Distingtiished ,Author Series

n
‘w%%? +%+ ~:, ...”

,y~l~’llq

Nodal Systems Analysis of X..? “*:? -,.. .7 ~+: Oil and Gas Wells “, ‘:
By KermitE. Brown,SPE, and
James F, Lea, SPE

Kermit E. Brown is F. M. Stevenson Professor of Petroleum En9ineerin9 at the U. of Tulsa. Since 7966 @wh has served es head of the Petroleum E“gineerhg Dept., vice president of research, and chairman of the Resources Engineering Div. He has conducted many courses m gas lift, nwltiphase flow, and inflow peiformamx a“d served as a Distinguished Lectwsr dud”g 1969-70. Brow” holds a ES deg,ee in niech?”icaf a“d U. petroleum engineering from, Texas A&M and MS and PhD deg!ees from the U. Of Texas, both in petroleum engineering. Brown sewed as the SPE faculty advisor for the U. of Tulsa student chapter during 1982-83. He also sewed on the SPE board during 1969-72, the Education and Pm fessio”alism Committee during 1966-67, and the Education and Accreditation Committee dud”g 1964-66 a“d was Balco”es Sectim chairman during 1964-65. He is currently o“ the Public Service Award Committee, James F. Lea is a research associate in the Production Mechanics Group of Amoco Production Co,, in Tulsa, He works on computer hnplen?entation of existing design and analysis methods for a,fiificial lilt md improved application techniques. Previous~, he worked with Pratt & Whitney Aircrati and .%” 0;/ Co. and taught engimseri”g science at the tmiwrsity level. Lea holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical e“gi”eering and a PhD degree in thermal{ fluid science from Southern Methodist U., Dallas.

Summary Nodal 1 analysis, defined as a systems approach to the optimization of oil and gas wells, is used to ev61uate tboruughly a complek producing system. Every component in a producing well or all wells in a producing system can be optimized to achieve the objective flow rate most economically. Ml present components—beginning with the static resemoir pressure, endkg with the separator, and including inflow performance, as weU as. flow across the completion, up the tublig string (inChIdlng 811Y downhole restrictions and safety valves), across the surface choke (if applicable), thrbugh horizontal flow lines, and into the separation factilties-are tiulyzed. Introduction The objectives of nodBI aualysis are as follows. 1. To determine tlie flow me at which an existing oil or gas yell wifl produce considering wellbore geometry and completion limitations (first by natural flow). 2. To determine under what flow condhions (which may be related to time) a well will load or die. 3. To select the most economical time for the installation of afiticial lift and to assist in the selection of the optimum lift method, 4. To optimize the system to produce the objective flow rate most economically. o Ewi.eefs WYW 19s5 societyf Petroleum
OCTOBER 1985

5. To check each component in the well system to determine whether it is restricting the flow.mte unnecessatiy. 6. To permit quick recognition by the operwor’s management and engineering staff of ways to increase production rates. Theie are numerous oil and. gas wefls aruund the world that have not been optimized to achieve an objective rate e~lciently. In fact, many may have been completed in s“cb a m~er tit their maximum potenti81 kite cannot be achieved. Also, many wells placed on anificial lift do n6t achkve the efficiency key shtiuld. The pruductioi optimization of oil and gas wells by nodal systems analvsis has contributed to improved completion techniques, pfiduction, and efficiency for many wells. @thou h this type of analysis was proposed by Gilbert i. m 1954, it has been used extensively in the U.S. only in the last few yeari. One principul ieason for tbk was the changing of allowable producing. rates, and another has been the development of computer technology that allows rapid calculation of complex algorithms and provides ea.sify understood data. Past conservation practices in the U.S. more or less restricted operaors t6 2- and 2 IA-in. [5.08- and 6.35-cm] tubing and 4 shots/ft [13.1 shots/m] for pmfomting. The use of larger tubing (41Aand 51Ain.
175I

At the top of the well (wellhead).jhe most impommt aspects of nodal analysis is to recognize wells that should be producing at rates higher than their current rate. assume that a well is producing 320 B/D [51 m3 /d] of oil. Some of the greatest percentage increases in production rates have occurred in low-rate oil wells (from 10 to 30 B/D [1. Then 1752 models of other welf components can be used to complete the p=dicted well pe. (10) flowline.to this well shows that it is capable of producing 510 B/D [81 m3/d]. 1 shows .. At the center of the producing intefial. (6) tubing.flow pressure-drop correlations for pipelines is found in Appendix B.5 shots/m] is common today. and (11) separator.&P. [11. Some aspects Of the IPR component are covered in Appendix A. it is. (8) tubing. l—Possible pressure losses in complete system. surface pressures. Applying nodal analysis . nevertheless.components that make up a detailed flowirtg wefl system.PD~c = AP6 = PO$C-P5.ep = “ ‘r “ FLOWLINE Fig.ffocmsnce. Therefore. Accurate well test data must be obtained and the proper IPR applied for successful analysis. Differential pressure solutioris (Ap) across the completion intecwi to evaluate the effect of the number of perforations on production in gravel-packed or standard completion wells. Nodsf analysis cm be used to estimate the benefits of such changes before they am made. = dP4 = PKv-Po~v = AP5 = Pw~. 3. This isolates the well’s inflow performance. the components are (1) resemoir pressure. Although the increase in flow rates in hlghproductivity wells has popularized nodal analysis. (4] tubing string. This difference may be attributed to several factors. it can serve as an excellent tool to verify that a problem exists and that additional testing is necessacy. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY . (5) possible downitole re@ctive device. to prolong the onset of liquid Ioadlng problems.59 to 4. To optimize tie system effectively.-Pwf = LOSS IN POROUSMEOIUM = LOSS AcROSS COMPLETION “ “ ‘t “ “ “ “ REsTRlcTl ON SAFETY VALVE SURFACECHOKE A% = k -%. One”of . For example. an excellent tool for low-rate wells (both oil and gas) as well as for all aititicid lift wells. (9) surface choke. (2) well productivity. The most common positions for nodal analysis graphlcd solutions are listed below. A basic requirement for weli analysis is the ability to detine the current inflow performance relationship (IPR) of the well.detetine that iricomect data are the cause of tbe higher predicted rate. at the bottom of the well. (3) wellbore completion. = P.Pwf.77 m3/d]) and low-rate gas wells (from 50 Ilp to 100 to 200 Mscf/D [1416 Up to 2832 to 5663 std m3 /d]). This isolates the flowline or the effects of surface mressure on production. each component must be evaluated separately and then as a group to evaluate tbe entire well producing system.. AP2 = Pw’. The effect of the chang&of any one component on the entire system is ve~ impomant and can be displayed graphically yitb well analysis. Beginning with the reservoir and procecdin~ to tie separator. (7) safety valve. Numerous gas wells have needed adjustments in tubitg sizes.97 cm]) and 16 shots/ft [52.43 and 13.P= IN FLOWLINE AP7 = Pwf -Pwh = TOTAL LOSS Ilq TUBING nPs = Pw~ -P. . etc. 1. 2. Fig. discussion of myltiphase. but nodal analysis can determine which component ii restricting the rate or can .

A major company recently surveyed a will producing 1. even though the well may be producing 100% oil. Both water and mud were found in the 7-in. 2. 3). especially with gas-lift wells. The nodaf aua. is presented here. AP \ o c + IPR curve. Because of a dogleg. Gravel-Packed Oti and Gas WeIls A paper presented by Jones et al. Irr many cases. This large section of pipe still can be neady full of completion fluids (water turd mud). I-5 Two specific subjects have been selected for example solutions. even though rbe well produced 100% oil.3-cm] tubing. Prepare the node IPR curve (Fig. This paper nlso suggests procedures for determining whether a well’s inflow capability is restricted by lack of area open to flow. then the reservoir and the completion effects can be isolated completely from the enthe piping and production system.c~ q. Cleaning Wk well resulted in an increase of the rate to more than 2 . OCTOBER 1985 Specific ExantpIes A liited number of examples are presented here. 5.8-cm] casing below the tubing. numerous examples. if the solution is plotted at the bottom of the well (center of completed intmvat). Ledlow and Granger3 have prepared an excellent summary of background material on gravel packing. and equations can be found in Ref. 4 seemed to be the catalyst that started operators looking more closely at their completions. This points out one type of practical limitation of nodal analysis when tubing-pressum-drnp calculations are used to calculate accurately a bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP). 2). additional references. The appropriate details.000-ft [3353-m] well. 4. The effect of the downhole completion on flow rate is illustrated. 1. + BHP or. The user must understand how pressure-flow components of the weIl are grouped to form a graphicul solution at a node point. including detaifs on mechanical running procedures and selection of gravel size. These situations may be caused by a restriction in one of the components in the system. [17. 1753 . Procedures to optimize the completions sre cmttined. illustrated with a sequence of figures.000 ft [305 m] off bottom in the 11. Here. which is the surface pressure plus the tubing pressure drnp plotted as a function of rate. however. An example solution for both a gravel-packed well and a stundtwd perforated well is presented. The foflowing procedure is vtild for either an oil or gas well with tie solution node at bottomhole. the larger pipe may not be flushed out with produced fluids. [7. Numerous flowing-pressure surveys have verified this occurrence. the unalysis showed that the rate should be higher and. etc. and the operator is advised to look for problems if the well is producing below that prediction..600 B/D [254 m3/d] of oil up 2~-in.. Solutions at the separutor. Caution should be taken in ne~lecting even 200 to 300 ft [61 to 91 m] of casing flow fmm the center of the completed interval to the bottom of the tubing. safety valves. 2-Constructed tuping intake curve. tapered string connection points. appear in the literature. ‘‘ 1. u x RATE + Fig. Other solution positions for graphical solution are at surface chokes. hence. This isolates the effect of separator pressure on production. ) 2. tubing was set 1. Quick recognition of those wells with a greater predicted potential thatr the present production rate is covered. 3. For example.0i30 B/D [318 m3/d] of oil. and dowuhole restrictions. the anafysis predicts what should be expected. Because of lower velocities. 3—Constructed TUBING INTAKE CURVE RATE Fig. served as a diagnostic tool that prompted the mnning of a prsssure traverse.lysis procedure for a gmvel-pscked well. (This step assumes no Ap across the completion. Prepare the node outflow curve (tubing intake curve in Fig. by skin caused by mud infiltration.

4—Transfer + Ap. 6 7.000 ft [3352 m] (center of perforations). k = 100 md (penneabfiity to gas). Nnmerous variables have to he considered here. effect of the number of holes and hole sizes on casing strength. The Ap across the pack can be included in the IPR curve. Transfer the differential pressure available between the node inflow and node outflow curve on the same plot (FQ. Below is a list of given data. D = 11.000 psi [27.4 calculate the pressure drop across the completion for various rates. 5—Construct “cl RATE + Ap across gravel pack. and length of the perforation tunnel for linear flow. = 4. Most operatom will design for smaOer Ap’s for multiphase flow across the pack. Evsluate this completion (Fig. which poiuts out such factors as the number of effective holes expected and the. gravel permeability. 5. ~. 6).3 w T / API AP2 AP3 4 BHP flP (AP=O \ ( RATE Fig. 4) to a Ap curve. Using the appropriate equations. Ap completion in 1754 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY . as noted in Fig. Company philosophies on accepted Ap values differ. = 20 ft [6. Fig. h. 5. A reasonable maximum allowable Ap that has given good results rnnges from 200 to 300 psi [1379 to ‘206g kl%t]for single-phase gas or liquid flow. Evaluate other shot densities or perhaps other hole sizes until the appropriate Ap is obtained at the objective mte (Fig. 6—Evaluation + of various shot densities. A good review on perfoiatiug techniques. 4 RATES POSSIBLE o RATE Fig. h = 30 ft [9. \ RATE + Fig. 5) to detemnine whether the objective rnte can be achreved with an accepted differential across the grnvel pack. 3. Perforation efficiency should be considered at thk time.6 MPa]. 7. was presented by Bell. includ]ng shots per foot.1 m] (pay interval). as noted in Fig. 7—Gravel pack solution by including IPR curve. 6.1 m] (perforated interval). 3. 4. viscosity and density of the fluid. 4. Example Problem—TypicaI Gulf Coast Well With GraveI Pack. Add this Ap curve on Fig.

From analysis of Fig.3-cm] drilled hole. 9.43 cm] are evaluated at a wellhead pressure of ““ 1. 8. Tg = 0. 12. and the additional turbulence pressure drop4 is included (Fig. short flowline. 8.2 L 8 m 1Pr = 4000 Psl DEPTH = 11. MMCFD across gravel pack at 4. 41A-in. 2. This well is to he gravel packed. 8). 1755 . The tubing size and the number of shots per foot are to he evaluated with an undcrbalanced tubhrg-conveyed gun. The IPR curve is prepared with Darcy’s law. and 11. Tubing sizes of 2%. [12. [7. It is assumed that there”is no computable zone restriction around the perforation because of unconsolidated forrrmtion-that is. screen size = 5-itr. [11. Procedure.200 psi [8273 Wla]. 9—Evaluation of tubing sizes.65. 31A. 1.000 K = 100 MD 1 00 I I 1 I 1 1 I 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Oo. 1()%-in.200 psi [8272 kpa].4 8r / 3 q &. MCFD I 70 RATE. sand flows immediately into all perforated holes until properly prepacked.3. 40/60-mesh gravel-packed sand.7-cm] OD. 640-acre [259-ha] spacing. 8~. if market RATE. MMCFD Fig.89. Fig. gas-sales-line pressure = 1. MMCFD Fig.in. which is needed to flow gas into the sales fine. 1l—Ap RATE. Note that. and 41A in. and 16 shotslft. 8—IPR curve for gas well—gravel-pack analysis.43-cm] tubing is selected.9-cm] casing. [21. Fig. M RATE. 1O—AP available OCTOBER 1985 fmm sandface to tubing intake. [27.

[1. dp. 5. 12. 13) should be made with several weffhead prcssmes so that Ap across the pack can be watched through fhe observation of rate and wellhead pressure. the technique can only be approximate and iadicate trends. Additional turbulence then occurs in grovel-packed weUs and creates more energy losses.4. MMCFD of wellhead pressure-gravel-packed well. The Ap across tie pack for 0. Figs. a low bubblepoint pressure. much figher rates cotdd be projected with adequate sand control. 3. It is hoped that fature research in this area wiU lead to mom accumte models of pressure drup through perfomtions shot in both over.and underbalanced condkions. ~ 6. and 52. kc..RATE. MMCFD Fig. conditions permitted. 11) should be calculated with Jones et al. and assumed single-phase liquid flow across the completion will be anutyzed.26. [1. relative permeability effects must be considered. = 3. 3 and 7 provide more details). j. 4 for gravel-packed weUs.75-in. as noted in Fig.Eefs. He annlyzed a gas-well example and showed that 90% of the totaf Ap across the completion. and 16 effective shots/ft [13. To bring tik well on production properly. Wk paper sparked new interest. (. Additional perforations could bring thk AP below 200 psi i1379 kPa~. one more plot (such as FQ. 3. 12—Completion effects packed well. JOURNAL OFPETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY . A modification of dds procedure is presented in Ref.tioration wall because of turbulence. When two-phase flow occurs across either a gravel-packed or a standard perforated well. included with lPR—gravelFig. D = 8. This is the Ap available across the gravel pack. Lp.5 shots/m] are necessary to obtain a Ap of about 300 psi [2068 kPa] at a rate df 58.905-cm] -diameter holes with 4. McLeod7 noted that most of the pressure drop can occur across a compacted zone at the pe. 12.7x 106 std m3 /d]. The procedure is similar to that offered for gravelpacked weUs. 3 Nodal Atwdysis To Evafuate a Standard Perforated WeU In 1983 NfcLeod7 published apaper that prompted operators to examine completion practices on normally perforated wells.500 psi [24. a sample oil well with a low GOR.’s equations m with modifications of these equations adjusted to tit field data.2. Example Problem. The reason for thk selection is that current technology has offered solutions only for single-phase flow (gas or liquid) across such completions. except that the equations used for the calculation of pressure drop acmsa the completion have been altered to model flow through a perforation iT56 surrounded by a low-permeabfity zone.000 ft [2438 m].5 effective shots/m] (Pig. because of the many input variables required.1 MPa]. must be ~own.5 MMscf/D [1. 10. 1S-Effects RATE. and the length. the crashed-zone thickness. 11 and 12 show the final two plots indicating that 16 shots/ft [52. in fact. 8. They still incorporate basic concepts suggested by Jones et al. ExztnpIe ProbIem and Procedure a Perforated Weff for Iu thk section. e. the perforation-tunnel diameter. The Ap is transferred. To use this technique. Obviously. Although numerous prior p~bli@tio”ss-10 discussed this topic and Companies bad evaluated the problem. 4. 39. was caused by turbulence across the approximately IA-in.27-cm] -thick compacted zone. Thk procedure is described by Crouch and Packs and Brown et al. the pemneabllity.

4.. around perforated tunnel = O. -yX = 0.3-cm] tubing. well test 500 B/D [79. [7.\l 5000 6000 oil well.27 cm].5 MPa]. rate becomes small (showing very little increase of Ap with rate). a graphical solution can be generated auicklv at the wellhead location.35-cm] ID. 1. = 2. Prepare the IPR ctt~e with Darcy’s law.5 ~ 2. [13. Fig. ~d 31h-in.3-. 78 = 0. for Ap curve-perforated 36°API [0. I m 1. [6. The flowline might be restricting the rate. 2~-in. ph = 800 psi [5515 kPa]. [8. 17 indicates that the flowline is a restriction because the Dmssure loss in the flowline (21%-in. as shown in Fig. Lp =”4-in. [21. solution GOR=300 scf/bbl [54 std m3/m3].7.62. 5Win. o 1000 2000 3000 RATE. and p WA = 140 psig [965 kpa].16-cm] perforation tunnel (see Table 6 of Ref. Solution GOR = 180 scf/bbl [32 std m3 /m3].07]. An an~ysis of Fig. hp = 20 ft [6. and S.000 ft [2438 m]. the best fluids and techniques should be used. [6. Of course. 3). p.2%.0 2.1 m]. assuming no Ap across the completion. 1. T = 180”F [82°C]. Procedure. in Table 1. The intersection point of the pressure required at the flowline intake and the IPR pmsure minus the pressure drop in the well from sandface to the wellhead is the point of predicted flow from the well. 16-cm] flowline is then evaluated on the same plot. 15. pb = 2.w-mnl tubing.0 L &.000 ft [1219 m]. OCTOBER 1985 D = 8. Recognition of Components Causing Restricted Flow Rates in a WeIl Example ProbIem—Anafysk of Flowline Capacity. T~sfer the Ap curve. flowline len=@=4.6 MPa].and 4-in. 15—Transfer I 4000 .D. This dekmmines the pressure requited at the bottom of tubing for flow through the tubing. 1 ( I o 2000 3000 RATE. BID 4000 5000 6000 +! \. [1. BID Fig.0 DEPTH = 8000 R = 3500 Psl TUBING I. 3-h2] spacing.35-cm] ID) sho~s a significant increase in pressure loss with rate and is angled sharply upward at the intersection point between the two cuwes shown.59-cm] hole. 80-acre [32. The following well is on gas lift. 50% water [yW= 1. = 2. 8 k-in. 7 for tabulated values). 14-IPR and tubing curves for peqorated oil well. and a total gas/liquid ratio of 800 scf/bbl [143 std m3/m3] is maintained for gas lift. Assume 3 k-in. 2.400 psi [16. 3.5 m3/d] at 1.992” 2. The diameter should not be oversized because additional slugging and head@ may occur. A 3.. Some operators just add a i757 .and 10. [6.5n. As soon as the slope of the flowline intake pressure VS. 35°API [0.97-cm] casing. [7. and tubing size = 2 Win. With nodal analysis. h = 30 ft [9. [10.89-cm] tubing is selected. thin the flowline diameter is sufficiently large. sepamtor pressure =60 psig [413 kla]. Plot the node outflow curve (tubhg intake) for 2x.740 psi [12 MPa]. e.3.5 in.03-. 7.84-g/cm3] oil. Using the appmpriite equations fmm McLeod7 (and as discussed by Brown et al.7. Steps 1 (IPR) and 2 (tubing intake) a~ shown in Fig. Sufficient gas pressure is available (2.85-g/cm3] oil. 16 shows the importance of perforating undeinlanced. determine the Ap’s across the completions listed.1 m].5 [\.0.5 DEPTH= 800L7 Pr = 3500 Pwh = 140 PSI ! 1000 1 I 3.100 psi [[4. 14. ‘ Examination of the results in F]g.8 MPa]) to inject gas near the bottom.000 psi [13.

Unstable flow isindicated bythetubi”g curves crossing the IPR at a point to the left of the minimnm forthelarger tubimg.57 m]. B/D 3500 4s00 02~ RATE.992” R = 3500 PSI 500 79 r 2. 320-acm [129-ha] spacing. 6.66-cm] -ID tubing. Note in Fig.5 . Evaluate 3 Y-.89-.0 - 2.049-in. and 3.5 - 500 1500 2500 RATE. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM . k = 0. 5 bbl/MMcf [28.6 cm]. B/D Fig. The tubing may be either too large ‘(causing unstable flow) or too small (reducing flow rate). P. and 1%-in.12 md.21-cm] ID) and l-in. s : 1. [2.D. 16—Production 1758 vs. Formation 10 10 —— 1 2 3 Number ShotslFt — ?erforated 4 20 a 4 20 20 30 4 8 20 30 parallel line instead of replacing the current line with a larger size.35-. 30 bbl/MMcf [168 x 10’6 m3 /m3] condensate.O-in.3-.000 ft [304$ m]. hp = 15 ft [4. [21.66-cm] ID) for MS well.0 DEPTH = 8000’ TUBING I. [2. 18thataU sizes oftubing are too large fortbis particular caseexcept thel.81-cm] tubing (1. . [2.66-in. various perforated completions. T = 200”F [93”C].4 = 15 ft [4. & . A weak gas well is chosen to show how to deterroipe when thetubingistoolar eand to predict when loading will occur. 234-. TECHNOLOGY Fig. This can be recognized immediately on a nodal plot and is as important in high-rote gas lift wells as in low-rate gas wells. Restriction Caused by Incorrect Tubing Size. = 2. Example ProbIem–Weak Gas Well with Liquid Production.7.0 .1 X10-6 m3/m3] water.? cy’relationis =commended for use in the calculation of tubing pressure drops in gas wells that produce some liquids. D= 10. and no skin effects. = 3. The ?. 2X-.5-cm] tubig (1 .@19-in. [8. 7.TABLE I-SAMPLE COMPL5T10Ns Feet FOR PERFORATED Perforation Condition Overbalanced with filtered salt water Overbalanced with salt water Underbalanced with filtered salt water Underbalanced With filtered salt water OIL WELLS kc as%of k. 3. The same type of analysis can he made for oil wells for various tubing sizes. -yg = Q.200 psi [22 MP?]. p~h = 100 psig [689 kf’a]. [2.57 m]. 1. [4. 17—Wel!head nodal plot—flowline size effects.5 5 ‘.54-cm] tubing shows stable flow. hole size = 8% in. The Gmy .

5 (2. 2 11 92 60 32S o-5] 0. observed oilwell performance. tubing = 2X in. and managers to recognize inflow restrictions immediately.000)(0. and 2 pwh = 250 psi [1723 k%]. = estimated. MCFD Fig.267 BID. MCFD effects-weak 250 I 00 [t [ 500 ! ! I I 2500 1000 i 500 2000 RATE. and a larger value must be used in estimating the productivi~ index..8 2.15 x & ~ 10 7 . KOBO = (1.8 MPa] for these conditions.8)(1.56 —.Well Inflow und Completion Restrictions.00W Fwh = 100 PSI R = 3200 PSI 30 B/MMCFD COND.400 psi [16.s5 (MMscf/D) 7 38 90 211 1. One can recognize that a 35”API [0. pb.diameter OCTOBER 1985 1759 . Determine whether this well is producing near ita capacity. The latest well test shows thk well producing 600 B/D [95 m3/d] oil (no water) with a GOR of 400 scf/bbl [71.000) — 1.85-g/cm3] oil.5 - 5 - I 0 c 50 . yg = 0. kh estimate can be made from (50)(30) BID =1. TABLE 2—AOFP. a reasonable estimate at lower pressures ia that about 500 psi [3447 kPa] is required to place 100 scf/bbl [17. 19—Predicted vs.000 psi [13. Exsmple Problem.jx.1. It is very important for operutora. of course.667 =2. [6. p.5 MPa]. Compare predicted perfonnanm to actual oilwell performance. Heavy cmdes. a change in tubing. D = 7.2 std m3/m3 ] (natural flow).14 m] (logs). casing = 7 in.000)+ =600+ 1.157 [m3.5 x L %1. A very quick estimate of the productivity index can be estimated from the product kh in darcy-feet.0 - 25 - 20 - ~. 5 B/MMCFD WATER $ 30 r . or other action. 35”API [0.s 0.000 ft [2134 m]. engineers.. of 2. all other available pertinent information.5 (2.65. [17.0 A closer k = 50 md (cores).995” 2.000 psi [13. Also.- = 1.400-2.S FOR HIGHER VALUES OF n AOFP n 0.5 DEPTH = i 0.7 0. Jp~ %ax=qb+= . Standkg’s 14 correlation shows the pb to be very close to 2. Some companies have arranged their computerized well records to do such things as call up a group of wells in one field in descending-kh-vahe order. It is the engineer’s responsibility to recognize thk well’s potential quickly and to recommend addkional testing. Fig.85-g/cm3] cmde at 170°F ~77°C] with 400 scf/bbl [71 std m3/m3] i“ solution will have a viscosity less than 1 and that the product poBO will be close to 1. a workover. 18—Tubing.8 atd m3/m3] in solution giving a bubblepoint pressure. 1. cm also be printed out. will have high viscosities.78 cm].8 MPa]. T = 170”F [77”C].0 ~ ~. In addkion. 100 I 200 gas well. This permits a quick calculation of the maximum flow rate. h = 30 ft [9.1 cm].9 1.2) psi but it requires that PO and 30 are known. includlng the latest test data. 1 150 RATE.

Is the permeability of 50 md (obtained fmm cores) correct? 1s there a completion problem? For this well. 800 1000 1200 500 T000 1500 I RATE. it is sometimes dficult to get a pmdlctive nodal plot to intersect at exacdy the same production rate of the actual well. The question of whether this well is worth spending sufficient money to determine why the rate is less than the prdcted rate now arises. 0 } 2000 .5 [~ a . in turn.or less in gas wells. but mzmy amazing improvements have been made with very few data. Even if current conditions cannot be matched exactfy. Summm_y and Conclusions NodaJ analysis is an excellent tool for optimizing the objective ffow rnte on boti oil aod gas wells. to obtain meaningful resufts.. 21. The operntor of tiIs well had a market of 15 MMscf/D [424x 10’3 std m3 Id]. A common misconception is that often there are insui%cient data to use thk analysis. in wellhead pressure. See Table 2 for AOFP’s for m higher values of n. Note that tbk well has an abso[ute o en-flow potential (AOFP) of 6. the following equation was obtained from a U. WD Fig. increase in production with a change. rnte and. A good plot for both oil and gas wells is a deliverability plot of wellhead pressure vs. The source of error could be with two. which demonstrates dte well response as a function of surface pressu~. on the onihwe vs.9g5 .: 200 400 600 RATE. however. This plot a. These JOORNAL PETROLEUM OF TECHNOLOGY c?gm‘@@W(5>oo02–PW2107 Mcf/d. 3 aad 4 provide more details on this procedure.tso can show the loading or critical rate and offers immediate selection of rates based on wellhead pressures.3. qg. From tMs graph.>. 20—Wellhead pressure effects on rate—nodal plot. It is common to see expcments of 0. the analysis can show a percentage. for instance. etc. 4 They suggested plotting (p.fl::. @f coast well after data were plotted on log-log paper. the possibility of additional production justifies the expenditure to ron a buildup test to verify M/yOBo and to check for skin. 2500 . 19).. Aaother common statement is that there is too much error involved in the vmious multiphase-flow tubing or flowfiie correlations. Restricted Gas Well Many operatora fail to tecognize the significance of the exponent n for gas-well IpR equations obtained from four-point tests. B)D Fig. Refs. pressure. area to flow than to stimniation. The use of nodal analysis has &so prompted the obtaining of additional data by proper testing of numerous wells. separator pressure vs. this well has a serious completion restriction. A high skin may indicate that farther testing is needed to determine whether a rntesensitive skin exists to decide whether stimulation or teperforating is required. Thk is tme in some cases.c on the abscissa to evaluate the need for opening more 1760 .984 Mcf/D [198x 103P 3/d]. 19 arc used to construct Flg. Sufficient data are nlready available to plot in the form suggested by Jones et al.0 7UU 2.s~ %:.mjMy!’y. wellhead . Because of these possible errors. bits of information. 2 –p ~f 2)/qg. rate. 20 at various wellhead pcessures.S. Effects of Wellhead And Separator Pressure Specific cases of gas wells and gas-lift oil wells may be influenced signiftaotly by changes in separator pressure andior welfhead pressure. The intersection shows a rate of 760 BID [121 m3Id] of oil. The IPR curve can be drawn quickfy and the tobing curve imposed on the sample plot (Fig. completion formulas. 21 —Pmduction vs. The sample data used to construct Fig.8 . data are used to consmtct Fig. For exnmple.7 to 0. Obviously.

: ‘LAnAdvanced Method for Predicting fhe Prod. J. ctivitj Ratio of a Pmfmated Well. Tech. 259. 1982.E.G.cdm Optimization of Oil and Gas 3.. 3. Per. [cm] .: “Verticd Flow Comelation in Gas WeUs. 21-24..: . Pet. I. E.. 17 Uhri. [cm] p = pressure.: “EffectofPerfomtion Damage cm WdJ Productivity. Oct. K..E. AIME. h [m] hP =height of interval perforated. 1984) 1653-62. Dallas (June 1974). psi ma] qb = flOWrate at the bubblepoint. (Sept. Carter. H.tion tunnel. md LP =length of perfora. J.. J“ech.E. (Oct.Analyzing the Performance of Gas Wells. psi [kPa] pwf = BHFP.T. some ve~ complex network systems.> 3. paper SPHDOE 10S42 presented 81the 1982 SPFJDOE Unconventional Gas Recove~ Symposium.: ‘. .Thc Isochronal Testing of Oil W..: “Use of Shofi Term Multiple ateFlowTeststo Predict erfmmmeofWellsHaving R P 5 T. Lea. D..%utiwestem Petmle”m Shmt Cows. D. Em. Nodsl analysis has completely altered perforation philosophy in the U.C. Per. E. Dalfas. J. (March 1979) 362-72 Trans. 2 Giiben. paper SPE 4529 presented at tie 1973 SPE Annuaf Meeting. 14 Suindi”g.-Couto. Also. R. Nomenclature B. snd has encouraged higherdensity perforating and use of open-hole completions when practical. y.-. bbl/stb [m3/stock-tank m3] Cl = numerical cnefticient dp = perforation-tunnel diameter. = = = = temperature. Experience in diffenmt opemting areas can indicate the accumcy to be expected from various correlations used in nodal mzalysis well models.TX..AfME. AIME. Pet. 7 8. (Sect. IGotz. API (1954) 126-43.. 19S2) 123.” J. Tech.ssainY. K. Pet.B.. (Nov. cm be predicted. C.cmshed-cone tlickness. J.cing by Solution-Gas Drive.> 3.. vemgmon of Wellbore Storage md Ski” Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: L Amdvtical Treatment. Sept.’.. J.. L. R.” J. N ‘<GeneralInflow Performance Relationship for Solntion-Gas Reservoir Wells.jhe effect of perforation shot density in both gravel-packed and standard perforated wells on production. psi [kPa] p. Bloum. K. Locke.” User a Maumi for API 14B. W. . Jr. 13 Fetkovich. Mscf/D [103 std m3 /d] q~~ = msxirnum flow rate. Jr. Gxay. psi [~a] P ~fi = wellhead pressure. E.: “Perforating Underbalanced–Evolving Techniques. One of the most important aspects Of nodal tiysis is that it offers engineers and managers a tool to recognize quickly those components that an restricting production rates.” Pm. E.: ‘&SystemsAnalysis Use for the DesiS” and Evahafim of Higi-Ram Gas Wells. Tech..I+JUleme.: “Evaluation and Performance Predictim of Low-Permeability Gas Wells S&mdamd by Massive Hydraulic Fracture. along with horsepower requirements for sll lift methods. . Although not discussed in this paper. 1978 .” Drill. . ?~~-~~ and Blount. 243.. and Prod Proc.: ‘& Wells hy No&f Systems Analysis. 3-6. Finally. Tulsa (1984) 4. and Brown.. 4 Jo”es.’ Agarwaf.omsximize rates) and most economical gas rates. Per.E.” J. Pittsburgh. 249.S. .s] 1. and PoRock. and Gobm. (Jan. L.: 16 Dia. and Ramey. Tech. Per. B/D [m3/d] cIe = liquid flow rate. R.. 20. Crouch. (Aug.. Per.0) water gfavity oil viscosity.. 1968)S3-92 Trans. . A. 1970) 1399-1400. (D. in. Mach. = Kservoirpressure. M. Me”g. Pmano. in. Effect of Perforating Ccmditicms Well on Performance.: ‘. Bell. Nodd analysis. AIME. Brown. M. M . (lam 1983) 31-39. 1975) 1027-3% Tram.J. B. can be pfedlcted with this procedure.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for Damased Wells Pmd..g3 of Artificial Lf$ Methods. 267. ft [m] J= productivity index..’. C. 1970) 279-9Ll T. et cl. and Glaze. Greene. seDL 30-oct.1. Lubbock..: “Productivity of Petiotated Completions in Formations With or Without Damage. McLead. recognizing obvious ermrsnd using practical judgment are necessary. F.Us. ‘?. Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance. W.C 1s 19 20 21 22 (Feb. 1761 . Prod.>7 paperSPE6133 presented at the 1976 SPE Amma3 Technical Conference and Exhibiticm. -. H. 6. M.. should not be used indkcriminately without the recognition of the significance of all plots and the meaning of each rslationsbip. 3 Rate predictions. TK (APril 20-21) 129-35. ft [m] e. Per.. B/D/psi [m3/d/kPa] k= permeability kc = penneabiity ofcmshed zone around perforation. W. thereby permitting easier selection of lift methods.&?. >J.. D. G. 33. ‘.: C-AvoidPremamm Liquid fmadi”g in Tight Gas Wells by Using Pmfrac and Pomfrac Test Da%” Oil ??d Gas J.. AIME.. in. [cm] “D = depth.A. Las Vegas.Mbswf ce Conmiled Safety Valve SizinS Cbmpurer Program. . Tech. and Pye.J. paper SPE 8025 available at SPE. In. Two detailed illustrations are given in this paper to show .at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Confe=?ce and Exhibition. J.. Engineers should be tmined to understand the assumptions that were used iR developing the various mathematical models to describe well components. 1974) 1303-1% Trans. = .: ‘.Inflow Performance Relationships for Soknion-Gas Drive Well s.. (Nov. psi [kpa] Ap = pressure difference. ” Sot.3 J. API. May 16-18. G.... Tech. however.: “Production Systems Analysis of VerticaUy Fmctured Wells. E.: “l%. 257.: *’How to Accurately Predict Future Well Pmductilities. 19S1) 2481-S8. App.. nodal analysis is used to optimize all artificial lift methods. New Orleans. Hong.M.: .-. S..F.J. 15 Eickmeier. Tech. K. cp pa.V. World Oil (May 1’ 1968) 99. H. such as ocean-floor gas-lift fields (including gas allocation t. paper SPE 9424 presented.S Wmid Oil (Mw 1982) 153-64 Aga@ R.: “A Nodal Approach for Applying SYSteInS AndysiS to the Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas Well. H. . psi [kPa] P_b ‘bubblepoint pressure.C. and Pack. R. > J.Richardson. Tech.0.& Pivot Poim Methcd Quickly Predicts Well Pdmmance.>XTechml.E. “F [“C] gas gravity (air= 1. A1-H.R. = FVF.B. B/D [mS/d] OCTOBER 19S5 T yg y. Xmeger.predicted possible increases often are fairly accufate even without an exact match to existing flow rates. 9 10 11 12 Vogel.. —. PennWell Publishing Co. md kf = formation penneabllity.h”=height of pay interval.S. Per. .

Cl is a numerical coeftkient. This is equivalent to armlysis of an oil well with gas well relationships.. et . H. Pet. Aziz. (1963) 451. . Pet. for instartce. IPR Methods for Oil Wells For flowing pressure above the bubblepoint. J. a stabl@ed rate and conesponding BHFP. 207.ne 1967) 829-38.234. . and Hubbard. >P~) and BHFp above or below the bubblepoint.: “Vertical lowof GasandLiquid i M. Poeimmnn. replaces good test data. K.. p. G. and Eng. Nothing. The total volumetric flow rote. (See Ref... p .. Tech. or cnlculate the productivity index from Darcy’s law. a total volume into a pump. characteristic of the particular well.. (1975) 14. and Smith. V.23.[...re Drops in Vertical P. .pes.: “The Muldpbase Flow of Gas. . A time element allowing fhe constmction of IPR cmves for transient conditions can be brought into Darcy’s law.E.. A2ME. and Brill. test to find the productivity index. 1762 .’ et il. as well as the static BHP.. A2ME. Oil and Water Through Verdcal Flow String wilh Appliw. This is important in some wells because of the long stabfiza. 240. Jones et al. 18. Futnre IPR Curves The prediction of future IPR curves is critical in determining when a well will die or will load up or when it shoufd be placed on artiticid lift. 28. M. J. A. has given detailed example probIems for most methods of constmcting IPR curves. 20 and Meng.: “The Predction of Flow Paftems. Trans. Pet. Du!der. Dins. Tra 31. (J. Tech. (April 1963J 475-S4 Trans. Pm.. and many procedures. The Fetkovich procedura 13 requifes a three-or fom’flow-rate test plotted on log-log paper to determine sn equation in the form of a gas-well backpressure equation with a coeffkient and exponent determined from plotted data. Beggs. A3ME. Research Results. index .f is the BHFP.. 21 Fractured wells can show flush production initially but drop off considerably in rate at future timex. 38-d8 .: ‘Wedicdng Two-Phase Prass. 32. Chen. can also be found with production values and PVT data to cdcuIate. 29.: ‘‘Gas-Liqoid Flaw in Pipelines. and Brown.’. ” AGA-API Pmjmt NX-28 (May 1969). 1. The foUowing procedures can be used (1) Fetkovich 13 procedure. The constmction of IPR ctnves for fractured oil or gas wells has been treated in the literature by Agsfwal et al. do require from one to four dlffemnt test points—that is..Tt-ch. No. Pet. ‘s4 procedure will determine whetier sufficient mea is open to flow. P. P.33747. 25. 1972). .N.. >J. J. 255.. K. i. Tech. R. 27.. G. and Cmpenter. M. Brown et al. a three.or four-flow-fste testis required for a gas weJl from which a plot is made on log-log paper and the appropriate equation derived. Tech.% Tram. 22 for a discussion on gas well pefionnance).-. Cong.. E.R.”. q=cl(P2–PL”fV 30. gixti World Pet.. apply Vogel’s ? procedure 1 or Darcy’s law using relative permeability data. For reservoir pressure greater thau bubblepoint (P. and Prod. The corrclationa that am most widely used at the present time— for vetical multipbase flow were JOURh’AL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY use a combination of a straight-line productivity above pb and Vogel’s 12 procedure below.. arc usually a minimum requirement for establiahlng a good IPR.. J. Orkiwcwsti. Fructured and transient wells have Alsobeen treated in the literature.) Fractured Oil and Gus Wells. andRos. Pro. Cd.tion to the Designof Gas-Lift Installations. bottomhole pressure (BHP) opposite the center of the completed intend (ordimte). (May 1973) 607.. F 24.: “Practical Solution of GasFlow Equations for Wells and Pipelines witi Large Temperature Gradients. and the turbulence terms should always be included6 for all but the lowest rates.41ME.. (June 1967) m. CuUen&r.1.00. 4. J. 17 Transient IPR Curves Oil or Gas WeIIs.” Ind. IS (3) Couto’s 16 procedure.: ‘?3xperimentd Study of Fmssure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in SmaJJ-Diameter Vertical Conduits. and Fogammsi..: ‘%essure Dmp in Wells Producing Oil and Gas. API (1952) 251-317. 1956) 281-8R Tmm. l+v. Jr. in fact. Pet. APPENDIX A Inflow Performance Inflow performumc is the ability of a well to give up fluids to the welJbore per unit drawdown.W.” Drill. Liquid Holdup and Ptessure Losses Occurring During Continuous TwGPhme Flow In HorizontalPipelines.D. J. ANE.: “A Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes.base flow in a reservoir. Also.tion time. F. J. 26. it is plotted normally as stock-tunk barrels of liquid per day (abscissa) vs. GenemIIy. 3 for discussions by several authors. Dukkr. (D. For two. APPENDJX B Muftiphase Flow Correlations The use of multiphsse-flow-pipeline pressure-drop correlations is very important in applying nodal analysis. Hagedorn.H. 240.. A.. (2) combination of Fetkotich and Vogel’s equation. (July-Sepl.. and n is a numerical exponent that is characteristic of the psrticxdw weJL (See Ref. G. Govicr.19Lea.. 815-28. A. Darcy’s law can be used. . however. E.CJ. %audmg’s 14 extension of Vogel’s wmk accom3ts for flow-efficiency values other than 1. includlng free gas. A. For flowing and gas-lift wells. IPR Methods For Gas Weffs. Eaton.xturesn Wells.H. h M. where q is the mte of flow. H. is the shut-in rcse~oir pressure. Tech.: “A Study of Twc-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes. and the (4) PivOt point method.

i. 2? Dukler et al. The procedu~ by (ldlender and Smith 31 and Poettmann aud C~enter32 are recommended for gas-flow calculation in wells.895757 E+OO -conversion = = = = = m3 m3 m cm kPa tam. one may be much better than the other under certain conditions. 29 Eaton er al.f. However.54* E+OO psi x 6. and field pressure surveys are the onfy way to find out. Wet Gas Wefla.831 685 E–02 ft X 3. 30 and Dukler using Eaton’s holdup28.. Horizontal MuIti haae-Flow Pipeline CorreIationa. S1 Metric Conversion Factors bbl X 1. ~ Beggs and BriU.bed in the SOcieV d Peto[eum Engineef$ . 19S5. we recommend to begin work using them in the order given. Beggs and Brill. Without knowledge of a particular field. x 2. We recommend the Gray correlation 11 for wet gas wells. Origlml man”s+t tic. . 28 Dukler snd Hubbard. (SPE 14714] Jr’lr%. . unpublished). Orkizewski.. M Ros modification (Shell Oil Co. exact.26 snd Aziz. Aug. 27 These correlations calculate pressure drop ve~ well in certain wells snd fields.048* E–01 in.30 nre the best horizontal-flow correlations. we would recommend beginning work with the correlations listed in the above order.589873 E–01 cu ft X 2. OCTOBER 1985 1763 . 23 Duns smd Ros. 19. Again.. Vertical Gas Flow.developed by Hagedorn and Brown.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful