SPE 136126

Realising Opportunities Using Integrated Production Modelling in

Occidental of Sultanate of Oman
M. Al Lawati, A. Al Salmi, and A. Al Kharusi, Occidental of Oman, and S. Al Hajri and I. Al Siyabi,
Vision Advanced Petroleum Solution

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Tunis, Tunisia, 8–10 June 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Integrated Production Model IPM is a numerical simulation model using rigorous physics to describe the behavior of an entire
production system and produce optimization soulutions of any operated field by integrating the reservoir models, well models
and the surface network model.

Integrated production model using IPM suite (Petex) was implemented in field X mainly operated with gas lifted production
system, which is located in the North of Sultanate of Oman. This is a distinguished, proactive and creative process of searching
and realizing opportunities that are occuring in daily life of a producing gas lift field.

The process has included four phases. First phase was characterizing, predicting phase behavior and dynamic fluid properties
of reservoir fluid. Second phase was building field reservoir models in MBAL using material balance simulation. This helps
predicting reservoir pressure and forecasting senarios. Third phase was modeling all wells in Prosper including all subsurface
mechanical components and generate the vertical lift curves to examine production performance of the well at different
welltest and reservoir pressure conditions. The last phase was building surface network model GAP and link that to all the
reservoirs and wells models. At this point system response was validated and calibrated to represent actual field status.

Going through the process of integrated production system modeling resulted in an increase of 8% of total field production by
individual wells optimization. In addition more than 25% of gas lifted gas was saved through optimum distribution of lifting
gas among the producers.

Introduction

The project covered a field, which is located in the North of Sultanate of Oman (Field-X). This field is mainly operated using
continuous gas lift in a semi closed system. The major challenge encountered in the gas lift network of this field was the
distribution process of lifting gas in the semi closed system. The was gas lift producers surface communication, i.e. drop of
lifting gas in one well in case of increasing lifting gas rate in a nearby well.

Any gas lift network is considered to be a very dynamic system. Continuous modification of existing surface facility as well as
the additional installation of new down hole hardware such as mandrels, valves and permanent pressure gauges is required to
ensure optimum vertical lifting performance of a well and efficient lifting gas distribution among the gas lift surface network.
Moreover, gas lift system is considered to be non-linear system where the effect of the down hole lifting conditions of a single
well on the performance of an entire gas lift surface network in a producing field.

Introducing the concept of Integrated Production Modeling IPM, which is a numerical simulation model using rigorous
physics helps to describe the behavior of an entire production system and produce optimization scenarios of any gas lift
operated field by integrating the reservoir model, the well model and the surface network model. By implementing IPM to any
gas lift network, calculations can be performed for the status of the system at specific point in time or along the time
(prediction), hence, optimization scenarios at optimum lifting gas injection can be generated. The figure below shows an
2 SPE 136126

overview of the IPM process used to develop IPM for this field.

Project Objective

IPM approach is the only way to assess the production impact of changes to the entire production system, accounting for all
variables. Thus, IPM helps address important business issues and attain measurable results by creating possibilities for more
creative solutions and more rigorous, integrated answers. The objectives of field-X IPM model were:

1. Surveillance: Surveillance activities work to answer the question, Do measurements taken of the physical world
agree with expectations? i.e. Is the behaviour exhibited consistent with what we normally would agree should
happen? If not, Why not? This activity generates business value by the discovery of occurrences that are not within
expectation, that need resolution to prevent loss of value or the regain of lost value. A typical example would be
identification of scaling in a pipe that is causing production deferment.

2. Design and Optimisation: Even though for Field-X filed the primary objective was to be able to perform gas lift
design optimisation and gas lift distribution optimisation, the model will be used for design and optimisation
activities work to answer a wide variety of questions such as artificial lift design, tie-in of a new field into an existing
system or facilities debottlenecking.

3. Prediction and Forecasting: What is expected to happen in the future? Field-X IPM model should have the ability to
run short term forecasting (2 years). In addition should be capable of integrating to existing Eclipse model in the
future updates.

Integrated Production Modelling Methodology

The objectives of the study were achieved by building the Integrated Production Model (IPM) of the field which included the
following steps:
1. Reservoir Pressure analysis.
2. Fluid characterization and prediction of the phase behavior and dynamic fluid properties of reservoir fluids to
describe fluid phase flow in the reservoir towards the producing wells up through the surface facilities.
3. Building and calibrating the material balance model, which was later linked and integrated with well models and
surface network model to provide production forecast and system performance scenarios.
4. Well modeling to carry all properties of the well with detailed description of the reservoir and vertical lift
performance.
5. Building surface network model, and integrating with the complete system model including reservoir model and gas
lift well model to optimize lifting gas distribution at surface while considering down hole optimum lifting
performance.
SPE 136126 3

1. Reservoir Pressure Analysis:

Reservoir pressure is one of the basic components in petroleum engineering that has to be continuously measured and
monitored to ensure optimum recovery from the field. Good knowledge of the reservoir pressure is required in order to
perform the following tasks effectively:
• Evaluation and monitoring of reservoir production mechanism; i.e. will the field need water/gas injection in the
future.
• Optimizing the location of water injection wells.
• Assessment and design of artificial lift mechanism.
• Construction and history matching of reservoir simulation models.
• Safe well intervention.

1.1 Reservoir Pressure Data Sources

The common methods of obtaining statis reservoir pressure are listed below:
1. Build up test at early stage of production.
2. Static reservoir pressure measurement.
3. RFT/MDT pressures during drilling.
4. Initial ESP static intake pressure.

1.2 Build-up Tests

Historical records show that these tests are normally carried out at the start of production where the well is put on production
for few days and then closed for build up. Build up tests are very useful as they are used to evaluate reservoir pressure and
other reservoir properties such as permeability and skin. It has been observed that build up duration varies between 2 to 5 days.
Some examples of build up tests are shown in fig 1.1

1.1

Build up curves show that the pressure has not yet reached flat value even with duration of 5days. Therefore; the last pressure
value in the build up test can not be taken as static reservoir pressure and extrapolation is required in order to get
representative reservoir pressure.
To extrapolate build up pressure, we plot dimensionless time ((tp+dt)/dt) against pressure on semi-log graph which produces a
straight line that can be extrapolated to dimensionless time of 1.
tp (hours)=(start of build up test) – (start of production after last known shut in)
dt (hours)= incremental time from the start of build up test.
Example of build up test extrapolation is shown in fig 1.2
4 SPE 136126

1.2

1.3 Static Reservoir Pressure Measurement

This is the conventional method of acquiring static reservoir pressure. Slickline is used to deploy pressure gauges in wells that
have been closed for long period (>30 days) so that there is no more build up in the reservoir pressure. The gauge is normally
left in the well for few hours and then retrieved. Running static surveys in wells that have been closed-in for less than 5 days
could result in false data. Therefore; if the well can not be shut for long period, it is recommended to run the gauge from day 1
and to be left in the well for at least 3 days in order to produce a build-up trend that can be extrapolated to the real static
pressure. Pressure gauges should be calibrated at least once a year to eliminate inaccuracy in the measurement.
Pressure values from static surveys need to be extrapolated to the reservoir reference depth. This is done by adding the
pressure of the fluid column between the gauge depth and reference depth.
The diagram in figure 1.3 illustrates calculation procedure.
SPE 136126 5

1.3

2 Fluid Characterization - PVTP

The accurate characterization and prediction of the phase behavior and dynamic fluid properties of reservoir fluids is critical to
many aspects of petroleum businesses. From IPM aspect, PVT is an essential factor to describe the fluid behaviour in the
reservoir toward the producing wells up through the surface facilities.

Four PVT samples from the field were used in this study to develop PVT models for IPM modeling. The study was carried out
using PVTP (i.e IPM PVT Simulator) to match the lab measurements and derive PVT property tables using the tuned EOS.

Overall, the tuned EOS showed a very good match with the lab data for all the samples. The measured PVT data are classified
into two groups of oil properties. Saturated oil is located in the north of the field and undersaturated oil in the south. The two
different oil regions in Field X are probably associated with two different source rocks charging up the reservoir.

2.1 Fluid Match Methodology

All samples data were loaded in PVTp simulator. Mass balance check was initially performed to compare the mass of 1 stock
tank barrel at the separator conditions to the equivalent mass of this barrel of oil at reservoir conditions. On the basis that mass
balance should be conserved, these two masses should be very similar; otherwise the reported results must be further
investigated and eliminated.
Peng Robinson EOS was used with volume shift correction to better match oil density for all samples. The tuned parameters
used during the regression are Pc,Tc, and the volume shift. Initially the regression was performed using Pc & Tc without
volume shift to match saturation pressure & separator test GOR & Bo. The volume shift was then added with the other
regression parameters to match mainly the oil density from the differential liberation test. Lastly, the oil viscosity is matched
using Pedersen Et al Method.

2.2 Results & Discussions

Table 2 summaries the lab measured PVT properties of different samples.

Property Units SAM-1 SAM-2 SAM-3 SAM-4

Initial reservoir pressure psig 2786 2951 3085 3100
Bubble point pressure psig 2780 2908 1710 1801
Separator GOR scf/stb 861 923 473 483
Liquid gravity API 38.2 37.8 38.6 37.8
FVF @ Bubble Point bbl/stb 1.676 1.725 1.403 1.461
Oil Viscosity at BP cp 0.34 0.33 0.6 0.55
Oil Density at BP kg/m3 643 629 689 682
6 SPE 136126

Table 1: PVT measured data from different samples

The Carbon composition of the different samples is depicted in figure 2.1. The plot shows that are two groups of fulid
composition. Group-1 samples have higher C1 content compared Group-2.

50

45

Group-1
40

35

30
Mole %

25
Group-2

20

15

10

0
C1 C2 C3 I-C4 N-C4 I-C5 N-C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11

Figure 2.1: Composition plot (mole % vs Carbon number)

1 Group 1: Saturated oil with Rs of 860-920 scf/stb and bubble points of 2780-2908 psig.
2 Group2: undersaturated oil with Rs of 470-480 scf/stb and bubble points of 1700-1800 psig.

Figure 2.2 shows the matched EoS’s phase envelopes for the different samples and the plot reflects these two groups
classification. In addition, GOR, Bo and oil density plots (Figure 2.3-2.5) depict clearly two distinct PVT groups.

These fluid classes infer that the reservoir is charged with different oil from different oil sources. Crude oil characterization
work suggests that oil in the northern and southern areas of Field X migrated from different source rocks in opposite
directions. Oil in the southern part of the field apparently was InfraCambrian (Huqf) sourced oil. In the northern part of the
field, the oil was sourced from Mesozoic clastic oil.
SPE 136126 7

Figure 2.2: Phase envelope plot Figure 2.3: GOR plot

Figure 2.4: Oil FVF plot Figure 2.5: Oil density plot
8 SPE 136126

3. Material Balance Model - MBAL

Material balance model was built for the field which is part of Integrated Production Modelling (IPM). The MBAL model was
built to get linked and integrated with well models and surface network model to provide production forecast and perform
system optimization.

Three independent models are constructed for this field based on the pressure and production performance and the
understanding of the communication between different areas in the field. The model was constructed as multi-tanks with
transmissibilities between them. Each area was modeled with two tanks; saturated and under-saturated with a transmissibility
between them.

3.1 Results & Discussion

Initially, simple 2 tanks model was constructed which cover the east, main and west areas together. One tank for the saturated
region and the other for the under-saturated region which are connected with transmissibility. Production/injection history
were loaded for each single well so that fractional flow curves could be matched per individual well.

2 Tanks MBal History Matching However, the pressure plot (Figure 3.1a)
4000 showed that different areas have
different pressure regime. Even though
3500
the static measurements might seem to
3000 be chaotic but there were patterns that
could be followed. Therefore to honor
Reservoir Pressure (psi)

2500
the transient effect, the reservoir must be
2000 divided into 6 different tanks (two for
each area).
1500

1000 Six tanks model was then constructed to

500
cover East, Main and West areas. Each
area was divided into two PVT regions,
0
01/01/1984 09/27/1986 06/23/1989 03/19/1992 12/14/1994 09/09/1997 06/05/2000 03/02/2003 11/26/2005 08/22/2008
saturated and under-saturated. Aquifer
Date only exists in East sector. All tanks are
Main Static Data Mbal Simulation East Static Data West Static Data linked with transmissibility (Figure 3.1b).
Figure 3.1a: Reservoir pressure trends for each area compared to the 2 tanks model

Figure 3.1b also shows the transmissibilities that

were used to match the model. As seen from the
0.01 0.50 figure that transmissibility of 2 is the average, 8
is high and below one is below average. So from
this graph you can deduce the following:

1. Between Saturated and under saturated

tanks, the transmissibility values are 20
because we have separated these tanks
20 only for PVT purposes.
20
20 2. There is clear communication between
East and Main areas.
3. To match west sector the
0.00 0.50
transmissibility has to be virtually zero.
Hence this confirms that West lobe is
isolated from main.

As a result, two different tanks models were

constructed; one for Main and East areas and
Figure 3.1b: Six tanks model with transmissibility values one for the West area. Far West is treated as
isolated and independent tank from the
beginning since it is producing from different
unit which is assumed not be in a
communication with other units.
SPE 136126 9

3.1.1 Main and East

The Main and the East areas are modelled

with four tanks connected with
transmissibility between them. Each area
has two tanks to represent the saturated and
the under-saturated regions (Figure 3.1.1).

Figure 3.1.1: Main and East tanks model

East-Main MBal History Matching

Figure 3.1.2 shows Model pressure matching for
4000
the Main tank. The pressure points during the latter
3500 time region are scattered and this coincides with
3000
when we started the water injection. In the other
hand, it is clear that MBAL is over predicting
Reservoir Pressure (psi)

2500
pressures at that latter stage after water injection
2000 has started.
1500

1000

500

0
01/01/1984 09/27/1986 06/23/1989 03/19/1992 12/14/1994 09/09/1997 06/05/2000 03/02/2003 11/26/2005 08/22/2008
Date

Main Static Data Mbal Main

Figure 3.1.2: Main and East tanks pressure match

This could be explained using Campbell’s plot

(Figure 3.1.3), which is basically a diagnostic tool
which re-writes the material balance equation. Here
the horizontal straight line intercepts the y-axis at
the STOIIP value. In this case we are using the
Campbell diagnostic plot to see how Et (total
expansion) changes with production. As Et is
essentially the sum of all the drive mechanisms, the
plot can be used to further diagnose wether we are
introducing too much energy into the reservoir or
not. If our points fall below the STOIIP line, then
we are over predicting the energy of the tank,
whilst if they lie above the line then we are under-
predicting our energy, i.e. larger aquifer support,
gas cap, etc.
Figure 3.1.3: Campbell plot for the Main area

It was clear from the Campbell’s plot that the points fall below the line during the later period when water injection was
started, which indicates that the model is getting more energy than required. This energy is mainly coming from water
injection and it infers that not all injected water is going into the tank and some water is lost somewhere. Three scenarios were
investigated to find where energy could be lost:
10 SPE 136126

1- Water injection out of zone (thieves zones)

2- Water injection goes to support East
3- Errors in water injection measurement

Assuming that the water injection measurements are accurate, it was found that by reducing water injection by 15%, MBAL
gave a much better match where the majority of static pressures were accumulated. After further investigative work on water
injectors at the boundary between East and Main areas, it was found that WI-7 was a borderline well, i.e. could be injecting in
both the East or Main areas. Assuming WI-7 is actually supporting the East, we then had only 8% of water injection going out
of the Main zone. This was taken as the most likely scenario (Figure 3.1.4).

East-Main MBal History Matching

4000

3500

3000
Reservoir Pressure (psi)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
01/01/1984 09/27/1986 06/23/1989 03/19/1992 12/14/1994 09/09/1997 06/05/2000 03/02/2003 11/26/2005 08/22/2008
Date

Main Static Data Mbal Main with 8% of WI out of Zone & S-210 supporting East Mbal Main Eclips Main

Figure 3.1.4: Main and East tanks pressure match with out of zone injection scenario

3.2 Fractional Flow Matching

One of the main difficulties of running a Production Prediction is to find a set of relative permeability curves that will give a
GOR or WCT similar to the ones observed during the production history.
For Field X majorty of historical mearsured water cut and GOR trends were good, but some wells were challenging to match.
With the gas fractional flow matching, the vast majority of wells showed very poor trends. This implies poor GOR
measurements and therefore it proved difficult to match the fractional flow.
This may cause problems in the future when we’re using the MBAL model in predictive mode as we have perhaps history
matched to an untruthful GOR history.
SPE 136126 11

Fw
Water Cut History

Figure 3.2 Exampls of fractional flow matching.

4 Well Model - Prosper

Well modelling using Prosper is the bridge between the reservoir and surface network. The model carries all the properties of
the well with detailed description of the reservoir and vertical lift performance. Therefore, ensuring that the model is well
calibrated is essential and will reduce the time spent during surface network model validation and calibration process. Models
are normally calibrated using “VLP/IPR” or “Quicklook” under the calculations menu; but the final model output should be
checked using “System” calculation.
All well models for free flowing, gas lift and ESP were created and matched.

4.1 Free Flowing Wells

For free flowing wells, Prosper will enable the petroleum engineer to evaluate how long the well can sustain natural flow and
the conditions at which we need to install artificial lift. Through the model, the engineer can simulate future scenarios such as
changes in water cut and different tubing sizes.
An example of a system plot for free flowing well is shown below in Figure 4.1.

4.1
12 SPE 136126

It can be seen that VLP/IPR intersection point is not far away from the minimum stable flow rate; hence small reduction in the
liquid rate will cause surging. It can also be seen that changes in the reservoir pressure or water cut will have big impact on
liquid rate production. Therefore; it is important to keep a close eye on the behaviour of reservoir pressure and water cut in
order to plan the next action for the well at the right time.
Another factor that will help wells to sustain natural flow is the removal of unnecessary surface back pressure that could result
from choke plugging or flowline scaling up.

4.2 ESP Wells

Talking about ESP operated wells, this is a powerful method that can cover a wide range of liquid rates and pressures. Proper
understanding of the well and reservoir parameters is essential in getting the right pump for the well. The following guidelines
were used to model these wells:
1. Pump intake pressure is measured at the ESP downhole gauge. It is recommended to have the same depth for the
pump, bottom of tubing and ESP downhole gauge.
2. The efficiency of rotary gas separators that are less than one year old is between 80-90%. This number will
deteriorate with time and hence the head delivered by the pump will be decreasing due to more gas going through the
pump.
3. ESPs with advanced gas handler (AGH) should have gas separation efficiency 0% because all the gas is compressed
and mixed with the liquid and then everything goes through the pump.
4. AGH may supply additional head to the pump and this should be estimated by the vendor of the pump based on the
well conditions.
5. Pumps that have been in the ground for long time may suffer from wear. In this case, the wear factor in Prosper
should be used to adjust the head of the pump.

4.3 Gas Lift Wells

The process of modeling gas lift wells, which are the primary concern of the project, is very much dependent on the
availability of good data. In this study, the availability of live trends of tubing head pressure, casing head pressure and gas lift
rate combined with production tests were a great surveillance tools that enabled the engineering team to identify
underperforming wells. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 represent the trends used to identify problems in gas lift wells.
As an example of the importance of analyzing these trends, figure 4.2 shows a gradual increase in the casing head pressure
accompanied by a gradual decrease in the gas lift rate which is most likely happening due to scale build up at the lift point.

4.2

Then, at point (A) where the pressure was high, an unloading valve above the original lift point has failed and the gas is going
through it. Another example is shown in figure 4.3. at point (A), the gas lift has been increased significantly causing a big
jump in the casing pressure. It is expected that the port at the original lift point is not capable of handling the extra gas leading
to an increase in the casing pressure and opening one of the shallow unloading valves. With this phenomena, the production of
the well is expected to decrease.
SPE 136126 13

4.3

Well modeling construction of all gas lift wells in the field has taken the following conditions and limitations under
consideration:
1. Considering the limitation of gas lift supply in some areas of the field, which affects the kick off pressure during the
unloading process of the well. Subsequently, this has an impact on the GL design and will result in a shallower lifting
points.
2. Associating any flowing gradient survey with a production test for more accurate validation of the test parameters and
in the construction of the inflow performance curve leading to a calibrated well model that can be used for reliable GL
design.
3. Developing the process of taking flowing gradient surveys while running in hole with stops above and below each gas
lift mandrel rather than taking one reading at the XN nipple.
4. Recording all gas lift valves and orifice details.
5. Considering the possibility of having scaled valves, which induces high pressure difference (dp) across the lift point as
this field is water injection field and build up of strontium sulphate is very common.
6. Large lifting port sizes can cause severe surging.

4.4 Well Modeling Discution and Reslults.

Several gas lift problems and well integrity problems were identified and solutions were recommended. The following are the
most common scenarios found and highlighted during well model troubleshooting.

4.4.1 Multiple lift points

14 SPE 136126

The well in figure 4.4.1 has dummy,

valve, valve, dummy and orifice. Under
the Quicklook window, it can be seen
clearly that it is not possible to lift through
the orifice because the tubing pressure is
higher than the casing pressure.
Considering the casing pressure (red line)
and opening pressure of the valves; the
well is most likely lifting from the third
mandrel with the possibility of opening
the second valve from time to time
causing surging.
Corrective action: Gas lift valve change
out is required with an orifice at the third
mandrel.

4.4.1

4.4.2 Scale in the GL valves

SPE 136126 15

The well in figure 4.4.2 has dummy, dummy,

valve, valve and orifice at the fifth mandrel. The
casing pressure is very high opening unloading
valves at the third and fourth mandrels. The blue
line represents the theoretical casing pressure based
on the GL rate and it can be seen that there is a big
gap between the blue and red lines indicating very
high pressure differential across the valves. The
injection through the orifice is unlikely due to
tubing pressure being equal to casing pressure.
Corrective action: It is possible to reduce the
amount of GL rate in order to reduce the casing
pressure and limit the lift depth to fourth mandrel.
With this option; we need to ensure that the net oil
gain is positive with deeper injection depth and less
gas lift rate. If this solution does not work, then
gas lift valve change out is required.

4.4.2

4.4.3 Sub-optimum GL design

The well in figure 4.4.3 has just orifice at the

first mandrel. Prosper model shows a good
match between actual and calculated casing
pressure. From pressure vs depth diagram, it
can be seen that the lift point can be deepened
to the second mandrel.
Corrective action: Gas lift valve change out
with an orifice at the second mandrel.

4.4.3

4.4.4 Hole in tubing

16 SPE 136126

The well in figure 4.4.4 has very low casing

head pressure. Analyzing pressure vs depth
diagram, the calculated casing pressure based
on lift depth at the first mandrel is much
higher than the actual casing head pressure.
This is an indication that there is a hole in the
tubing between the first mandrel an surface.

Figure 4.4.4

Total of 134 gas lift optimization opportunity were identified & registered and expected to add 2400 total oil barrels to the
total base production of the field.

5 Surface Network Model GAP

Production System Optimization is the component of reservoir, wells and surface network that identifies opportunities to
maximize the value of the production system. This is achieved by combining regular surveillance with a clear understanding of
elements of the production system and how they perform in an integrated manner.
General Allocation Program GAP was implemented in Field-X to debottleneck constraints in the surface facility and optimize
lifting gas distribution among gas lifted wells.

5.1 Model Construction

GAP is part of the IPM where it allows building complete system model, including the reservoirs, wells and surface network.
Field-X GAP model includes production, injection and gas lift network, where calculations can be performed for the status of
the system at specific point in time or along the time (prediction).

5.2 Build and Calibrate the Pipeline Model

There are several correlations available for flow line modeling but each one has its own working conditions. Therefore; it is
imperative to know which one is suitable for particular field pipelines. In this case, a study has been conducted to compare
real pressure drop with those predicted by the correlations. This has been done for a group of wells with different flow rates.
New wells were selected where assumptions of no scale exist inside the pipelines. The study concluded that “Dukler
Flannigan” produces acceptable results with friction and gravity coefficients set at 1.

5.3 Integrate GAP with Material Balance Model MBAL

To be able to mimic the development of water cut and GOR. It was necessary to link relative permeability between MBAL
and GAP for each well.

5.4 Integrate GAP with Well Models Prosper

GAP is using VLP/IPR table to reproduce well model rates. Thus generating right range of VLP is critical for accurate GAP
prediction. Therefore, having accurate well models is considered to be the most important part to build GAP network model.
SPE 136126 17

Figure 5.1 shows an example of the field GAP model construction.

5.1

9. Surface Network Model GAP

At the process of total system response validation, the integrated system response must match reality within the boundary
conditions that at Separator outlet flow differential < +/- 10%. Both actual system and calibrated components candidates list is
created at steady state at particular date and time. Then, the separator pressure at that particular date and time is verified and
run through network solution in order to analyze integrated model response. Figure 9.1 shows the process of model calibration.

Figure 9.1 System Response Validation Process

9.1 GAP Model Validation

It is important that the well models used can reproduce measured well data reasonably well. This process is called Model
validation. Figure 9.2 shows an example of results validation between actual rate and GAP rates and figure 9.3 shows an
example of results validation between actual tubing head pressure and GAP tubing head pressure.
18 SPE 136126

9.2

9.3

As for gas lift network, it’s essential to generate the system response match between gas lift skids actual rates and GAP
recommended rates. The primary objective of this step is to compare the actual rates injected per skid to the rates calculated
and recommended by GAP. These values are recommended as a result of looking at the total gas lifted wells down hole
performance, reservoir and flowing bottom hole pressure as well as well test values and produced fluid phases.
Figure 9.4 shows an example of gas lift system response match.
SPE 136126 19

9.4

After running GAP, it was forecasted to save 8 MMscf/d on total lifting gas injected into the wells from the process of
optimum gas lift distribution.

Summary of Project Results.

1. PVT data obtained from the studied field represented two different group of oils:
a. Group1: Saturated oil
b. Group2: Undersaturated oil
2. The match between the tuned EOS and lab measurements were very good.
3. The common methods of obtaining static reservoir pressure were the build up test at very early stage of production,
the static reservoir pressure measurement, RFT/MDT pressure during drilling and initial ESP static intake pressure.
4. Entire reservoir of the field was modeled using MBAL with reasonably good match.
5. MBAL STOIIP are inline with Static model.
6. Several drive mechanisms were identified at different areas of the field (aquifer influx, water injection and fluid
expansion).
7. Optimizing gas lift wells and saving lifting gas were done through:
a. Implementing Prosper to Model individual wells, troubleshooting & optimizing artificial lift mechanism.
b. Implementing GAP to Model total gas lift surface network, integrate to the individual well models and
optimizing lifting gas distribution among the network.
8. Common gas lift problems in this field were multiple lift points, scale in the gas lift valves and sub optimum design.
9. Implementation of surface network optimization recommendations are considered to be very efficient in terms of
optimum distribution of lifting gas among the network at almost no cost.