Training Course Notes PDF

Petroleum Experts
Integrated Production Modelling

An Introduction to PROSPER,
MBAL & GAP
November 2007
Training Course Notes
Copyright Notice
The copyright in this manual and the associated computer program are the property of Petroleum Experts
Ltd. All rights reserved. Both, this manual and the computer program have been provided pursuant to a
Licence Agreement containing restriction of use.
No part of this manual may be reproduced, transmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system, or
translated into any language, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical or
otherwise, or disclose to third parties without prior written consent from Petroleum Experts Ltd., Spectrum
House, 2 Powderhall Road, Edinburgh, EH7 4GB, Scotland, UK.
Petroleum Experts Ltd. All rights reserved.
IPM Suite, GAP, PROSPER, MBAL, PVTP, REVEAL, RESOLVE, IFM and OpenServer are trademarks of
Petroleum Experts Ltd.
Microsoft (Windows), Windows (NT), Windows (2000) and Windows (XP) are registered trademarks of the
Microsoft Corporation
The software described in this manual is furnished under a licence agreement. The software may be used
or copied only in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It is against the law to copy the software on
any medium except as specifically allowed in the license agreement. No part of this documentation may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or information storage and retrieval systems for any purpose other than the purchaser's personal
use, unless express written consent has been given by Petroleum Experts Limited.
Address:
Petroleum Experts Limited
Petex House
10 Logie Mill
Edinburgh, Scotland
EH7 4HG
Tel : (44 131) 474 7030
Fax : (44 131) 474 7031
email: edinburgh@petex.com
Internet: www.petex.com
2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.
Contents
Table of Contents
0
Chapter 1
IPM Course - Introduction
1 Objectives
................................................................................................................................... 1
2 The IPM Concept

................................................................................................................................... 2
3 The IPM Modelling
...................................................................................................................................
Platform
3
4 Introduction and
...................................................................................................................................
Scope of Work
5
Chapter 2
PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises
1 Problem 1: System
...................................................................................................................................
solution using PROSPER
6
2 Problem 2: Flow
...................................................................................................................................
line modelling within PROSPER
9
3 Problem 3: Review
...................................................................................................................................
Exercise
13
4 Problem 4: Importance
...................................................................................................................................
of correct PVT
16
5 Problem 5: Effect
...................................................................................................................................
of oil FVF on production
18
6 Problem 6: Flow
...................................................................................................................................
correlation selection within PROSPER
20
7 Problem 7: Well
...................................................................................................................................
bore modelling review exercise
22
8 Problem 8: Running
...................................................................................................................................
Sensitivities studies in PROSPER for matched well models
26
Chapter 3
PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling

Exercises
28
1 Problem 9: Building
...................................................................................................................................
a Darcy well inflow model
28
2 Problem 10: Effects
...................................................................................................................................
of Water cut on IPR
30
3 Problem 11: Use
...................................................................................................................................
PROSPER to build a Karakas and Tariq skin Model
31
4 Problem 12: Use
...................................................................................................................................
PROSPER to build a Gravel Pack design model
34
5 Problem 13: Review
...................................................................................................................................
Exercise
36
6 Problem 14: ...................................................................................................................................
Building IPR Model for Horizontal well with closed boundaries.
40
7 Problem 15a:...................................................................................................................................
Multilayer IPR models (Case 1).
42
8 Problem 15b:...................................................................................................................................
Multilayer IPR models (Case 2).
45
9 Problem 16: ...................................................................................................................................
Building Multi-rate C & n inflow model for gas wells
47
Chapter 4
PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises
49
1 Problem 17: Gas

...................................................................................................................................
Lift Design
49
2 Problem 18: Using
...................................................................................................................................
Quick-look option of PROSPER as a diagnostic tool
52
3 Problem 19: ESP
...................................................................................................................................
Design
54
Chapter 5
PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises
56
1 Problem 20: ...................................................................................................................................

Multi-branch completion modelling
56
2 Problem 21: ...................................................................................................................................
Complex Horizontal Well Modelling
60
November, 2007
II
IPM Training Course Notes
Chapter 6
MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises
63
1 Problem 22: ...................................................................................................................................

Building Tank model for a reservoir with a known production history
63
2 Problem 23: Review
...................................................................................................................................
Exercise.
66
3 Problem 24: Use
...................................................................................................................................
of MBAL for oil water contact monitoring
68
4 Problem 25: ...................................................................................................................................
Performing Predictions using MBAL.
69
5 Problem 26: ...................................................................................................................................
Building a Tank Model for a Reservoir with Know Production History by Well 70
Chapter 7
GAP - Surface Network Modelling

Exercises
73
1 Problem 27: ...................................................................................................................................

Integrated Production Modelling Model Setup
73
2 Problem 28: ...................................................................................................................................
Integrated Production Modelling Solve Network
75
3 Problem 29: ...................................................................................................................................
Integrated Production Modelling Production Forecasting
76
4 Problem 30: ...................................................................................................................................
Gas Lift Optimisation
78
Chapter 8
OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial
80
1 Problem 31a:...................................................................................................................................
OpenServer Exercise 1
80
2 Problem 31b:...................................................................................................................................
OpenServer Exercise 2
81
Chapter 9
IPM Review - Workshop
82
1 IPM Review -...................................................................................................................................

Workshop
82
Chapter 10
Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network

Optimisation
84
1 GAP Constrained
...................................................................................................................................
Network Optimisation
84
1.1
Objectives
Integrated Field Development Analysis

Optimisation and Forecasting
Overall Objectives:
1. Developing the dexterity skills of the programs
2. Basic understanding of the physics
3. Understanding the limitation of the methods and techniques used
Agenda:
Day 1
Introduction to integrated production system and overall approach
Introduction to PROSPER
Pressure loss in wellbore
Importance of PVT
VLP correlations theory
Building a wellbore model, Matching PVT and flow correlations, and generation of
lift curves for output to GAP or simulator.
Day 2
Inflow performance models
Gas lift design
ESP Design
Use of Quick-look for gas lift
Day 3
Introduction to MBAL
Running and matching prediction, importing VLP's and IPR's from PROSPER
Introduction to Multi-PVT MBAL
Day 4
Introduction to GAP
Building surface network model- linking PROSPER well models
Generation of surface performance curves
Linking PROSPER, MBAL and GAP for full field optimisation and forecasting
Day 5
Workshop
1.2
The IPM Concept

In its simplest form a production system can be visualised as shown in the sketch below.
The following elements need to be considered when studying the behaviour of such a
system:
For a given reservoir how much of oil / gas is recovered at separator level
depends on the facilities that connect the two.
Thus any strategy designed to maximise / optimise the oil and gas recovery of the
field requires simultaneous modelling of the reservoir, facilities and the separator.
Decision making process should be based on how these components interact

with each other.
This type of model could be used to fulfil different objectives such as:
Decision making process should be based on how these components interact

with each other.
Production Allocation
Optimally meeting Production Targets
Short-Term to Long-Term Forecasting
Maintenance Planning
November, 2007
1.3
The IPM Modelling Platform

The Petroleum Experts toolkit is designed to build and study a complete integrated model.
The following tools are used for the different modelling aspect:
PROSPER, Single Wellbore-Modelling Tool
MBAL, Material Balance Reservoir Modelling Tool
GAP, General Allocation Program

Surface Network Modelling and Optimisation Tool
GAP is the total system-modelling tool. It models the surface network internally.
For modelling reservoirs it calls MBAL tool and uses it.
For well modelling it calls PROSPER and uses it.
The following sketch is drawn to explain how these tools interact with each other.
PVTP, Fluid Characterisation Tool

PVTP is used to characterise the fluid pressure - volume temperature behaviour and
is used to construct models that will be used by other tools.
REVEAL, Specialised Numerical Simulator Reservoir Modelling Tool
RESOLVE, IPM controller, establishing the link between the IPM suite and
third-party tools.
IFM, Integrated Field Management

IFM is a tool that provides the engineers with the ability to keep these Integrated
Models Valid and perform the various tasks (one of which is rate allocation for
instance) through pre-defined workflows that the engineers can follow.
November, 2007
1.4
Introduction and Scope of Work

In the overall scheme that we will follow during this course we will build an integrated model
of a very simple field, with two-reservoir block being produced by one well.
Then we will model each component of the system, the wells, the reservoirs and the
gathering network in a sequential manner.
At each stage we will be adding more information that may be available to us and see the
value of the added information.
At the end, we should be capable to use the field scale integrated model, to study the
response of our total system.
We will start by drawing the simple system we want to model and then proceed in a
sequential manner. The system sketch is given in below.
Also, in order to keep track of what we will be doing it is better to use the following directory
structure.
Save this GAP file as day1/Simple.GAP.
2.1
Problem 1: System solution using PROSPER

Objective:
This problem is designed to:
-
Introduce PROSPER to the student,
Help the user to familiarise with PROSPER,
Show how to enter PVT data, IPR and VLP data
Show how to perform a system (VLP + IPR) using PROSPER and
Show where to find the desired results
Given PVT, IPR and well completion data, calculate the flow rate for this naturally
flowing oil well if the flowing well head pressure is 450 psig.
Dataset:
BLACK OIL PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Oil and Water
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
Oil Gravity
800 (SCF/STB)
35 (API)
Gas Gravity
0.78
Water Salinity
80000 (ppm)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
November, 2007
Measured Depth (feet)
True Vertical Depth (feet)
1000
1000
1500
1500
1954
1950
2262
2250
3077
3000
8993
8000
12672
11000
12960
11200
13435
11500
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Label
Equipment
Type
MD (feet)
ID (inches)
Roughness (inches)
Wellhead
Xmas Tree
N/A
N/A
Tubing
Tubing
1100
3.992
0.0006
Safety Valve
SSSV
1100
3.6
N/A
Tubing
Tubing
13000
3.992
0.0006
Casing
Casing
13400
6.13
0.0006
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)
Temperature
oF
60
1000
50
13400
250
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8 (BTU/h/ft2/F)

INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA
Over twenty inflow options are available.
The choice depends upon the available information and the type of sensitivities that
you wish to run
Method
PI Entry
Reservoir Pressure
5200
psig
Reservoir Temperature
250.0
Water Cut
Total GOR
800.0
SCF/STB
Productivity Index
10
STB/day/psi
Compaction Permeability
Reduction
No
Relative Permeability
No
RESULTS
450 psig
Well Head Pressure
Oil Rate
8699.0
STB/day
Flowing BH Pressure
3316.8
Psig
Flowing Wellhead Temperature
Save this PROSPER file as prob1.out.
November, 2007
degF
2.2
Problem 2: Flow line modelling within PROSPER

Objective:
-
Show how to include pipeline into a PROSPER model,
Show how to describe pipelines,
Show the impact of pipeline on a well bore model
Reinforce how to perform a system (VLP + IPR) using PROSPER and
Review where to find the desired results
Given PVT, IPR, well completion data and surface pipeline, calculate the flow rate for
this naturally flowing oil well if the downstream pressure at the delivery point (here
called Manifold, NOT well head) is 450 psig.
START WITH THE prob1.out FILE
Dataset:
BLACK OIL PVT DATA
The PVT Data is similar to that of Problem 1.

Reservoir Fluid
Oil and Water
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
Oil Gravity
800 (SCF/STB)
35 (API)
Gas Gravity
0.78
Water Salinity
80000 (ppm)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
10
1000
1000
1500
1500
1954
1950
2262
2250
3077
3000
8993
8000
12672
11000
12960
11200
13435
11500
Note: The zero depth of the deviation survey refers to the MSL /rig depth.
SURFACE EQUIPMENT SKETCH
PIPELINE DATA
Pipeline ID
Ambient Temp.
55
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
8.5
BTU/h/ft2/F
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
November, 2007
11
Label
Equipment
Type
MD (feet)
ID (inches)
Roughness (inches)
Wellhead
Xmas Tree
1000
N/A
N/A
Tubing
Tubing
1100
3.992
0.0006
Safety Valve
SSSV
N/A
3.6
N/A
Tubing
Tubing
13000
3.992
0.0006
Casing
Casing
13400
6.13
0.0006
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)
Temperature
o
F
60
1000
50
13400
250
PROSPER requires the user to enter the temperature at the well head
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient: 8 (BTU/h/ft2/F)
Method
PI Entry
Reservoir Pressure
5200
psig
250.0
Water Cut
3.3
Total GOR
800.0
SCF/STB
Productivity Index
10
STB/day/psi
Compaction Permeability
Reduction
No
Relative Permeability
No
RESULTS
12
Manifold
Pressure
450 psig
Oil Rate
8699.0
STB/day
Flowing BH Pressure
3316.8
Psig
Flowing Wellhead Pressure
Psig
Flowing Wellhead Temperature
degF
November, 2007
2.3
13
Problem 3: Review Exercise

Objective:
This is a review exercise of how to build well bore models. The input data is given
below. It is required to calculate the Oil Rate, FWHP, FWHT and FBHP for two cases,
one case considering the flow line and a second case without considering the flow
line.
START WITH AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
BLACK OIL PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Separator
Water and Oil

Single-Stage
Solution GOR
Oil Gravity
700.0
42.00
Gas Gravity
(SCF/STB)
(API)
0.80 (sp. Gravity)
Water Salinity
200000 (ppm)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
100.0
100.0
2500.0
2480.0
6500.0
6300.0
15000.0
14000.0
Note: The zero depth of the deviation survey refers to the mean sea level depth.
PIPELINE SKETCH
14
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Label
Measured Depth
Feet
Inside
Diameter (inches)
Roughness
(inches)
Xmas Tree
100.0
Tubing
14000.0
3.96
0.0006
Casing
15000.0
6.00
0.0006
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)
Temperature
oF
60
100
50
15000.0
200
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8.0
(BTU/h/ft2/F)
PIPELINE DATA
Pipeline ID
Ambient Temp.
50 F
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
8.5
November, 2007
Method
PI Entry
Reservoir Pressure
5000.0
psig
200.0
Water Cut
20
Total GOR
700.0
SCF/STB
Productivity Index
15.0
STB/day/psi
15
RESULTS
Case
With Flowline
Top Node Pressure
Without Flowline
200 (Psig)
Water Cut
20 (%)
Oil Rate
5446.6
STB/day
7903.9
STB/day
Flowing Well Head Pressure
435.9
Psig
200
Psig
Flowing Well Head Temperature
110.3
127.9
Flowing BH Pressure
4546.1
Psig
4341.3
Psig
16
2.4
Problem 4: Importance of correct PVT

Objective:
Demonstrate how to enter PVT lab data into PROSPER,
Match black oil correlation to lab data,
Show the impact of PVT parameters on well response
The following procedure can be used to go through this example:
Start from the saved file prob2.out
Enter the PVT data, match the black oil correlation to the PVT lab data and
recompute the flow rate for this naturally flowing oil well if the flowing well
head pressure is 450 psig.
Compare the results with Problem 2 (un-matched PVT case).

Dataset:
PVT MATCH DATA
The PVT calculation method is identical for all reservoir fluid types (i.e. oil and water,
condensate or gas). The choice of fluid type affects the choice of IPR and VLP models
as well as the range of available sensitivity variables.
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Gas Oil Ratio

(SCF/STB)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.25
0.31
RESULT
November, 2007
Manifold Pressure
17
450 psig
Black Oil Correlation for Pb, Rs, Bo

Black Oil Correlation for o
Oil Rate
STB/day
Psig
Flowing BH Pressure
Psig
18
2.5
Problem 5: Effect of oil FVF on production

Objective:
Show the impact of PVT parameters on well response
Enter the PVT data, match the black oil correlation to the PVT lab data and
recompute the flow rate for this naturally flowing oil well if the flowing well
head pressure is 450 psig.
Compare the results with Problem 2 (un-matched PVT case) and Problem 4
(matched with erroneous oil FVF).

Dataset:
PVT MATCH DATA
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Gas Oil Ratio

(SCF/STB)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.456
0.31
RESULT
November, 2007
Manifold Pressure
19
450 psig
Black Oil Correlation for Pb, Rs, Bo

Black Oil Correlation for o
Oil Rate
STB/day
Psig
Flowing BH Pressure
Psig
20
2.6
Problem 6: Flow correlation selection within PROSPER

Objective:
Match well test VLP correlation
Use the calibrated correlation to predict the well rate for future operating
Recall the PROSPER file generated while solving the problem 1.
Enter the PVT data, match the black oil correlation to the new PVT lab data,
Select the most appropriate black oil correlation
Quality-check the well test data,
Match the well test data with the most suitable VLP correlation
Use the calibrated model to predict the oil rate if the water cut increases to
35% while everything else remains unchanged.

Dataset:
PVT MATCH DATA
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Gas Oil Ratio

(SCF/STB)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.456
0.31
WELL TEST DATA
November, 2007
Well head pressure
375
psig
Well head temperature
157
Total GOR
600
SCF/STB
Free GOR
SCF/STB
Water Cut
0.5
Gauge Depth
12500
feet
Gauge Pressure
3257
psig
Liquid Rate
11350 STB/day
Static Reservoir Pressure at test time
5200
21
psig
RESULT
Parameters
Value
2
Calibrated U-value (Btu/h/ft /F):
VLP correlation selected:
Gravity correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 1):
Friction correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 2):
Well Productivity Index (STB/d/psi):
Liquid rate if water cut = 35% (STB/d):
Save this PROSPER file as well1.out.
22
2.7
Problem 7: Well bore modelling review exercise

Objective:
The following dataset is available:
PVT data measured from the laboratory.
A well test with a down-hole gauge measurement
Downhole equipment description
Build a PROSPER well model. Then, build a PVT model that reproduces the measured
data using PROSPER.
Use PROSPER to quality check the down-hole pressure data and then select a
pressure drop correlation based on it. Use this calibrated well bore model to find the
flowing BHP, WHT and production rates.
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE
Dataset:
PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Water and Oil
Separator
Two-Stage
Separator Pressure
200(psig)
Separator Temperature
90 (F)
Separator GOR
2650 (SCF/STB)
Tank GOR
150 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity
44.00 (API)
Separator Gas Gravity
0.737
Tank Gas Gravity
1.35
Water Salinity
75000 (ppm)
313 (degree F)
Bubble point pressure at

reservoir temperature
7785.3 (psig)
Av. Gas Gravity: 0.769839 / GOR: 2800 scf/stb

EQUIPMENT DATA
November, 2007
23
DEVIATION SURVEY
True Vertical Depth
1856.96
1843.83
11358.30
8307.09
20544.60
12322.80
22385.20
12821.50
23845.10
13566.30
(feet)
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Label
Measured Depth
Feet
Xmas Tree
85.3
Tubing
1857
Inside
Diameter (inches)
Roughness
(inches)
4.13
6 E-5
SSSV
3.81
Tubing
11423.9
4.13
3.75
Restriction
Tubing
6 E-5
20600.4
4.13
Restriction
6 E-5
3.75
Tubing
22319.6
3.18
6 E-5
Casing
23218.5
3.81
6 E-5
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)
Temperature
oF
85.3
68
23218.5
313
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 1 to 10
(BTU/h/ft2/F)
24
Method
Vogel
Reservoir Pressure
7785.3
psig
313.0
Water Cut
Total GOR
2800
SCF/STB
TEST DATA
Well head pressure
3235.3
psig
Well head temperature
183
Total GOR
2800
SCF/STB
Free GOR
SCF/STB
Water Cut
Gauge Depth
15251
feet
Gauge Pressure
5796.8
psig
Liquid Rate
9274
STB/day
Static Reservoir Pressure at test time
7785.3
psig
RESULT
Parameters
2
Calibrated U-value (Btu/h/ft /F):
VLP correlation selected:
Gravity correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 1):
Friction correction for VLP correlation (Parameter 2):
Test BHP (psig):
Liquid rate if WHP = 450 psig and water cut = 35%
(STB/d):
November, 2007
Value
25
Save this PROSPER file as well2.out.
26
2.8
Problem 8: Running Sensitivities studies in PROSPER for

matched well models
Objective:
Use one of the well models generated previously, run a set of sensitivities on it and
compare the results obtained.
START FROM THE "well1.out" FILE.
Dataset:
Part I
At what water cut will the well die (WHP = 450 psig) at the following reservoir
pressures?
5200 psig
4000 psig
Sensitivity variables to use:
Water cut :
0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90%
Reservoir Pressure :
5200, 4000 psig
RESULT
Reservoir Pressure (psig)

Water cut (%)
5200
30
4000
45
Part II
Find the production rate at the two specific cases below (WHP=450 psig)
RESULT
November, 2007
Case 1
Case 2
Reservoir Pressure (psig)
4000
5200
Water cut (%)
15
40
Liquid Rate (STB/day)
3198.7 (aut. geom.)
27
3237.1 (aut. geom.)
Save this PROSPER file as Prob8.out.
28
PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises
3.1
Problem 9: Building a Darcy well inflow model

Objective:
Use the Darcy inflow model of PROSPER to estimate the Well Inflow Performance..
START FROM THE "well1.out" FILE.
Dataset:
Method
Darcy
Reservoir Pressure
5000
psig
250
Water Cut
25
Total GOR
800
SCF/STB
Reservoir Permeability
65
md
Reservoir Thickness
100
feet
Drainage Area
390
acres
Dietz Shape Factor
31.6
Well-Bore Radius
0.354
Skin
feet
RESULT
AOF for Skin = 0
38497.6
STB/day
13.4
STB/day/psi
If Q = 10000 stb/d and BHFP = 3665 psig

was a test point, what skin would be
required to match this test point?
Equivalent PI
STB/day
AOF
November, 2007
29
30
3.2
Problem 10: Effects of Water cut on IPR

Objective:
Investigate the effects of water cut on the well inflow perfomance.
START FROM THE "prob09.out" FILE.
Dataset:
VARIABLES
Run sensitivity on water cut using the Inflow Calculation section.
The water cut values used are the following:
0, 20, 40, 60 and 80%
RESULT
Compare the results - Discuss.
November, 2007
3.3
31
Problem 11: Use PROSPER to build a Karakas and Tariq skin

Model
Objective:
A slanted well is going to be drilled to perforate the same pay as Well1.
Use the Karakas and Tariq model in PROSPER to model various components of skin
and analyse their contribution to total skin.
Dataset:
INFLOW SKIN DATA
Method
Darcy
Perforation Diameter
0.25
Shots Per foot
Perforation Length
12
inches
Damaged Zone Thickness
inches
Damaged Zone Permeability
32
md
Crushed Zone Thickness
0.2
inches
Crushed Zone Permeability
16
md
Deviation
53
deg
Penetration
0.5
Vertical Permeability
6.5
md
Wellbore Radius
0.354
feet
Shot Phasing
120
deg
inches
Skin due to Perforation Model

Karakas and Tariq has been found to give good results in many field applications and is
explained here.
A sketch outlining the main geometric variables is shown below
32
The following input data is required:

Reservoir permeability
(Effective permeability at connate water saturation)
Perforation diameter
(Entry hole diameter)
Shots per foot

Perforation length
(Effective perf. length in formation)
Damaged zone thickness
(Thickness of invasion)
Damaged zone permeability
(Permeability in invaded zone)
Crushed zone thickness
(Crushing associated with perforation)
Crushed zone permeability
(Reduced permeability near perf. tunnel)
Shot phasing
Vertical permeability
Wellbore radius
(Enter the open hole radius, not casing I.D.)
Deviation/Partial Penetration Skin

Two models of this type are provided in PROSPER:
Cinco / Martin Bronz
Wong Clifford
For this exercise, the first model is going to be used.
It requires the following data:
Deviation angle of well
Partial penetration fraction
Formation vertical permeability
Penetration is the proportion of the total reservoir thickness that is completed. (e.g. a
November, 2007
33
200 ft thick reservoir with 100 ft of perforations would have a Penetration of 0.5)
Deviation skin is calculated using Cinco-Ley's method, and is therefore valid up to 75
degrees deviation.
The calculation is based upon the paper by Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey, Jr., H.J. and Miller, F.G.:
"Pseudo-Skin Factors for Partially-Penetrating Directionally-Drilled Wells", SPE 5589
presented at 50th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE of AIME,
Dallas, TX, September 28 October 1, 1975
RESULT
Absolute Open Flow
307.5
Total Skin
4.77
Perforation Skin
0.178
Partial Penetration Skin
6.693
Deviation Skin
-2.104
Equivalent PI
10.61
STB/day
STB/day/psi
34
3.4
Problem 12: Use PROSPER to build a Gravel Pack design model

Objective:
Calculate the IPR for the slanted well in problem 11 if a gravel pack is to be included.
Open the PROSPER file prob11.out, then from the main screen (Options) select well
completion with Gravel Pack.
Dataset:
INFLOW GRAVEL PACK DATA
PROSPER models gravel packed completions as a concentric cylinder having a user
specified permeability connected to the wellbore via perforations of specified diameter. By
sensitising on perforation spacing and diameter, the effect pressure drop due to flow
concentration on well performance can be investigated. Likewise, the effect of varying
gravel length (i.e. the thickness of gravel between the OD of the screen and the ID of the
original open hole) on skin can be evaluated.
Gravel pack permeability
Perforation diameter
Shots per foot
Gravel pack length
Perforation interval
Perforation efficiency
(Enter the in-situ permeability for the gravel)

(Diameter of perforation tunnel)
(Distance from the screen O.D. to the sand face)
(This affects the flow velocity in the perforations only)
(Proportion of perforations that are open and effective)
INPUT DATA
November, 2007
Method
Darcy
Gravel Pack Permeability
90000 md
0.25
Shots per foot
Gravel Pack Length
1.8
inches
Perforation Interval
74
feet
Perforation Efficiency
Beta Factor
Calculated
Method
Multiphase
35
inches
RESULT
What is the Absolute Open Flow (AOF) of this well in STB/d:
What was the AOF in stb/d prior to the gravel pack installation?
With gravel pack, how much gravel pack dP is lost across the gravel if
the well produces 10,000 STB/d?
With gravel pack, what is the velocity in ft/second of the fluid at the
casing for a WHP of 350 psig:
36
3.5
Problem 13: Review Exercise

Objective:
This example is designed to go through the following subjects:
How to set up a PROSPER well model for a dry gas well
How to customise the set of unit used
How to predict the production rate of a well using a well model
How to select the right tubing size for various conditions
START FROM AN ENTIRELY NEW FILE.
Dataset:
1. Statement of the problem:
A new gas field has been discovered offshore.
The top of the reservoir is 3460 m TVD below the mean sea level.
The water depth is 330 m. A sub-sea well head completion is foreseen.
The dataset available is as follows:
1.1. PVT
From the discovery well, a gas sample was taken and analysed. The gas composition is:
Component
Mol. Percent
Molecular Weight
lbm/lbmol
Nitrogen
28
Carbon Dioxide
0.5
44
Methane
95
16
Ethane
30
Propane
0.5
44
(Mwair=28.96)
Separator pressure: 1000 psig
Condensate Gas Ratio: 1 stb/MMscf
Condensate Gravity: 50 API
Water Salinity: 100 000 ppm
1.2. Reservoir parameters
November, 2007
Initial Reservoir pressure
5300
psig
230
deg F
Average Reservoir permeability
25
mD
Porosity
15
Connate Water Saturation
25
Gross Pay
300
feet
N/G Ratio
40
Drainage Area
500
acres
Dietz shape factor
31.6
Skin factor (initial assumption)
Time from start production
100
days
Drill bit size
12 1/4
(0.51 ft Wellbore Radius)
37
1.3. Downhole Equipment

According to the original design, the well should be completed as follows:
Well orientation
Straight hole
Tubing size
2.9ID down to 3400 m
Casing
8.5 ID down to top perforation
SSSV (ID = 2.5)
1000 m below mean sea level
Formation Temperature at well head depth
40 degF
Average Sea Temperature
60 deg
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (downhole)
3 Btu/h/ft2/F
2. Questions
Question No.1:
Assuming a well head flowing pressure of 3000 psig, calculate the gas rate to be expected
with the fluid and reservoir parameters given above.
Answer:MMscft/day
Question No.2:
Is it possible to increase the performance of the well by selecting a different tubing size?
Which tubing size can be recommended?
Tubing Size (ID) available are: 2.9, 3.5, 3.9, 4.8, 5.5
Answer:..MMscft/day with in tubing.
Modify the model to take into account the tubing size that has been selected.
38
Question No.3:
If we take into account the skin caused by the perforations, how much would the well
productivity be affected assuming the WHP of ?
Skin Calculation:
0.5
Shots per foot
Perforation length
12
Damage Zone Thickness
Damage Zone Permeability
K*50% = 12.5 mD
Crushed Zone Thickness
0.2 in
Crushed Zone Permeability
K*25%= 6.25 mD
Deviation
0 deg
K*10% = 2.5mD
Shot Phasing
120 deg
Answer:.MMscft/day.
Question No.4:
If a gravel pack screen is used, by how much will the productivity of the well be affected
assuming the same WHP as Question 1?
Gravel Pack Permeability (mD)
10000 (5), 20000 (10), 35000 (15) *
Gravel Pack Length
Perforation Efficiency
80%
(* The number in brackets corresponds to the R value for the gravel pack)
Which Gravel Pack Permeability has to be selected in order to maximise the productivity of
the well?
Answer:.. mD will give .MMscft/day.
Question Nr.5:
After drilling and completing this well (with the gravel pack selected), a test was made and
the following test data are available:
November, 2007
THP
2350
psig
THT
174
deg F
Gas Rate
70
MMscft/day
WGR
CGR
Gauge Depth
3400
Gauge Pressure
3038
psig
39
Select the Correlation which best represents pressure losses in the well and match it to the
test data. Then determine if the IPR model used is representative of the well and determine
the most likely cause of the deviation.
Answer:
The . Flow Correlation was selected.
Most likely cause of the deviation in the IPR: .......................
40
3.6
Problem 14: Building IPR Model for Horizontal well with closed
boundaries.
Objective:
Use PROSPER to build Horizontal Well inflow in close boundary rectangular system
and find the AOF. Find the effect of vertical permeability on inflow.
Dataset:
This model is based on the work of Kuchuk and Goode. The inflow model used here
assumes that the horizontal well is draining a closed rectangular drainage volume with
sealing upper and lower boundaries. The well can be placed anywhere in the drainage
region. Pressure drops along the well bore itself are not taken into account.
Reservoir permeability
(Total permeability at prevailing water cut)
Reservoir thickness
(Thickness of producing reservoir rock)
Wellbore radius
Horizontal anisotropy
(Ratio of Ky/Kx where Kx is permeability in the

direction of the horizontal well and Ky is the
permeability perpendicular to the horizontal well)
Vertical anisotropy
(Ratio of Kz/Ky where Kz is the vertical

permeability)
Length of well
Length of drainage area
Lx
Width of drainage area
Ly
November, 2007
Distance along length edge
(Xw)
Distance along width edge
(Yw)
Distance from bottom
(Zw)
Method
41
Horizontal Well
No flow Boundaries
Reservoir Pressure
5000
psig
250.0
degrees F
Water Cut
25
Total GOR
800
scf/stb
Reservoir Permeability
65
mD
Wellbore Radius
0.354
feet
Reservoir Thickness
100
feet
Horizontal anisotropy
fraction
Vertical anisotropy
0.1
fraction
Length of well
1500
Reservoir Width
6000
feet
Reservoir Length
6000
feet
Distance from length Edge to centre of the well
3000
feet
Distance from Width Edge to centre of the well
3000
feet
Distance from Bottom to centre of the well
50
feet
Skin
feet
RESULTS
Vertical Anisotropy
AOF (STB/day)
0.0083
165500
0.015
199400
0.030
242100
0.100
316700
Save this file as Prob14.out
42
3.7
Problem 15a: Multilayer IPR models (Case 1).

Objective:
Use PROSPER to build a Gas Multilayer well.
In this case one layer on top of the other without any pressure drop in the wellbore
between them.
Dataset:
PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Dry and Wet Gas
Separator
Single-Stage
Gas Gravity
0.801
Separator Pressure
200 (psi)
Oil Gravity
39.00 (API)
CGR
5 (STB/MMSCF)
WGR
0 (STB/MMSCF)
Water Salinity
100000 (ppm)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
True Vertical Depth
1856.96
1843.83
11358.30
8307.09
20544.60
12322.80
22385.20
12821.50
23845.10
13566.30
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
November, 2007
(feet)
Label
Measured Depth
Feet
Xmas Tree
Tubing
1857
Inside
Diameter (inches)
Roughness
(inches)
4.13
6 E-5
SSSV
43
3.81
Tubing
11423.9
4.13
Restriction
6 E-5
3.75
Tubing
20600.4
4.13
Restriction
6 E-5
3.75
Tubing
22319.6
3.18
6 E-5
Casing
23218.5
3.81
6 E-5
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
Measured depth
(feet)
Temperature
oF
68
23218.5
313
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 1 to 10
(BTU/h/ft2/F)
44
Model
Multilayer Reservoir
Layer 1
Layer 2
7785.3
7800.2
100
150
Layer Skin
Gas Gravity
0.798
0.803
Oil Gravity (API)
39
39
CGR (STB/MMSCF)
WGR (STB/MMSCF)
Layer Permeability (mD)
12
35
Drainage Area (acre)
500
500
Dietz Shape factor
31.6
31.6
Wellbore Radius (ft)
0.354
0.354
Layer Pressure (psi)

Layer Height (ft)
Once the model is built, determine what is the well overall production and the
contribution from each layer when the wellhead pressure is 3000 psi.
RESULTS
Wellhead Pressure
Overall Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Layer 1 Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Save this file as Prob15a.out
November, 2007
3000 psi
3.8
45
Problem 15b: Multilayer IPR models (Case 2).

Objective:
Use PROSPER to build a Gas Multilayer well.
In this case there is a significant distance between layer so we would like to take into
account the pressure drop in the wellbore between the layers
START FROM THE "Problem15a.out" FILE.
Dataset:
46
Model
Multilayer dP loss in Wellbore

Layer 1
Layer 2
7785.3
7800.2
100
150
Layer Skin
Gas Gravity
0.798
0.803
CGR (STB/MMSCF)
WGR (STB/MMSCF)
Layer Permeability (mD)
12
45
Drainage Area (acre)
500
500
Dietz Shape factor
31.6
31.6
Wellbore Radius (ft)
0.354
0.354
100
150
Layer Pressure (psi)

Layer Height (ft)
Perforation Interval (ft)
Once the model is built, determine what the well overall production and the
contribution from each layer when the wellhead pressure is 3000 psi.
RESULTS
Wellhead Pressure
Overall Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Save this file as Prob15b.out
November, 2007
3000 psi
3.9
47
Problem 16: Building Multi-rate C & n inflow model for gas wells
Objective:
Use the multi-rate C and n IPR method to construct an IPR.
Based on this find the well AOF and reservoir pressure.
Dataset:
The C and n IPR Model is based on the following relationship:
Q = C.(Pr2 - Pwf2)n
C and n values are determined from a plot of Q vs (Pr2 - Pwf2) on log-log paper and directly
input by the user.
n is usually found in the range 0.5 (complete turbulence) to 1.
The multi-rate C and n determines the coefficients of the back pressure equation that best fit
measured flowing bottom-hole pressures.
PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Dry Gas
Separator
Single Stage
Separator Pressure
1000 psig
CGR
10 STB/MMscf
Oil Gravity
44.00 API
Gas Gravity
0.77
WGR
0 STB/MMscf
Water Salinity
100000 ppm
48
Multi-rate C & n
Method
Reservoir Pressure
302 (degree F)
WGR
0 STB/MMscf
TEST DATA
Rate (MMscf/day)
FBHP (psig)
3600
250
3000
500
RESULTS
AOF
1036.8
mmscfd
Reservoir Pressure
4060.26
psig
November, 2007
4.1
Problem 17: Gas Lift Design
49
Objective:
Illustrate how to design a gas lifted well with PROSPER
Transfer the design results to the input section
Sensitize on gas lift injection rate during the system (VLP + IPR) calculation
The reservoir pressure is supposed to have decreased down to 4500 psig.

Load the PROSPER file Well1.OUT
Set the Reservoir Pressure to 4500 psig
Under |Options|Options, select |Artificial Lift: GAS LIFT
Select |Design |Gas Lift and enter the gas lift gas gravity of 0.7
Design a gas lift system for the given well configuration
Assuming a single point of injection (orifice only) perform a system calculation with:
o
WHFP = 350 psig
Water Cut = 80%
GOR = 800 scf/st
Gas lift injection rates: 0, 0.5, 1,2,3,5,7,8,10 and 15 MMscf/d.
START FROM THE well1.out FILE.

Dataset:
LIFT GAS DATA
50
Artificial Lift Method
Gas Lift
Gas-lift Gas Gravity
0.7 sg
Mole Percent H2S
0%
Mole Percent CO2
0%
Mole Percent N2
0%
GAS LIFT DESIGN ( NEW WELL)
Gas Lift
Valve Type
Casing Sensitive
Design Rate Method
Calculated from Max Production
Maximum Liquid Rate
35000 STB/day
Maximum Gas Available
MMscf/day
Maximum Gas during Unloading
MMscf/day
Flowing Top Node Pressure
350
psig
Unloading Top Node Pressure
350
psig
Operating Injection Pressure
2000
psig
Kickoff Injection Pressure
2000
psig
Desired dP Across Valve
100
psi
Packer Depth
13000 feet
Design Water Cut
80
Static Gradient Of Load Fluid
0.450
psi/ft
Minimum CHP decrease/valve
50
psi
Minimum Spacing
250
feet
VALVE DETAILS
Valve Type
Casing Sensitive
Manufacturer
Camco
Type
R-20
Specification
Normal
November, 2007
51
RESULTS
What is the depth of the orifice in ft MD:
Save this PROSPER file as day2/well1gl.out.
52
4.2
Problem 18: Using Quick-look option of PROSPER as a

diagnostic tool
Objective:
Using the file PROB18_start.out perform a diagnostic using Quick look in PROSPER.
Calculate the total gas injection rate.
START FROM THE PROB18_start.out FILE.
Dataset:
In the file considered:
PVT has been matched to lab data
PI entry has been used as IPR model
Existing Mandrel Valves Information given
WELL TEST RESULTS
Tubing Head Pressure
113
psig
Tubing Head Temperature
185
Liquid Rate
11970 STB/day
Water Cut
73.3
Total Gas Rate
1.368
MMscf/day
Injection Gas Rate
0.4
MMscf/day
Casing Head Pressure
1740
psig
Valve Depths and Port sizes
Valve
Depth (m)
Port size (1/64th inches)
Valve 1
1337
16
Valve 2
1744
20
Valve 3
2098
24
Orifice
2362
32
DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS
November, 2007
Likely depth of injection

Port size
Reservoir Pressure
1744
8.7
1/64th inches
3098
psig
53
Save this PROSPER file as prob18_final.out.
54
4.3
Problem 19: ESP Design

Objective:
Use the well1.out file. Use this file perform an ESP design using PROSPER.
Then use the ESP selected to study various changed conditions by doing a sensitivity
analysis.
Use the sensitivity analysis to see if the selected ESP is appropriate for all the flowing
conditions the well is potentially going to encounter during its life.
START FROM THE well1.out" FILE.
Dataset:
ESP DESIGN ( NEW WELL)
ESP
Pump Depth
12000
ft
Operating Frequency
60
Hertz
Maximum OD
inches
Design Rate
12000
STB/day
Water Cut
80
Top Node Pressure
350
psig
Gas Separation
Motor Power Safety Margin
Pump Wear Factor
SENSITIVITY PARAMETERS
Top node pressure:
400 psig
Water Cut:
60, 70, 80, 90 & 95%
Frequency:
50, 55, 60 Hertz
DESIGN RESULTS
November, 2007
Pump
Centrilift KC12000
Motor
Centrilift - 562
Cable
Cooper
Gas Separation
0%
55
Save this PROSPER file as well1esp.out.
56
5.1
Problem 20: Multi-branch completion modelling

Objective:
Model a multi-branch completion by using the multilateral modelling option in
PROSPER.
Dataset:
COMPLETION DESCRIPTION
Tie point
Branch 1
Joint
Branch 2
Upper Layer
Branch 3
Lower Layer
Available data for the Upper and Lower layer

Upper layer:
Reservoir Pressure
Oil Gravity
Gas Gravity
Water Salinity
Water Cut
Total GOR
Horizontal Permeability
November, 2007
5200
225
35
0.782
80000
5
820
50
psig
degrees F
API
sp. gravity
ppm
percent
scf/STB
md
Formation Thickness
Drainage Area
Depth of Reservoir Top
Lower Layer:
Reservoir Pressure
Oil Gravity
Gas Gravity
Water Salinity
Water Cut
Total GOR
Formation Thickness
Drainage Area
40
200
7850
5
feet
acres
feet
md
5250
225
35
0.782
80000
10
820
40
65
500
7950
5
psig
degrees F
API
sp. gravity
ppm
percent
scf/STB
md
feet
acres
feet
md
57
Branch 1
Measured Depth
(feet)
True Vertical Depth

(feet)
Azimuth
8800
7700
8850
7750
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(feet)
Start
8800
Tubing
8850
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(ins)
3.92
0.0006
Well bore radius = 0.43 ft

Branch 2
Measured Depth
(feet)
8850
9120
9300
9400
9650
True Vertical Depth

(feet)
7750
7810
7840
7855
7885
Azimuth
0
45
55
65
75
58
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(feet)
Start
8850
Tubing
9650
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(ins)
3.92
0.0006
Perforation start (MD),

feet
Perforation end, (MD), feet
Local Skin
9380
9650
Well bore radius

Dietz shape factor
= 0.43 ft
= 31.6
Branch 3
Measured Depth
(feet)
8850
True Vertical Depth

(feet)
7750
Azimuth
9200
7950
220
9400
8010
245
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(feet)
Start
8850
Tubing
9400
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(ins)
3.92
0.0006
Perforation start (MD),

feet
Perforation end, (MD), feet
Local Skin
9200
9400
Well bore radius

Dietz shape factor
= 0.43 ft
= 31.6
RESULT
Solve for 5 points

Tie point pressure,
psig
November, 2007
Flow rate, STB/day
59
These points can be transferred to any multi-rate IPR to represent the overall response of
the multilateral completion.
Save this file as PROB20.out
60
5.2
Problem 21: Complex Horizontal Well Modelling

Objective:
Using the Multilateral option, build a model for a complex Horizontal well
Dataset:
COMPLETION DESCRIPTION
PVT DATA
Oil and Water
Reservoir Fluid
Oil Gravity
840 Kg/m3
Gas Gravity
0.7
GOR
300 Sm3/Sm3
H2S
0%
CO2
0.99 %
N2
2.21 %
Water Salinity
20000 ppm
Layer Properties
Reservoir Pressure
November, 2007
440
Bar
Oil Gravity
Gas Gravity
Water Salinity
Water Cut
Total GOR
Formation Thickness
Drainage Area
61
113
degrees C
840
Kg/m3
0.7
sp. gravity
20000 ppm
0
percent
300
Sm3/Sm3
100
md
200
m
600000 m2s
2830 m
50
md
Top Node
Measured Depth
(m)
True Vertical Depth

(m)
4711
2824
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(m)
TVD
(m)
Azimut
Start
4711
2824
Tubing
4924
2923.7
192.31
Well bore radius
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(m)
1.524e-5
= 0.15 m
Branch 1
Measured Depth
(m)
True Vertical Depth

(m)
Azimuth
5128.51
5212.58
2987.53
3004.23
196.64
195.72
5348.10
3010.43
197.39
5453.19
2993.64
200.84
5688.61
2905.92
202.71
5818.43
2869.8
204.41
5948.07
2860.61
204.71
6182.47
2889.55
229.31
6616.00
2974.57
229.90
Tubing
Type
Measured Depth
(m)
Start
4924
Tubing
6616
IDs
(ins)
Roughness
(m)
4.0
1.524e-5
62
Perforation start (MD), m
Perforation end, (MD), m
Local Skin
5130
5380
5423
5579
5604
5665
5767
5975
6124
6246
6279
6505
Well bore radius

Dietz shape factor
= 0.15m
= 30
RESULT
Tie Point Pressure 400 bara

Productivity Index
Sm3/day/bar
536
Skin
-2.18
Save this file as PROB21.out
November, 2007
Rate
(Sm3/day)
4190
6.1
Problem 22: Building Tank model for a reservoir with a known

production history
63
Objective:
Show how to set-up an MBAL model
Show how to match PVT in MBAL
How to enter tank and historical data into MBAL
How to perform a history match with MBAL
How to perform fractional flow matching and how to verify the reliability of the
fractional flow
Set-up and MBAL model single tank
Match the PVT
Quality-check the historical data
Perform a history match to:

o
Estimate the original oil in place
Check if there is an aquifer
Quantify the various drive mechanisms affecting this oil reservoir
Derive pseudo relative permeabilities for use in forecasting mode
Verify that the pseudo relative permeabilities can reasonably reproduce the
historical water cut
and GOR.

Dataset:
64
PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Water and Oil
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
800 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity
35 (API)
Gas Gravity
0.78
Water Salinity
80000 (ppm)
PVT MATCH DATA
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Gas Oil Ratio

(SCF/STB)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
3600
3600
800
1.456
0.31
RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
Reservoir Properties
Water and Oil
250 F
Reservoir Pressure
5215 psig
Reservoir Thickness
100 ft
Reservoir Radius
2200 ft
Reservoir Porosity
23 %
15 %
Initial Gas Cap
Estimated Oil In Place
250 MMSTB
Production Start
01/02/2000
Aquifer
Hurst-Van Everdingen Modified
Outer / Inner Radius
Encroachment Angle
180 deg
Aquifer Permeability
20 mD
November, 2007
65
RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES
Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)
End Point
(Fraction)
Corey Exponent
Water
0.15
0.6
Oil
0.15
0.8
Gas
0.02
0.9
Phase
Water Sweep Efficiency:

Gas Sweep Efficiency:
100%
100%
PRODUCTION HISTORY
Open the file in day3/res1h.xls and import the table in to MBAL

Save this MBAL file as Res1.mbi.
66
6.2
Problem 23: Review Exercise.

Objective:
We have the production history of a under saturated reservoir.
We want to use this history to find the reservoir OOIP and handle the various drive
mechanisms that this reservoir has.
Dataset:
PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Water and Oil
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
2800 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity
44
(API)
Gas Gravity
0.77
Water Salinity
75000 (ppm)
% H2S
% CO2
% N2
PVT MATCH DATA
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Gas Oil Ratio

(SCF/STB)
313
7785.3
7785.3
2800
November, 2007
67
Water and Oil
313 F
Reservoir Pressure
7785.3 psig
Reservoir Thickness
105 ft
Reservoir Radius
5000 ft
Reservoir Porosity
23 %
15 %
Initial Gas Cap
0.1
300 MMSTB
Production Start
01/02/2003
Production History
res2h.xls
Aquifer Model
Hurst-Van Everdingen Modified
Aquifer Type
Radial
Reservoir Outer / Inner Radius
?? (5)
Encroachment Angle
?? (180 degres)
Aquifer Permeability
?? (10 mD)
Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)
End Point
(Fraction)
Corey Exponent
Water
0.15
0.7
Oil
0.15
0.8
Gas
0.02
Phase

100%
100%
Save this MBAL file as Res2.mbi.
68
6.3
Problem 24: Use of MBAL for oil water contact monitoring

Objective:
We have a reservoir model already history matched.
We know all its drive mechanisms. We want to see how the contact moves with
production.
START FROM THE "Res1.mbi" FILE
Dataset:
PORE VOLUME versus DEPTH
Pore Volume
(Fraction)
TVD
(ft)
11477.9
0.25
11520
0.5
11550
11577.9
Run the simulation and save the stream as 100% Sweep
Go to the relative permeability screen and change the water sweep efficiency
to 70%.
Re-run the simulation and save the stream as 70% Sweep
Plot, compare and comment the evolution for the oil-water contact in both cases
Save this MBAL file as Prob24.mbi.
November, 2007
6.4
69
Problem 25: Performing Predictions using MBAL.

Objective:
We have a reservoir model already history matched.
We know all its drive mechanisms.
We want to see run prediction forecasts using this model
START FROM THE "Res1.mbi" FILE
Dataset:
A: Predict Reservoir Pressure only from Production Schedule
We want to know how the Reservoir Pressure / Water Cut and GOR would evolve if
a constant 3500 STB/d of liquid is produced from the end of the Production History
until 1/1/2025
Save this MBAL file as PROB25A.mbi
B: Predict Reservoir Pressure and Production from Manifold Pressure

We plan to produce the reservoir with one well at a constant manifold pressure of
360 psi with a maximum liquid production constraint of 3500 STB/d.
We want to know how the Production / Reservoir Pressure/Water Cut and GOR
would evolve.
The well lift curves have been already generated using PROSPER and are in the file
PROB25.tpd.
The Productivity Index of this well is 16.5 STB/d/psi
Use the file previously saved PROB25A.mbi
Save this MBAL file as PROB25B.mbi
70
6.5
Problem 26: Building a Tank Model for a Reservoir with Know

Production History by Well
Objective:
We have the production history by well of a under saturated reservoir.
We want to use this history to find the reservoir OOIP, understand the various drive
mechanisms that this reservoir has and to match the individual wells fractional flow.
Dataset:
PVT DATA
Reservoir Fluid
Water and Oil
Separator
Single-Stage
Solution GOR
500 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity
39 (API)
Gas Gravity
0.798
Water Salinity
100000 (ppm)
PVT MATCH DATA
Temp.
F
Pressure
Psig
Bubble Point
(psig)
Gas Oil Ratio

(SCF/STB)
Oil FVF
RB/STB
Oil Viscosity
cP
250
2200
2200
500
1.32
0.4
November, 2007
71
Water and Oil
250 F
Reservoir Pressure
6000 psig
Reservoir Thickness
250 ft
Reservoir Radius
2500 ft
Reservoir Porosity
23 %
15 %
Initial Gas Cap
200 MMSTB
Production Start
01/01/1997
Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)
End Point
(Fraction)
Corey Exponent
Water
0.15
0.6
Oil
0.15
0.8
Gas
0.02
0.9
Phase

100%
100%
PRODUCTION HISTORY
Open the file in Prob26 - Production History.xls and import the table in to MBAL
PREDICTION WELLS
Well1 PI=15 STB/d/PSI
Well2 PI=10 STB/d/PSI
Well1 & Well2 VLPs: PROB26.tpd
72
Perform a Prediction using the wells described above using a manifold pressure of 1000 psi
until 1/1/2015
Save this MBAL file as Prob26.mbi.
November, 2007
GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises
7.1
Problem 27: Integrated Production Modelling Model Setup
73
In this section, we will finalize the construction of our Integrated Production Model Simple.
Step 1: Linking all the components
Ensure the reservoirs and wells components in GAP are associated to the corresponding
MBAL and PROSPER files.
Reservoir 1 in GAP:
Reservoir 2 in GAP:
Well 1 in GAP:
Well 2 in GAP:
Res1.mbi MBAL file

Res1.mbi MBAL file
Well 1.out PROSPER file
Well 2.out PROSPER file
Step 2: Generating IPRs and VLPs using PROSPER files from GAP
In order to use the VLP/IPR intersection method for our well performance calculations in
GAP, we need to generate this data in advance.
Make sure an appropriate range of values (and and spacing) is used when generating Lift
Curves (VLPs) as this is key to keep the integrity of the well models.
Below there is a suggested range to be used for each well.
Well 1
Variable (OilField Units)
Liquid Rate
Manifold
Pressure
GOR (*)
WC
Minimum
100
200
400
Maximum
40000
4000
25000
95
20
10
10
10
Geometric
Linear
Geometric
Linear
Number of values
Spacing
After generating the values, replace the second value by 800 (solution GOR) as we know
this exact value will be required while the reservoir pressure remains above the Pb.
Well 2
74
Variable (OilField Units)
Liquid Rate
Manifold
Pressure
GOR
WC
Minimum
100
200
1500
Maximum
40000
6000
25000
95
20
10
10
10
Geometric
Linear
Geometric
Linear
Number of values
Spacing
After generating the values, replace the third value by 2800 (solution GOR) as we know this
exact value will be required while the reservoir pressure remains above the Pb.
Step 3: Pipelines Data
WH1 to Manifold
Length (ft)
Inside Diamter ()
Correlation
Save this as Simple.GAP
November, 2007
WH2 to Manifold
Manifold to Sep
1000
2000
1000
10
Beggs & Brill
Beggs & Brill
Beggs & Brill
7.2
75
Problem 28: Integrated Production Modelling Solve Network

a) How much would the field produce if both wells were fully open today (01/07/2005)?
Step 1: Initialise IPRs from tank simulations
When solving the network, the reservoir data used (Reservoir Pressure, WC, GOR, etc)
is that of the wells IPR screen.
Initialising the IPRs from tank simulations ensures the Wells IPRs are up to date as per
the reservoir model.
MBAL will run a simulation until the date specified (using the production history rates) and
update the IPRs with the Pr, GOR/CGR and WC/WGR.
The IPRs can also be updated manually (ie. no tank models are required for solving the
network)
Step 2: Solve Network (No optimisation) with a Separator Pressure of 200 psig
Discuss the results
b) How could we control the field to maximise oil production if we have a maximum
liquid constraint at the Separator of 22000 bbl/d?
Step 1: Set the wells controllable (Wellhead choke can be changed by the optimiser)
Step 2: Enter a maximum liquid constraint of 22000 bbl/d at the separator
Step 3: Solve Network (Optimise with all constraints)
Discuss the results
76
7.3
Problem 29: Integrated Production Modelling Production

Forecasting
Perform a production prediction (from 01/07/2005 to 01/01/2020 2 months stepsize)
for the following different scenarios
a) Both Wells fully open (No optimisation)
Discuss the Results
b) With a maximum liquid rate constraint at the Separator of 22000 bbl/d
(Optimisation)
Discuss the Results
c) We are planning to maintain the Reservoir 1 pressure by water injection.
How much water (injection rate) would we need if the pressure is to be maintained at
5300 psig? From when?
d) An upgrade of the facilities is being considered for early 2008.
How much more could we produce if the maximum liquid rate handling were increased to
35000 bbl/d?
e) Artificial lift for Well 1 is being considered as soon as the facilities are upgraded.
Analyse both Gas lift and ESP artificial lifts methods impact in the overall production.
Use previously created Well1GL.out and Well 1ESP.out.
VLPs are provided
Available Gas Lift: 10 mmscfd
f) Water Injection System
ESP is the preferred option.
Using this as base case, we want to design the water injection system.
In previous scenarios, the required water injection to maintain Reservoir 1 pressure at
5300 psig was automatically injected by GAP. Now we want to analyse the system
required to achieve that.
A simple Water Injection System GAP model will be built and then coupled to the existing
production system
Step 1:
Save the Production System Simple.GAP model
November, 2007
77
Step 2:
Start a new GAP model (Water Injection System)
Step 3:
Build the System Layout

a) Injection Manifold
b) Flowline (1000 ft long / 4 ID)
c) 1 Water Injector well
d) 1 Tank
e) Link the components
f) Save as Simple-Injection.GAP
Step 4:
Create the water injector model using PROSPER

a) Water Salinity: 100000 ppm
b) Vertical Well down to 11500 ft
c) Geothermal Gradient as per Well 1
d) Completion: Tubing down to 11000 ft (2.9 ID) / Casing (6ID)
e) Injectivity Index: 12 STB/d/psi
f) Save as Wat Injector.out
Step 5:
Link PROSPER file and Res1 MBAL model to the corresponding components
in GAP
Step 6:
Generate IPR/VLP
Step 7:
Set the Well controllable and Save the file

Open the Production System model and link it to the injection system.
Step 8:
Analyse the whole system performance. (Injection Manifold 1000 psi)

Is one well enough? How many well do we need?
Discuss how the Target pressure feature works when having an Injection
System linked.
78
7.4
Problem 30: Gas Lift Optimisation

Objective:
Use the GAP Optimiser to analyse if oil production can be increased by reallocating
the same amount of gas lift gas among the wells
Dataset:
SURFACE NETWORK SETUP
TEST DATA
November, 2007
79
Well
Gas Injection Rate

MMscf/d
WHP
psig
Liquid rate
STB /day
Water cut
%
GOR
scf/stb
Well 1
198.3
6720
85
1200
Well 2
208.3
820
80
300
Well 3
208.3
1135
75
300
Well 4
208.3
1400
70
300
Well 5
208.3
3090
30
300
TASKS
Step 1: Build the Production System Layout in GAP (all components) and link them
Pipeline Data
Pipeline
Length (feet)
ID (inches)
Correlation
From Manifold 1 to Manifold 2
1000
Beggs & Brill
From Well 1 to Manifold 2
200
Beggs & Brill
From Well 5 to Manifold 2
500
Beggs & Brill
From Manifold 2 to Sep Joint
2000
Beggs & Brill
Step 2: Link the Well models in GAP to the corresponding PROSPER files given
Step 3: Generate IPRs
Step 4: IMPORT the VLPs given. (DO NOT GENERATE THEM)
Step 5: Compare the Well models against test data by using the Model Validation feature
in GAP
Step 6: Enter the surrent amount of gas being injected in the wells in the \Edit\Equipment
Control screen
Step 7: Solve the Network (no optimisation) to calculate the total oil production of the field.
Step 8: Set the wells gas lift gas controllable and solve the network this time optimised
(using the same total amount of gas lift gas)
Step 9: Compare the total oil rate production now.
80
8.1
Problem 31a: OpenServer Exercise 1

MACRO 1
1. Exercise Objective
Generate Sensitivities on Well Length for a Horizontal Well.
The Performance of the Well for different Well Lengths (Liquid Rate vs. Well Length) is
required.
2. Data Provided
PROSPER File: HORWELLDP.OUT
OpenServer Template (Excel File): Exercise 1 Template.xls
MACRO 2
Generate Sensitivities on Well Length and Vertical Anisotropy for a Horizontal Well.
The Performance of the Well for different Well Lengths and Vertical Anisotropy is required.
2. Data Provided
PROSPER File: HORWELLDP.OUT
OpenServer Template (Excel File): Exercise 1 Template.xls
November, 2007
8.2
81
Problem 31b: OpenServer Exercise 2

Generating a Production Forecast and determining the time for drilling Well-2
2. Description
The Field is being currently produced with Well-1 at Maximum Rate.
A second Well (Well 2) is planned to be drilled when Well 1 Production falls below 7000 bbl
An automatic way of running the model (and enabling the second well when required) is
required as there will be plenty of sensitivities run on this model and manually checking for
the drilling date is not practical.
3. Data Provided
IPM Model: GAP Model.GAP (and associated files)
OpenServer Template (Excel File): Gap Prediction Template.xls
OpenServer Commands/Variables required
Well 1 Liquid Rate: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W1}].PREDRES[ j ].LIQRATE
Mask Command: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W2}].MASK()
Unmask Command: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W2}].UNMASK()
VBA Functions
CStr(Number): Converts the number into a string. This is useful for concatenating strings
and numbers
e.g.: GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W1}].PREDRES[ & Cstr(j) &].LIQRATE
with j=3.
This is equivalent to
GAP.MOD[{PROD}].WELL[{W1}].PREDRES[ 3].LIQRATE
Which is the string required to extract the Liquid Rate of well W1 of the 4th prediction
timestep
Val(String): Converts a string into a number. This is useful when extracting values using
OpenServer (they are extracted as strings) and need to compare in numerical values (e.g. if
Rate > 4000..)
82
9.1

Objective:
There has been a new discovery and few data available on the discovery.
On the basis of the information available, we want to study the best way to manage
the development of the field.
The Platform maximum capacity is 35000 bbl/d and the target Recovery Factor are
22% for Res 1 and 35% for Res 2 in 10 years.

Dataset:
FIELD DESCRIPTION
Two subsea reservoirs in 600 feet of water.
Reservoir 1 is 10,000 feet away from reservoir 2.
Separator is 50,000 feet away.
Data:
Reservoir 1
Reservoir 2
OOIP
Pressure
GOR
API
Gas gravity
Res Depth
Permeability
Pay height
Porosity
150
6500
500
35
0.7
14000
50
25
0.15
85
11000
1700
40
0.72
15000
500
50
0.25
November, 2007
(MMSTB)
(psig)
(scf/STB)
(feet)
(md)
(feet)
(fraction)
Swc
Salinity
Temperature
Wellbore radius
Drainage Area
0.15
100,000
200
0.354
100
0.15
10,000
250
0.354
100
83
(fraction)
(ppm)
(F)
(feet)
(Acres)
Residual
Saturation
(Fraction)
End Point
(Fraction)
Corey Exponent
Water
0.15
0.7
0.8
Oil
0.15
0.8
1.5
Gas
0.02
0.9
Phase
84
10
Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network Optimisation
10.1
GAP Constrained Network Optimisation

The constrained optimisation module in GAP alters choke settings on naturally flowing wells
and gaslift amount on gaslifted wells to achieve maximum oil production whilst meeting
constraints usually processing limits placed at various levels in the gathering system.
The Successive Linear Programming Algorithm
Firstly, consider a system (Fig 1) consisting of two wells connected via a manifold and a
pipework to a separator.
The wells are naturally flowing, and their unchoked production is:
Oil
Water
Gas
Production
Production
Production
Well 1
5000
1250
Well 2
4000
Totals
9000
Water Cut
GOR
20
1000
3017
43
500
4267
Processing limits at the manifold of 2500 STB/d water and 3.8 MMscf/day gas are given,
and the task is to choke back the wells to meet these limits in an optimal way, where optimal
November, 2007
85
in this case is define as maximising oil production.

This reduces to a mixing problem of a type frequently seen in all forms of process industry,
since each well supplies oil gas and water in its own particular proportions and we are
mixing the wells at the manifold. There are therefore many techniques available for solving
problems of this type.
Before we look at the actual technique used in GAP, let us solve the problem manually. We
therefore define x1 and x2 as the fraction of unchoked production from each well, o1 and o2
as the unchoked oil production, w1 and w2 as the unchoked water production and finally g1
and g2 as the unchoked gas production. The problem can be stated with the following
equations:
Maximise
oil production
= x1.o1+x2.o2
Subject to the constraints
water production
= x1.w1+x2.w2 <=2500
Gas production
= x1.g1+x2.g2 <= 3.8
Non negative production
= x1,x2 >= 0
Production <=unchoked
= x1,x2 <= 1
We can draw a diagram of the problem (Fig 2) by plotting x1 along the x axis and x2 along
the y axis. Any point within the square region defined by the 0,1 limits (OAHD) represents a
possible mixture of the two wells.
Taking the water constraint first, if we plot a line on the diagram where the water production
from both wells adds up 2500, we get the line EI on the diagram. Any point on or below this
line will satisfy the water production constraint. We plot a similar line representing the gas
constraint, line FG. The lines intersect within the square at point B. To satisfy both
86
constraints, a point has to lie below or on both lines simultaneously. The region containing
all the possible mixtures which satisfy all the constraints is the four sided region OEBG, the
feasible region.
Now consider the oil production. Two lines representing all mixtures of the two wells which
produce 5000 and 4000 (JK and KL) are plotted. The 5000 line lies entirely outside the
feasible region, while the 4000 line divides it. If we visualise moving a production contour
from 5000 to 4000, it can be seen that the contour will first touch the region at point B. This
therefore must be the optimal point, since all points in the region below must have lower oil
production.
At point B, the actual production is 5031, and both the gas and water production are at their
limits. This corresponds to a fraction x1=0.513728 of unchoked production for Well 1, and
x2-0.615679 of unchoked production for Well 2. Note that the combination of constraints has
led a solution where both wells are choked.
Since we have performed curves for the wells relating production to WHP, we can
immediately look up the desired WHP for each well. This in turn gives us the choke settings
(as pressure differences), since they must equal the difference between the manifold
operating pressure and the desired WHP.
To get to this stage, we used the production data and constraints to form a set of linear
equations, and solved then simultaneously with a graphical method. It should be clear that
we can construct a similar set of equations for any system of naturally flowing wells, with
constraints at different levels affecting all of the wells connected below. Since the equations
are linear, this can be classed as a linear programming problem, and GAP solves this using
the simplex method, since this is reliable and computationally efficient.
The Simplex Method.
A property of linear programming problems is that the solution always occurs on the
boundary of the region enclosed by the problem constraints, where two or more constraints
meet (i.e. a vertex of the region). Let us take a problem with N variables (i.e. N wells) and M
constraints.
To solve the problem therefore, we need to step through the points at the vertices, ending
with the point whose objective value is the highest. The simplex method is a procedure
which ensures that the objective increases at each step, and that the optimum point is
reached after a number of steps of order N (or M, whichever is larger).
The first step is to express the system of equations in a standard form as follows:
z-
5000.x1
-4000.x2
=0
:Objective function
1250.x1
+3017.x2+y1 = 2500
:constraint 1
5.x1
+2.x2+y2
= 3.8
:constraint 2
x1
+y3
=1
:constraint 3
x2
+y4
=1
:constraint 4
They yis are called slack variables and are introduced to transform the inequality constraints
to equality constraints. All the variables are defined to be non-negative. We now form a
November, 2007
87
matrix representation of the equation (the tableau):

z
x1
x2
y1
y2
y3
y4
Row 0
-5000
-4000
Row 1
1250
3017
2500
Row 2
3.8
Row 3
Row 4
As a starting point, take x1 and x2=0. This satisfies all constraints. We now want to take a
step which increases the objective. Choose the variable which has the largest negative
coefficient in row 0 in this case x1. Let x2 stay at zero. As we increase x1, the variables y1
will change value, but by definition, we cannot allow any y1 to become negative. Taking
each y1 in turn (and setting x2 to zero), we can say
y1=2500-1250.x1
=>
y1 >= 0
for x1 <= 2500/1250 = 2
y1=2500-1250.x1
=>
y1 >= 0
for x1 <= 2500/1250 = 2
y2=3.8 5.x1
=>
y2 >= 0
for x1 <= 3.8/5 = 0.76
y3=1 x1
=>
y3 >= 0
for x1 <= 1/1 = 1
y4=1 x2
=>
y4 >= 0
for x1 <= any value of x1
Where the upper limits on x1 are simply the ratio of the limit to the coefficient. Clearly we
can set x1 to min{2500/1250, 3.9/5, 1/1} = 0.76, which will set y2 to zero. This is called the
ratio test, and in this case, row 2 (i.e. the y2 row) is the winner. We now use matrix
arithmetic to pivot around the intersection of the x1 column and the y2 row, in other words
use matrix arithmetic (row operations) to make the coefficient of x1 1 in row 2 and 0 in all
other rows. That is, we divide row 2 by 5 to make the row 2 coefficient 1, subtract 1250
times row 2 from row 1 to make the row 1 coefficient 0, and so on. This yields the following
tableau
z
x1
x2
y1
y2
y3
y4
Row 0
-2000
1000
3800
Row 1
2517
-250
1550
Row 2
0.4
0.2
0.76
Row 3
-0.4
-0.2
0.24
Row 4
88
The step has made x1 non-zero, and the equation represented by the top row is now:
z 2000.x2 + 1000.y2 = 3800, or z = 3800 + 2000.x2 1000.y2
November, 2007
89
Clearly, the next step in increasing z is to set y2 to zero, and increase x2. To find out how
much, we perform another radio test, using the four variables, y1, x1, y3 and y4 :
y1 = 1550 2517.x2
=>
y1 >= 0
for x2 <= 1550/2517 = 0.615812
x1 = 0.76 0.4.x2
=>
y2 >= 0
for x2 <= 0.76/0.4 = 1.9
y3 = 0.24 + 0.4.x2
=>
y3 >= 0
for any value of x2
y4 = x2
=>
y4 >= 0
for any value of x2
So, we can set x2 to min {1.9 , 0.615812 } = 0.615812, which will make y1 zero. We now
pivot around the y1 row (row 1) and the x2 column getting
Row 0
x1
x2
y1
y2
y3
y4
0.794597
801.3508
5031.62
5
Row 1
0.000397
-0.09932
0.61567
9
Row 2
-0.00016
0.23973
0.51372
8
Row 3
0.000159
-0.23973
0.48627
2
Row 4
-0.0004
0.099325
0.38432
1
The step has made x2 non zero, and the equation represented by the top row is now:
z = 5031.625 0.794597.y1 801.3508.y2
We can stop here, since the only way to maximize z is to set y1 and y2 to zero. Thus the
optimal solution is x1=0.615679 , x2=0.513728 , z=5031 as we obtained graphically above.
A value of zero for y1 and y2 means that these constraints are binding.
A good textbook on linear programming and the simplex method is [Introduction to
mathematical programming, W.L. Winston, Duxbury Press]
Special steps must be taken to cope with the situation where the back pressure caused by a
group of strong wells kills or severely attenuates production from a weaker group, and the
operator wishes the weaker wells to achieve a minimum production. In practice, this
minimum must be achieved by choking back the stronger wells, thus reducing the back
pressure and allowing the weaker wells to flow. The algorithm described above, however, is
not aware of the minimum production set by the operator. GAP therefore detects when
conditions could allow this, and sets the weaker wells production level, artificially, to the
minimum before performing the simplex step. This allows the simplex algorithm to attenuate
90
the stronger wells in favour of the weaker ones.

We now have choked settings, but in general we would not obtain correct results if we
applied them and performed a network pressure calculation. This is because the choke
settings were based in the operating pressures as calculated for the unchoked system. In
general, these pressures will change as the wells production is modified, because the
pressure drops in the surface network will change. GAP therefore performs a loop,
calculating and applying choke settings as described above, then performing a network
pressure calculation until a stable situation is reached. This is essentially linearising an
inherently non-linear problem, and is known as a Successive Linear Programming (SLP)
approach.
The Nonlinear Programming Algorithm
The SLP algorithm described above can be applied to systems of naturally flowing wells
because the equations which describe the objective and the constraints are all linear,
allowing the use of the simplex algorithm at each stage. When we consider systems
containing gaslifted wells, however, this approach breaks down because the gaslift
constraint, i.e. that the sum of the individual wells gaslifts be limited to the gas available,
cannot be expressed as a linear equation involving the fractional products. The problem thus
unavoidably becomes a non-linear programming one (NLP). GAP still uses the overall loop
described above, but replaces the simplex step with a NLP solution technique.
This is in fact requires a much more complex algorithm than simplex, since there are many
special cases and problems which have to be catered for, and the solution almost always
requires a significant number of search steps, complex logic to maintain an active constraint
set, as well as the gradients and even second order derivatives of the objective function and
the constraints. For descriptions of many common techniques, see [nonlinear programming,
M.S. Bazaraa, H.D. Sherali & C.M. Shetty, Wiley]. Briefly, GAP solves the non-linear
programming problem by forming a quadratic approximation to the Lagrangian of the
problem, solving this approximation to obtain a direction to step in, then maximizing a merit
function (The L1 penalty function) along that direction, where the merit function measures
both the increase in the objective and the violation of the constraints.
These steps are repeated until an optimum is found. This can be quite computationally
expensive for some systems. The output of this step is a set of desired productions for
naturally flowing wells, and a set of gaslift amounts for gaslifted wells. The naturally flowing
wells then have their choke settings calculated. If the algorithm decides to attenuate a
gaslifted wells production, the well is converted to a naturally flowing well and choked. To
ensure a smooth transition from gaslifted to choked regimes, which is required by the
nonlinear programming model, a blending function is used to merge the two.
As above, this step is followed by a network pressure calculation, and the two steps are
repeated until stability is reached.
November, 2007

Training Course Notes PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Training Course Notes PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Petroleum Experts

Integrated Production Modelling

Training Course Notes

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

IPM Course - Introduction

2 The IPM Concept

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling

PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises

1 Problem 17: Gas

PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises

1 Problem 20: ...................................................................................................................................

IPM Training Course Notes

MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises

1 Problem 22: ...................................................................................................................................

GAP - Surface Network Modelling

1 Problem 27: ...................................................................................................................................

OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial

IPM Review - Workshop

1 IPM Review -...................................................................................................................................

Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network

IPM Course - Introduction

IPM Course - Introduction

Integrated Field Development Analysis

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

The IPM Concept

Decision making process should be based on how these components interact

Decision making process should be based on how these components interact

Optimally meeting Production Targets

Short-Term to Long-Term Forecasting

IPM Course - Introduction

The IPM Modelling Platform

PROSPER, Single Wellbore-Modelling Tool

MBAL, Material Balance Reservoir Modelling Tool

GAP, General Allocation Program

PVTP, Fluid Characterisation Tool

REVEAL, Specialised Numerical Simulator Reservoir Modelling Tool

IFM, Integrated Field Management

IPM Course - Introduction

Introduction and Scope of Work

Save this GAP file as day1/Simple.GAP.

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Problem 1: System solution using PROSPER

Introduce PROSPER to the student,

Help the user to familiarise with PROSPER,

Show how to enter PVT data, IPR and VLP data

Show how to perform a system (VLP + IPR) using PROSPER and

Show where to find the desired results

Oil and Water

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Measured Depth (feet)

True Vertical Depth (feet)

Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8 (BTU/h/ft2/F)

2007 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

Well Head Pressure

Flowing Wellhead Temperature

Save this PROSPER file as prob1.out.

PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

Problem 2: Flow line modelling within PROSPER

Show how to include pipeline into a PROSPER model,

Show how to describe pipelines,