choke
c. Right-click and select Cut.
d. Close the single branch window, double-click the choke-
A branch and select Paste.
e. Select the default flowline surrounded by the red box and
press Del.
Horizontal Distance 25 ft
Elevation Difference 0 ft
Schlumberger Public
in the lowermost orifice valve and will therefore replace the
gas lift valve system with a single injection point.
a. Double-click the tubing and select the Downhole
Equipment tab.
b. Click the G/L Valve System button.
c. Select the Edit valve details checkbox.
d. Select Remove all valves and click OK.
e. In the Downhole Equipment tab, specify a gas lift
injection point at a MD of 8600 ft.
f. Click the Properties button next to the gas lift injection
point and specify the following:
Schlumberger Public
(ft) (ft) (ft) (degF)
21. Select Setup > Flow Correlations. Ensure that the Vertical
Flow Correlation is set to Hagedorn & Brown and the
Schlumberger Public
23. Save the model as GL_Network.bpn.
A 5400
B 6100
C 6300
Schlumberger Public
Max. Lift per Well 10 mmscfd
12. Select the Network Viewer tab. Select the results overlay
to configure the display various results on the network
diagram.
Schlumberger Public
Questions
These questions are for discussion and review.
• Which global constraint limited the total gas lift consumed?
• Which well group consumed the most/least lift gas?
Review Questions
• In what situations would you not inject the optimal total
amount of gas lift?
• Which optimization algorithm is better at handling complex
constraints?
Summary
In this module, you learned how to:
• construct a network model to account for the interactions
amongst the wells
• define the constraints and operating parameters for a gas lift
optimization study
• execute a gas lift optimization study and analyze the results.
NOTES
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
NOTES
Schlumberger Public
NOTES
Schlumberger Public
Appendix B Recommendations
Related Publications
The concepts presented in this training course are based on
example applications described in the following published
papers.
Gutierrez, F., Hallquist, A., Shippen, M., Rashid, K. A New
Approach to Gas Lift Optimization Using an Integrated Asset
Model. Paper presented at the 2007 International Petroleum
Technology Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4-6 December,
2007.
REDA Hotline High-Temperature ESP Systems, http://
www.slb.com/media/services/artificial/submersible/hotline_br.pdf
(accessed October 2008).
Shepler, R., White, T., Amin, A., Shippen, M. Lifting, Seabed
Boosting Pay Off. Harts E&P, April 2005 (63-66). Paper originally
presented at the Deepwater Offshore Technology Conference,
New Orleans, LA, USA, Nov. 30 to Dec, 2, 2004.
Shippen, M.E., Scott, S.L. Multiphase Pumping as an Alternative
Schlumberger Public
to Conventional Separation, Pumping and Compression. Pipeline
Simulation Interest Group (PSIG) 34th Annual Meeting, Portland,
OR, 23-25 Oct. 2002.
NOTES
Schlumberger Public
Schlumberger Public
11 2290 0.73 123
Dual flowline:
8 2540 .67 93
9 2380 .52 84
10 2330 .42 77
11 2320 .35 71
12 2340 .29 66
Critical? no yes
HP required 999.75
GVF at inlet 0
Gas separator no
required?
Schlumberger Public
Exercise 1: Placing a Multiphase Booster
MPB dP (psi) 0 60
0 0 54100
Result
NOTES
Schlumberger Public
NOTES
Schlumberger Public