Dynamic Simulation

Current Applications on Wells

Juan Carlos Mantecon

Advisor
Scandpower Petroleum Technology
Level 1, 234 Churchill Avenue
P.O. Box 8234
Subiaco East, W.A. 6008
Australia
phone +61 (8) 9286 6500
fax +61 (8) 9388 7647
mobile +61 (0)401 694 182

[email protected]

What We Need to Know About

Dynamic Simulation

• Well Dynamic Simulation Characteristics

• OLGA Advanced Well Module
• Nodal vs Dynamic Simulation
• Horizontal wells
• Smart Wells
• Gas Lift
• Watercut Limit
• ESP
• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
• The Virtual Gauge
• Integrated Modelling
• Real-Time Production Management
• Summary and Economic Drivers
2

1
 Dynamic Simulation

What’s a Dynamic 3-phase Flow Simulator

A set of coupled first order non-linear, one dimensional partial

differential equations, with rather complex coefficients

8 Field Equations Closure Laws

Conservation of mass (5) Fluid Mass Transfer

Conservation of Momentum (2) Properties Momentum Transfer
Conservation of energy (1) Energy Transfer

Separate
Closure laws
continuity
are semi-
equations for
the Gas, Liquid
mechanistic
(O+W) bulk and
Boundary Initial and required
Liquid droplets Conditions Conditions experimental
coupled verification
through
interphasial A mixture energy
mass transfer. conservation
equation is applied. Dynamic
Numerical solution scheme: semi-
Simulator implicit integration method –
Two momentum equations are used:
allows for relatively long time
1) a combined one for the Gas and
possible Liquid droplets,
steps with efficient run times
2) a separate one for the Liquid film

2
 OLGA - Dynamic 3-phase Flow Simulator

• OLGA model has been tested against experimental data over a

substancial range in:
– geometrical scale
• diameters from 1” to 8”, some at 30”
• pipeline length/diameter ratios up to 5000
• pipe inclinations of –15 to +90 degrees)
– pressures (from 1 to 100 bar)
– variety of different fluids
Mixing point 54 m
• The model has also been tested against
a number of different oil-gas field lines.
Predictions are in good agreement with 334 m

the measurements 2o

OVIP (Olga Verification and Improvement Project)

• Largest multiphase flow data bank

Studies
ever assembled Research

• 10000 data point from lab Support

Complex

• 30 gas/condensate pipeline data Fluids JIP

Software

sets
Research Oil & Gas
Scandpower
• 15 lower GOR pipeline data sets Institutes Industry

• well data from several sources OVIP 2002-3 Thermal JIP

• Participants: Statoil, Conoco, Total, OVIP

Downflow
Field Data
Base

BP, ChevronTexaco, Gas de France, Demo 2000

(PeTra)
ExxonMobil, Agip, Saudi Aramco,
Hydro, Shell

3
 1 D - Well Dynamic Simulation
0

-500

-1000

-1500

-2000

Well XX14 - OLGA Wellbore Model -2500

100m - 2 pipes - 8.861" 160 m MODU ID Wall -3000

P13 P12 -3500

-3500 -3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
P11 8.861" Wall Riser-air
130 m Sea Level

P10 8.861" Wall Riser-sea

Olga 0m SS Tree 7.0625" BRANCH: WELL-UPP
Wellhead 6.25" WALL: Tubing-1
Riser P9 6.184" Wall 1 MD 1432.2 m
70 SCSSV 6.25"
Wellbore MD 2766.1 m BRANCH: WELL-LOW
WALL: Tubing-2
P8 8.861" Wall 70
345 m 20" Csg shoe MD 3153.8 m

P7 8.861" Wall 345 BRANCH: WELL-LOW

1100 m TOC WALL: Tubing-3

P6 8.861" Wall 1100

1950 m Mandrel 6.18" MD 4935.9 m
Steel
P5 6.765" Wall 1950
2000 m Nipple 5.75"
Cement

P4 8.681" Wall 2000

2100 m
Section Length < 50m Formation

P3 8.681" Wall 2100

2850 m 1 2 3 4 5 6

P2 6.184" Wall 2850

3000 m 1 2 3 4 5
P1 6.184" Wall Reservoir
3050 m
P, T 1,2,3,…,5 (inside) : section volumes
Q 1,2,3,…,6 (outside): section boundaries
7

Radiation in annulus (Minor Effect)

OLGA® for Wells Thermal Model

4

Gas lift Production

Convection

Conduction

2
TFluid 4
3
1
Te

1. Counter-current heat transfer

2. Radiation, convection and conduction in gas filled annulus
3. Conduction and convection in drilling mud
4. Conduction in steel, cement and formation
8

4
OLGA® for Wells Thermal Model
Warm-up of Well and Formation

Temperature

Distance from Wellbore

t0 t1 t2 t3 tss

Fo
rm
a
Depth
Wellbore

tio
nT
em
p.

Temperature

OLGA® for Wells Thermal Model

Warm-up of Well and Formation

Warm-up Effects on Annulus

_ _ _ _ _ , [ ],
160

155

150
C

145

140

135

130
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Length [m]

60/120MMscfd – Annular Temperature Profile Comparison

10

5
 OLGA® for Wells Thermal Model
Warm-up of Well and Formation

Warm-up Effects on Annulus

_ _ _ _ _ [p ]
12000

11000

10000

9000

8000

7000
sia

6000
p

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time [h]

60/120MMscfd – Annular Pressure Trends at the Packer & Wellhead

11

OLGA® Advanced Well Modelling

IPR models in OLGA®

– Constant Productivity Index
– Forcheimer model
– Single Forcheimer model
(High Pressure Gas Wells)
– Vogel equation
– Backpressure equation
(Gas Wells)
– Normalized Backpressure
(Saturated Oil Wells)
– Tabulated IPR curve
– Quasi-dynamic
reservoir explicit input
k-h, s, nD-s, P, T time series
– Dynamic Nearwellbore Reservoir OLGA-ROCX

12

6
 Transient vs. Steady State Solutions

• The weak points of NODAL analysis SS software when

compare with Dynamic (Transient) numerical simulation are:

• Slugging Prediction – terrain induced slugging

• Flow Regime Map – inclination, horizontal flow, etc.
• Black oil
• Use of correlations 1. Steady Flow

• Tubing > 4.5”

• SS conditions only
• Flow assurance
• Start-up / shut-down
• Corrosion
• Chemical injection

13

Potential Problems for Stable Multiphase Flow

Flow Regime Map - Inclination: Horizontal

Measured vs. calculated

SEPARATED

DISTRIBUTED

7
 Potential Problems for Stable Multiphase Flow

Pressure impact on Pressure impact on

Inclination impact on flow regime flow regime
flow regime Vertical flow
Horizontal flow

BUBBLE BUBBLE
BUBBLE

SLUG FLOW

SLUG FLOW 90 bar SLUG FLOW

45 bar

20 bar ANNULAR
Down

Horiz. STRATIFIED

Up STRATIFIED

Slug flow area increases Slug flow area decreases with

with increasing upward increasing pressure
inclination

Transient vs. Steady State Solutions

• The weak points of NODAL analysis SS software when

compare with Dynamic (Transient) numerical simulation are:

• Slugging Prediction – terrain induced slugging

• Flow Regime Map – inclination, horizontal flow, etc.
• Black oil
• Use of correlations 1. Steady Flow

• Tubing > 4.5”

• SS conditions only
• Flow assurance
• Start-up / shut-down
• Corrosion
• Chemical injection

16

8
Multiphase Flow Modeling

• The black-oil method is fast, but not very accurate when

compositional differences must be taken into account -
injection gas lift drier than the production gas

• Black-oil and compositional models differences may

seems, at first glance, not so great, but they play an
important role when different compositions are mixed.

17

Multiphase Flow Modeling

• GAS LIFT WELL – WHT calculations – Compositional vs Black-oil

World Oil -Nov-06

Wellhead temperature varies with Gas Lift injection rate

18

9
 Multiphase Flow Modeling

• WHT calculations – Compositional vs Black-oil

SPE24789

FPSO Arrival Temperatures – Compositional vs Black-oil

19

Well Integrity – WHT-WHP Calculations

• Well Completion Comparison – Monobore vs Big Bore

142

140

138

136
Temperature (deg C)

134 WHT - 7-5/8" M

SSTT - 7-5/8" M
WHT - RTLB
132 SSTT - RTLB

130

128

126

124
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

Monobore vs BigBore WHT – 30/300 MMscfd – 0 WGR

20

10
 Well Integrity – WHT-WHP Calculations

• Well Completion Design – Equipment Pressure Range

and Material Selection
142

141

140
Wellhead Temperature (deg C)

139

138

137

136

135

134

133

132
3500 3700 3900 4100 4300 4500 4700 4900 5100 5300 5500
Wellhead Pressure (psia)

7-5/8” Monobore – 30/300 MMscfd – 0 WGR

21

Well Integrity – WHT-WHP Calculations

• Well Completion Design – Reservoir Depletion – Field

Life Cycle Design
145

140

135

130
6500 Psia
Temperature (deg C)

6000 Psia
125 5500 Psia
5000 Psia
4500 Psia
120 4000 Psia
3500 Psia
3000 Psia
115

110

105

100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

7-5/8” Monobore – 30/300 MMscfd – 0 WGR

22

11
 Transient vs. Steady State Solutions

• The weak points of NODAL analysis SS software when

compare with Dynamic (Transient) numerical simulation are:

• Slugging Prediction – terrain induced slugging

• Flow Regime Map – inclination, horizontal flow, etc.
• Black oil
• Use of correlations 1. Steady Flow

• Tubing > 4.5”

• SS conditions only
• Flow assurance
• Start-up / shut-down
• Corrosion
• Chemical injection

23

Multiphase Flow Correlations

Date Developed Recommend Application

OIL
Poettman and Carpenter 1952
Gilbert 1954
Duns & Ros 1961 Higher rate wells
1962
Winkler & Smith
1965 Slugging wells
Hagedorn & Brown 1967
Orkiszewski 1969
Wallis 1972
Aziz & Govier 1973 0
Flowlines (wells > 70 )
Beggs & BrilI 1974
Chierici et al MMS (Moreland 1978 All wells
Mobil/Shell)
(A modified Duns & Ros Correlation)
DRY GAS 3 6 3
(LGR < 115 m /10 m ) 20 bbl/MMscf
Poettman & Carpenter 1952
Cullender and Smith Equation 1956 No liquid hold-up
1964
Dukler (Non-Slip) No liquid hold-up
Lacroix Equation
(Average temp. and Comp. Method)
Eaton and Dukler 1969
Aziz and Govier 1972
Gray (API 14B) 1974 All wells
Ros/Gray 1978 All Wells
WET GAS 3 6 3
(LGR > (115 m /10 m ) 20 bbl / MMscf
3 6 3
(LGR > (550 m /10 m (100 b/MMScf])
Modified Cullender and Smith Method
1952
Hagedorn and Brown 1965 Slugging wells
Aziz and Govier 1972
Beggs and Brill 1973 Flowlines
Govier and Fogarasi 1975
Gray (API 14B) 1974 All wells
Ros/Gray 1978 All wells
LGR: Liquid Gas Ratio

Condensate should be handled by adjusting gas gravity to an Equivalent

Wellstream Composition or by use of Reservoir Fluid Gravity
24

12
 Transient vs. Steady State Solutions

OLGAS VS Beggs & Brill

7.5" ID 1deg incl
0.80

0.70

0.60
PREDICTED LIQUID HOLDUP

0.50

OLGAS
0.40 Beggs & Brill

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
MEASURED LIQUID HOLDUP

Use of Correlations
25

Transient vs. Steady State Solutions

• The weak points of NODAL analysis SS software when

compare with Dynamic (Transient) numerical simulation are:

• Slugging Prediction – terrain induced slugging

• Flow Regime Map – inclination, horizontal flow, etc.
• Black oil
• Use of correlations 1. Steady Flow

• Tubing > 4.5”

• SS conditions only
• Flow assurance
• Start-up / shut-down
• Corrosion
• Chemical injection

26

13
 Well Flow Dynamics
Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
27

Well Dynamic Simulation

Flow Stability Solutions

• Is the flow going to be stable?

• What’s causing slugging flow?
– Terrain induced? Well horizontal section?
– Upwards-downwards slopes liquid accumulation?
– Low pressure, Rate change? ID changes?
– Riser induced? Low Flow Rate? Low GOR?
– Condensate? Low liquid velocities?
– GL injection? Compressors? Well Interference?
• Where the slugs are originated?
• What’s the size of the slug and frequency?
• How slugging flow can be eliminated/mitigated?
– Tubing size reduction
– Back pressure increase?
– Gas injection? Where? How much? 28

14
Well Dynamic Simulation
Flow Stability Solutions

29

Well Flow Dynamics

Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
30

15
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Water Acummulation / Corrosion Rates Solutions

• Water sampling at surface shows low watercuts

but is there any location in the well or flowline
where watercut is > 20%?
– Upwards-downwards slopes liquid accumulation?
• Is there water condensation? What depth?
• Is water as a film in contact with pipes and
equipment? Where? How long?
• Is corrosion inhibitor being injected? What’s the
concentration along well and flowline?
• Where (location) it is more likely that
corrosion problems may occur?
• Corrosion rates? – Corrosion module
– NORSOK Model
– De Waard 93 and 95 Models
31

Corrosion Modelling

• Three CO2 corrosion models implemented

– NORSOK model
– de Waard 93 model
– de Waard 95 model

• Predict corrosion rates based on

– CO2 partial pressure, Bicarbonate in water concentration,
Ionic strength, Inhibitor efficiency, Glycol concentration,
Option for pH Saturation
– Uses flow velocities, P, T, water wetting, wall shear stresses
calculated by the flow model
– Gives corrosion rates and pH
– The pH is calculated for:
• Condensed water without corrosion products
• Condensed water saturated with iron carbonate
• Formation water with specified bicarbonate content

• Predict corrosion rates along a pipeline

and identify locations where it is more
likely that corrosion problems may occur

32

16
Well Dynamic Simulation
Water Acummulation / Corrosion Rates Solutions

33

Well Flow Dynamics

Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
34

17
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Flow Assurance / Hydrates, Wax Solutions

• How deep from the wellhead the well will

experience hydrates-wax problems? When?
• When the pipe wall temperature falls below WAP
(wax appearance temperature)
• What’s the predicted hydrate dissociation
temperature profile? How far the conditions are Hydrates

from hydrate formation? Where? When?

• What’s the best solution for the well flow
Restart of a shut down line with riser at 23000 m:
DTHYD = Hydrate formation temp. - section temp. in flowline. Positive: Hydrates formed.

assurance problems? 10

– Pressure Control, Temperature Control -10

0 hr
5 min
15 min

DTHYD (°C)
0.5 hr
1 hr
-20
– Remove supply of water -30
2 hr
3 hr
5 hr
7 hr
9 hr

– Hot-cold re-start -40 12 hr

15 hr
30 hr
-50

– Flowline depressurization -60

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Distance from wellheads (m)

– Insulation, inhibitor injection? Where? When?

35

Hydrate Temperature
• Hydrate dissociation Temperature

Restart of a shut down line with riser at 23000 m:

DTHYD = Hydrate formation temp. - section temp. in flowline. Positive: Hydrates formed.

10

0
0 hr
5 min
-10 15 min
DTHYD (°C)

0.5 hr
1 hr
-20 2 hr
3 hr

-30 5 hr
7 hr
9 hr
-40 12 hr
15 hr
30 hr
-50

-60
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Distance from wellheads (m)
Hydrate formation when re-starting a cooled down line
36

18
 Hydrate control
• Insulation (passive thermal control)
– Used for tie-ins and short to medium pipelines
– Not usual for long gas-condensate lines
• Bundles (active thermal control)
– Complex bundles used for deep off-shore.
– Generally used for risers, tie-ins and short to
medium pipelines
• Inhibition
– Typical for gas-condensate systems
– Used for oil systems at critical points
(e.g well-heads) and during critical operational
phases shut-in-cool-down-start-up).

37

Hydrate curves

Hydrate curves - Gas-Condensate with WC 10%

200
180
160
140
120
P (bara)

100 20 % MeOH
80
60
20 % MEG
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T (C)

38

19
 MEG Tracking Modelling

• Tracks MEG (Glycol) in the well/pipeline to ensure enough

is available for inhibition purposes
• Mass balance equation for MEG
• Aqueous phase density and viscosity are influenced
• MEG is both in water and gas phase
• MEG can be injected at desired locations
• Gives Hydrate curves- Gas-Condensate with WC 10%

– MEG concentration
200
along well / flowline
– Time to reach
P (bara) 150
a desired 100 0 MEG

MEG concentration 50
10 % MEG
30 % MEG
40 % MEG

0
0 10 20 30
39
T (C)

Wax Deposition Modelling

• Prediction of wax deposition rates in wells and pipelines

When pipe wall temperature falls below WAP (wax appearance
temperature)
• Effects
Increased roughness
Decreased diameter
Increased apparent viscosity of the oil phase with precipitated solid
wax particles
• Predict the need of:
Pigging - wax removal
Thermal insulation
Active heating
Chemical injection

40

20
 Wax - Definitions

• Paraffins with C20+ (n-paraffin, iso-paraffin, cyclic-

paraffin)

• Slightly soluble

• Solubility decreases with chain

length

• Cloud point (WAP)

– Temperature at which crystals begin to form and separate
from the oil
– Measurement is method sensitive (> 25°F; typically 5°F)

• Pour Point
– The lowest temperature at which oil can be handled
without excessive amounts of wax crystals forming out of
solution.
41

What can be done with the OLGA Wax Module?

1. Perform a Material Balance of Wax Components

• Wax in Dissolved oil

• Precipitated Wax Suspended in Oil
• Precipitated Wax Deposited on Walls

2. Describe the Dynamics of Wax Formation/Dissipation

• Wax Precipitation
• Molecular Diffusion and Shear Transport
• Wax Melting

42

21
What can be done with the OLGA Wax Module?

1. Perform a Material Balance of Wax Components

2. Describe the Dynamics of Wax Formation/Dissipation

3. Estimate the Effect on the Hydraulics and Heat Transfer

of the System

• Pressure drop affected by a reduced diameter

• Wax deposited act as an insulator

4. Pigging for Wax Removal

43

Wax Modeling Concepts

WAT
Dissolved wax Pour Point

44

22
 Wax Modeling Concepts: WAT

WAT
Pour Point
•Wax crystals start appearing
•Uncertainty of measurements of WAT (Wax
Appearance Temperature) is within +/- 5 F

45

Wax Modeling Concepts: Deposition

WAT
Pour Point

Deposition in the walls occurs due to:

a) Molecular Diffusion (Dominant)
b) Shear Deposition

46

23
 Wax Modeling Concepts: Molecular Diffusion

Tbulk

Deposition

Twall
Twall < Tbulk and Twall < WAT
Dissolved wax is transported to the wall
and precipitates instantaneously

47

Wax Modeling Concepts: Molecular Diffusion

Deposition

• Diffusion is driven by concentration differences

between the bulk and the wall

• Diffusion is the limiting process in the wax

deposition rate (rather than precipitation)

48

24
 Wax Modeling Concepts: Shear Deposition

Shear would transport already

precipitated wax particles to the wall

49

Wax Modeling Concepts

Melting/Dissolution T

WDT
WAT
• If the Wax Dissolution Temperature
Pour Point
(WDT) is reached, the wax layer will
melt
• The melting rate is governed by
diffusion
• Can be limited by a user-given
kinetic parameter

50

25
 Wax Deposition
Wax deposition rate for two crudes

140

D if f u s io n d e p o s it io n ra t e
120 KNK crude

100 Bombay high crude

( k g /m 3 E - 0 6 )
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature (C)
• Two crudes differences below 30 Deg. C

• Measurements/experiments with similar fluids can be of vital

importance to the system behaviour.

• Wax occurs in two forms. Dissolved in oil (liquid) and dispersed

in oil (solid)

Viscosity
Temperature and shear rate

Viscosity of stabilized crude as a function of

temperature and shear rate

450
400 New tonian
350 30 s-1
Visco sity (CP)

300
250 100 s-1
200 300 s-1
150 500 s-1
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Temperature (C)

• Lower velocity => higher viscosity

• Newtonian (viscosity independent of shear rate) above 40
Deg. C
• Newtonian flow can be a very wrong assumptions at low
temperatures

26
 Wax Deposition

• System must be cooling for deposition (i.e. The wall

temperature must be below the bulk fluid temperature)

• Deposition rate depends on

– Cooling rate
– Precipitation

• Controlled effectively by insulation

• Inhibitors
– Slow down deposition by up to 5x
– Wax deposits are softer
– Pigging frequency is reduced
– Does not prevent deposition

53

Deposition Models used in OLGA

Model Experience
• Tends to under predict wax deposition for single-
1. RRR (Rygg, phase systems
Rydahl & • Good agreement for multiphase oil systems
Rønningsen) • Somewhat conservative for gas condensate
systems

• Performs better than RRR for single phase oil systems

2. HEATANALOGY • Indications of highly conservative results for gas
condensate systems

• Has been tuned to data from a test rig for

3. MATZAIN conducting paraffin deposition tests

54

27
 Well Flow Dynamics
Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
55

Well Dynamic Simulation

Artificial Lift Design and Production Optimisation Solutions

• Is GL injection stable?
– Annular heading? GLV choke size? Compressors?
– Density wave instability? Reservoir? Horizontal well?
– Multi GLV design? Single injection point?
– Deepwater GL injection line? Liquid injection?
– Riser instability? Riser GL?
– Optimum amount of gas lift gas?
– GL Well unloading? Compositional tracking?
• Which are the flow conditions at ESP depth?
• Slug Size (free gas volume)? Slug frequency?
• Optimum setting depth to improve pump Ev?
• Optimum pump size to improve pump Ev?
• Liner-Tubing-Casing optimum ID?
• Optimum ESP design & operating conditions? 56

28
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Artificial Lift Design and Production Optimisation Solutions

• Is GL injection stable?
– Annular heading? GLV choke size? Compressors?
– Density wave instability? Reservoir? Horizontal well?
– Multi GLV design? Single injection point?
– Deepwater GL injection line? Liquid injection?
– Riser instability? Riser GL?
– Optimum amount of gas lift gas?
– GL Well unloading? Compositional tracking?
• Which are the flow conditions at ESP depth?
• Slug Size (free gas volume)? Slug frequency?
• Optimum setting depth to improve pump Ev?
• Optimum pump size to improve pump Ev?
• Liner-Tubing-Casing optimum ID?
• Optimum ESP design & operating conditions? 57

Gas List Stability - Applications

• Conventional Gas Lift Systems (with GLVs)
– Gas lift unloading process
– Continuous and Intermittent Gas Lift systems

• One Injection Point Gas Lift

– to unload (clean-up) wells
– to kick-off production
– Interventionless Continuous GL
– to reduce / avoid slugging

• Riser Gas Lift

• Dry Gas Injection
– Liquid condensation in GL injection flowline could
not only cause erosion of GLVs but reduce the GL
efficiency by injecting also fluids – unplanned GLR

58

29
 Gas Lift Well Stability

• Conventional Design (unloading valves) - the well instability is

dampened due to multi-point injection.

• Single point system (orifice) - there is a minimum surface injection

rate required for the orifice to maintain sufficient annular
backpressure (i.e. casing pressure consistently higher than the
flowing tubing pressure) for continuous downhole gas injection.

• This minimum injection rate is a function of orifice size and flowing

tubing pressure (wellhead pressure, PI, reservoir pressure, watercut, etc)

59

Interaction Between Downhole & Surface Orifice

If g a s in je ctio n is n o t critica l...

ٛ C a s in g he a d in g m a y
happen
ٛ T o th o ro u gh ly e lim in a te
ca sin g h e a d in g, m a ke the
g a s in jectio n critica l

60

30
 Interaction Between Downhole & Surface Orifice

Is the well unconditionally stable if gas

injection is critical?

Replace the orifice

with a venturi

61

Density Wave InstabilityBecause the gas-injection rate is constant,

any variation in liquid inflow into the
wellbore will result in a density change in
the two-phase mixture in the tubing. The
-6
Stability map (L=2500m, PI=4e mixture-density
kg/s/Pa, Psep=10bara, 100% choke change results in a
opening, ID=0.125m)
change in the hydrostatic pressure drop.
1,25 The mixture-density change travels along
1,20
the tubing as a density wave.
1,15
1,10
1,05
1,00
0,95
0,90
Density wave instability can occur!
0,85
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

0,80
0,75
0,70 ٛ Increasing reservoir pressure and gas
0,65
0,60
injection rate increases stability.
0,55
0,50
ٛ Increasing well depth, tubing diameter,
0,45 PI and system pressure decreases
0,40
0,35
stability
0,30 ٛ Instability occurs only when
0,25
0,20 PR − Psep
0,15 <1
0,10 ρ l gL
0,05
0,00
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310
PR-Psep (bar)
SPE 84917

Two-phase vertical flow under gravity domination often is unstable, particularly in gas lift wells.

62

31
 Typical Gas Lift Well Optimisation

Modelling concerns:

a) Cause of Unstable Flow

Tubing b) Annular Flow

c) Heat Transfer

d) Non-constant Composition in
Tubing above Injection Point
Casing
e) Injecting dry gas?

Gas Lift is clearly a transient problem

Production
NODAL analysis do not capture the transients
that inevitably occur in an operating GL well

63

Well Dynamic Simulation

Artificial Lift Design and Production Optimisation Solutions

• Is GL injection stable?
– Annular heading? GLV choke size? Compressors?
– Density wave instability? Reservoir? Horizontal well?
– Multi GLV design? Single injection point?
– Deepwater GL injection line? Liquid injection?
– Riser instability? Riser GL?
– Optimum amount of gas lift gas?
– GL Well unloading? Compositional tracking?
• Which are the flow conditions at ESP depth?
• Slug Size (free gas volume)? Slug frequency?
• Optimum setting depth to improve pump Ev?
• Optimum pump size to improve pump Ev?
• Liner-Tubing-Casing optimum ID?
• Optimum ESP design & operating conditions? 64

32
 ESP – Design/Performance Optimisation
Pump Efficiency – Gas Locking

Impact of Flow Regime on ESPs

OLGA is a powerful tool for establish the impact of transient flow conditions on ESPs,
reduce operational downtime and improve ESP Completion design
Problem
• Slugs led to frequent shutdowns due to the intermittent gas and liquid slugs.
• Very difficult to model gas and liquid slugs with normal steady state models.

Using Olga
• Using Olga to model transient flow.
• Can also see slugs on amp charts.
• Have determined “classes” of problems:
o Slug dominated production
o Free gas dominated production.
Operational Strategies
• Using VSD’s to slow pump when gas slug hits
• VSD varies frequency to stabilize amp chart
• Using combinations of gas separators/gas handlers, which they refer to as “fluid conditioners.”
• Concerning well testing, need to measure the actual production rates vs. time, not just the
average daily production rate, to evaluate the slugging problems.
• Able to influence the drilling process to produce well bores that are more “friendly” for
production.
Reduced downtime by about 50%.
Able to control the VSD based on the amps being drawn by the motor.
Using an “auto orienting” pump intake, to place the intake on one side of the wellbore.

SPE 49160 SPE 84134

66

33
Well Flow Dynamics
Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
67

Well Dynamic Simulation

Shut-in/Start-up Watercut Limit Solutions 1. Steady Flow

What’s the the watercut limit for which the

well will not kick off after a shut-in? Any
future kick-off problems? When liquid loading
will kill the well? When GL injection is
required?
– GL will be required at some time in the future in order to kick-off the wells
– Wells will encounter kick-off problems at a lower watercut than their their
natural flow limit
– Determining the kick-off limits is a key issue for determining the optimum
gas lift implementation schedule
• The installation cost of a GL system to support the kick-off of the well
is high and deferring this expenditure is of high NPV ($MM).
• On the other hand, the inability to kick-off the well has a high impact
cost in terms of deferred production ($100MM). Wanaea #7 - FTHP = 700 psia

70

– Wc limits may increase with increasing Preservoir 60

52
62

– Wc limits are more sensitive to FTHP and PI. 50

44
Watercut [%]

38
40 36

• The matrix of results (dynamic sensitivity runs) 30 28

24
32

will determine at what point in the future the well 20

10

will need GL to overcome the impact of fluid 10

0
0

segregation on kick-off (and optimum GL volume) 68

2700 2900 3100 3300
Reservoir pressure [psia]
3500 3700

Steady state Kick-off

34
 Well Flow Dynamics
Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
69

Well Dynamic Simulation

Crossflow / Commingling Fluids Solutions

• Is there any crossflow between Zone 1

productive layers at static conditions? Shale

Gas
Perforations

While producing? During shut-in?

Oil
• Are very different fluids merging? Water
Shale
(multi-lateral, multi-layer completions)
Zone 3
• Is compositional tracking required? Cross Flow
(potential)

• Are there significant T-P differences

between bottom and top layers?
• What will be the WHT effect if the hotter
bottom layer production is favoured?
• What will be the fluid composition and
P-T resulting from different production
rates, Wc and GOR, from each layers?
(smart wells)
70

35
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Horizontal Wells / Smart Wells Solutions

• What’s the effect of water accumulations on the

slugging flow conditions?
• What’s the effect of multiple production zones
on the total oil/gas/water rates?
High GOR from heel? High Wc from toe?
– Reasonable number of inflow points required
– Matching production logs and DST
– Gas/Water sources (Gas/Water coning)
• What ICV opening combination will provide the 1.0

0.9

0.8

best clean-up/unloading results? 0.7

ICV opening (-)

0.6

0.5

•
0.4

What ICV opening combination will provide the 0.3

0.2

0.1

best total production optimisation results? 0.0

1 2 3 4 5
ICV ID
6 7 8 9 10

• What completion design will provide the

best clean-up and total oil rate?
71

Well Flow Dynamics

Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
72

36
 Well Dynamic Simulation
WAG Injection Solutions

• Gas is injected at the well head with a

much higher pressure than water to
keep the BHIP constant
• Bullhead displacement with high E nd c as ing

pressure pump? Res ervoir z one

• Is the fromation fracture pressure

Deeps et plug
exeeded? E nd tubing

• Is possible to vent the tubing to below

water injection pressure? with and
without a deepset check valve?
• Should resting be performed between
bullheading and venting?
• Is the completion design capturing a
gas pocket?
73

Well Flow Dynamics

Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
74

37
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Well Clean-up and Kick-off Solutions

• What’s the minimum rate required to clean-up

the well? How long is going to take?
• Clean-up to the MODU or to the FPSO?
• Can we unload the well to a production fluid
filled line? Would GL be necessary?
• Dewatering/Gas Lifting only the riser would
solve the problem?
• An ESD at max fluid density (well/riser) would
create unloading problems when restarting?
• What’ the effect of multi-layers inflow?
• What’s the worst case scenario?
• What completion design will provide the
best clean-up?
75

Well Dynamic Simulation

Well Clean-up and Kick-off Solutions

5 MMscfd – Purple
10 MMscfd – Light Blue
15 MMscfd – Green
20 MMscfd – Black
25 MMscfd – Blue
5 MMscfd – Red
Dowhnole shut-in at 60 min
Surface shut-in at 65 minutes

Gas Arrival Times vs. Gas Rate

76

38
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Well Clean-up and Kick-off Solutions

5 MMscfd – Purple
10 MMscfd – Light Blue
15 MMscfd – Green
20 MMscfd – Black
25 MMscfd – Blue
5 MMscfd – Red
Dowhnole shut-in at 60 min
Surface shut-in at 65 minutes

Brine Arrival Times vs. Gas Rate

77

Well Dynamic Simulation

Well Clean-up and Kick-off Solutions

7" x Tree ⊕⊕
W/Hd &
SCSSV
7
CRA 30"
O

20"
9-5/8
CRA

7-5/8
CRA

13-3.8"

9-5/8" CRA

7" CRA

78

39
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Well Testing Solutions

• What’s the optimum well testing unit size to

handle the clean-up and well test schedule?
– Validation of standard size saves $MM
– Ensure accurate test data collection
– Optimise rig usage and budget estimates
– Potential saving of USD 600,000/d
– Environmental & Safety hazards minimisation
– Equipment/Formation damage risk minimisation
– Virtual well for personnel training
• Is well clean-up completed when starting fluid
sampling? Gas/Brine arrival time (choke size)?
• Is the well at SS prior to a choke size change
for the planned rate schedule?
– Segregation/Afterflow/Wellbore storage effects
– ESD/LCM effects on clean-up & testing program 79

Well Dynamic Simulation

Well Testing Solutions

80

40
Well Dynamic Simulation
Well Testing Solutions

81

Well Clean-up – Gas Lift

Production Well Clean-up Schedule – Gas Lift

When using gas lift (300 scf/min of N2 during the first 4 hours), it took approximately 4.3 hours
to clean-up the well.
82

41
 WHP Comparison

Well Dynamic Simulation 4000

3500
1

0.9

The Virtual Gauge 3000

0.8

0.7

Choke Opening (fraction)

2500
0.6

Pressure (psia)
2000 0.5

•
Pressure (Measured)

OLGA Model is validated using 1500

Pressure1
Pressure2
Reservoir9-ch6-wc
Relative Valve Opening
0.4

0.3
1000

measured surface data from well test

0.2

500
0.1

0 0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0

• From surface data the bottomhole Time (minutes)

flowing conditions can be calculated

– Virtual gauge
– Enhanced data for well test analysis
• During start-up BHPs tend to be > than
calculated due to the gradual reservoir
pressurization effect in the well vicinity
• During well shut-down the BHPs trends
respond slower than calculated
• Mechanical and non-Darcy skin can
significaly change with time
– Quasi-dynamic reservoir explicit input
83
– k-h, S, n-D S timeseries

The Virtual Gauge - Well Testing

OLGA Coupling Options

The interaction between the nearwellbore reservoir and the well can
play a dominant role in the description of the dynamic behaviour of
the complete system

OLGA Multiphase Flow Transient OLGA Multiphase Flow Transient OLGA Multiphase Flow Transient
Simulator Simulator Simulator

Q (t) P (t) Q (t) P (t) Q (t) P (t)

Steady-State Reservoir Quasi-Dynamic Reservoir Transient Reservoir Model

Parameters Explicit Input Parameters Explicit Input ROCX

84

42
 The Virtual Gauge - Well Testing
OLGA Quasi-dynamic Reservoir Input

The benefits of the OLGA quasi-dynamic reservoir input are:

• No software connectivity requirements

– faster runs
– key variables value range quicker defined
– less sensitivity runs

• The analyst will be in better position to:

– define the value of using nearwellbore
– define key variables and the value range

In some cases, OLGA can be adequate to model the well

from the reservoir to facilities with no connection to other
software (Hysis, Rocx, etc.)

85

The Virtual Gauge - Well Testing

DST Dynamic Simulation Upstream P-T Separator P-T

Pwh Ps Ts
Twg

Surface Choke
• Improved DST measurements Test Manifold
Closed

– Tester valve closing effects

– Choke valve opening effects
– Whole flowing period in a DST
– Transient Hold-up modelling
– In-situ fluid density Packer
Tester Valve closed Downhole Choke effects

– Phase segregation Opening - Closing Test Valve

– Phase redistribution in Build-up

– Flow reversal Gauge

–
Pg Tg Bottomhole P-T measurements
Gas expansion effect
– After-flow effect
Gauge P correction
ΔP=ρgh
in-situ density Flowing bottomhole P-T

Formation Top

Pwf Pr Tr
Twf Datum

Formation Bottom

Initial Reservoir P-T

Rathole
86

43
 The Virtual Gauge - Well Testing
DST Simulation – Build-up Test (Surface Shut-in)
Closed Wellhead

• Surface shut-in Gas

• Dowhhole Shut-in
Rising Bubbles Expanding

Phase Segregation

Reverse Flow Driven by Gas Expansion

Gas Free Liquid

Qgf

87

The Virtual Gauge - Well Testing

DST Simulation – Build-up Test (Surface Shut-in)

Upstream P-T Separator P-T

Pwh Ps Ts
Twg

Surface Choke
Test Manifold
Diesel Closed

Completion Mud

Packer
Tester Valve open Downhole Choke effects
Opening - Closing Test Valve

Gauge
Pg Tg Bottomhole P-T measurements

Gauge P correction
ΔP=ρgh
in-situ density Flowing bottomhole P-T

Formation Top

Pwf Pr Tr
Twf
Datum

Formation Bottom

Initial Reservoir P-T

Rathole

88

44
 The Virtual Gauge - Well Testing
DST Simulation - Well Test Data

• Surface Flow rates @ SS and continuous P-T

• Surface and Dowhhole P-T
Measured and Matched
Qwh(t) Pwh(t)

Wellhead

OLGA Multiphase Flow Transient

Simulator

Gauge

Qg (t) Pg (t)

nflow Point

Qfbh(t) Pfbh(t)
89

Well Dynamic Simulation

The Virtual Multiphase Downhole Meter

• OLGA Model is validated using test input & results

(surface & subsurface)
• From surface P-T-Rate & subsurface P-T the flowing downhole
G-O-W rates can be validated Reservoir model

– Virtual downhole multiphase meter

– Enhanced data for well test analysis
– Deconvolution techniques
• The interaction between the well and
Annulus

nearwellbore have to be considered Tubing

– Start-up: BHPs tend to be > than calculated due to the

gradual reservoir pressurization effect in the well vicinity
– Shut-in: BHPs trends respond slower than calculated
• Quasi-dynamic reservoir explicit input (k-h, S, n-D S timeseries)
• Nearwellbore dynamic simulator – OLGA-ROCX
90

45
 The Virtual Gauge - Well Testing
DST Simulation - Well Test Data

• Multi-rate test and surface shu-in build-up

– Measured downhole gauge pressure – Blue
– Calculated by OLGA – Yellow

6000

5950
Pressure (psia)

5900

5850

5800
800 1300 1800 2300 2800 3300 3800 4300
Time (minutes)

Downhole Gauge Pressure Matching using quasi-dynamic reservoir input

91

Well Flow Dynamics

Production / Injection Wells
• Flow Stability / Minimum stable flow rates / Slug Mitigation
– Tubing sizing / Production Optimisation
• Water accumulation / Corrosion rates
– Material selection / contact time of water as film
• Flow assurance, Wax , Hydrates
– Location of SCSSV
– MeOH / Glycol requirements

• Artificial Lift design and optimisation

– Gas Lift injection / Unloading / Compressors shut-down
– ESP sizing

• Shut-in/Start-up – Watercut Limit

• Liquid loading/unloading
• Crossflow / Commingling Fluids
– Multiple completions / Multilateral Wells / Smart Wells

• WAG - water alternating gas injection

• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
– Wellbore Storage effects / Segregation effects

• Well Control and Workovers Evaluation

– Blowouts, Bullheading, etc.
92

46
 Well Dynamic Simulation
Well Control and Workovers Solutions

• Workover Program Validation

– Predict results from different options
– Ensure optimum option is performed
– Optimise rig usage and budget estimates
– Environmental & Safety hazards minimisation
– Equipment/Formation damage risk minimisation
– Virtual well for personnel training
• Top kill through drillpipe or tubing
• Relief well kill operations
• Bullheading operations
• Underground blowouts
• Combination kill / two or more pump paths
• Leaks and cross flow simulations
93
SPE 17254

Well Dynamic Simulation

Drilling Solutions

• Dynamic response anywhere (pressure, flow) and

system behaviour in critical situations:
• Moving from overbalanced to UBD conditions
• Circulation
• Blowdown
• Drilling
• Tripping
• Connection making
• Variations in reservoir inflow
• Review op. procedures
• Train personnel,
improve understanding

94

47
 What We Need to Know About
Dynamic Simulation

• Well Dynamic Simulation Characteristics

• OLGA Advanced Well Module
• Nodal vs Dynamic Simulation
• Horizontal wells
• Smart Wells
• Gas Lift
• Watercut Limit
• ESP
• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
• The Virtual Gauge
• Integrated Modelling
• Real-Time Production Management
• Summary and Economic Drivers
95

Integrated Modelling Application

All-in-One Gas Lift Example
Reservoir-Well-GL-Flowline-Riser-Separator-Facilities

ID=8-in,
Gas Lift Depth=120 m

ID=8-in, Length=4.6 km

Annulus
ID=0.2159 m

PC
Depth=2840 m

Gas
Outlet
PCV
ID=2 m, Length=6 m
W1 W2 W3 W4 NLL=0.842 m LC
HHLL=1.687
Tubing ID=0.1143 m LLLL=0.315
Production
Separator Liquid
Riser Outlet
• Quasi-dynamic Reservoir: LCV

incorporated explicitly Emergency Emergency

Liquid
Drain
• Facilities: Simple model Valve Outlet

96

48
 Integrated Modelling Application
Gas Lift Example
Reservoir-Well-GL-Flowline-Riser-Separator-Facilities
Gas rate

97

What We Need to Know About

Dynamic Simulation

• Well Dynamic Simulation Characteristics

• OLGA Advanced Well Module
• Nodal vs Dynamic Simulation
• Horizontal wells
• Smart Wells
• Gas Lift
• Watercut Limit
• ESP
• Well Clean-up
• Well Testing
• The Virtual Gauge
• Integrated Modelling
• Real-Time Production Management
• Summary and Economic Drivers
98

49
 e-DPM
Real-Time Solutions (using APIS)

1) Minimise downtime

2) Minimise blockages risk

- hydrates

3) Enable better management strategies

4) Enhance Operability

5) Inhibitor Management

6) Slug Monitoring and tracking

7) Optimise gas allocation

8) Automatic control of unstable GL wells WO March 03

99

OLGA Value Chain through the field life

Extend- Abandon-
Discovery Development Production / Optimization / Modifications
Production ment

DELIVERABLES / VALUE
Feasibility
Design / Engineering
Max Operational window
Operating Phil.
Procedures
Operator Training
Production Optimization
Monitoring
Training
Modifications
MODELING TOOLS
OLGA Engineering tool
OLGA models
I

Integrated Engineering Simulator

OLGA models

OTS Operator Training Simulator

OLGA models

PMS Production Monitoring System

OLGA models

EVOLUTION OF OLGA MODELS

Estimations Accuracy & Speed Tuned to Field data Historical database 100

50
 Economic Drivers
Huge savings and risk minimisation

• High NPV ($MM) costs can de deferred (defer GL injection) without

compromising production deferrals (well dead with no rig nearby)
• Production referrals caused by the inability to kick-off wells back
to production can be avoid, eliminating the high impact cost in
terms of deferred production ($100MM)
• Gas Lift requirements can be
determined far in advanced
• Optimal use can be made of limited GL
• Minimum requirements of GL can be
determined
• ESP design (size and setting depth)
can be optimised
• Optimal well completion design can be
defined ahead of capital commitments
• Optimal well completion can be design
for the field life cycle ($100MM cost)
101

Economic Drivers
Huge savings and risk minimisation

• Clean-up process can be proven before commissioning

• Well Kick-off process can be proven before commissioning
• Advantages of Clean-up to MODU or to FPSO can be proven
• Gas Lift (clean-up) requirements can be proven far in advanced
• Well test times can be defined
before deployment
• Size of Test Equipment Package
can be determined far in advanced
• Model can be used as a virtual gauge
to estimate downhole P-T
• Risk & uncertanty, safety hazards and
environmental impact is minimised

102

51
 Conclusions
• Technical, operational and HSE
integrity during design &
operation of production system
• Overall CAPEX and OPEX
effectiveness + Production and
Profit Optimisation

• What’s the cost of a well?

– USD$ 100,000,000

• What’s the cost of a workover?

– USD$ 8,000,000

• What’s the cost of a rig?

– USD$ 600,000/day

• What’s the cost of a human life or an environmental damage?

– Priceless

Can you afford not to implement OLGA-for-Wells? ☺

103

be dynamic

Thank You! Any Questions? 104

52