Back to Menu IPA10-E-069

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIA PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Fourth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2010

DEVELOPMENT OF PROBABILISTIC PRODUCTION

ENHANCEMENT SCREENING TOOLBOX

Razak, I. A.*
Morillo, T.*
Mustapah, M. F.*

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

There are large numbers of wells currently
producing below their actual potential. It is very
cumbersome to manually analyze these wells;
therefore, there is a need for a simple and handy
tool to assist in screening. Substantial amounts of
data are available (production data, test data,
pressure data, historical data) that can be processed
in order to identify production enhancement
opportunities.
An initiative has been undertaken to formulate a
simple methodology to screen well candidates for
production enhancement using a probabilistic model
and encapsulate the results into a user friendly
software tool box. The tool will have various
functionalities such as the ability to screen, estimate
potential gain, recommend suitable solution,
calculate simple economics and rank the candidates.
In addition, it will also have built-in database and
graphics capabilities. Some of the required basic
input is common information that should be
available for most wells such as PI, latest reservoir
pressure, permeability, thickness, skin, oil viscosity,
oil gravity, last rate, WC, GOR, THP, oil API and
well depth.
A simplified methodology has been devised to
estimate a well’s potential using a Monte Carlo
Simulation (MCS) to generate a probabilistic rather
than a deterministic proposition. For maturing the
results of analysis into an execution proposal, the
tool can also do simple economics and perform
“reality checks” against factors such as physical
limitations, economic considerations, etc. This
software development has potential to assist
subsurface engineers in carrying out studies related
to production enhancement.
This paper discusses an initiative to develop
probabilistic production enhancement screening
tool. The objective of the project is to formulate a
simple methodology to screen well candidates for
production enhancement from producing and idle
wells using a probabilistic model and encapsulate
the developed techniques into a user friendly
software tool box.
The software will have various functionalities such
as ability to screen, estimate potential gain,
recommend a suitable solution, calculate simple
economics and rank the candidate wells. The tool
also will have built-in database and graphics
capabilities.
BACKGROUND
There are currently huge numbers of wells
producing below their actual potential. However, it
is difficult to identify and verify those wells due to
the complexities associated with hydrocarbon
producing wells. As such a systematic analysis of
the problematic well is necessary. It is cumbersome
to analyze wells manually, so there is a need to have
a simple and handy tool to assist with candidate
screening. There is substantial data available such
as production data, test data, pressure data and
historical data that can be processed to identify
production enhancement opportunities.
A number of potential benefits are envisaged from
this development. The tool will be very useful to
engineers to carry out studies related to production
enhancement for client’s assets. It can also help
service companies to promote their product lines
and increase revenue.
METHODOLOGY

* Baker RDS The main purpose of the project is to provide a

viable solution to the above-mentioned problems
Back to Menu

and to develop a useable tool for petroleum combined reported data of Glaso and Marhoun to
engineers to use for production enhancement. A develop a correlation for determining the oil
robust and reliable methodology has been formation volume factor.
considered based on all available basic data such PI,
pressure, THP, oil API, GOR, and WC. A key There was also development of PVT correlations
element of the methodology is to determine the using neural network technique, such as by (Gharby
well’s production potential. The basis is standard et. al, 1997) whereby a neural network model was
methodology in petroleum engineering analysis trained using 5200 PVT data in order to predict
such as reservoir inflow performance relationship bubble point pressure and oil FVF. The author
(IPR), vertical flow performance (VFP) and nodal claimed better accuracy of the prediction by neural
analysis. network. However, this type of correlation is not
intended to be used in the present toolbox.
A critical element in calculating IPR and VFP is the
PVT properties. These are the properties of crude Some of the common correlations used in this
oil and natural gas that form the fundamentals for toolbox are as the following. For solution GOR, one
designing and analyzing oil and gas in production of the empirical correlations is (Standing, 1947),
systems. These physical and chemical properties of 1.2048
crude oils vary considerably and are dependant on ⎡ p 10 0.0125( ° API ) ⎤
concentration of the various types of hydrocarbons Rs = γ g ⎢ 0.00091t ⎥
and minor constituents. Oil properties include gas- ⎣18 10 ⎦
oil ratio (GOR), density, formation volume factor, (Eq-1)
viscosity and compressibility; the latter four
Where γg and ºAPI are defined in the latter sections,
properties are interrelated through solution GOR.
and p and t are pressure and temperature in psia and
These fluid properties are usually determined from ºF respectively. This correlation has been found to
laboratory tests performed on samples of reservoir be inaccurate for high-gravity crude oils, but is still
fluids. In the absence of laboratory measured one of the most widely used methods.
properties of crude oils, it is necessary to determine
An improved correlation was obtained by (Vasquez
these properties from empirically derived
and Beggs, 1980) by dividing the measured data
correlations.
into two groups, based on oil gravity and the
equation obtained using regression analysis
There are a large number of correlations to
methods.
determine properties of typical back oil. All the
correlations use the reservoir temperature, gas and ⎡ ⎛ γ o ⎞⎤
Rs = C1γ gs pC2 exp ⎢C3 ⎜ ⎟⎥
oil specific gravity, and the solution gas to oil ratio ⎣ ⎝ T + 460 ⎠⎦
to determine the properties of saturated oil. Several (Eq-2)
authors have provided correction factors to include
the effects of non-hydrocarbon compounds and For bubble point pressure Pb Standing’s correlation
separator conditions. All the authors have used a has given the best results in the entire group of oils.
large set of experimental data to regress the In 1981 he expressed the mathematical form in a
parameters of their proposed correlations to graphical correlation by the following expression:
minimize the differences between the predicted and
measured values. As an example, (Standing, 1947)
used a total of 105 data points on 22 different crude ⎡⎛ R ⎞
0.83
⎤
oils from California to develop his correlations. Pb = 18.2⎢⎜ s ⎟ (10)a − 1.4⎥
⎢⎜⎝ γ g ⎟
⎠ ⎥
(Lasater, 1958) presented a bubble point correlation ⎣ ⎦
using 158 measured bubble point data on 137 crude (Eq-3)
oils from Canada, Western and Mid-Continental
United States and South America. (Vasquez and With a = 0.00091(T − 460 ) − 0.0125( API )
Beggs, 1980) developed correlations for the
Standing formation volume factor is given by:
solution gas to oil ratio and formation volume factor 1.2
using 6004 data points. (Glaso, 1980) used data ⎡ ⎛ γ g ⎞0.5 ⎤
from 45 oil samples mostly from the North Sea Bo = 0.9759+ 0.000120⎢Rs ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ +1.25(T − 460)⎥
region to develop his correlations. (Marhoun, 1988) ⎢⎣ ⎝ γ o ⎠ ⎥⎦
used 160 bubble point data on 69 Middle Eastern
Europe crude samples to develop a bubble point (Eq-4)
pressure correlation. (Ahmed, 2001) used the
Back to Menu
The IPR describes the well’s production rate
achievable from the reservoir as a function of the
bottom-hole pressure, which is an important tool in
determining the reservoir and well deliverability.
All well deliverability equations relate the
production rate with the driving force in the
reservoir, that is, the pressure difference between
the initial, outer boundary or average reservoir
pressure and the flowing bottom-hole pressure.
Reservoir deliverability depends on several factors
including the following:
• Reservoir Pressure
• Pay zone thickness and permeability
• Reservoir boundary type and distance
• Wellbore radius
• Reservoir fluid properties
• Near-wellbore conditions
• Reservoir relative permeability.
Reservoir deliverability can be mathematically
modeled on the basis of flow regimes such as
transient flow, steady state flow, and pseudo-steady
state flow. An analytical relation between bottom-
hole pressure and production rate can be formulated
for a given flow regime.
The IPR describes the behavior of the well’s
flowing pressure and production rate, which is an
important tool in understanding the reservoir/well
behavior and quantifying the production rate. The
IPR is often required for designing well completion,
optimizing well production, nodal analysis
calculations, and designing artificial lift. Different
IPR correlations exist today in the petroleum
industry with the most commonly used models are
those of (Vogel and Fetkovitch, 1968).
Vertical lift performance is about our knowledge of
how much pressure is required to lift the well’s
liquid at a given rate from a given depth with a
given gas-liquid ratio through tubing of a given
size. As opposed to single phase flow in pipe, in
multi-phase flow the pressure drop per unit length is
not constant but increases with depth. There are
two main sources of pressure drop, viz. hydrostatic
gradient and frictional gradient.
Hydrostatic gradient is related to fluid density. This
density is derived from the liquid hold-up
calculation. The liquid hold-up normally refers to
the volume of pipe or tubing occupied by liquid. In
two-phase flow (liquid and gas), the gas component
flows faster than the liquid component giving some
slippage between the two phases. This phenomenon
is observed most often in vertical flow in large pipe
at low rate. Assuming that the gas-liquid mixture is
homogenous, we can define the mixture density by
introducing liquid and gas holdup variable, HL and
Hg respectively, where HL is the ratio of the volume
of liquid in a pipe segment per volume of pipe
segment.
Liquid holdup is a fraction varying from zero for all
gas flow to one for all liquid flow. The magnitude
of holdup depends on several parameters including
the angle of inclination. Different investigators
take different approaches for determining the
holdup value. The most widely used correlations
for vertical multi-phase pressure drop calculations
are (Hagedorn and Brown, 1965), (Duns and Ros,
1963), Orkiszewski, 1967 and (Brill and Beggs,
1978).
In some correlations, a certain parameter called "no-
slip holdup" is used. A no-slip holdup, sometimes
called input liquid content, is the ratio of the volume
of liquid in pipe segment divided by the volume of
the pipe segment which would exist if the gas and
liquid traveled at the same velocity (i.e. no
slippage). It can be calculated directly from the
known gas and liquid rates from:
qL
λ=
qL + qg
(Eq-5)
Therefore, the difference between the liquid holdup
and the no-slip holdup is a measure of the degree of
slippage between the gas and liquid phases.
Frictional gradient arises from the drag of the fluids
on the pipe or tubing wall. In general, most of the
correlations calculate this factor using the concept
of a friction factor diagram as a function of the
Reynold's Number and pipe roughness.
Generally, the Reynolds Number for flow in a pipe
or tubing is defined as:
ρVD VD QD
Re = = =
µ ν νA
(Eq-6)
where:
V is the mean fluid velocity (SI units: m/s)
µ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid (Pa·s or
N·s/m² or kg/m·s)
ν is the kinematic viscosity (ν = µ / ρ) (m²/s)
ρ is the density of the fluid (kg/m³)
Back to Menu
Q is the volumetric flow rate (m³/s)
A is the pipe cross-sectional area (m²).
D is the hydraulic diameter of the pipe (m)
This friction factor is then used to derive the
frictional pressure gradient.
The general energy equation to obtain pressure loss
along the tubing can be derived from the equation:
⎛ vm 2
∆ ⎜
∆p fw 2 ⎜ 2g
144 = ρm + + ρ ⎝ c
2.9652 × 1011 d 5 ρ m
m
∆h ∆h
(Eq-7)
where:
ρ m = ρ L H L + ρ g (1 − H L )
(Eq-8)
Nodal analysis views the total producing system as
a group of components potentially encompassing
reservoir rock, completions, vertical flow strings
and restrictions. Improper design of any one
component or a mismatch of components will affect
the performance of the entire system. The main
function of the system analysis is to increase well
rates. It identifies bottlenecks and serves as an
outline for the design of efficient field wide flow
systems. Initially, nodal analysis used pressure
traverse curves and simple PI models. Now state-of-
the-art software programs have been developed to
incorporate advanced IPR and VFP models whereby
engineers can concentrate on matching field data,
interpreting results, and understanding a system's
interdependencies quickly.
In order to manage uncertainty established
statistical algorithms such as Monte Carlo
Simulation (MCS) has been evaluated and
employed as a starting point.
MCS is one technique that helps to reduce the
uncertainty involved in estimating future outcomes.
MCS can be applied to complex, non-linear models
or used to evaluate the accuracy and performance of
other models. It can also be implemented in risk
management, portfolio management, pricing
derivatives, strategic planning, project planning,
cost modeling and other fields. The technique
converts uncertainties in input variables of a model
into probability distributions. By combining the
distributions and randomly selecting values from
them, it recalculates the simulated model many
times and brings out the probability of the output.
Different types of probability distributions can be
assigned to the inputs of the model. When the
distribution is unknown, the one that represents the
best fit can be chosen. Some frequently used
probability distributions in MCS include
normal/Gaussian distribution, lognormal
distribution, triangular distribution, uniform
distribution, and exponential distribution. MCS
generates the output as a range rather than a fixed
value and shows how likely it is the output value
⎞ will occur in the range.
⎟
⎟
⎠ Although the MCS technique is straightforward and
flexible, it cannot eliminate uncertainty and risk, but
it can make them easier to understand by ascribing
probabilistic characteristics to the inputs and
outputs of the model. It can be very useful for
determining different risks and factors that affect
forecasted variables and, therefore, it can lead to
more accurate predictions.
At present a simple knowledge-based system will
be incorporated in the toolbox with the objective to
recommend a suitable treatment solution. This
element comprises some rules that attempts to
provide an answer to a certain problem, or clarify
uncertainties where normally one or more experts
would need to be consulted. A wide variety of
methods can be used to simulate the performance of
the expert and the common ones are (1) the creation
of a knowledgebase that uses some knowledge
representation formalism to capture the Subject
Matter Expert's (SME) knowledge and (2) a process
of gathering that knowledge from the SME and
codifying it according to the formalism.
In future we aspire to venture into areas such as
neural network, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm.
A neural network, more properly referred to as an
'artificial' neural network (ANN), is a computing
system made up of a number of simple, highly
interconnected processing elements that process
information by their dynamic state response to
external inputs. ANNs are processing devices
(algorithms or actual hardware) that are loosely
modeled after the neuronal structure of the
mammalian cerebral cortex but on much smaller
scales. A large ANN might have hundreds or
thousands of processor units, whereas a mammalian
brain has billions of neurons with a corresponding
increase in magnitude of their overall interaction
and emergent behavior. Although ANN researchers
are generally not concerned with whether their
networks accurately resemble biological systems,
some have. For example, researchers have
Back to Menu
accurately simulated the function of the retina and
modeled the eye rather well. Some example of
applications of ANN in oil and gas include
prediction of hydrate formation temperature for gas
hydrate, virtual magnetic resonance imaging logs,
estimation of formation permeability, petroleum
reservoir characterization, virtual measurement of
heterogeneous formation permeability using
geophysical well log responses and generation of
synthetic MRI logs from conventional well logs.
Fuzzy logic is a superset of conventional (Boolean)
logic that has been extended to handle the concept
of partial truth − truth values between "completely
true" and "completely false". It was introduced by
Dr. Lotfi Zadeh of UC/Berkeley in the 1960's as a
means to model the uncertainty of natural language.
Zadeh says that rather than regarding fuzzy theory
as a single theory, we should regard the process of
``fuzzification'' as a methodology to generalize any
specific theory from a crisp (discrete) to a
continuous (fuzzy) form. Thus, recent researchers
have also introduced "fuzzy calculus", "fuzzy
differential equations", and so on.
Based on the oil price at any particular time and
treatment cost, the tool will also be able to calculate
simple economics and rank the wells. In addition it
can perform “reality checks” on a decision such as
physical limitation, economic reasons and others.
RESULTS
Most of key elements of the tool box have been
implemented in a Windows environment. An
interim highest level menu is shown in Figure 1.
This menu will be revised from time to time as the
development progresses. Considerable effort has
been expended on the “Data” and “Analyse” items
since these two elements are crucial elements of the
toolbox. For the “Data” item, the plan is organize it
as in Figure 2, while the “Analyse” menu is
tentatively as in Figure 3. Most of program code for
the tool box is within the above modules, and the
bulk of the development time was spent there.
Data Input Module – Individual data input screen is
accessible through “Data” menu item. For example,
Figure 4 shows Reservoir Data input screen. As can
be seen, titles for other types of data, such as fluid
data, well’s equipment data, well deviation data,
etc. are available in the page tabs.
To assist engineering analysis, the toolbox is
equipped with wellbore schematic diagram. The
input for this is as in Figure 5. For example, the
“Equipment data” input is shown in Figure 6.
Having entered other data in “Well Geometry”,
“Perforation” and “Plot Option”, user can plot a
well schematic diagram such as in Figure 7.
The well and down-hole equipment are drawn
according to depth scale.
User can store and later view/manipulate wells
deviation data, as shown in Figure 8. Existing data
at the user’s disposal, such as surface well test,
production data, etc. can be imported into the tool
box and then viewed via the charting facilities.
Figure 6 is a sample of daily surface production
data. Similarly, surface well test data can be stored
and viewed graphically as in Figure 10. There are
options to plot different variables on the X- and Y-
axis.
Some data required specifically for the analysis can
be captured from existing spreadsheet file, such as
the Summary of Pressure Test Analysis. In this case
user can double-click on the required row of the
table (as shown in Figure 11) and the relevant data
such as permeability; thickness, etc. will be
automatically transferred to the respective screen.
Snap Shot Analysis Module - An initial formulation
algorithm using conventional well modeling has
been implemented. In addition a simple
probabilistic model is in progress. The algorithm is
designed to calculate estimated potential gains of
the well and is a key element of the Tool Box. A
normal method of using IPR, TPR and nodal
analysis has been utilized and a simplified method
for determining well potential has been
implemented.
One of the requirements for conventional nodal
analysis is the reservoir IPR calculation. We have
written a number of IPR methods such as in Figure
12 and Figure 13 which shows a sample IPR
calculation using Vogel method.
Another element for nodal analysis, VFP
calculation was implemented using a number of
correlations as shown in Figure 14. Figure 15 shows
result of VFP calculation using Duns and Ross
correlation. Finally an example of the IPR-VFP
intersection is shown in Figure 16.
For the probabilistic method, we begin by assigning
a distribution to each uncertainty and then run MC
to generate S curves to obtain P90, P50, P10 for the
variable previously established as highly uncertain.
A comparison between deterministic and
Back to Menu

probabilistic methods can be illustrated using the NOMENCLATURE

following example:
ANN = Artificial Neural Network
Figure 17 shows the results using a simplified (By API = American Petroleum Institute
% of pressure drawdown) method of determining GOR = Gas Oil Ratio
the well potential by deterministic method, while MC = Monte Carlo
Figure 18 shows the probabilistic method results to MCS = Monte Carlo Simulation
establish the well potential based on the same input MRI = Magnetic Imaging Log
and analysis data. Figure 19 shows the result of PI = Productivity Index
probabilistic estimation using proper nodal analysis PVT = Pressure, Volume, Temperature
method. In all the above cases, MC method (by a SME = Subject Matter Expert
simple random number) was used. THP = Tubing Head Pressure
VFP = Vertical Lift Performance
Advisor Module - We have developed prototype WC = Water Cut
code or a concept for an advisory module which is A = Pipe cross-sectional area
currently working. Image in Figure 20 shows a Bo, FVF = Formation Volume Factor
sample of it. However this module needs extensive D = Hydraulic diameter of the pipe
high level expert knowledge and this will be added HL = liquid holdup factor
from time to time. P, p = Pressure
Pb = Bubble point pressure
Other Facilities - The Tool Box will be equipped qL = In-situ liquid flow rates
with other facilities such as well history data and qg = In-situ gas flow rates
economic data, as shown in the static image (Figure Q = Volumetric flow rate
21, Figure 22) taken from the tool. Economic data Rs = Solution Gas Oil Ratio
essentially captures the oil price at that time and the Re = Reynolds Number
cost of individual service items. This is used in the T, t = Temperature
simple economic analysis. V = Mean fluid velocity
γ0 = Specific gravity of the stock-tank oil
Next Steps - The tool box development is done on γg = Gas specific gravity
part-time and incremental basis, and as such there γgs = Gas specific gravity of the solution gas
considerable work remains. At this moment we are µ = Dynamic viscosity of the fluid
focusing on incremental improvement to the tool ρ = Density of the fluid
box. For example, one of our priorities is to ρm = density of mixture
incorporate additional Monte Carlo methods i.e. vm = velocity of mixture
various probabilistic distribution models such as f = two-phase energy loss factor
normal/Gaussian distribution, lognormal gc = conversion constant
distribution, triangular distribution, uniform ν = Kinematic viscosity
distribution and exponential distribution. In order
to further improve the accuracy of the tool box REFERENCES
prediction, we plan to incorporate methods such as
neural network, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm. Ahmed, T. H., Reservoir Engineering Handbook -
2nd Edition, Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston,
CONCLUSIONS 2001.
This paper has described an attempt to develop a
probabilistic production enhancement screening tool Brill, J.P & Beggs, H.D.: Two Phase Flow in Pipes,
box. University of Tulsa, OK, 1978.

A prototype version of the toolbox is ready for
demonstration. The objective of the toolbox is to
assist petroleum engineers to analyze wells in
uncertain environments in an integrated manner.
Some of the key features of the toolbox include
integrated data management, probabilistic and
deterministic calculations, knowledge-based advisor
and built-in economics.
Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N. C. J.: Vertical Flow of
Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells, Proc. Sixth
World Pet. Congress, Frankfurt (Jun. 19-26, 1963)
Section II, Paper 22-PD6.
Fetkovich, M. J.: The Isochronal Testing of Oil
Wells, SPE 4529. SPE of AIME
Back to Menu
Gharbi, R.B. & Elsharkawy, A.M.: Universal
Neural Network Based Model for Estimating the
PVT Properties of Crude Oil Systems, SPE 38099 (
April, 1997) p. 619-628
Glaso O.: Generalized Pressure-Volume-
Temperature Correlation, JPT (May 1980), pp 785-
95.
Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: “Experimental
Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During
Continuous Two phase Flow in Small-Diameter
Vertical Conduits”, JPT ( April. 1965).
Lasater, J.A.: Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,
SPE 957-G (May,1958) p. 65-67
Marhoun, M.A: PVT Correlation for Middle East
Crude Oils, JPT, 650-665 (May, 1988).
Orkiszewski, J.: Predicting Two-Phase Pressure
Drops in Vertical Pipe, J. Pet. Tech. (Jun. 1967)
829-838.
Standing, M.B.: A Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlation for Mixtures of Californian Oils and
Gasses, Drill. and Prod. Proc., 275-287 (1947)
Vasquez, M. and Beggs, H.D.: Correlations for
Fluid Physical Property Prediction, JPT, 968-970
(June, 1980)
Vogel, J. V., Inflow Performance Relationship for
Solution Gas Drive Wells, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (January 1968) p. 83-93
Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and
Control 8 (3): 338-35
Back to Menu

Figure 1 - Toolbox Interim Highest Level Menu

Figure 2 - Interim Plan for Toolbox Data Menu

Figure 3 - Toolbox Analyse Menu (Presently)

Figure 4 - Reservoir Data

Figure 5 - Required Data Type for Wellbore Schematic Diagram

Back to Menu

Figure 6 - Equipment Data for Wellbore Diagram

Figure 7 - Example of Wellbore Schematic Diagram

Back to Menu

Figure 8 - Well Deviation Data and Plot

Figure 9 - Historical Production Data

Figure 10 - Well’s Test Data

Back to Menu

Figure 11 - Summary of Flowing Buildup Survey Data

Figure 12 - Available IPR Model

Figure 13 - Example of IPR Plot (Vogel)

Back to Menu

Figure 14 - Available Flow Correlation Model

Figure 15 - Example of VLP Plot (Duns and Ross)

Figure 16 - Example of Nodal Analysis System Plot

Back to Menu

Figure 17 - Deterministic Potential Using Outflow Calculation method by % of Pressure Drawdown

Figure 18 - Probabilistic Potential Using Outflow Calculation method by % of Pressure Drawdown

Back to Menu

Figure 19 - Probabilistic Potential Using Outflow Calculation method of VLP-IPR

Figure 20 - Example of Advisor Module

Back to Menu

Figure 21 - Well Historical Data

Figure 22 - Economic Data