IPM Standard Course Manual Complete PDF

Petroleum Experts
IPM Training Course
January, 2011
2
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.
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 2000, Windows XP and Windows Vista 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
2011 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

Contents I
Table of Contents
0
Chapter 1 IPM Course - Introduction 1

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 6
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). 43
8 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
15b: Multilayer IPR models (Case 2). 46
9 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
16: Building Multi-rate C & n inflow model for gas wells 48
Chapter 4 PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design

Exercises 50
1 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
17: Gas Lift Design 50
2 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
18: Using Quick-look option of PROSPER as a diagnostic tool 53
3 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
19: ESP Design 55
Chapter 5 PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises 57

January, 2011
I
II IPM Tr aining Co ur se No tes
1 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
21: Complex Horizontal Well Modelling 57
Chapter 6 MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises 60

1 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
22: Building Tank model for a reservoir with a known production history 60
2 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
23: Review Exercise. 63
3 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
24: Use of MBAL for oil water contact monitoring 65
4 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
25: Performing Predictions using MBAL. 66
5 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
26: Building a Tank Model for a Reservoir with Know Production History by Well 67
Chapter 7 GAP - Surface Network Modelling

Exercises 70
1 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
27: Integrated Production Modelling Model Setup 70
2 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
28: Integrated Production Modelling Solve Network 72
3 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
29: Integrated Production Modelling Production Forecasting 73
4 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
30: Gas Lift Optimisation 75
Chapter 8 OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial 78

1 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
31a: OpenServer Exercise 1 78
2 Problem
...................................................................................................................................
31b: OpenServer Exercise 2 79
Chapter 9 IPM Review - Workshop 80

1 IPM Review
...................................................................................................................................
- Workshop 80
Chapter 10 Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network

Optimisation 82
1 GAP Constrained
...................................................................................................................................
Network Optimisation 82
IPM Course - Introduction 1
1 IPM Course - Introduction
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

2
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
January, 2011
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

4
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.
January, 2011
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.

6
2 PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises
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 800 (SCF/STB)

Oil Gravity 35 (API)
Gas Gravity 0.78
Water Salinity 80000 (ppm)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
January, 2011
PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises 7
Measured Depth (feet) True Vertical Depth (feet)
0 0
1000 1000
1500 1500
1954 1950
2262 2250
3077 3000
8993 8000
12672 11000
12960 11200
13435 11500
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Label Equipment MD (feet) ID (inches) Roughness (inches)
Type
Wellhead Xmas Tree 0 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 Temperature
(feet) oF
0 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

8
Method PI Entry
Reservoir Pressure 5200 psig

Reservoir Temperature 250.0 F
o
Water Cut 0 %
Total GOR 800.0 SCF/STB
Productivity Index 10 STB/day/psi
Compaction Permeability Reduction No
Relative Permeability No
RESULTS
Well Head Pressure 450 psig
Oil Rate 8699.0 STB/day
Flowing BH Pressure 3316.8 Psig
Flowing Wellhead Temperature degF
Save this PROSPER file as prob1.out.
January, 2011
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.

Gas Gravity 0.78
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY

10
0 0
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 4
Ambient Temp. 55 F
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8.5 BTU/h/ft2/F
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
January, 2011
Label Equipment MD (feet) ID (inches) Roughness (inches)

Type
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
(feet) oF
0 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 Temperature 250.0 oF
Water Cut 3.3 %
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
January, 2011
2.3 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 Water and Oil
Solution GOR 700.0 (SCF/STB)
Oil Gravity 42.00 (API)
Gas Gravity 0.80 (sp. Gravity)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
0 0
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 Inside Roughness
Feet Diameter (inches) (inches)
Xmas Tree 100.0
Tubing 14000.0 3.96 0.0006
Casing 15000.0 6.00 0.0006
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
(feet) oF
0 60
100 50
15000.0 200
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8.0 (BTU/h/ft2/F)
PIPELINE DATA
Pipeline ID 4
Ambient Temp. 50 F
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 8.5
January, 2011
Method PI Entry
Reservoir Pressure 5000.0 psig

o
Water Cut 20 %
Productivity Index 15.0 STB/day/psi
RESULTS
Case With Flowline Without Flowline
Top Node Pressure 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 F 127.9 F
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. Pressure Bubble Point Gas Oil Ratio Oil FVF Oil Viscosity
F Psig (psig) (SCF/STB) RB/STB cP
250 3600 3600 800 1.25 0.31
RESULT
January, 2011
Black Oil Correlation for Pb, Rs, Bo
Black Oil Correlation for o
Oil Rate STB/day
Flowing Well Head Pressure Psig
Flowing Well Head Temperature F
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
250 3600 3600 800 1.456 0.31
RESULT
January, 2011
Black Oil Correlation for Pb, Rs, Bo
Black Oil Correlation for o
Oil Rate STB/day
Flowing Well Head Pressure Psig
Flowing Well Head Temperature F
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
250 3600 3600 800 1.456 0.31
WELL TEST DATA
January, 2011
Well head pressure 375 psig
Well head temperature 157 F

Total GOR 600 SCF/STB
Free GOR 0 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 psig
RESULT
Parameters Value
Calibrated U-value (Btu/h/ft2/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
Separator Two-Stage
Separator Pressure 200(psig)
Separator Temperature 90 (F)
Separator GOR 2650 (SCF/STB)

Tank GOR 150 (SCF/STB)
Separator Gas Gravity 0.737
Tank Gas Gravity 1.35
Reservoir Temperature 313 (degree F)
Bubble point pressure at
7785.3 (psig)
reservoir temperature
Av. Gas Gravity: 0.769839 / GOR: 2800 scf/stb
EQUIPMENT DATA
January, 2011
DEVIATION SURVEY
0 0
1856.96 1843.83
11358.30 8307.09
20544.60 12322.80
22385.20 12821.50
23845.10 13566.30
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
Xmas Tree 85.3
Tubing 1857 4.13 6 E-5
SSSV 3.81
Tubing 11423.9 4.13 6 E-5
Restriction 3.75
Tubing 20600.4 4.13 6 E-5

Restriction 3.75
Tubing 22319.6 3.18 6 E-5
Casing 23218.5 3.81 6 E-5
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
(feet) oF
85.3 68
23218.5 313
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 1 to 10 (BTU/h/ft2/F)

24
Method Vogel

o
Water Cut 0 %
TEST DATA
Well head pressure 3235.3 psig
Well head temperature 183 F

Free GOR 0 SCF/STB
Water Cut 0 %
Gauge Depth 15251 feet
Gauge Pressure 5796.8 psig
Static Reservoir Pressure at test time 7785.3 psig
RESULT
Parameters Value
Calibrated U-value (Btu/h/ft2/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):
January, 2011
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) 5200 4000
Water cut (%) 30 45
Part II
Find the production rate at the two specific cases below (WHP=450 psig)
RESULT
January, 2011
Case 1 Case 2
Reservoir Pressure (psig) 4000 5200

Water cut (%) 15 40
Liquid Rate (STB/day) 3198.7 (aut. geom.) 3237.1 (aut. geom.)
Save this PROSPER file as Prob8.out.

28
3 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 Temperature 250 F
Water Cut 25 %
Reservoir Permeability 65 md
Reservoir Thickness 100 feet
Drainage Area 390 acres
Dietz Shape Factor 31.6
Well-Bore Radius 0.354 feet
Skin 0
RESULT
AOF for Skin = 0 38497.6 STB/day
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 13.4 STB/day/psi
AOF STB/day
January, 2011
PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling Exercises 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.

January, 2011
3.3 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 inches

Shots Per foot 8
Perforation Length 12 inches
Damaged Zone Thickness 8 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
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
January, 2011
Penetration is the proportion of the total reservoir thickness that is completed. (e.g. a
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 STB/day
Total Skin 4.77
Perforation Skin 0.178
Partial Penetration Skin 6.693
Deviation Skin -2.104
Equivalent PI 10.61 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 (Enter the in-situ permeability for the gravel)
Perforation diameter (Diameter of perforation tunnel)
Shots per foot
Gravel pack length (Distance from the screen O.D. to the sand face)
Perforation interval (This affects the flow velocity in the perforations only)
Perforation efficiency (Proportion of perforations that are open and effective)
INPUT DATA
January, 2011
Method Darcy
Gravel Pack Permeability 90000 md

Perforation Diameter 0.25 inches
Shots per foot 8
Gravel Pack Length 1.8 inches
Perforation Interval 74 feet
Perforation Efficiency 1
Beta Factor Calculated
Method Multiphase
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 2 28
Carbon Dioxide 0.5 44
Methane 95 16
Ethane 2 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
January, 2011
Initial Reservoir pressure 5300 psig

Reservoir Temperature 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) 0
Time from start production 100 days
Drill bit size 12 1/4 (0.51 ft Wellbore Radius)
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.

38
Modify the model to take into account the tubing size that has been selected.
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:
Perforation Diameter 0.5

Shots per foot 6
Perforation length 12
Damage Zone Thickness 8
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
Vertical Permeability 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 2
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:
January, 2011
THP 2350 psig

THT 174 deg F
Gas Rate 70 MMscft/day
WGR 0
CGR 1
Gauge Depth 3400 m
Gauge Pressure 3038 psig
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 L
Length of drainage area Lx
January, 2011
Width of drainage area Ly

Distance along length edge (Xw)
Distance along width edge (Yw)
Distance from bottom (Zw)
Method Horizontal Well

No flow Boundaries
Reservoir Temperature 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 1 fraction
Vertical anisotropy 0.1 fraction
Length of well 1500 feet
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 3
RESULTS
Vertical Anisotropy AOF (STB/day)
0.0083 165500
0.015 199400
0.030 242100
0.100 316700

42
Save this file as Prob14.out
January, 2011
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
Gas Gravity 0.801

Separator Pressure 200 (psi)
CGR 5 (STB/MMSCF)
WGR 0 (STB/MMSCF)
EQUIPMENT DATA
DEVIATION SURVEY
0 0
1856.96 1843.83
11358.30 8307.09
20544.60 12322.80
22385.20 12821.50
23845.10 13566.30
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT

44

Xmas Tree 0
Tubing 1857 4.13 6 E-5
SSSV 3.81
Tubing 11423.9 4.13 6 E-5
Restriction 3.75
Tubing 20600.4 4.13 6 E-5
Restriction 3.75
Tubing 22319.6 3.18 6 E-5
Casing 23218.5 3.81 6 E-5
GEOTHERMAL GRADIENT
(feet) oF
0 68
23218.5 313
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient 1 to 10 (BTU/h/ft2/F)
January, 2011
Model Multilayer Reservoir
Layer 1 Layer 2
Layer Pressure (psi) 7785.3 7800.2
Layer Height (ft) 100 150
Layer Skin 0 1
Gas Gravity 0.798 0.803
Oil Gravity (API) 39 39
CGR (STB/MMSCF) 5 6
WGR (STB/MMSCF) 0 0
Layer Permeability (mD) 12 35
Drainage Area (acre) 500 500
Dietz Shape factor 31.6 31.6
Wellbore Radius (ft) 0.354 0.354
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 3000 psi
Overall Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Layer 1 Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Save this file as Prob15a.out

46
3.8 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:
January, 2011
Model Multilayer dP loss in Wellbore
Layer 1 Layer 2
Layer Pressure (psi) 7785.3 7800.2
Layer Height (ft) 100 150
Layer Skin 0 1
Gas Gravity 0.798 0.803
CGR (STB/MMSCF) 5 6
WGR (STB/MMSCF) 0 0
Layer Permeability (mD) 12 45
Drainage Area (acre) 500 500
Dietz Shape factor 31.6 31.6
Wellbore Radius (ft) 0.354 0.354
Perforation Interval (ft) 100 150
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 3000 psi
Overall Gas Rate (mmscfd)
Save this file as Prob15b.out

48
3.9 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 - Pwf 2)n
C and n values are determined from a plot of Q vs (Pr2 - Pwf 2) 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
January, 2011
Method Multi-rate C & n
Reservoir Pressure ?
Reservoir Temperature 302 (degree F)
WGR 0 STB/MMscf
TEST DATA
FBHP (psig) Rate (MMscf/day)
3600 250
3000 500
RESULTS
AOF 1036.8 mmscfd

50
4 PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises
4.1 Problem 17: Gas Lift Design

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
o Water Cut = 80%
o GOR = 800 scf/st
o 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
January, 2011
PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design Exercises 51
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)
Artificial Lift Method Gas Lift
Valve Type Casing Sensitive

Design Rate Method Calculated from Max Production
Maximum Liquid Rate 35000 STB/day
Maximum Gas Available 6 MMscf/day
Maximum Gas during Unloading 6 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

52
RESULTS
What is the depth of the orifice in ft MD:
Save this PROSPER file as day2/well1gl.out.
January, 2011
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 F
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

54
Likely depth of injection 1744 m
Port size 8.7 1/64th inches
Save this PROSPER file as prob18_final.out.
January, 2011
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)
Artificial Lift Method ESP
Pump Depth 12000 ft

Operating Frequency 60 Hertz
Maximum OD 6 inches
Design Rate 12000 STB/day
Water Cut 80 %
Top Node Pressure 350 psig
Gas Separation 0 %
Motor Power Safety Margin 0 %
Pump Wear Factor 0 %
SENSITIVITY PARAMETERS
Top node pressure: 400 psig
Water Cut: 60, 70, 80, 90 & 95%
Frequency: 50, 55, 60 Hertz
DESIGN RESULTS

56
Pump Centrilift KC12000

Motor Centrilift - 562
Cable Cooper
Gas Separation 0%
Save this PROSPER file as well1esp.out.
January, 2011
PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises 57
5 PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises
5.1 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 Gravity 840 Kg/m3

Gas Gravity 0.7
GOR 300 Sm3/Sm3
H2S 0%
CO2 0.99 %
N2 2.21 %

58
Layer Properties
Reservoir Pressure 440 Bar

Reservoir Temperature 113 degrees C
Oil Gravity 840 Kg/m3
Gas Gravity 0.7 sp. gravity
Water Cut 0 percent
Total GOR 300 Sm3/Sm3
Horizontal Permeability 100 md
Formation Thickness 200 m
Drainage Area 600000 m2s
Depth of Reservoir Top 2830 m
Vertical Permeability 50 md
Top Node
Measured Depth True Vertical Depth

(m) (m)
4711 2824
Tubing Measured Depth TVD Azimut IDs Roughness

Type (m) (m) (ins) (m)
Start 4711 2824 0
Tubing 4924 2923.7 192.31 4 1.524e-5
Well bore radius = 0.15 m
Branch 1
Measured Depth True Vertical Depth Azimuth

(m) (m)
5128.51 2987.53 196.64
5212.58 3004.23 195.72
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
January, 2011
PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises 59
Tubing Type Measured Depth IDs Roughness

(m) (ins) (m)
Start 4924
Tubing 6616 4.0 1.524e-5
Perforation start (MD), m Perforation end, (MD), m Local Skin

5130 5380 0
5423 5579 0
5604 5665 0
5767 5975 0
6124 6246 0
6279 6505 0
Well bore radius = 0.15m

Dietz shape factor = 30
RESULT
Tie Point Pressure 400 bara
Productivity Index Skin Rate

Sm3/day/bar (Sm3/day)
536 -2.18 4190
Save this file as PROB21.out

60
6 MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises
6.1 Problem 22: Building Tank model for a reservoir with a known
production history
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
o Check if there is an aquifer
o Quantify the various drive mechanisms affecting this oil reservoir
o Derive pseudo relative permeabilities for use in forecasting mode
o Verify that the pseudo relative permeabilities can reasonably reproduce the
historical water cut and GOR.
Dataset:
PVT DATA
January, 2011
MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises 61

Gas Gravity 0.78
PVT MATCH DATA
250 3600 3600 800 1.456 0.31
RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
Reservoir Properties Water and Oil

Reservoir Thickness 100 ft
Reservoir Radius 2200 ft
Reservoir Porosity 23 %
Initial Gas Cap 0
Estimated Oil In Place 250 MMSTB
Production Start 01/02/2000
Aquifer Hurst-Van Everdingen Modified
Outer / Inner Radius 5
Encroachment Angle 180 deg
Aquifer Permeability 20 mD
RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES

62
Phase Residual Saturation End Point Corey Exponent

(Fraction) (Fraction)
Water 0.15 0.6 1
Oil 0.15 0.8 1
Gas 0.02 0.9 1
Water Sweep Efficiency: 100%

Gas Sweep Efficiency: 100%
PRODUCTION HISTORY
Open the file in day3/res1h.xls and import the table in to MBAL
Save this MBAL file as Res1.mbi.
January, 2011
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

Gas Gravity 0.77
% H2S 0
% CO2 0
% N2 0
PVT MATCH DATA
Temp. Pressure Bubble Point Gas Oil Ratio

F Psig (psig) (SCF/STB)
313 7785.3 7785.3 2800

64

Initial Gas Cap 0.1
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)

Water 0.15 0.7 1
Oil 0.15 0.8 1
Gas 0.02 1 1

Save this MBAL file as Res2.mbi.
January, 2011
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 TVD

(Fraction) (ft)
0 11477.9
0.25 11520
0.5 11550
1 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.

66
6.4 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
January, 2011
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

Gas Gravity 0.798
PVT MATCH DATA
250 2200 2200 500 1.32 0.4

68

Initial Gas Cap 0

Water 0.15 0.6 1
Oil 0.15 0.8 1
Gas 0.02 0.9 1

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
January, 2011
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.

70
7 GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises
7.1 Problem 27: Integrated Production Modelling Model Setup
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: Res1.mbi MBAL file

Reservoir 2 in GAP: Res1.mbi MBAL file
Well 1 in GAP: Well 1.out PROSPER file
Well 2 in GAP: 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 GOR (*) WC

Pressure
Minimum 100 200 400 0
Maximum 40000 4000 25000 95
Number of values 20 10 10 10
Spacing Geometric Linear Geometric Linear
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
January, 2011
GAP - Surface Network Modelling Exercises 71
Variable (OilField Units) Liquid Rate Manifold GOR WC

Pressure
Minimum 100 200 1500 0
Maximum 40000 6000 25000 95
Number of values 20 10 10 10
Spacing Geometric Linear Geometric Linear
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 WH2 to Manifold Manifold to Sep

Length (ft) 1000 2000 1000
Inside Diamter () 6 8 10
Correlation Beggs & Brill Beggs & Brill Beggs & Brill
Save this as Simple.GAP

72
7.2 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
January, 2011
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
Step 2: Start a new GAP model (Water Injection System)

74
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.
January, 2011
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

76
Well Gas Injection Rate WHP Liquid rate Water cut GOR scf/
MMscf/d psig STB /day % stb
Well 1 - 198.3 6720 85 1200
Well 2 3 208.3 820 80 300
Well 3 3 208.3 1135 75 300
Well 4 3 208.3 1400 70 300
Well 5 1 208.3 3090 30 300
TASKS
Step 1: Build the Production System Layout in GAP (all components) and link them
Pipeline Data
Pipeline Length ID (inches) Correlation

(feet)
From Manifold 1 to Manifold 2 1000 6 Beggs & Brill
From Well 1 to Manifold 2 200 4 Beggs & Brill
From Well 5 to Manifold 2 500 4 Beggs & Brill
From Manifold 2 to Sep Joint 2000 8 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.
January, 2011

78
8 OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial
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
January, 2011
OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial 79
8.2 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..)

80
9 IPM Review - Workshop
9.1 IPM Review - Workshop

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 150 85 (MMSTB)
Pressure 6500 11000 (psig)
GOR 500 1700 (scf/STB)
API 35 40
Gas gravity 0.7 0.72
Res Depth 14000 15000 (feet)
Permeability 50 500 (md)
Pay height 25 50 (feet)
January, 2011
IPM Review - Workshop 81
Porosity 0.15 0.25 (fraction)

Swc 0.15 0.15 (fraction)
Salinity 100,000 10,000 (ppm)
Temperature 200 250 (F)
Wellbore radius 0.354 0.354 (feet)
Drainage Area 100 100 (Acres)

Water 0.15 0.7 0.8
Oil 0.15 0.8 1.5
Gas 0.02 0.9 1

82
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

Water Cut GOR
Production Production Production
Well 1 5000 1250 5 20 1000
Well 2 4000 3017 2 43 500
Totals 9000 4267 7
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 in
January, 2011
Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network Optimisation 83
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

84
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
January, 2011
to equality constraints. All the variables are defined to be non-negative. We now form a matrix
representation of the equation (the tableau):
z x1 x2 y1 y2 y3 y4
Row 0 1 -5000 -4000 0 0 0 0 0
Row 1 0 1250 3017 1 0 0 0 2500
Row 2 0 5 2 0 1 0 0 3.8
Row 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
Row 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
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 1 0 -2000 0 1000 0 0 3800
Row 1 0 0 2517 1 -250 0 0 1550
Row 2 0 1 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 0.76
Row 3 0 0 -0.4 0 -0.2 1 0 0.24

86
Row 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
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
January, 2011
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
z x1 x2 y1 y2 y3 y4
Row 0 1 0 0 0.794597 801.3508 0 0 5031.625
Row 1 0 0 1 0.000397 -0.09932 0 0 0.615679
Row 2 0 1 0 -0.00016 0.23973 0 0 0.513728
Row 3 0 0 0 0.000159 -0.23973 1 0 0.486272
Row 4 0 0 0 -0.0004 0.099325 0 1 0.384321
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
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

88
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.
January, 2011
Petroleum Experts
PROSPER
Course Notes
Petroleum Experts
Multiphase Flow
Course Notes
Petroleum Experts
MBAL
Course Notes
Petroleum Experts
GAP
Course Notes
Petroleum Experts
Step-By-Step Guide in building
the Simple.GAP model
In this section of the manual we shall be exploring the procedure taken in order to build a full
GAP model. These are the steps taken during the first four days of the course including
calculations and generation of results.
1 Building the GAP network

1.1 Setting the options
In order to build the network, one needs to setup GAP depending on what kind of model will
be built. This can be done from Options/Method
and then choose the most appropriate options for your model:
Petroleum Experts Ltd 1 IPM GAP Manual

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
1.2 Building the network
When putting the model together, the following toolbar is used:
The model can be constructed using the following path:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
1.3 Connecting the pieces of equipment
For this we use the Link Icon.
Please remember that whenever we need to construct a pipeline, we need to

do this by linking two joints together.
Point the mouse cursor in the middle of one joint, left click, drag keeping the mouse button
selected and drop in the middle of the second joint:
The rest of the equipment is linked together in the same way:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
2 Building the well model
We are now ready to start filling in the data and describing the different elements of the
system.
Double click on the well icon Well1:
GAP requires a set of VLPs and an IPR for the well to work (When using the VLP/IPR
intersection Model). These are the two fields which are highlighted red. They can be created
through a well analysis package such as PROSPER.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Please select the Run PROSPER button, in order to create a PROSPER model for this well:
We can start entering the data required and performing the matching for this well.
IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
2.1 Entering the well data (PVT, IPR and VLP)
In PROSPER, we can follow a logical sequence from left to right and top to bottom on the
main menu:
First we go to Options in order to make sure the well is set up correctly. The defaults are
OK for this example:
Select Done and move to PVT/Input Data

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Enter the PVT Data given for Problem 1, page 10 of the example sheet:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Then we use the match data (given in Problem 6, page 17) to decide which correlations to
select and also make them reproduce the measured data. For this we click on Match Data:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select Done and then Regression:
We will now match all the correlations and select the one for which Parameter 1 is as close
to 1 as possible and Parameter 2 as close to 0. Select Match All:
and then Parameters:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
On this screen we need to select one correlation that matches the best on Bubble Point,
GOR and FVF. A different correlation needs to be selected for oil viscosity.
The reason for selecting a single correlation for the first three parameters is to respect
material balance. This is one of the fundamental strengths of BO models as opposed to EOS
models which do not inherently respect material balance.
In this case we select Glaso and Beal. These correlations have to be set in the main PVT
screen:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Next we move to System/Equipment:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Please select All and Edit. This sequence will allow the program to bring the input data
screens up one by one, eliminating the possibility of us missing a screen in the process.
Enter the data in the following screens:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
As no surface equipment will be entered (no pipeline), then we simply select Cancel on this
screen.
and finally the Cp database, which is left at default values:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
We select done in the main equipment screen and move to the IPR data now:
In this screen we are asked to choose the IPR model to use. Select PI entry, enter the data
on the right section and then go to Input Data in order to enter the PI of the well:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Then select Calculate to generate the IPR:
The input data is now entered and we can start matching the well model to some tests.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
2.2 Matching to Well Tests
Go to:
Enter the match data as provided in Problem 6. For the Gas Oil Ratio, we know that the
value of 600 is incorrect as the reservoir pressure is above the bubble point and the solution
GOR for the fluid is 800 scf/stb. Therefore we will enter the correct value of 800 scf/stb

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Firstly we need to match the temperature measured at the well head. Select the point and
then Estimate U Value as shown above.
Note down the number and go back to the equipment section, Geothermal Gradient and
enter this number:
We go back to the Matching screen, select the point and then Correlation Comparison:
IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select OK:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
In the screen above, we will first quality check the point. If it is OK is has to be between Duns
and Ross Modified and Fancher and Brown Correlations (Maximum and Minimum pressure
drops in the tubing). Duns & Ross modified can be used as the maximum boundary only if it
is predicting Slug Flow (usually Oil wells)
Select these two correlations and then Calculate and Calculate again in the next screen.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Note the temperature matches that of the test.
Select Plot to see if the match point is between the two limit correlations:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Now we can go back and select the correlations we are likely to use for commercial work in
order to find out which one is the closest:
and Calculate followed by Plot:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
You can enlarge an area on the plot by dragging on that area with the mouse cursor:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
We can see that PE3 is the closest correlation; therefore we will match this one. Select
Finish and done to go back to the main matching screen:
Select match as shown above and from the list of correlations only select the one you are
intending to match:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
If we go back to the correlation comparison, you can see that the correlation
now has been made unique to the particular well we are analysing:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Now, from the main matching screen we will match the IPR:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
By selecting Calculate the program will create a VLP corresponding to the match point that
we used earlier:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
The BHP and rate calculate should be a solution to the system, i.e. the IPR should pass
through this point as well:
By clicking on PLOT the intersection of VLP and IPR can be seen.
The square point represents the bottom hole pressure and rate as observed in the well test
data.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
The point shown by the + sign represents the intersection of the VLP and IPR as
represented in the model.
Clearly if the model represents the reality observed in the field, the IPR must pass through
the square point.
This means that the IPR must be modified. This can be done by clicking on the IPR tab on
the screen where the calculations were performed.
Click on Input Data to access the PI screen

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
And alter the PI here (a PI of 6.5 will make it):
Click on Calculate to register the changes made in the IPR section.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
This will show the IPR plot. Click on Finish | Done to go back to the VLP Matching
Screen and click on Calculate.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
The model is now finished. Go back to the main screen and save the file as Well 1. Then
select GAP to pass control back to GAP:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Now the created PROSPER file will be associated to the GAP well model. We could also
Browse and assign the PROSPER file to the corresponding well in GAP.
The same procedure can be repeated with the other well, using the data in Problem 7.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
3 Building the Reservoir Model
From the Main Screen of GAP, double click on the reservoir icon (Res 1):
We need to build the reservoir model using MBAL. Please select Run MBAL so that we
create a new MBAL file:
3.1 Entering Basic Data

On the menu bar go to Tools and click on Material Balance.
On the menu bar go to Options

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Then again on the menu bar go to PVT | Fluid Properties and supply the following data:
The Matching procedure is very similar to PROSPER. Select Match:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
and then Calc:
Once the calculations are finished, select Match Param.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
In the above screen we select one correlation for Pb, Rs and Bo and another for viscosities.
The selection should be set in the main PVT screen:
Now the next step is building you tank model. In the main menu bar go to Input | Tank Data,
and supply the following information:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
You can follow the screens from Left to right as shown above. For the aquifer:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
The history data can be copied and pasted from Excel:
This finishes our setting up of basic tank model. It is advisable to save the file at this point.
Next step would be to fine-tune the model, in terms of identifying and quantifying its various
drive mechanisms.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
3.2 Matching to Production History data in MBAL
In order to begin the history matching, go to History Matching and then All:
The following screen will appear:
Note that in the graphical methods the plot shown in the screen above is the Campbell plot.
You may not get this initially. You should click on the graphical method screen and in the
menu bar of the above screen as shown appears. Select Method | Campbell Plot.
The Campbell Plot is showing the typical shape corresponding to additional energy required
(in this case an aquifer), so the next step before proceeding to the matching will be to
include an Aquifer to our model.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Go back to the Tank Input Data screen by selecting Finish then \Input\Tank Data and add an
aquifer model
Then go back to \Matching\All
activate the Analytical Method plot and select Regression:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select the variables you want to change and then Calc.

Transfer the calculated variables onto the model by selecting Accept All Fits:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
After transferring the data if we click on Done we get the following plots.
3.3 Running Sensitivity Analysis on the Tank Model

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select History Matching and then Sensitivity:
On this screen if you click on plot you get the following plot.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
We can see that there is a clear minimum on the plot so the solution is unique.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
3.4 Using Simulation Option to Quality check the History
Matched Model
From the main menu we select History Matching | Run simulation as shown above. On
the following screen select Calc:
Then we select plot in order to compare the simulated results to the history:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
From the plot screen, please select Variables and choose to display both History and
simulation results:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
The results will be plotted together:
We will now concentrate on matching the Pseudo Relative Permeabilities
Go to:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select Regress and Save in order to match the model (different weight can be given to
the different points as required):

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
No match can be done on the Fg as there is no free gas production.
Now, in order to confirm that the relative permeabilities have been matched properly, we will
do a prediction of history. Please go to:
and select the following options:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Then select Done and go to:
Select Copy in order to transfer the average rates from the simulation over to this section:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select Validate | Next | Validate | Done and go to the next option which is:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
This screen simply needs to be activated so select Done. We are now ready to do the
calculations from:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select Calculate and then Plot in order to compare the results of history, simulation and
prediction (you may need to go to Variables in order to select History\Simulation and
Prediction streams):
This concludes the History matching and verification process. We can now go to the main
screen of MBAL and select GAP (after saving the file), in order to go back to GAP:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Repeat the procedure for Reservoir 2

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
4 Finishing the GAP model
In the main GAP model, we have now built the well models and the reservoir models.
4.1 VLP and IPR Generation

The next step is to Generate VLPs and IPRs for the wells. This can be done from the
Generate options:
Let us start from the IPR generation
Click All in order to select all the wells in the model. Then the following screen will appear:
Click Generate

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Click OK.
Next we go to the main screen and go to the VLP generation:
Click on data in order to access the screen where the variables are entered:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
We can fill in the table with a wide range of numbers covering the full operating conditions of
the well.
After the table is finished, we can copy and paste this onto the other well using the following
procedure:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Select the well 1 and then Copy:
Then select the well 2 and Paste and then update the information for the GOR as shown
below.:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Then click OK and Generate:
When the VLPs are finished, the red circles around the wells will disappear:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
4.2 Pipe data
In order to enter the pipeline description, we need to double click in the icon in the middle of
the pipeline:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
This will bring up the pipe summary screen:
Select Pipe Data and the following screen will appear:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Drop down the menu as shown above, select Line pipe and enter the necessary data:
You can now select OK and the colourless box will become Cyan:

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
Do the same with the other
The model in now ready to use. Save it.

IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007
IPMTCSBS.5.00.20.09.2007

IPM Standard Course Manual Complete PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

IPM Standard Course Manual Complete PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Petroleum Experts

IPM Training Course

Petroleum Experts Ltd. All rights reserved.

Petroleum Experts Limited

Tel : (44 131) 474 7030

2011 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

Chapter 1 IPM Course - Introduction 1

Chapter 2 PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling

Chapter 3 PROSPER - Well Inflow Modelling

Chapter 4 PROSPER - Artificial Lift Design

Chapter 5 PROSPER - Multi-Lateral Well Exercises 57

Chapter 6 MBAL - Reservoir Modelling Exercises 60

Chapter 7 GAP - Surface Network Modelling

Chapter 8 OpenServer - OpenServer Tutorial 78

Chapter 9 IPM Review - Workshop 80

Chapter 10 Appendix A: GAP Constrained Network

1 IPM Course - Introduction

Integrated Field Development Analysis

1. Developing the dexterity skills of the programs

2011 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

1.2 The IPM Concept

Optimally meeting Production Targets

Short-Term to Long-Term Forecasting

1.3 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

2011 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

1.4 Introduction and Scope of Work

Save this GAP file as day1/Simple.GAP.

2011 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

2 PROSPER - Wellbore Modelling Exercises

2.1 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

BLACK OIL PVT DATA

Reservoir Fluid Oil and Water

Solution GOR 800 (SCF/STB)

Measured Depth (feet) True Vertical Depth (feet)

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

INFLOW PERFORMANCE DATA

Over twenty inflow options are available.

2011 Petroleum Experts Ltd.

Reservoir Pressure 5200 psig

Well Head Pressure 450 psig

Oil Rate 8699.0 STB/day

Flowing BH Pressure 3316.8 Psig

Flowing Wellhead Temperature degF

Save this PROSPER file as prob1.out.

2.2 Problem 2: Flow line modelling within PROSPER

- 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

START WITH THE prob1.out FILE

BLACK OIL PVT DATA