SPE

-=41@~Ef@=-

SPE 14121
Production Optimization Using a Computerized Well Model
by J.F. Lea,

Amoco Production Co., and K.E, Brown, U of Tulsa

SPE Membars

CW@Jht1SSS.Sooii ofPetroleumErI@neefe
TM PSFUwssprewued t theSPEwzs InwmstbnalMsethgonPetroleumE@teeringheldinseiiing,CMnaMarch17-20.1SSS.~ matwidis
pmmidoa tocopyisrestrktadtoanabshct ofnotIWSIthan300wrds. WriteSPE.P.O.BoxS33S2S,RWwdson.
-m~timmsti.
loses 7Z@23WS.Telex720SSSSPEDAL

Many oil and gas weLls may be producing

at rates
which appear to be optimum but which actually
conThese wells
tain unnecessary
restrictions
to flow.
can be anaLyzed using modelling
techniques
to evalwell system.
uate all components of producing
Often this procedure
will identify possible modifiin
cations
in the well which if made will result
This method described
is often
larger
flow rates.
All componentti
referred
to as Modal* AnaLysis.
reservoir pressure nd ending
starting t the static
at the separator are evtluated
if present. This may
include inflow performance,flow acroas the compLetion,
flow up the tubing string
including
ny downflow across
the
hole restrictions,safety
valves,
and flow through horisurface
choke (if pplicable)
facilizontal
flow lines and into the separation
ties.
The objectives
1.

of well

analysis

are

3.

To select
the most economical
time for the
of rtificial
lift
and to aasist
installation
lift
in the selection of the best artificial
method.

4.

the well conditions

and geometry
To optimize
produce
system in order to most economically
the objective flow rate.

6.

Overall,

this permits quick recognition

by the
of
operatorsmanagement and engineering
staff
ways and means to increase
production
rates.
feature
of being able
This is very important
to graphically
display
the wells performance
with production
optimization
or Nodal* Analysis Techniques.

Thre re numerous oil nd gas wells round the

that have not been optimized
to achieve an
objective
rate in an efficient
manner.
In fact,
many may have been routinelycompleted
in a manner
such that their maximum potential
rate cannot be
chieved.
Also, many of the wells pLaced on rtificial lift re not chieving
the efficiency that may
be possible.

To determine
the flow rate t which well wiLl
produce with a given wellbore geometry nd comflow).
pletion
(first
by natural
well
To determine
under what flow conditions
This can be related to
will cease to produce.
time as the reservoirdepLetes.

each component in the wel 1 system to

To analyze
determine
if it is restricting
the flow rate
unnecessarily
when compared to the flow capacities of the other system components.

world

follows:

2.

5.

The production
optimization
of oil and gas
walls using computerized
well modeLs has contributed
ffito improved completion
techniques,
better
nd higher production
with many wells.
eiency,
This
type of anaLysis
was proposed in a classic
paper by
Gilbert*
in 1954, however its use has not been
One principal
reason
extensive until
recent years.
for this was the changing
of aLlowable
producing
Another
reaaon has been the development of
rates.
of
computer technology
allowing
rapid calculation
compLex algorithm
nd asily
understood
input nd
output .

Past conservationpractices
in the U.S. led to
the use of 2 (5.08 cm) nd 2-1/2 (6.35 cm) tubing
nd 6 shots per foot for perforating.
Larger tubing
(4-1/2
(11.43 cm) and 5-1/2 (13.97 cm)) and 16
shots per foot re not uncommon today when higher
rates re allowed.

nd illustrations
at and of paper.
References
~radamark
of FLopetrol-Johnston/Schlumberger-used
by permission. J. Mach selected
the word Uodal
which was first used in the SPE paper 8025.1

77

PRODUCTIONOPTIMIZATION USING A CONPUTSRIZEDWELLHODEL

Although allowing
increased
flow rates
in high
productivity
wells has popularized
well optimization,
it is, nevertheless,
an excellent
technique
to
be used on low rate wells (both oil and gas) ad on
ll rtificial
lift
wells.
Some of the greatest
percentage
increases
in production
rates have
occurred
in low rate oil wells (from 10 to 30 bbl/D
or 1.59 to 4.77 ts3/D) and low rate
gas wells (from
50,000 scf/D (L416 m3/D) to 100,000-200,000
scf/D
Numerous gas wells have had
(2832-5663 3/D)).
djustments
in tubing sizes,
surface
pressures,
etc.~
to prolong the onset of liquid
loading
problams.
Optimization
techniques
can be used to estimate the benefits
of such proposed changes before
they re made.

2.

At the top of the well (wellhead).

Lates the flow line or the effects
preBsure on production.

3.

Differential
pressure
solutions
(Ap) across the
completion
interval
in order to evaluate
the
effect
of the number of perforation
on produccompletion.
tion in gravel pack or standard

4.

5.

This isoof surface

t the separator
- This is important
Thi8 isolates the effect
lift
wells.
of separator
pressure
on production.

Solutions

with

aspects
of well analOne of the most important
of those wells that can
ysis is to offer recognition
rate.
produce t rates higher than the current
Optimization
techniques
can serve s an excellent
nd
tool to further
verify
that a problem exists
indicate
that additional
testing
is in order. For
example, assume that well is making 320 bbl/D
Applying well imdelling
nalysis
(51 m3/D) of oil.
to this well shows it capable of 510 bbl/D
This difference
may be attributed
to
(81 m3/D).
of production
optiseveral
factors.
The objective
ization
methods is to find out that component of
the well that is restricting
the rate below the maxi~
pssible.
~~wever, it ISZy also be found that
incorrect
data is ihe cauae of the predicted
higher
is to
rate. A basic requirement for well analysis
be ble ta definz the current well inflow perfoante relationship
(IPR).
Accurate weLL te$t data
must be obttined
and the proper IPR model appLied
for successful
analysis.
Then mathematical
models
of other well components can be used to complete the
predicted
well performance.

14121

Other
at:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

gas

Locationa

for

graphical

Surface chokes,
Safety valves,
Tapered string
connection
Downhole restrictions.

solution

points,

can

be

or

that the user understands

It is very important
how pressure-flow
components of the well are grouped
to form graphical
solution
at an analysis
point or
For example,. if the solution
is
node point.
graphically
displayed
for bottomhole
conditions
(center
of completed
interval),
then the reservoir
and the completion
effects
can be completely
isoLated and nalyzed separately
from the entire
well
system.
piping nd production
Caution should be taken in neglecting
aven 200
to 300 ft (60 to 90 m) of casing flow from the
to the bottom of
center
of the completed
interval
the tubing.
The larger
pipe, due to lower velocities,
may not be flushed
out with produced fluids.
It can be quite unexpected
to still
find this large
of pipe still
partielly
full of completion
section
fluide
(water
and mud) even though the well may be
producing
near 100% oil.
A major company recently
pressure
surveyed a well producing
1600 bbL/D
(254 m3/D) of oil up 2-710 (7.3 cm) tubing.
tubing was set
Because of casing deviation,
1000 ft (305 m) off bottom in the 11,000 ft (3353 m)
well.
Both water nd mud were found in the 7
(17.8 cm) casing below the tubing ven though the
well produced 100% oil.
A cleaning
out of this well
increased
the rate to over 2000 bbl/D (318 m3/D) of
oil.
Thie shows one type of Limitation
of well
analysis using tubing preesure
drop calculations
to
In this
flowing
bottomhole
pressure.
estimata
case,
the analysis
showed that the rate should be
greater
and hence served es a diagnostic
tool.
This
prompted the running of pressure
traverse.
In
predmany cases this is typical
where well nalysis
icts what rate should be possible,
and the operator
is advised
to Look for problems if the well is producing well below a predicted
production
rate.

Fig. 1 shows components that make up a detailed

flowing well system. Starting from the reservoir
the components
and proceeding
to the separator,
shown here are (1) reservoir pressure, (2) well productivity,
(3) wellbore
completion,
(4) tubing
string,
(5) possible
downhole restrictive
device,
(6) tubing,
(7) safety
valve,
(8) tubing,
(9) surface
choke, (10) flowline,
and
(11) separator.
In order to optimize
the system, each component
must be evaluated
separately
and then the entire
group of components combined to evaluate
the total
well producing system. The effects
of changing any
one component on the entire
system is very important
nd can be graphically
dispLayed using well analysis.
Some limited
discussion
on the IPR componant
flow presis covered in Appendix A, nd multiphase
sure drop correlationsfc pipe~ *-s discussed
in
Appendix B.

sxAnPLes
The most coimmon Locations
for
are:
mization
graphical
solutions
1.

production

optif ezamples re presented,

.es lso appear in che liter-

A l~mit?~
howevera num
ature.
5

At the bottom of the well at the center of the

This isolates
the weils
producing
interval.
infLow performance.

Two subjects

78

i.~.e

been selected

for

examples:

14121

JAMES F. LEA AND KERMIT E. BROW

1.

of the downhole completion

on flow
rate is illustrated.
ti example solution for
perfoboth gravel packed well and a standard
rated well is presented.
Procedures
to optire outlined.
mize the completions

2.

Quick recognition
of those wells having a
greater
predicted
potential
than the present
production
rate is covered. These situations
in one of the cow
may be due to restriction
ponents in the system.

The effect

A good paper for review on perforating

techniques
was given by Bells pointing
out such
factors as the number of effective
holes
on
and the effect
of casing strength
expected
hoLe sizes.
7. The Ap cross the pack can be included
IPR curve as noted in Figure 1.
EXAIIIPLEPROBLBN- Possible
Gravel

cRAVEL PACKED OIL ANDGAS HELLS

Prepare the node inflow cuwe (IPR curve,

Fig. 2).
(Assumes no Ap across
completion.)

2.

Prepare the node outflow curve (tubing

intake
pressure
curve, Fig. 3).
This is the surface
s a
plus the tubing pressure
drop plotted
function
of rate.

4.

5.

6.

This well is to be gravel

packed.
Tubing size
and number of shots per foot using tubing conveyed
re to be evaluated.
The
gun fired underbalanced
ssumption is made here that due to the unconsolidated formationthere are no low permeability
zones
around
the perforations. That is, sand immediately
holes until
proper~y preflows into ll perforated
packed.

or

1.

3.

Well with

~r = 4000 psi (27576 kPa)

Depth = 11,000 (3352 m)
k = 100 md (.1 pm2)
h = 30 ft (9.1 m) (pay intervaL)
h = 20 ft (6.1 m) (perforated
interval)
g?avel pack sand:
40-60
640 cre (2589952 mz) spacing
8-5/8 (21.9 cm) casing
10-3/4 (27.3 cm) drilled
hole
yg = 0.65
Screen Size - 5 (12.7 cm) O.D.
Sales line pressure = 1200 psi (8273 kPa)
Short flow line.

for analysis
of a graveL
A graphical
procedure
packed well with sequence of figures,
is presented
here.
Additional
details,
references
and equations,
etc.,
can be found in Reference
3.

procedure
is for either
an oil
solution
plotted
at bottomhole

U.S. Gulf Coast

Pack:

in the

Given Data:

A paper presented
by Jones, BLount and Glaze
to start
operators
seemed to have been the catalyst
at their
gravel packed completo look more closely
paper for study nd
tions.
This is an excellent
also suggests
proceduresfor determiningwhether or
not a wells
inflow capability
is restricted
by lack
of area open to flow or a skin effect due to mud
etc.
For backgr~und materiaL,
see the
infiltration,
sunz8ary by Ledlow and Cranger.

The following
gas well with the
conditions:

SOLUTIONPROCEDURE- Gulf

Coast

10 The IPR curve is prepared

including
the additional
drop.
(Fig. 8)

vailable
Transfer
the differential
pressure
between the node inflow and node outflow curve
on the same plot (Fig. 4) to a &p curve.

Well
using Darcys law
turbulence
pressure

(7.3 cm), 3-1/2

2. Tubing sizes of 2-7/8
(8.89 cm) and4-1/2
(11.43 cm) are evaluated
at a wellhead
pressure
of 1200 psi (8272 kPa)
needed to flow gas into the sales line. From
nalysis of Fig. 9, 4-1/2 (11.43 cm) tubing is
permitselected.
Note that market conditions
ting, much higher rates
could be projected
is possible.
assuming dequate sand control

Using the appropriate

equations,34
calculate
for
the pressure
drop cross the completion
various rates.
Numerous variables
have to be
considered
here including
shots per foot,
permeability,
viscosity
nd density of
gravel
the fluid,
length of the perforation
tunnel for
linear
fl~w, etc.
Add this Ap curve on Fig. 4
as noted in Fig. 5.

the Ap es shown in Fig. 10.

This
3* Transfer
cross
the gravel pack.
the Ap vailable

Evaluate this completion

(Fig. 5) to determine
if the objective
rate can be achieved
with an
ccepted differential
cross
the gravel pack.
Opinions differ
some on accepted
Ap values.
A
reasonable
maximum llowable
Ap that has given
good resuLts
is from 200 to 300 psi for single
Most operators
will
phase gas or liquid
flow.
design for lower Aps for multiphase flw
crosa
the pack.

4.

Evaluate
other shot densities or ~rhaus
other
hp is-obtained
hole sizes until
the ppropriate
t the objective rate (Fig. 6). Perforation
efficiency should be consideredat this time.

79

Using equations
proposed by Jones, et l.,
calculate
the Ap cross the pack for .75
(1.905 cm) dia. holee with effective
shots
(Fig. 11)
foot of 4; 8, 12 nd 16.

is

per

two plots indi5. Figs. 11 nd 12 show the final

to obtain a Ap
ca~ing that 16 SPF re neeessary
of about 300 psi (2068 kPa) at a rate of
58.5 HNSCF/D (1656603 m3/D).
Additional
perforations
could bring this below 200 psi
(1379 kPa).

6.

In order to properly
bring this well on production,
one more plot such as Fig. 13 should be
made with several
wellhead
pressures
included
so that Ap across the pack can be watched by
This
pressure.
observing
rate nd wellhead
procedure
is described
by Crouch and Pack,s and
Brown. 3

SXANPLEPROBLEN- Perforated

Oil Well

~r = 3500 psi (24129 kPa)

80 cre (323744 m2) spacing
Depth = 8000 ft (2438 m)
5-1/2 casing (13.97 cm)
36 API oil
8-1/2 hole (21.S9 cm)
Solution GOR = 180 scf/bbL (32 m3/m3)
Lp =4 (10.16 cm)
(see Table 6, Ref. 6 for tabulated
values )
Crushed zone thickness
around
perf.
tunnel =0.5
(1.27 cm)
yg = 0.7
P = 800 psi (551S kPa)
hb= 30 ft (9.1 m)
h = 20 ft (6.1 m)
Pp = 140 psi~ (965 kPa)
Tw~ 180F (82 C)

NODALANALYSISTO EVALUATEA STANDARDPERFORATED

HELL
a paper that
helped
In 1983 HcLeod8 published
emphasize analysis
of completion
practices
on
normally
erfmated
wells. Several
prior publicationslOl ! 12 had discussed
this topic,
but this
paper seemed to have increased interest in this
area. This procedure is presented in Reference 3
with some suggestedmodifications.
to

The procedure
is similar
to that offered
for
used
gravel packed wells,
except that the qu~tions
for calculating
pressure
drop cross the perforated
completions
have been ltered
to model flow through
a perforation
surrounded
by a low permeability
zone.
The basic concepts
suggested
by Jones, et al.,
for
gravel packed wells are incorporated
into the soLutions.

PROCEDURE

. PROCEDUREAND EXAMPLEPROBLEIII- PERFORATEDWELL

An oil well will be nslyzed with low GOR and
hence low bubble point pressure
resulting
in flow of
Techacrose the completion.
a single
phase liquid
nology has so far only offered
soLutions
for single
phase flow (gas or Liquid) across
such completions.
Uben two-phase
flow occurs across ither gravel
relative
packed or standard perforatedwell,
permeabilityeffects muet then be consideredalong
turbulence
and energy losses.
with dditional

1.

Prepare the node inflow curve (IPR curve)

using
Darcys Law and ssuming no additionalAp
across
the completion.

2.

Plot the outflow curve (tubhg

intake)
for
2-3/8 (6.03 cm), 2-7/8 (7.3 cm) and 3-1/2
(8.89 cm) tubing.
This is the pressure
t the bottom of tubing
for flow
required
through the tubing.
Steps 1 (IPR) and 2
re shown in Fig.
14.
Assume
(tubing
intake)
3-1/2 (8.89 cm) tubing is selected.

3.

Transfer

4.

McLeod6 noted that most of the pressure

drop in
well occurs across the compacted zone t the
perforation
wall due to turbulence.
lhs wo-ked a gas
well example in his paper showing that 90% of the
was in fact
due to
total Ap cross the completion
cross
the pproximate
1/2 (1.27 cm)
turbulence
thick compacted zone. Pressure drop in oil well
completionsmay be found to be due to laminar or
Darcy Losses. Refer to his paper and other references= for details.
a gas

the Ap curve

shown in Fig.

15.

Using the appropriate

quations from NcLeod8
by Brown3), determine
Ap
(and s discussed
acroea the completions
listed Table I.

of Fig.
16 shows the effects
of
Examination
perforating
underbalanced
on production.
The best
fluids
and perforating
techniques
should be used.

RECOGNITIONOF COMPONENTS CAUSINC RESTRICTED FLOU

RATES IN A WELL
1. EXAHPLE PR08LSN - Analysis of Flow-Line
Capacity:

To use HcLeods technique,

the crushed zone
as
thickness
and permeability
(k ) must be estimated
s the perforation
tunnef diameter
nd length
well
(Lp).

The followingwell
~~t~

ft

is on gas lift

(2438m)

2-718 (7.3 cm) tubing

P = 2100 psi (14477 kPa)
56% water (S = 1.07)
Well test:
~00 bbl/D (80 m3/D)
@1740 pai (12072 kPa)
Solution
GOR = 300 scf/bbl
(53 3/m3)
P = 2400 psi (16545 kPa)
S&rator Pressure
= 60 psig (413 I@a)
Cas gravity
= .7
Flowline: 4000 ft (1220 m)
2-1/2 I.D. (6.35 cm)

Due to the many input variables

required,
this
analysis
technique
can only be approximate
and indicate trende.
Future research
in this area is needed
of solutions.
to enhance the accuracy

80

JAHES F. LEA AWDKERMIT E. BROWW

16121

(2000 psi,
Sufficient
gas pressure
is available
13788 kPa) to inject
gas near the bottom nd a total
GLR of 800 scf/bbl
(143 m3/m3) is maintained
for gas
lift.
It is suspected
that the flowline
is
restricting
the rate.
Uith analysis
techniques
prosolution
can be quickly
genergreimsed, graphical
location.
ated t the wellhead analysis

the IPR at a point

curves crossing
of the minimum for the Larger tubing.
(2.54
cm) tubing shows stable
flow.

tubing

left

The same type

made for oil wells
3.

Examination
of the results
in Fig. 17 indicate
This is
that the flowline
is indeed restriction.
evident
by noting that the pressL~re loss in the
shows a significant
flowline
(2-1/2
(6.35 cm) I.D.)
increase
in pressure
loss with rate and therefore
point
angles sharply
upwards t the intersection
between the two curves shown.
The intersection
point (of the pressure
required
at the flowline
intake,
and the IPR pressure
minus pressure
drop in
to the wellhead)
is the
the weil from the sandface
flow from the well.
point of predicted

Uell

of general
for various

to the
The 1.0

observations

tubing

Inflow and Completions

can be

sizes.

Restrictions:

It is very important
management to insaadiately

for operator
engineers
and
recognize
inflow
have arranged
their
restrictions.
Some companies
computerized
well records
to do such things as
call-up a group of wells in one field
in the ordar
of descending
kh vaLues.
In addition,
all other
available
pertinent
information
can also be printed
out including
the latest
test data.
By way of example,
printed
out for an oil

A 3 (7.62 cm) and 4 (10.16 cm) flowline

is
then evaluated
on the same plot.
As soon as the
intake pressure
vs rate
slope of the flowline
increaee of Ap
becomes small,
showing very little
with rate,
then the flowline
diameter
is sufficiently
Large.
It should not be oversized since
some
nd heading may occur.
excessive
slugging
line instead
of
operators
may add parallel
the current
line with larger
size.
replacing

the

data

following

was

well.

EXAMPLE PROBLEH - Compare Predicted

Well Performance:
k = 50 md (50x10-3pm)(from
h = 30 ft (9.14 m)(Logs)
Caaing = 7 (17.78 cm)
Tubing = 2-3/8
API = 35
7000 ft (2134m)
Depth
P = 2400 psi (16545 kPa)
= 250 psi (1723 kPa)
%
Yg = .6?
T= 170 F (76C)

to Actual

Oil

cores)

2.

Restriction

Due to Incorrect

Tubing

Sizet

The tubing may be either

too large (causing
unstable
flow) or too smell (reduces flow rate).
This can be ismadiately
recognized
on a nodal plot.
wells as well
This ie importantin high rate gaslift
a Low rate
gas wells.
A weak gas well is chosen to show how to
nize when the tubing is too large and Loading
occur.
The Gray correlating
is used and is
mended for use in calculating
tubing pressure
in gas wells producing
some liquids.
BXAHPLE PROBLBW - Weak Gas Well with
tion:

Liquid

teat shows this well producing

The Latest
well
600 B/D (95 IS3/D) oil (no water) with GOR of
flow).
400 SCF/B (71.2 m3/m3) (Hatural

recogwill
recomr
dropa

Question:
Is this well producing
near its
capacity?
It is the engineers
responsibility
to
quickly
recognize
this wells
potential
and to
recowsend:
testing,
(2) a workover,
(1) dditional
(3) a change in tubing size,
or (4) other action.

ProducA quick estimate

of the PI (Productivity
Index)
estimated
from the product
kh in Darcy feet
nd is
can

Pr = 3200 pai (22348 kPa)

k = .12md (.12x1O 3PM)
30 bbL/HMCF (1.7x1O-4 m3/m3) coi!denaate
5 bbl/?DfCF (2.8x1O-5 m3/m3) water
Depth = 10,000 ft (3048m)
pwh = 100 psig (689 ItPa)
h = 15 ft (4.57 )
h = 1S ft (4057 )
yi = .7
320 cre (1294976 m2) spacing
hoLe size = 8-1/2 (21.6 cm)
T = 200F (93C)
Wo skin affecta
gvaluate
3-1/2,
2-7/8,
2-3/8
I.D.,
(4.21 cm)) and 1 (1.049
tubing for this wLI.

nd 1-1/2

I.D.,

(2.66

be

~=

A closer

50(30)
m

estimate

(50)(30)
~1000)(.8)(1.2)

. ~c5 bbl/D
~

cm))

Note from Fig. 18 that all sizes of tubing re

too Lsrge except the 1.049 (2.66 cm) in this particular
caee.
Unstable
flow is indicated
by the

81

&bl
kPa

Ml
nd is
can be made from
porno

= 156

requires that v and

that 35 API $rude
400 SCF/B (71 3/m3)
Less than one
cosity
will be close to 1.
have higher viscosities.

(1.66

or ~.0345

PS1

(or

.0359 a,
~a

One can recognize

and with
in solution
will have a visnd chat the product
of v B
Heavy crudes,
of course,
~i?l

be known.

but

170F

(76.6C)

ALSO a reasonable

estimate

at

lower

pressures

500
si (3447 kPa) is
is that approximately
to place 100 SCF/B (17.8 m? /m3) in solution

required
giving
a

bubble point pressure

Standings
correlation
be close to 2000 psi

of 2000 psi (13788 kPa).

shows the bubble point,
Pb, to
(13788 kPa) for these condi-

tions.

an estimate.

This

., .-.
141Z1

--. .-. .----------- ----PRODUCTIONOPTIMIZATIONUSING A COMPUTERIZEDWELL HUDEL

permits

of

the

Obviously,
this well has a rather
serious
completion
restriction.
This well can also be anaby
lyzed by plotting
data in che form suggested
Jones! et 41.4
They suggest
plotting

maximum flow

rate to be:
J Pb
1,8 = 1.5 (2400-2000)
qmax = qb +

qmax = 600 + 1667 = 2267 bbl/Dor

1.5

(2000)
~. s

on the

ordinate

vs

the need for op;~~ng

to stimulation.

(360 m3/D)

8 Sc

on the abscissa

more area

to evaluate

to flow as compared

EFFECTS OF WELLHEAD AND SEPARATOR PRESSURE

The IPR curve can be quickly
drawn and the
tubing performance
imposed upon the sample plot
The intersection
shows a rate of 760 B/D
(Fig. 19).
(121 m3/D) of oil.
The question

spending

sufficient

now arises
- is this
money to determine

well worth
why the rate

The source of
is less than the predicted
rate?
Is the
information.
error could be with two bits-of
permeability
of 50 md (5OX1O 3~m) (obtained
from
correct
and~or is there a completion
problem.
cores)

In this instance
the possibl~
additional
production
appears to justify
the expenditure
to run a build-up
A
test to verify
kh/poBo nd to check for skin.
high skin may indicate
further
testing
is required.
The skin may or may not be rate sensitive
which
or re-perforating
is
helps decide if stimulation
required.

to recognize
the signiffor gae well IPR equatests.
It is not
.7 to .8 or Less in gas

the following
For example,
obtained
from a gas well after
log-log
paper.

equation
plotting

wae

data

on

.7
qgsc

= 0.0463[(5000)2

The operator
in this case
(424770 n13/D). Note that
6984 HCF/D (197773 m3/D).
The follawing

- Pwf2]

, UCFD

had a market of 15 BINSCF/D

this well has an AOFP of

AOFPs exist

for

higher

values

n:
n

AoFe (t41iscF/D)

(m3/D x 10-5 at SC)

.7
.8
.85
.9
1.0

7
38
90
211
1157

(2)
(11)
(92)
(60)
(328)

Specific
cases of gas wells and gas lifted
oil
may be influenced
significantly
by changes
in

separator

pressure

andlor

wellhead

preesure.

A good plot for both oil and gas wells

is a
deliverability
plot of wellhead
pressure
vs rate and
in turn separator
pressure
vs rate.
This type plot
rate and
can also show the loading or critical
offers
immediate selection
of rates based on wellhead pressures.

SUUHARYAND CONCLUSIONS

RESTRICTED GAS HELL:

It is possible
to fail
icance of the exponent n
tions obtained
from G-point
unusual to see exponents
of
wells.

wells

of

method for indiWell analysis

is n xcellent
flow rate on both
cating
how to obtain
the objective
oil and gas wells. A conmon comment is we just
dont have nough data to use this nalysis. This
mazing the
is true in some cases, but it is
improvements
in wells that have been made beginning
Analysis
has lso prompted
with very little data.
data by properly
testing
the obtaining
of dditionaL
numerous wells.
Another concern is that there is too much error
involved
in the various
multiphase
flow tubing or
to
flowline
correlations,
completion
formulas,
etc.,
obtain meaningful
results.
Because of these possometimes it is difficult
to get a
sible rrors,
predictive
well nalysis
plot to show an intersection t the exact rate e the well is currently
However,
even if current
production
being produced.
cannot be matched exactly,
the analysis
can show a
for
percentage
increase
in production
with change,
instance,
in wellhead
pressure
or tubing size.
Often these predicted
possible
increases
are fairly
accurate
even without an exact match to existing
flow rates.
Two detailed
examples are given in this paper
to show the effect
of perforation
shot density
in
both gravel
pac!ked and standard
perforated
wells on
production.
Computerized
well analysis
has completely
altered
perforation
philosophy
in the U.S. and has
open hole completions
for both
prompted dditional
One of
gravel
packed nd nongravel packed wells.
spects
of Nodal type nalysis
the most important
is that it offers
supervisors
and managers a tool to
now quick recognition
of those components that are
restricting
production
rates.

JAMES F.

14121

LEA AND KERMIT E. BROWN

REFERENCES
Although not discussed,
this type of analysis
is used to optimize
all artificial lift
methods.
requirements
for all lift
Flow rate nd horsepower
methods can be predicted
permitting
easier
selection
of a lift
method.
Finally,

ocean-floor
to maximize

be modelled

complez

pipe

network

systems

gas lift
fields
including
rates and most economical
using this procedure.

1.

Hach, Joe, Eduardo Proano and Kermit E. Brown,

A Nodal Approach for Applying Systems Analysis
Lift Oil or Gas
to the Flowing and Artificial
Hell,
SPE 8025.

2.

Gilbert,
W. E., Flowing and Gas-Lift
formance,
API Drilling
and Production

such as

gas allocation
gas rates can

(1954),

3.

p.

Well PerPractice

126-143.

Brown, K. E., et al.,

Technology of Artificial
Rethods Volume 4 Production
Optimization
of Oil and Gas Wells by Nodal Systems Analysis,
Pennwell Publishing
Co., Tulsa, OK,
1984.
Lift

However, system analysis

should not be used
indiscriminately
without recognizing
the significance of all plots and what each reLationship
means.
Engineers
should be trained
in understanding
the
assumptions
that were used in developing
the various
mathematical
models. to describe
well components.
Also,
it is necessary
to be bLe to recognize
judgment as ppLiobvious error and use practical
Experience in different
operating
areas can
cable.
indicate
the accuracy
to be expected
from various
correlations
used in well analysis
models.

4.

volume factor,

GLR - Gas-liquid

Predict
Lence,
1976.
5.

Crouch, E. C. and K. J. Pack, Systems Analysis

of High-Rate
Use for the Design and Evaluation
Gas Wells, SPE 9424, SPE of AIMI, September 21-24, 1980.

h-

Height

ratio,
of

pay

6.

!fcLeod,

interval,

IPR - Inflow

performance

relationship

formetion
of

b
%8C

- Wellhead
- Bubble

w
T-

- Water

8.

Bell, W. T., Perforating

Underbalanced
Evolving Techniques,
JPT, (Ott.
1984)$
p. 1653-1662.

zone round

9.

FLOWCorrelation
in Gas
Gray, H. E., Vertical
Wells, User Manual for API 14B, Subsurface
Controlled
Safety Valve Sizing Computer progrea,
App. B, (June 1974).

tunnel,

ISA
perfora-

in.
10.

Locke, S., An Advanced Method for Predicting

Well,
the Productivity
Ratio of Perforated
p. 2481-2488.
JPT, (ikCo 198i),

pressure, psi
point

- Gas flow

qg - Liquid

Firoozabadi,A., nd D. L. Katz, An Analysis

of t(ighVelocity Gas Flow Through Porous
Media, JPT (Pebruary
1979), p. 211-216.

ft

Pa-ability,

crushed

L - Length of perforation
P
psi
P- Presaure,
Wh

Jr.,
The Effect of Perfoon Well Performance,
JPT

7.
ft

perforated,

kc - Permeability
tion,
md

Harry O.,
Conditions
(January 1983).

scf/bbl oil

of interval

- Permeability,

bbl
rating

hp - Height

k,kf

tank

scf/bbL

ratio,

- Gas-oil

Cm

bbl/stk

and C. E. Glaze,
E. II!. Blount,
Term Hultiple
Rate Flow Tests to
Performance
of Wells Having TurbuSPE 6133, SPE of AIllE, October 3-6,

Loyal C.,

Use of Short

NOMENCLATURE
Bo - Formation

Jones,

rate

flow

pressure,
at

standard

rate,

correlations,

HSCFD

12.

Klotz, J. A., R. F. Krueger, D. S. PYe, Effect

of Perforation
Damage on Well Productivity,
JPT, (~Oo 1974), p. 1303-~314.

13.

Vogel, J. V., Inflow Performance

Relationship
for Solution
Cas Drive Wells,
JPT,
(Jan. 1968), p. 83-93.

bbi/D

gravity

Temperature,

of Perforated
Com11. Hong, K. C., Productivity
pletions
in Formations
With or Without Damage,
JPT, (Aug. 1975), p. 1027-1038.

psi

Ap - Pressure difference,psi

Testing
of
14. Fetkovich,M. J., The Isochronal
Oil Wells,
SPE 4529, 1973, by If. J. Fetkovich.

Yg -Caa gravity (air = 1.0)

1s.
P. - Oil

viscosity,

cp

.83-

RelationStanding,
H. B., Inflow Performance
ships for Damaged Wells Producing by Solution
Gas Drive Reservoirs,
JPT, (Nov. 1970),
p. 1399-1400.

.
8

PRODUCTIONOPTIMIZATION USING A COMPUTERIZEDWELLNODEL

16.

Eickmeier,
J. R., HOWto Accurately
Predict
Future Well Productivities,
World Oil,
04ay 1968), p. 99.

30

17.

Dias-Couto,

31.

Luiz Evanio

General

Inflow

Solution

Gas Drive

(Feb.

1982),

and Hichael

Performance

p.

Reservoir,

GoLam,

Relationship

JPT,

(1975)

19.

AgarwaL, R. C., F. A1-Hussainy,

and
H. J. Ramey, Jr.,
An Investigation
of Wellbore
in Unsteady Liquid
Storage and Skin Effect
FLow: 1. Analytical
Treatment,
SPE Journal,

20.

21.

22.

1970),

p.

Agarwal, R. C., R. D. Carter,

and
C. B. Pollock,
Evaluation
and Performance
Prediction
of Low Permeability
Cas Wells Stimulated by Massive Hydraulic
Fracture,
JPT,
(March 1979), p. 263.
Liquid Loading in
Lea, J. F., Avoid Premature
nd Postfrac
Tight Cas Wells by Using Prefrac
Test Data, Oil and Gas Journal,
(September
20,
1982), p. 123.

24.

Heng, Eduardo Antonio Proano, Ismeil

and Joe M. Mach, Production
Systerns Analysis
of Vertically
Fracture
Wells,
SPE/DOE 10842, presented
at SPE/DOE Symposium
in Pittsburg,
PA, Hay 16-18, 1982.

Creene, Ii. R., Analyzing

the Performance
of
Gas iieLIs,
25th Annual Southwestern
Petroleum
Lubbock, TX, (April 20-21, 1978),
Short Course,
Proc. pp. 129-135,
197B.
Hagedorn, A. R., and K. E. Brown, Experimental
Sutdy of Pressure
Cradients
Occurring
During
Continuous
Two-Phase Flow in Smell-Diameter
Vertical
Conduits,
JPT, (April
1965),
p. 475-484.

33.

Cullender,
II!. H., and R. V. Smith, Practical
Solution
of Gas Flow Equations
for Wells and
Pipelines
with Large Temperature
Gradients,
Trans.
AIFIE, 207, (1956).

34.

The !hIlPoettmen,
F. H., and P. C. Carpenter,
tiphase
Flow of Cas, Oil and Water Through Vertical
Flow String
with Application
to the
Design oECas-Lift
Installations,
Drill.
and
Prod. Prac.,
API, (1952),
p. 257-317.

28.

29.

IPR HETHODSFOR OIL WELLS

pressure
above the bubble point.

Flowing
a)
b)

Teat to find the productivity

Calculation
of productivity
cys Law
Two phase flow in reservoir.

2*

of
(Hay

a)
b)

Aziz, K., C. U. Covier,

and if. Fogararasi,
Pressure
Drop.in Uells Producing Oil nd Cast
J. Canadian Pet. Tech.,
(July-8ept.
1972),
p. 38-48.

3.

Vogels
Darcys

Reservoir
(Pr>P

Procedurei3
Law knowing
Pressure

relative permeability

greater

than

bubble

bubble

point
above

point.

line producUse a Combination

of a straight
tivity
index above Pb and VogeLs13 procedure
below.
4.

.84..

index.
index from Dar-

) nd flowing bottomhole pressure

or bet ow the

Beggs, H. D., and J. P. BrilL,

A Study of
Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes,
Trans. AIME,
(1973),
p. 607.

---

INFLOWPERFORMANCE

Brown, et
l.3,
has given detailed
example
problems on most of the methods of constructing
IPR
curves. It should be remembered that nothing
replaces
good test data and that many procedures
do,
in fact,
require
from one to four different
test
pointe.
A stabilized
rate and corresponding
flowing
bottomhole
pressure
as well as the static bottomhole
pressure is usually a minimum requirement for establishing
a good IPR.

Predicting
Two-Phase Pressure
Pipes,
JPT, (June 1967),

Beggs, H. D., and J. P. Brill,

A Study
Two-Phase FLOWin Inclined
Pipes,
JPT,
1973), p. 607-617.

337-347.

Eaton, B. A., et al.,

The Prediction
of Flow
Losses
Patterne,
Liquid Holdup nd Pressure
Two-Phase Flow in
Occurring
During Continuous
Horizontal
Pipelines,
Trans. AIME, (1967),
p. 815.

1.

27.

p.

s the
bility
of
Inflow performance
is defined
a well to give up fluids
to the wellbore
per unit
drawdown. For flowing and gas Lift wells it is normelly plotted
as stock tank barrels
of liquid
per
day (absciasa)
vs bottomhole
pressure
opposite
the
center of the completed
interval
(ordinate).
The
total
volumetric
flow rate including
free gas can
lso be found using production
values and PVT data
to calculste
a total
volume into,
for instance,
a
downhole plllllp.

Hai-Zui,

Orkiszewski,
J.,
Drops in Vertical
pp. 829-838.

No. b,

APPENDIX A:

25. Duns, H., Jr., and N. C. J. Ros, Vertical

Flow
of Cas and Liquid Mixtures
in Wells,
Proc.,
6th World Pet. Congress (1963),
p. 451.
26.

~,

32.

279-290.

U. Buhidma,

23.

A. E.,
and H. G. Hubbard, A Hodel for
Dukler,
Gas-Liquid
Slug Flow in Horizontal
and Near
Horizontal
Tubes, Ind. Eng. Che., Fund.,

285-288.

Uhri,
D. C., and E. H. Blount,
Pivot
Point
Method Quickly Predicts
$lell Performance,
Uorld Oil, (Hay 1982), p. 153-164.

(Sept.

Dukler,
A. E., et al.,
Gas-Liquid
Flow in
Pipelines,
I. Research Results,
AGA-API Project UK-28, (Hay 1969).

for

18.

14121

$etkovich
---

----

Procedure14
----

----------

----

JAMES F. LEA AND KERHIT E, BROWN

14121

A three

of four

log-log

paper is required
to determine
and
of a form Like a gas well back pree-

equation

flow rece

test

pLotted

on

See Reference

sure equatio~ with a coefficient

and exponent
determined
from plotted
data.
This is equivalent to analysis
of an oil well with familiar
gas well relationships.
Standingsls
account for

5.

treated

extension
of VogeLs work to
flow efficiency
values other than

Jonee,
ficient

et al.4,
procedure
co determine
area is open to flow.

if

The correlations
the

Fetkovich 16 Procedure
and VogeL Equationla
Combination
Fetkovich
Couto s 1 Procedure
Hobil Pivot Point tlethodis

5*

6.

the

long

stabilization

by several

time.

See Reference

authors.

proceeds.

Log-log

paper

or

appropriate

= cl(P*

- Pwf2)

equation

multiphase

Oil

Co.,

Beggs and BriL129

~kLerso,31

3*

Eaton32
Dukler using

Eaton

1.

Cullender

and Smith33

2.

Poettman

and Carpenter34
WET GAS HELLS

where:

%sc

= rate of flow, MCFD

c1 =

1.
a numerical
coefficient,
istic
of the particular

Pr = shut-in
P
= flowing
Wf

reservoir
bottomhole

used ac
flow are as

unpublished)

HoLd-up3032

procedures
are
The following
gas flow calculations
in wells.

devel-

oped:

%ec

are most widely

Hagedorn and Brown24

Duna and ROS2S
Ros Codification
(Shell
0rkizewski26
Beggs and Bri1127
Aziz2s

four

and the

that
vertical

VERTICAL GAS FLOW

flow rate test

ie
required for a gae well from which a plot is made on
a three

for

1.
2.
4.

IPR METHODS FOR GAS HELLS

Generally

time

flow pipeline
pressure
important
in applying

Listed below are the better horizontal

flow
and
gain we would recomsnend starting
in the below order.

The construction
of IPR curvee for fr-ztured
or gas wells has been treated
in the Literature
Lea21 and tleng. 22 Fractured
wells
by Agarwal lgtzo,
can show flush
production
initially
which drops off
time

been

correlations,

oil

as

have also

lfORIZOWTALMULTIPHASE FLOWPIPELINE CORRELATIONS

FRACTUREDOIL ANDGAS WELLS

rapidLy

wells

These are found to calculate

pressure
drop very
well in certain
wells and certain
fields. However,
one may be much better
than the other under certain
conditions
and field
pressure
surveys are the only
way to find out.
Uithout
any knowledge
in a particular field,
we would reconsnend beginning
initial
work with the correlation
as Lieted in the above
order.

Law
A time element can be brought into Darcys
allowing the construction
of IPR curves for transient conditions.
This is important
in some wells

discussions

present

1.
2.
3.
4.

TRANSIENT IPR CURVES

OIL OR GAS WELLS

for

well

follow3:

The prediction
of future
IPR curves is critical
in determining
when a welL will liquid
Load and die,
The folor should be placed on artificial
lift.
lowing procedures
can be used:

due to

on gas

!4ULTIPHASEFLOWCORRELATIONS

The use of multiphaee

drop correlations
is very
Nodal Analysie.

suf-

FUTUREIPR CURVES

1.
2.
3.
f).

a discussion

Fractured
and transient
in the literature.
APPENDIX B:

1.00.

6.

23 for

performance.
ALso, Darcys law can be used and the
turbulence
terms should always be included6
for all
but thelowest rates.

characterwell

preseure,
pressure,

psia
psia

n = a numerical
exponent,
characteristic
of the particular
welL

%5

--

Gray correlating

reconsnended

for

TABLE I - COMPLETION CONDITIONS

Shots

No.

Feet
Perforated

Per Foot

Overbalanced

20

fiLtered
2

with

salt

Overbalanced

20

k
c as % of
k
f Formation

Perforation
Condition

salt

10

water
with

10

water

20

Underbalanced
filtered
salt

with
water

30

20

Underbalanced
filtered
salt

with
water

30

where:

k = permeability
k; = permeability

of

of

around

m
Y

p~h

compacted
zone
the formation.

API

BOTTOMHOLE
RESTRICTION

AP3 = i
(PUR-PDR)

* Pr-PWfs

AP2 = P~fs-P~f

ok

the

= LOSS INPOROUS MEDIUM

= LOSS ACROSS COMPLETION

AP3 = p@-Pi)~

RESTRICTION

AP4 = Pm-POW

SAFETY VALVE

AP5 = Pwh- p~~c =

IN

SURFACE

= PDsc-Psep

iiP7

= pwf+wh

= TOTAL LOSSIN

Ape

p~h-psep

II
*

praeeure Ioaeee in compldo system.

0!)

CHOKE

FLOWLINE

A%

UR

Fig. l-Poaaible

perforation;

TUBING
FLOWLINE

BHP

BHP
or
AP

A:
,

00

RATE +
Fig. 3Constructed tubing intake curve.

Fig. 2Constructed IPR curve.

BHP

BHP

AWP

AWP

00

RATE +

RATE +

Fig. 5-Construct

Fig. 4Trsnefer Ap.

Ap across grsvel pack.

+
BHP

BHP

:P

A:

RATES
K)SSIBLE

RATE +
Fig. 6-Evaluation

Fig. 7Grsvel pack solution by including 3P

completion in IPR curve.

of various shot densities.

.87

8DEPTH = 11,000
Wh = 1200 PSI
,

6 G5
&
&
;4
k
z

Pr = 4000 Psl
DEPTH = 11,000
K=1OQMD

20

40

60

2 -

80

100

oo~

120

140

10

20

RATE, MMCFD

40

50

60

70

60

70

RATE, MMCFD

Fig. 8lPR curve for gas well-gravel

analysie.
.

pack

Fig. 9Evacuation of tubing sizes.

4-

m
&

30

4-

3-

g3

AP

DEPTH = 11,000
Pwh = 1200 Psl

&

x
~2

b
n.
z
m

:2
8
n
%

DEPTH = 11,000
Pwtl = 1200Psl
1-

1-

AP

i
10

I
20

30

40

50

60

70

00

10

20

RATE, MMCFD

30

40

50

RATE. MMCFD

Fig. 1OAP avaiiabla from sandface to tubing

intake.

Fig. 1lAp acroea gravei pack at 4, 8, 12, and

16 SPFa.

DEPTH = 11,000

4 1/2 TUBiNG
Pwh = 1200 Psl

T
~
\ s

t
I
00

10

20

RATE, MMCFD

30

40

50

60

RATE, MMCFD

Fig. 12-CompMon
effacta inciuded with iPR.
gravel packed Woii.

Fig. 12-Effect
Packed

88

of woiihead
WOfi.

praaeure-gravei.

70

if

3.0-

3.0

2.5 -

2.5
%

2.0 -

~
;

DEPTH - BOW
R=3500PsI
TUBINQ I.D. = 2.9s2

1.5 -

:,0

.5 -

DEPTH = SOIW
pr.
~
M
= 140 Psl

looo2000m#om

RATE,

Fig. 14-IPR and tubiq

CL$WOS for

$wfomted

oil

\.

41J@J

,\l

5000

6000

oil

400

Fr.3500Psl

. TUBINQ I.D. = 2.441

Pwh = BOPSI
R = 2100 Psi

200

.5 -

313J13

Fig. 15Trsnsfer the Ap curve-perforated

Wetl.

~r

DEPTH =SODO

TUBINGI.D. = 2.992-

2000

RATE, BID

3.Or

3
? 2.0 :

1000

am

WM.

2.5

1, \

q&-L+-_

1200

RATE. BID

RATE, BID

Fig. lB-prodUCtti

vs. VadOllSf)erbreted COfll-

ptettolls.

Fig. 17-Wellhesd
ffeote.

nodsl plot-flowline

size

2.5sDEPTH = 10,OW
+9

2.0 -

E
&-1

P.-u%%
30 B/MMCFD CDND.
5 WMMCFD WATER
DEPTH = 7000
TUBNQ I.D. = 1.925R=2400PSI

.5-

s
/

i%1.0 fjll
28
%!

.5 -

q[

I
o

F@.

I
50

18-Tubi~

well.

II

I
I
100
150
RATE,McFD
dismeter

effeofs-~k

t
2W

I
250
RATE, MCFD

gss

Fig. lg-f%dloted
vs. observed otlwell perfownsnoe.