Compositional Modelling

Compositional Modeling

• Uses “Multiflash”
• Equation of state modeling
• Used for volatile or gas condensate systems
• Includes hydrate
• Phase envelopes

Will be discussed in the gas wells modeling.

Flow Correlations
 Flow Correlations

• Flow correlations (Experience, history matching,

types of correlations, matching with measured data
with old versions …………)

• Adjusting of heat transfer factor in old versions)

 Output data
• What is the difference between P/T profiles and
Nodal analysis operations?

• What the requirement to perform Nodal analysis

operation?

• What is node and how many nodes in the system?

• What is the system boundaries?

 Pressure/Temperature Profile
• Compute the pressure and temperature profile for a
system and also vary some other parameters within
system
• Enter sensitivity variable
• Enter boundary conditions
• Resulting PSPLOT shows pressure or temperature
against depth (well) or elevation (flow line).
• Can plot measured data also.
 System analysis
• Set up multiple sensitivity operation.

• Set up System Analysis Plot :

– Specify calculated variable.
– Select X axis variable.
– Select any number of sensitivity variables (Z-axis
variables).
 Nodal analysis
• Classical nodal analysis at any point (insert NA point
in the model).

• Break the system into two and compute the inflow

and outflow around that point.

• Resulting PLOT shows the classical inflow/outflow

curves.
P/T Profile
Output Chart
 Questions
• What is the meaning of the previous profile?

• Could you draw different profiles to different wells

(natural flow well, gas lift well, ESP well)?
 Questions
• What is the main (unknown) factors that will effect in
matching:
• IPR factors : P.R, P.I, GOR, W.C, Fluid properties,….
• VLP factors : GLR, Tubing size, WHP, Roughness,…….
Sensitizing on the Well PI to Match
Well Performance
Analyze Water Cut Sensitivity
 Exercise
Exercise No1:
• Input data are
• Apply these rules on software.

Exercise No2:
• ESP design and troubleshooting.
Task 1: Build the Well Model
 Casing Catalogs
• In the Casing catalog, go to the Outside Diameter
(OD) column and select Greater than from the
option list and type in a value of eight (8) in the text
field to filter the catalog to display only casings with
an OD greater than 8 in, as next.
Add Tubing
 Deviation survey
• On the Deviation survey tab, change the Survey type
to 2D. Make sure the Angle is selected as the
Dependent parameter, then enter the MD and TVD
values for a 2D survey
Heat Transfer
 Completions tab
• Note: The IPR plot will not display because no fluid
has been defined yet.
Fluid model
 Notes
• The dynamic well schematic diagram on the left
represents the wellbore configuration up to this
point. The green flow lines represent fluid flow
paths. The current well configuration indicates a dual
flow path, supporting the simultaneous flow of fluid
up the tubing and annulus.
 Notes
• In the next step, you will restrict fluid flow to the
tubing only, by adding a packer. You will end up with
the well schematic on the right.

• On the Down hole equipment tab, add a Packer at

8,500 ft to prevent flow up the annulus between the
tubing and casing.
 Choose the flow correlation

• On the Home tab, select Simulation settings and

ensure that the Hagedorn-Brown correlation for
vertical multiphase flow and the Beggs & Brill
Revised correlation for horizontal multiphase flow,
are selected.
Perform a NODAL Analysis
 Generate a Pressure/Temperature
Profile
• The Nodal Analysis task generates System plots,
which are displayed on the System results tab, and
Profile plots for each operating point, which are
displayed on the Profile results tab.

• However, you can also generate profile plots using

the P/T Profile (Pressure/Temperature) task.
 Generate a Pressure/Temperature
Profile

• The advantage of the P/T Profile task over the

Nodal analysis task for this purpose, is that you may
calculate boundary pressures by supplying a rate.
 Notes
• Inlet and outlet pressure always refer to the
boundaries of the system. In this case, the inlet
pressure is the reservoir pressure, while the outlet
pressure corresponds to the wellhead pressure.

• The inlet pressure is automatically populated from

the completion or source level, while the outlet
pressure is always specified manually within the task.
Fluid Calibration
The fluid model is now calibrated
Sensitizing on the Well PI to Match
Well Performance
1. Launch the P/T profile task from the Home tab.
2. Select Custom as the Calculated Variable.
3. Choose Completion as the Object from the options
list.
4. Choose Liquid PI as the Variable from the options list
and enter a range of 5 to 10 stb/d.psi.
Sensitizing on the Well PI to Match
Well Performance
5. Leave the Proportionality set to the default, Direct.
Make sure the inlet and wellhead
pressures are still set to 3600 psi and 300 psi
respectively.
Sensitizing on the Well PI to Match
Well Performance
6. Enter the well test rate of 9000 stb/d as the Liquid
flow rate.
7.Click Run to launch the task. Determine the Liquid PI
value that matches the well test results and compare it
to the answer(P.I 9.375 stb/d/psi).
8. Update the PI value in the Completion tab of the well
with the new matched value.
9. Rerun the Nodal analysis task to determine the new
AOFP of the well.
 Analyze Water Cut Sensitivity
• Select System analysis from the Home tab.
• Select Liquid flow rate as the Calculated variable and
enter 300 psi as the Outlet Pressure (the required
minimum wellhead pressure).
• For the X-Axis , select Completion as the object, and
Water cut as the variable.
• Click Range to open the dialog box and configure
water cut values of 40% to 80% in increments of 5%.
 Analyze Water Cut Sensitivity
• Run the task to generate a plot of calculated liquid
rate vs. water cut. You will notice that the plot
terminates at 70% and not the maximum water cut
value of 80% that was entered.
• This is the hydraulic limit for this well. Beyond a
water cut of approximately 70%, the well will be
unable to flow naturally and dies.
• Rerun the System analysis task using more closely
spaced water cut sensitivity values(between 70% and
75%), to narrow in on a more exact value of the
water cut limit.
 Nodal Analysis Approach
• Launch the Nodal analysis task.
• Click the Sensitivities tab and select Completion as
the Inflow Sensitivity object.
• Select Water cut as the sensitivity variable and enter
a range of water cuts from 40 % to 80 % in
increments of 5 % (follow the same procedure as in
the previous System analysis task).
 Nodal Analysis approach
• Run the task and identify the water cut limit for the
well in the Systems plot. You will notice that similar
to the System analysis task, there are no Outflow
curves for water cuts greater than 70%, confirming
that this is the water cut limit for this well to flow
naturally.
 Notes
You can zoom in on an area of interest in a plot by
using your mouse to draw a rectangle over it starting
from the top-left to the bottom-right, as indicated in
the figure below. Do the reverse to un-zoom the plot.
 Evaluate Gas Lift Performance
• It has been established that the well will "die" or
stop flowing when the critical water cut limit of 71%
is reached.

• Click the Artificial lift tab of the Well editor and a Gas
lift injection point at 8000 ft.
 Evaluate Gas Lift Performance
• Launch the System analysis task. Delete the previous
water cut sensitivity values. Reconfigure the task to
calculate Liquid flow rate as a function of the
permuted variables; Gas lift injection rate on the X-
axis, and Water cut as shown in the figure below.

• Enter a range from 0 to 10 mmscf/d in 0.5 mmscf/d

increments for the gas lift injection rate, and water
cut values of 10%, 40% and 70%.
 Model Multiple Completions
• On the Artificial lift tab of the Well editor, delete or
deactivate the Gas lift injection point.

• On the Completions tab, add a second, shallower

completion at a depth of 8000 ft MD.

• For this upper gas zone, there is enough data

available to use the Darcy Pseudo-steady state
equation. Enter the following IPR data in the
Reservoir and Skin tabs
 Model Multiple Completions
• Click the Fluid model tab for the upper zone and
create a new fluid using the Dry gas template. Leave
all the default values for this template
 Model Multiple Completions
• You will observe that the well schematic diagram has
automatically been updated to reflect the new upper
zone completion that was added. However, the flow
path lines have now turned red, indicating that the
well is unsolvable in its current state.

• To resolve this problem, from the Down-hole

equipment tab, add a packer at 7000 ft. and then
add a sliding sleeve at 8000 ft. Make sure you check
the Active box for the sliding sleeve.
 Model Multiple Completions
• The equipment you just added ensures that the flow
from the upper zone is directed into the tubing
through the open sliding sleeve.

• To analyze the effect of perforating the upper zone

(compared with gas lift injection), run a P/T Profile
task to calculate the liquid flow rate with a water cut
of 10 % from the lower oil completion.
 Model Multiple Completions
• Note: The problem with self-lifting the well, as compared to
gas lift injection is; if there is no flow control valve, there will
be no way to regulate the amount of gas from the upper zone.
This ability to regulate the flow will be critical to optimize the
production rate, as conditions change in the well.
Model a Downhole Choke
 Model a Downhole Choke
• Launch the System analysis task and delete all the
previous sensitivity values.
• Select Liquid flow rate as the Calculated Variable.
• Select Choke as the sensitivity object and Bean size
(the orifice size) as the sensitivity variable on the X-
axis.
• Enter a range of bean sizes from 0.5 to 3.5 inches in
0.25 inch increments and run.
• You should get the next plot
 Steps and Example of PVT
Calibration

• Apply the PVT data calibration on the oil well

Example and see the effect.
Flow Correlation Selection And
SFPT Surveys
 Pressure temperature surveys
Design, Operation and Analysis
• Review a SFPT and PBU survey program and detailed
steps.

• Flowing survey:
1- to have the flowing gradient of the well for matching.
2- check point of injection for the gas lift wells.
3- measure Pwf at specific rate to measure the
productivity index.
 Pressure temperature surveys
Design, Operation and Analysis
• Static survey:
1- to have the reservoir pressure.
2- measure the SLL and detect oil gradient.

PBU survey:
1- to know the effective permeability.
2- to reach or simulate model to calculate the reservoir
pressure.
3- to calculate the skin.
 Notes
• The flowing condition must be taken at stable
condition.
• The well should be totally isolated during the PBU
survey.
• The depth of the gauges must be correlated.
• The shut-in time must be enough to exceed the well
bore storage effect.
• All depths must be converted to TVD for pressure
calculations.
 Analysis Results
(Static Pressure Plot)
Pressure(psi)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500
0
400
800 y = 461.6x - 86592
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
Depth ft-TVD-ss

4800
5200
5600
6000
6400
6800
7200
7600
8000
8400
8800 1108.6x + 2.7426y =
9200
9600
10000
10400
10800
11200 Datum
11600
12000
 Analysis Results
(Flowing Pressure Plot)
Pressure(psi)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500
0

2000 glv no.1

glv no.2

4000 glv no.3

Depth ft-TVD-ss

glv no.4

glv no.5
6000
glv no.6

glv no.7

8000 glv no.8

glv no.9

glv no.10
10000

Datum
12000
 Analysis Results
(Static-Flowing Pressure Plot)
Pressure(psi)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500
0

2000 glv no.1

glv no.2
4000 glv no.3

glv no.4
Depth ft-TVD-ss

glv no.5
6000
glv no.6
glv no.7
8000 glv no.8
glv no.9
glv no.10
10000

Datum
12000
 Analysis Results
(Static Temperature Plot)
Teperature (ºF)
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
0

2000 glv no.1

glv no.2

4000 glv no.3

Depth ft-TVD-ss

glv no.4

glv no.5
6000
glv no.6

glv no.7

8000 glv no.8

glv no.9

glv no.10
10000

Datum
12000
 Analysis Results
(Flowing Temperature Plot)
Teperature (ºF)
150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
0

2000 glv no.1

glv no.2

4000 glv no.3

Depth ft-TVD-ss

glv no.4

glv no.5
6000
glv no.6

glv no.7

8000 glv no.8

glv no.9

glv no.10
10000

Datum
12000
 Analysis Results
(Static-Flowing Temperature Plot)
Teperature (ºF)
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
0

2000 glv no.1

glv no.2
4000 glv no.3
Depth ft-TVD-ss

glv no.4
glv no.5
6000
glv no.6

glv no.7

8000 glv no.8

glv no.9
glv no.10
10000

Datum
12000
Flow Theory
 Single Phase Flow Theory
• b) The Mechanical Energy Balance Equation:

• The equation is made up of 3 components:

1. Elevation component (80-95 % of the pressure
gradient in wells)
2. Acceleration component. (significant only if a
compressible phase exists at low pressure)
3. Friction component (100% of the pressure drop in
horizontal pipe)
 Single Phase Pressure Drop
• Elevation component zero for horizontal flow applies
for compressible or incompressible, steady or
transient, vertical or inclined for downward flow,
hydrostatic pressure increase.

• Acceleration component applies for all transient flow

zero for constant rate, incompressible flow non zero
for any flow condition where a velocity changes occur
(e.g compressible flow).

• Friction component applies for any type of flow, for

any angle causes a del P in the direction of flow.
 Single Phase Pressure Drop
• The Darcy-Weisbach equation and friction factors:

• Calculation of frictional pressure gradients requires

determining values for friction factors. The
procedure requires evaluating whether the flow is
laminar or turbulent.
 Single Phase Pressure Drop
• For Laminar flow (Re< 2000):

 Poiseuille Equation

• For turbulent flow (Re  4000)

 Colebrook Equation
• Solving the above equation requires a trial and error
process.
 Pipe roughness Typical values
Dependent factors:
(a) Material type
(b) Flowing fluids Type of Pipe Roughness (in)
• Corrosive Plastics, glass, etc 0.0
• Hydrates
New tubing or line pipe 0.0006
• Paraffin or asphaltene
deposits Commercial steel 0.0018
• Solids present Dirty well tubing 0.009
• Erosional velocities PIPESIM default 0.001
(c) Coatings
(d) Years in service
Moody Chart
 Multiphase Flow Theory
• Liquid Hold-Up:
• Liquid Hold-Up:
– Hold-up = 0  All gas flow.
– Hold-up = 1  All liquid flow.
• Gas Hold-Up: 1-Liquid Hold Up (1-HL)

• No-Slip Liquid Holdup (Input Liquid Content):

– Liquid Hold up if gas and liquid were
– traveling at the same velocity.
 Multiphase Flow Theory
• Slip and no-slip flows
 Velocity

Superficial velocity
- Gas superficial velocity
- Liquid superficial
velocity

Actual velocity

Two phase

Slip velocity
 Two-Phase Density
• Gas Density:

Oil Density:
Water Density.

q0 qo'  Bo
fo   '
q0  qw qo  Bo  qw'  Bw

 Two-Phase Density:
 Since ρG, ρO, VsG , VsL ,are dependent on pressure the pressure calculation
traverse is an iterative process. The PVT variables can be calculated using
using either a black oil model or a compositional model.
 Multiphase Flow Theory
• Modification of the pressure gradient equation for
two phase flow:
• Two Phase flow elevation change component:

Two-Phase flow friction losses component:

correlate two-phase friction factors with some form of a Reynolds

number.
 friction density is defined differently by different investigators
 Multiphase Flow Theory
A steady state multiphase flow correlation is a method
to predict:

• Liquid Hold-Up.
• Two-Phase friction factor.
 Empirical Vertical Correlations
• No Slip, No Flow regime consideration.
• The Mixture density is calculated based on input
GLR.
• Slip Considered, no Flow regime consideration.
• The same correlations for Liquid Hold-up and friction
factors are used for all flow regimes.
• (e.g Hagerdorn and Brown, Gray)
• Slip Considered, Flow regime considered.
• (e.g Duns and Ros, Orkiszewski)
Flow correlation matching
 Best Performing Correlations:
(Findings of Baker Jardine JIP, 1995)
• Single phase systems - Moody
• Oil wells - Hagedorn & Brown
• Gas/condensate wells - Hagedorn & Brown
• Oil pipelines - Oliemans
• Gas/condensate pipelines - BJA Correlation
 Flow correlation matching
• To determine the most suitable flow correlation
• Select the required flow correlations
• Enter measured pressure and temperature survey
data (FGS), through “MEASURED DATA”.
• Enter known boundary conditions
• Results show each correlation and the entered data
 Flow correlation Selection
• The model flow correlation must be matching the
current well condition to be trustable for predication
and sensitivity operations.
 Correlation Selection
• The Flow Correlation Comparison operation allows
users to compare various flow correlations with an
option of using measured data.

• The Data Matching operation has been specifically

developed to assist with this task of determining the
most suitable flow correlation from well test data
and calculating the friction and holdup multipliers to
achieve a best match.
 Two Types
• Data matching:
If measured pressure data is available, the Data
matching operation can be used to calculate friction
and holdup factors automatically.

• Flow Correlation comparison:

The Flow correlation comparison operation can be used
to compare different flow correlations with measured
data. Unlike the Data matching operation it does not
try to tune any parameters, so will be quicker to run.
 Suggested correlations
• Single phase system
Moody
• Vertical oil well
Hagedorn and Brown
• Highly deviated oil well
Hagedorn and Brown or Duns and Ros or OLGA-S
• Gas/condensate well
Hagedorn and Brown
• Oil pipelines
Oliemans
• Gas/condensate pipelines
BJA Correlation
 Famous Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Beggs and Brill Original:
Was developed following a study of two-phase flow
in horizontal and inclined pipes. The correlation is
based upon a flow regime map which is first
determined as if the flow was horizontal. A horizontal
holdup is then calculated by correlations, and this
holdup is corrected for the angle of inclination.
 Famous Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Beggs and Brill Revised:
REVISED: the revised version of the Beggs and Brill
correlation is used, with rough pipe friction factors,
holdup limits. The following enhancements to the
original method are used;
(1) an extra flow regime of froth flow is considered
which assumes a no-slip holdup,
(2) the friction factor is changed from the standard
smooth pipe model to use single phase friction factor
based on the avg. fluid velocity.
 Famous Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Mukherjee and Brill:
The Mukherjee and Brill correlation is used for
Pressure loss, Holdup and Flow Map.
 Famous Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• NOSLIP Correlation:
The NOSLIP correlation assumes homogeneous flow
with no slip between the phases.
Fluid properties are taken as the average of the gas and
liquid phases and friction factors are calculated using
the single phase MOODY correlation.
 Famous Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• OLGA-S 2000 2-phase / OLGA-S 2000 3-phase:
The OLGA-S mechanistic models are applicable for
all inclination angles, pipe diameters and fluid
properties.
OLGA-S considers four flow regimes: stratified, annular,
slug and dispersed bubble flow; and uses a unique
minimum slip criteria to predict flow regime transitions.
 Famous Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Oliemans:
The Oliemans correlation was developed following
the study of large diameter condensate pipelines.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Ansari:
The Ansari mechanistic model was developed as
part of the Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects (TUFFP)
research program. A comprehensive model was
formulated to predict flow patterns and the flow
characteristics of the predicted flow patterns for
upward two-phase flow.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• The comprehensive mechanistic model is composed
of a model for flow pattern prediction and a set of
independent models for predicting holdup and
pressure drop in bubble, slug, and annular flows. The
model was evaluated by using the TUFFP well
databank that is composed of 1775 well cases, with
371 of them from Prudhoe Bay data.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Duns and Ros:
The Duns and Ros correlation is used for pressure
loss and holdup with flow regime determination. The
Duns and Ros correlation was developed for vertical
flow of gas and liquid mixtures in wells. Equations were
developed for each of three flow regions, (I) bubble,
plug and part of froth flow regimes, (II) remainder of
froth flow and slug flow regimes, (III) mist flow regime.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• These regions have low, intermediate and high gas
throughputs respectively. Each flow region has a
different holdup correlation. The equations were
based on extensive experimental work using oil and
air mixtures.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Gray:
The Gray Vertical Flow correlation is used for
pressure loss and holdup. This correlation was
developed by H E Gray of Shell Oil Company for vertical
flow in gas and condensate systems which are
predominantly gas phase. Flow is treated as single
phase, and dropped out water or condensate is
assumed to adhere to the pipe wall.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• It is considered applicable for vertical flow cases
where the velocity is below 50 ft/s, the tube size is
below 3.5 in, the condensate ratio is below 50
bbl/mmscf, and the water ratio is below 5
bbl/mmscf.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Gray Modified:
As above, but with the following modifications:
(1) Actual Reynolds number used (Gray Original
assumed Reynolds number to always be 1 million),
(2) Pseudo-roughness is constrained to be less than
the pipe radius.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Orkiszewski:
The Orkiszewski correlation is used for pressure
loss, holdup, and flow regime. The Orkiszewski
correlation was developed for the prediction of two
phase pressure drops in vertical pipe. Four flow
regimes were considered, bubble, slug, annular-slug
transition, and annular mist.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• Hagedorn and Brown:
The correlation of Hagedorn and Brown is used
for pressure loss and holdup. While the Hagedorn and
Brown correlation does not predict flow pattern.
The Hagedorn and Brown correlation was developed
following an experimental study of pressure gradients
occurring during continuous two-phase flow in small
diameter vertical conduits.
 Famous Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations
• A 1,500 ft experimental well was used to study flow
through 1 in., 1.25 in., and 1.5 in. nominal size
tubing. Air was the gas phase and four different
liquids were used: water and crude oils with
viscosities of about 10, 30 and 110 cp. Liquid holdup
was not directly measured, rather a pseudo liquid-
holdup value was determined that matched
measured pressure gradients.
 Data Quality Check
(Fancher, Brown and Duns,Ros modified)
• Fancher, Brown: assume no slip, homogenous flow
(lower pressure drop), that is why actual Pwf must be
higher than its value (lower rate).
• Duns, Ros modified: over predict the pressure drop
as it assumes that the well is producing in the slug
flow regime, that is why actual Pwf should be lower
than this value.
Note: in some cases the actual Pwf could be higher that
its value.
 Tips
• If you don’t have enough data:
• Hagedorn and Brown is the most likely correlation for
oil wells and shouldn’t be used with condensate and
mist flow wells.
• Gray is usually used for gas wells.
• Biggs, Brill is primary a flow lines correlation.
• Duns, Ros original could be used more with
condensate and high GOR wells.
• Orkiszewski often gives match with measured data
but not preferable(some how unstable).
Example of Matching through old
version of Pipesim
Building The Well Model
Insert The Reservoir Data
Insert the Deviation Data
Casing and Tubing
Fluid Properties
PVT Calibration
Insert Measured Data
Flow Correlation Comparison
Quality Check
Select Several Correlations
Choose the Matching Correlation
Data Matching Option
Select the Best Correlation

Transfer the correlation by

this option
Nodal analysis operation
Sensitivity on WHP
Numerical results
System analysis
System analysis with two variables
 Case Studies
Conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duns & Ros

Beggs & Brill Revised

Measured Data

Hagedorn & Brown

Mukherjee & Brill

810 BLPD
1710 BLPD
 Case Studies
Conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 Beggs & Brill

Measured Data

Mukherjee & Brill

Duns & Ros

Orkiszewski

Hagedorn & Brown

4520 BLPD
4320 BLPD
 Artificial lift systems
• Gas lift
– Two Model Options :
• Fixed injection depth & rate.
• Multiple injection points (Gas Lift Valves).

• ESP (Electrical Submersible Pump)

 ESP Completion Gas-lift Completion
Well completion is the process of making a
well ready for production (or injection). This Produced
principally involves preparing the bottom of the Hydrocarbon Out
hole to the required specifications, running in
the production tubing and its associated down Injection Gas In
hole tools as well as perforating and stimulating
as required. Power Cable

Artificial lift refers to the use of artificial

means to increase the flow of liquids, such as Pump
crude oil or water, from a production well.
Generally this is achieved by the use of a
mechanical device inside the well (pump or
velocity string) or by decreasing the weight of
the hydrostatic column by injecting gas into the Gas-Lift Valve
liquid some distance down the well.
Intake /gas separator
Artificial Lift Technologies
The most common artificial lift technologies
used are Gas-lift Completion & ESP completion Motor Protector

The choice between artificial lift methods Motor lead extension

depends on well performance & reservoir
behavior and completion design should be Motor
continuously improving based on close
monitoring of well performance, problems
faced during operations & lessons learned. Sensor
Production Packer

Picture from www.slb.com Picture from www.BakerHughes.com

 Gas Lift completion
modifications

Packer tail assembly was modified to be inside liner

The Benefits:
Using permanent packer instead of retrievable packer : Eliminate hanging of wire-line/slick-line above top of liner
The benefits: Scale build-up above top of liner could plug hole & prevent well intervention
Scale build up makes unsetting the retrievable packer
difficult.
Prevent possible leaking of retrievable packer
 ESP completion modifications
1-Y-tool
The benefits were: 5-Simple ESP with deep permanent packer &1/4” chemical injection CL
- Easy well intervention allowing wire-line & reservoir monitoring The benefits were:
-Saving of shut-in time by operating well under gas-lift assistance -Open annulus allowing chemical treatment away from pump
The disadvantages were: -Minimize no. of weak points by decreasing no. of cable splices.
•Wire-line problems & possible gas lift valves leakage -Minimize vibration of pump.
•Many splices increasing possibility of failure The disadvantages were:
•Prevent reservoir monitoring
•Possibility of control lines plugging
2- Semi-smart
•Deep-set ScSSSV possibility of stuck open because of oil hydrostatic pressure
The benefits were:
•Saving of shut-in time by operating well under gas-lift assistance
•Shallow ScSSSV is working properly.
The disadvantages were: 6-Simple ESP with deep permanent packer &3/8” chemical injection CL
•Wire-line problems & possible gas lift valves leakage The same benefits & disadvantages like Simple ESP with deep permanent packer &1/4”
•Prevent reservoir monitoring chemical injection CL with adding benefits:
•Chemical batches are not available in this design -Avoid plugging of CL in case of debris were injected with continuous chemical injection

3-Simple ESP with unvented shallow packer

The benefits were:
•No gas lift valves above pump eliminating possible leakage 7-Combined GL/ ESP with deep permanent packer &3/8” chemical injection CL
•Shallow ScSSSV is working properly. The same benefits & disadvantages like Simple ESP with deep permanent packer &3/8”
The disadvantages were: chemical injection CL with adding benefits:
•Accumulation of gas below packer -Decrease closed-in period till perform ESP change-out in case of failure.
•Many splices increasing possibility of failure -Improve ESP lifting performance by lighten liquid column above pump.
•Scale build-up makes packer unsetting is difficult
•Possible leakage of retrievable packer
•Prevent reservoir monitoring

4-Simple ESP with vented shallow packer

The same benefits & disadvantages like Simple ESP with unvented
shallow packer with adding benefits :
•possibility of venting gas below packer & preventing gas lock
Gas Well Performance
 Gas Well IPRs
• In gas wells, both fluid viscosity and compressibility
are pressure dependent.

• Model is also complicated by high velocities around

the wellbore that produce turbulent flow.

• Darcy model assumes laminar flow and is not valid

for the pressure drops produced by turbulence in gas
wells.
 Gas Reservoirs

• Pseudosteady State
– The behavior of gas flowing in laminar flow
through a porous medium (Darcy’s Law)

q
7.03X10 4

kh p 2 2
 p wf 
  re  
g T z  ln    0.75  s 
  rw  
 Calculation of IPR Curve
4000

3000
pwfs, psia

2000

1000

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

q, Mscf/day
 Types of tests
There are essentially three types of deliverability tests:

• Conventional deliverability (back-pressure)

• Isochronal
• Modified isochronal
 Types of tests
• Essentially, these tests consist of flowing wells at
multiple rates sequentially, and measuring the
bottom-hole flowing pressures as a function of time.
The stabilized flow rates and bottom-hole pressures
are then plotted on a log-log plot and fit with a
straight line.

• The exponent n is calculated as the slope of the line.

The flow coefficient C is calculated from the equation
itself using the calculated n value, as well as the rate
and flowing bottom hole pressure from one
stabilized well test during the flow period.
 Types of tests
• Three types of tests are commonly used for gas-well
testing to determine C and n. These tests can also be
used for oil wells.
• The type of test to choose depends on the
stabilization time of the well, which is a function of
the reservoir permeability.
• Well stabilizes fairly rapidly  Flow after Flow tests
• Tight wells  isochronal tests
• Very long stabilization time  modified isochronal
test.
 Jones Equation
• Gas and saturated oil reservoirs
• Equations:
Gas: (P2) = AQ + BQ2
Oil: (P) = AQ + BQ2
where
A : Laminar flow coefficient (Darcy)
B : Turbulent flow coefficient (Non Darcy)
• Also known as “Forcheimer equation”
 Non-Linear IPR (Gas)
• P2 – Pwf = aq + bq2
– Where
• aq = pressure drop due to laminar (Darcy) flow
• bq2 = pressure drop due to turbulent (non-
Darcy) flow
The constants a and b can be derived from multi-rate
well test or alternatively estimated from known
reservoir and gas properties.
 IPR in Gas Reservoirs
• Jones’ Gas IPR
– Problem -
• Darcy’s law valid for laminar flow only
• High permeability gas wells produce in
turbulent flow near the wellbore

2 2 2
p  p wf  aq  bq
 Definitions

   re  
 1.424 x10 g z T  ln    0.75 
3
s 
a    rw  
 kh




 3.16 x1012   g T z
b 
 hp2 rw

 Determination of h

hp

h h
hp
 Solving Jones’ Equation
• The flow rate is:

q
2
a  a  4b p  2 2
 p wf 
2b
 Solving Jones’ Equation
• The value of the AOF is then given by:

2 2
a  a  4bp
AOF 
2b
 Solving Jones’ Equation
• Solve for the well flowing pressure:

2 2
pwf  p  b q  a q
 Back Pressure Equation

• For gas wells

Q = C (Pws2 - Pwf2)n

• Schellhardt & Rawlins empirical equation

• Normally, 0.5 < n < 1.0
 Transient IPR Curves
• Transient Flow Equation
– for oil wells
k h p  p wf 
qo 
  kt  
162.6o Bo  log    3.23  0.87s 
    c r2  
  o t w 
– for gas wells (low pressure only)

qg 

k h p 2  p2wf 
   
1638g T z  log    3.23  0.87s 
k t
   c r2  
  g t w 
 Turner Critical Velocity for Gas Wells

Vcrit = 1.92 [(s1/4 (rL-rg)1/4 / rg½)]

Vcrit = minimum gas velocity, ft/sec
s = surface tension, dynes/cm
rL = liquid density, lb/ft3
rg = gas density, lb/ft3

s = surface tension, dynes/cm: condensate is 20 and water is 60 dynes/cm

rL = liquid density, lb/ft3: condensate is 45 and water is 67 lb/ft3
rg = gas density, lb/ft3: function of pressure and temperature
 Critical Velocity to Keep a Gas Well
Unloaded - Turner
vg/cond=[4.02(45-0.0031p)0.25]/[(0.0031) p0.5]
Vg/water=[5.62(67-0.0031p)0.25]/[(0.0031) p0.5]

Where:
v = critical gas velocity in tubing for unloading, fps
p = surface pressure of well, psia
Gas is 0.6 gravity and gas temperature is 120F (49C)

• For flow velocities above the critical rate, liquid drops are carried upward by the gas for well
deviations less than about 20 degrees.
• For flow below the critical, water may not be carried out of the well or may produce in slugs.
The well may continue to flow, but at a reduced rate due to the back pressure exerted by the
liquid head.
 Turner Unloading Rate, Water

3000 4.5" (3.958" ID)

3.5" (2.992" ID)
2500 2.875" (2.441" ID)
Gas Rate (mscf/d)

2.375" (1.995" ID)

2000 2.0675" (1.751" ID)

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Flowing Pressure, psi
 Flow Velocity and Lift
• Flow velocity affects flow efficiency through liquid
slippage, turbulence and friction.
• At low rates, gas tends to slip through liquids,
allowing the liquids to remain in the tubing.
• At medium rates, gas drags liquid upward due to
turbulence. This action reduces pressure gradient.
• At very high flow rates, friction of flowing fluid with
the wall of the tubing causes excessive pressure
drops, increase the flowing gradient.
 Effect of Water Production
• A well becomes significantly harder to lift when
water production increases. why?

– Water has a higher density (8.3 ppg to 10 ppg).

– Water has no solution gas (less gas for total lift).
– Density segregation can create lift problems,
especially in deviated wells.
 Density of the Flowing Column
• Decreasing the density of the column of the flowing
fluid is one of the best things that can be done to
increase draw down and flow rate.
Effect of increasing GLR on Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
(FBHP) – As gas is added, the FBHP decreases due to gas cut
liquid. When too much gas is added, the friction from the
flowing volume increases.

Decreasing flowing
fluid gradient

FBHP Increasing friction

Increasing Gas Injection or GLR

 Choke
Performance
 Choke Modeling
• Wellhead chokes are used to limit production rates
to stay within surface constraints, protect surface
equipment from slugging, avoid sand problems due
to high drawdown, and control flow rate to avoid
water or gas coning.

• Placing a choke at the wellhead increases the

wellhead pressure and thus, the flowing bottom hole
pressure which reduces the production rate.
 Choke Modeling
• Sound waves and pressure waves are both
mechanical waves. When the fluid flow velocity in a
choke reaches the traveling velocity of sound in the
fluid for the in-situ condition, the flow is called sonic
flow.

• Under sonic flow conditions, the pressure wave

downstream of the choke cannot go upstream
through the choke because the medium (fluid) is
traveling in the opposite direction at the same
velocity.
 Choke Modeling
• As a result, a pressure discontinuity exists at the
choke, which means that the downstream pressure
does not affect the upstream pressure.

• Because of the pressure discontinuity at the choke,

any change in the downstream pressure cannot be
detected from the upstream pressure gauge.
 Choke Modeling
• Any change in the upstream pressure cannot be
detected from the downstream pressure gauge
either.

• This choke feature is unique and desirable for

stabilizing the well production rate and separator
operating conditions.
 Choke Modeling
• Whether sonic flow exists at a choke depends on
the downstream-to-upstream pressure ratio.

• If this pressure ratio is less than a critical pressure

ratio, sonic (critical) flow exists.

• If this pressure ratio is greater than, or equal to, the

critical pressure ratio, sub-sonic (sub-critical) flow
exists.
 Choke Modeling
• The critical pressure ratio is approximately 0.55 for
natural gas.

• A similar constant is used for oil flow.

• In some wells, chokes are installed in the lower

section of tubing strings. This choke position
reduces wellhead pressure and enhances oil
production rate as a result of gas expansion in the
tubing string.
 Choke Modeling
• For gas wells, a downhole choke can reduce the risk
of gas hydrates.

• A major disadvantage of using downhole chokes is

that replacing a choke is costly.
Choke Performance
Choke Performance
 Estimating Flow Rates
Choke Size (in) Coefficient
1/8 6.25
3/16 14.44
1/4 26.51
5/16 43.64
3/8 61.21
7/16 85.13
1/2 112.72
5/8 179.74
3/4 260.99
Choke Performance
Choke Performance
Compositional Fluid
Modeling
 Compositional Fluid Modeling
• PIPESIM offers full compositional fluid modeling as a
more advanced alternative to Black Oil fluid
modeling. In compositional fluid modeling, the
individual components (Methane, Ethane, Water,
etc.) that comprise the fluid are specified, and the
fluid phase behavior is modeled using Equations of
State. Compositional fluid modeling is generally
regarded as more accurate, especially for wet gas,
condensate and volatile oil systems.
 Compositional Fluid Modeling
• However, Black oil modeling is the more-commonly
used approach, because detailed compositional
data is less frequently available to the production
reservoir engineer.
 Equations of State (EoS)
• Equations of State describe the pressure, volume and
temperature (PVT) behavior of pure components and
mixtures. Most thermodynamic and transport
properties are derived from Equations of State.

• One of the simplest Equations of State is the ideal

gas law, PV= nRT, which is roughly accurate for gases
at low pressures and high temperatures.
 Note
The Black Oil model uses the ideal gas equation along
with a compressibility factor (Z) to account for non-
ideal behavior.
 Emulsion Viscosities
• An emulsion is a mixture of two immiscible liquid
phases. One phase (the dispersed phase) is carried as
droplets in the other (the continuous phase). In
oil/water systems at low water cuts, oil is usually the
continuous phase.

• As water cut increases, there comes a point where

phase inversion occurs, and water becomes the
continuous phase.
 Emulsion Viscosities
• This is the Critical Water Cut of Phase Inversion,
otherwise called the cutoff, which occurs typically
between 55% and 70% water cut. The viscosity of the
mixture is usually highest, at and just below, the
cutoff.
• Emulsion viscosities can be several times higher than
the viscosity of either phase.
• A number of methods for predicting emulsion
viscosity are available in PIPESIM using the Viscosity
tab of the Compositional fluid editor.
Create a Compositional Fluid
Model for a Gas Well
 Compositional Fluid Model for a
Gas Well
• On the Home tab, select Compositional from the
Fluid manager option list.

• In the Component/model settings tab of the Fluid

Manager, select the PVT package and models.

• Add the components to the fluid template by

checking the boxes next to each of them in the Fluid
Components list.
 Compositional Fluid Model for a Gas
Well
• Create a new C7+ pseudo-component by clicking
New at the top of the Fluid Components section and
enter only the Name, Molecular weight, and Specific
gravity. All other properties will be automatically
calculated based on the properties you specified.
 Compositional Fluid Model for a Gas
Well
• Create a new fluid.
• Double-click the row of the newly-created fluid to
open the Fluid editor. Enter the moles for each
component.
• In the Flash/Tune fluid section, enter any pressure
and temperature and the fluid will be flashed at
those conditions. The phase properties and
compositions resulting from the flash will be
displayed.
 Gas Well Deliverability
• The gas flow rate and pressure drawdown that can
be expressed as the following:
Qsc = C(Pr^2 – Pwf^2)^n
Where:
• Qsc = Gas rate (MMscf/d)
• PR = Average static reservoir pressure (psia)
• PWF = Flowing bottom hole pressure (psia)
• C = Flow coefficient (MMScf/day/psi2)
• n = Non-Darcy exponent
 Gas Well Deliverability
• The exponent n is intended to account for the
additional pressure drop caused by high-velocity gas
flow, such as is caused by turbulence. Depending on
the flowing conditions, the exponent n can vary
from 1.0 for completely laminar flow to 0.5 for fully
turbulent flow.
 Gas Well Deliverability
The flow coefficient C, in the equation, is included to
account for these parameters:
• Reservoir rock properties
• Fluid properties
• Reservoir flow geometry
• The coefficients of the equation, n and C, are
determined from well deliverability tests. Once they
are determined, the gas flow rate Qsc at any bottom-
hole flowing pressure Pwf can be calculated, and an
IPR curve done.
 Building a gas well model
• Regarding the data input it will be the same like the
oil well models.

• The first change will be in the inflow term.

Gas Well IPR Curves using normal
PI value
Nodal Analysis
 IPR Calibration
• Calibrate the Inflow Model Using Multipoint Test
Data

will use a different IPR model; the Backpressure

equation. You will calibrate it with multipoint well test
data. The C and n parameters will be tuned to match
the well test data.
Do the following:
 IPR Calibration
• Go to the Completions tab of the Well editor.
• Change the IPR Model to Back pressure.
• On the Reservoir tab, check the box Use test data,
and set the Test Type to Multipoint.
• Enter the test data in the table.
• The IPR plot will be auto-generated as the test data is
being entered and the C and n values will be
calculated and displayed.
IPR Calibration
 IPR Calibration
• Rerun the P/T profile task using the same boundary
conditions from the previous step.
• Review the plot and grid results and compare the
results with the previous ones.

• Is the flow turbulent or laminar?

(depend on the n value)….
 Erosion Prediction
• Erosion has long been recognized as a potential
source of problems in oil and gas production
systems.

• Erosion can occur in solids-free fluids, but usually, it

is caused by entrained solids.

• PIPESIM 2014 uses the API 14 E method to predict

the velocity at which erosion may occur.
 Erosion Prediction
• The erosion velocity Ve is calculated with the equation:

• Where pm is the fluid mean density and C is an empirical

constant. C has dimensions of (mass/(length*time2)) 0.5.
The following values of C in oilfield units are suggested in
literature:
• C = 100 for continuous, non-corrosive, solids-free service
• C = 125 for intermittent, non-corrosive, solids-free service
• C = 150-200 for continuous, corrosive*, solids-free service
• C = 250 for intermittent, corrosive*, solids-free service
 Erosion Prediction
• We will perform a nodal analysis to select an
optimum tubing size.

• The available tubing sizes are 2.441 inches, 2.992

inches, 3.476 inches, and 3.958 inches in inside
diameter.
 Erosion Prediction
The final decision will be based on the following
criteria:
• Flow rate (The higher the better, until the erosional
velocity is reached because more liquid droplets are
carried at higher velocities which increases the
erosion risk)
• Erosional velocity ratio (<1).
• Cost (Generally increases with tubing size)
 Erosion Prediction
Do the following:
1. Go to Home » Simulation settings »
Erosion/Corrosion and confirm that the Erosion velocity
constant (C value) of 100 is entered for the API 14e
erosion model.(fluids treated with corrosion inhibitor
or for corrosion-resistant material, The recommended
value of C, which is also the PIPESIM default, is 100. It
has been noted that this is a conservative value).
 Erosion Prediction
2. Launch the Nodal analysis task from the Home tab.
3. Select Bottom-hole as the nodal point, when
prompted.
4. Enter 800 psia as the Outlet Pressure.
5. Click the Sensitivities tab and enter the tubing inside
diameter options (2.441”, 2.992”, 3.476”
and 3.958”) under the Outflow Sensitivity.
 Erosion Prediction
6. Run the model and view the Profile results (not
System results).
Double-click the plot and change the X-axis variable to
Erosional Velocity Ratio. Which tubing size best meets
the decision criteria?
(Choose the smallest tubing size, unless the increase in
gas rate is significant for example, > 5%, that is free
from erosion issues).
 Model a Flow line and Choke
• Insert a choke and a sink. In the surface equipment
tab.
• Connect the choke to the wellhead using a connector
and connect the choke to the sink using a flow line,
Click the choke and enter a Bean size as shown in the
following figure:
 Predict Future Production Rates
To make a system analysis to predict the well rate with
the expected decline in the gas reservoir pressure (two
way using normal sensitivity from nodal analysis or P/T
profile or to use the system analysis to give the
predication chart).
Note: it is preferable to deactivate the choke and makes
this operation to the well head only.
 Liquid Loading
• Gas wells usually produce with liquid water and/or
condensate in the form of mist droplets or a film
along the pipe walls.

• As the gas flow velocity in the well drops due to

reservoir depletion, the carrying capacity of the gas
decreases. When the gas velocity drops below a
critical level, the gas is unable to lift the liquids and
they begin to accumulate in the wellbore. This is
termed liquid loading.
 Liquid Loading
• Liquid loading increases the flowing bottom hole
pressure, which reduces the gas production rate.

• A lower gas production rate implies a lower gas

velocity which will ultimately cause the well to stop
producing or die.
 Turner Droplet Model

• In gas wells operating in the annular-mist flow

regime, liquids flow as individual particles (droplets)
in the gas core and as a liquid film along the tubing
wall.

• By analyzing a large database of producing gas wells,

Turner found that a force balance performed on a
droplet could predict whether the liquids would flow
upwards (drag forces) or downwards (gravitational
forces).
 Turner Droplet Model

• If the gas velocity is above a critical velocity, the drag

force lifts the droplet, otherwise the droplet falls and
liquid loading occurs.
• This is illustrated in the following figure:
 Turner Droplet Model
• When the drag on a droplet is equal to its weight, the
gas velocity is at critical velocity.
• Theoretically, at the critical velocity, the droplet
would be suspended in the gas stream, moving
neither upward nor downward.
• Below the critical velocity, the droplet falls and
liquids accumulate in the wellbore.
• In practice, the critical gas velocity is generally
defined as the minimum gas velocity in the tubing
required to move droplets upward.
 Turner Droplet Model

• The general form of Turner's equation is given by:

 Turner Droplet Model

• Note: The Turner equation applies to vertical or near

vertical uphill flow and assumes a continuous gas
phase with small dispersed liquid droplets entrained
in it.

• PIPESIM will not calculate the liquid loading in pipe

sections where these conditions are not met.
 Determine a Critical Gas Rate to
Prevent Well Loading
• Launch the Nodal Analysis task.

• Set the Outlet Pressure and run the model.

• On the System results tab, check the box for the

Liquid loading line. The plot appears as below.
 Determine a Critical Gas Rate to
Prevent Well Loading
• Click the View data in a table icon at the bottom right
of the plot, and extract the critical gas rate
 Hydrates

• Gas hydrates are crystalline compounds with a snow-

like consistency that occur when small gas molecules
come into contact with water at or below a certain
temperature.

• The hydrate formation temperature increases with

increasing pressure, therefore the hydrate risk is
greatest at higher pressures and lower temperatures.
When hydrates form inside pipelines, they can form
plugs which obstruct flow.
 Hydrates
• In even worse scenarios, where the presence of a
hydrate plug was undetected, pipeline
depressurization has resulted in the plug being
dislodged unexpectedly, resulting in serious injury
and even fatalities.
• These are some of the reasons that hydrates are a
serious flow assurance concern.
• Hydrate forming molecules most commonly include
methane, ethane, propane, carbon dioxide and
hydrogen sulfide.
 Hydrates
• Hydrates can very easily form downstream of a choke
where fluid temperature can drop into the hydrate
formation region due to Joule-Thompson cooling
effects.
• The following figure, shows a typical gas hydrate
curve which is very useful for subsea pipeline
design and operations.
• On the left side of the curve is the hydrate formation
region.
 Hydrates
• When pressures and temperatures are in this region,
hydrates will form from the water and gas molecules.
 Hydrate Mitigation Strategies
Thermal insulation
• The heat transfer between the fluid in the pipeline
and the environment surrounding the pipeline is
dependent on the temperature gradient and the
thermal conductivity of the material between the
two.
• There are two options for modeling the heat transfer
in PIPESIM.
 Hydrate Mitigation Strategies
• 1- Input U value: This option allows you to define an
overall heat transfer coefficient (U value). The heat
transfer rate per unit area is calculated based on the
pipe outside diameter.

• 2- Calculate U value: This option computes the

overall heat transfer coefficient based on the
following parameters:
 Hydrate Mitigation Strategies
• Pipe coatings: Thickness of each pipe coating & K
(Thermal conductivity) of the material
• Pipe material conductivity
• Ambient fluid (Air or Water)
• Ambient fluid velocity (The faster fluid flows over the
pipe, the greater the heat loss)
• Pipe burial depth
• Ground conductivity (for flow lines only)
 Hydrate Mitigation Strategies
Chemical Inhibitors
• Thermodynamic inhibitors can be used to shift the
hydrate line (to the left in the curve shown
previously), thereby lowering the hydrate formation
temperature and increasing the hydrate-free
operating envelope.
• Examples of inhibitors include methanol and
ethylene glycol.
 Hydrate Mitigation Strategies
• Second type of Hydrate Inhibitors, These inhibitors
that do not lower the hydrate formation
temperature; instead, they help prevent the
nucleation and agglomeration of hydrates to avoid
blockage formation.

• The effects of these types of inhibitors cannot be

modeled with PIPESIM
 Exercise
• Exercise No.1 or gas well model?
• Apply all the previous operations for the model.
 Create a Compositional Fluid
Model for a Gas Well
Add the following components to the fluid template by
checking the boxes next to each of them in the Fluid
Components list. There are 9 components, and they
are:
• Water
• Methane
• Ethane
• Propane
• Isobutane
 Create a Compositional Fluid Model
for a Gas Well
• Butane
• Iso-pentane
• Pentane
• Hexane
* Create a new C7+ pseudo-component by clicking
New at the top of the Fluid Components section and
enter only the Name, Molecular weight, and Specific
gravity. All other properties will be automatically
calculated based on the properties you specified.
 Create a Compositional Fluid Model
for a Gas Well
• Double-click the row of the newly-created fluid to
open the Fluid editor. Enter the moles for each
component.
• In the Flash/Tune fluid section, you may enter any
pressure and temperature and the fluid will be
flashed at those conditions.
• The phase properties and compositions resulting
from the flash will be displayed.
 Create a Compositional Fluid Model
for a Gas Well
• Change the number of moles of water to 1.88.
• Close the fluid editor and return to the Fluids tab of
the Fluid manager to see the GOR and Water cut
values for the fluid. They should match the ones
below.
Well’s Data
Calibrate the Inflow Model Using
Multipoint Test Data
 Select a Tubing Size
• The available tubing sizes are 2.441 inches, 2.992
inches, 3.476 inches, and 3.958 inches in inside
diameter.
• Your final decision will be based on the following
criteria:
• Flow rate (The higher the better, until the erosional
velocity is reached because more liquid droplets are
carried at higher velocities which increases the
erosion risk).
• Erosional velocity ratio (<1).
• Cost (Generally increases with tubing size).
 Select a Tubing Size
• Launch the Nodal analysis task from the Home tab.
• Select Bottom-hole as the nodal point, when
prompted.
• Enter 800 psia as the Outlet Pressure.
• Click the Sensitivities tab and enter the tubing inside
diameter options (2.441”, 2.992”, 3.476” and 3.958”)
under the Outflow Sensitivity.
 Select a Tubing Size
• Run the model and view the Profile results (not
System results). Double-click the plot and change the
X-axis variable to Erosional Velocity Ratio.
• decision criteria? (Choose the smallest tubing size,
unless the increase in gas rate is significant for
example, > 5%, that is free from erosion issues).
 Model a Flow line and Choke
• calculated in the previous exercise to determine the
choke bean size that results in a manifold (end of
flow line) pressure of 710 psia.

• Click the Surface equipment tab of the Well editor,

and click the main Insert tab to expose the
equipment that can be added.
 Model a Flow line and Choke
• Insert a choke and a sink. Connect the choke to the
wellhead using a connector and connect the choke to
the sink using a flow line, as shown in the following
figure
 Model a Flowline and Choke
• Click the choke and enter a Bean size of 1 in.

• (You can enter any Bean size at this time. You will
soon run a sensitivity to determine the correct bean
size to achieve the desired outlet pressure of 710
psia).

• Click the flow line and configure it as shown

 P/T Profile
• Launch the P/T Profile task from the Home tab.
Change the branch end to the Sink to ensure that the
flow line and choke are included in the simulated
profiles.

• Select Custom as the Calculated Variable, Choke as

the Object and Bean size as the Variable from the
option lists.
 P/T Profile
• Enter a bean size range of 1 to 3 inches and leave the
Proportionality set to Direct.

• Change the Outlet pressure (for example, at the Sink)

to 710 psia and enter the Gas flow rate obtained
from the previous task (14.7 MMScf/d).
• Click Run to launch the simulation.
• Review the Profile results to get the bean size that is
required to match the specified inlet, outlet, and
flowrate conditions.

• The Bean size is 1.5 in.

 Predict Future Production Rates
• Deactivate the equipment downstream of the
wellhead because you will run this simulation up to
the wellhead. In the Surface equipment tab of the
well editor, deactivate the Choke.
• Launch the System Analysis task. Select Gas flowrate
as the Calculated variable.
• Set the Outlet Pressure (wellhead) to 800 psi.
 Predict Future Production Rates
• In the X-axis column, select System Data as the
sensitivity object and Inlet pressure as the sensitivity
variable. Enter the following Inlet (reservoir)
pressures:
• 4,600 psia
• 4,200 psia
• 3,800 psia
• 3,400 psia
• Run the model, the well will produce +/- 7.7
MMSCF/D at PR of 3400 psi.
 Determine a Critical Gas Rate to
Prevent Well Loading
• Launch the Nodal Analysis task and delete any
Sensitivities that may still be present.
• Set the Outlet Pressure to 800 psia and run the
model.
• On the System results tab, check the box for the
Liquid loading line.
• Click the View data in a table icon at the bottom
right of the plot, and extract the critical gas rate.