M.Eng.

Project Defence
By: Aadrish Mir

Supervisor: Dr K.C. Watts

Reader: Dr D. Garagash
 The objective of the project is first given.
 Well deliverability and phase behavior concepts
are defined.
 Nodal Analysis & its applications are discussed.
 An introduction to PROSPER software is
mentioned.
 A case study emphasizing on the use of
production optimization of an oil well with
PROSPER software is presented.
 The objective of the project is to
optimize well performance in order
to maximize the production rate.
 Oil reserves are depleting every day
and oil prices are peaking, thus the
role of production optimization
cannot be neglected.
 Well deliverability is determined by a well’s
inflow performance.
 The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) is
defined as the functional relationship between the
production rate and the bottom hole flowing
pressure.
 Productivity Index (PI or J) expresses the ability
of a reservoir to deliver fluids to the wellbore.
 Productivity Ratio (PR) is the ratio of actual
productivity index to the ideal productivity index
where skin, s=0.
 The reservoir fluid can be classified into basically three
types i.e., single phase, two phases, or a combination.
 Such information is used to determine the type of IPR
equation to be used.

Fig 2.3 A typical p-T diagram for ordinary black oil

(Ahmad, 2001).
 A systems analysis approach, often
called NODAL Analysis, has been
applied to “analyze the performance
of systems composed of interacting
components.”
 Its application to well producing
systems was first proposed by Gilbert
(1954).
A partial list of possible applications of nodal
analysis include:
 Selection of tubing size.
 Selection of flow line size.
 Analysis of an existing flow system for
abnormal flow restrictions.
 Artificial lift design.
 Prediction of the effect of depletion on
production capacity.
1) Determine which components in the system can be
changed.
2) Select one component to be optimized.
3) Select the node location that will best emphasize the
effect of the change in the selected component.
4) Develop expressions for the inflow and outflow.
5) Obtain required data to calculate pressure drop versus
rate for all the components.
6) Determine the effect of changing the characteristics of
the selected component by plotting inflow versus
outflow and reading the intersections.
7) Repeat the procedure for each component that is to be
optimized.
 PROSPER is a well performance, design and
optimization software.
 PROSPER is designed to allow the building of
reliable and consistent well models, with the ability
to address each aspect of well bore modeling viz:
 Pressure Volume Temperature (PVT) fluid
characterization
 Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) correlations
for calculation of flow-line, tubing pressure loss and
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for the
reservoir inflow.
 The well used in this case study will be designated as
X-3
 The field was developed using 5 wells and reached
peak production in 1996. Since then, oil production has
decreased rapidly due to an increase in water content
 An economic limit of 1500 STB Oil/d/well was
premised; i.e. producing at rates lower than that is not
economical. Table 1 Reservoir Data
Water depth 300 (feet)

Average porosity 22 (%)

Permeability 200 (mD)

Kv/Kh 0.1

Top of sand 6400 (ft) TVDSS

Oil-water contact 6500 (ft) TVDSS

Initial reservoir pressure 3300 (psia)

Present reservoir pressure 2800 (psia)

 Table-5.1 PVT Data
Reservoir Temperature 150 (°F)
Oil API Gravity 40 (°API)
Gas Relative Density 0.80
GOR 550 (scf/STB)
Pb 2030 (psia)
Bo 1.27
Oil Viscosity 0.66 (cp)
Bg 0.0046
Gas Viscosity 0.022 (cp)
Bw 1.023
Gas Z Factor 0.73
Water Salinity 200000 (ppm)
Water Viscosity 0.67 (cp) Table-5.2 Pressure Survey
Depth,
(ft) 650 1605 2590 3600 4590 5587 6490
TVD
Pressu
re, 525 735 990 1292 1629 1920 2266
(psia)
 Table-5.3 Well Data Table-5 .4Well Equipment Data
Oil Production rate, Component Measured
4730 Node No
(STB/d) Name Depth (ft)
Water Cut, (%) 30 Outlet node/
WH Flowing Temperature, 1 0
65 Christmas tree
(°F) 2 Riser 350
Pressure at Christmas 3 Wellhead 350
445
tree, (psia) 4 5.5” Tubing 850
Skin (Well Test) 2.92 5 S.C.S.S.S.V 850
PI or J (Well Test), 6 5.5” Tubing 4000
12.36
(STB/d/psi) 7 5” Tubing 5600
Damaged Zone Relative 8 7” Liner 6530.5
50
Permeability, (%)
Damage Zone Thickness,
12
(In)
Crushed Zone Skin 0.100
Damage radius, (ft) 4000
 Develop a well performance model
using PROSPER
 Simulate base case forecast under
various operating conditions
 Evaluate various development
options to optimize oil production
 Results
 Table-5.5 Data entry in PROSPER
Fluid Oil & Water
PVT method Black Oil
Separator Single-Stage Separator
Flow Type Tubing Flow
Emulsions No
Well type Producer
Lift method None
Predicting Pressure only
Completion Cased hole
Gravel Pack No
Fig-5.2 IPR plot

Fig-5.3 Downhole equipment

Fig-5.7 VLP-IPR matching

Table-5.7 Match data

Oil Rate (STB/d)
Measured Calculated % Difference

4730 4704.4 -0.54061

Flow diagram
for data entry
and results in
PROSPER
  Since the PVT, VLP and IPR were matched to
measured data, it was possible to move on and use the
model to perform a system analysis
Table-5.9 Oil rates at given parameter ranges
Table-5.8 Reservoir pressure & water cut ranges
Reservoir Water Cut (%)
Parameter Range
Pressure (psig) 30 35 40 45
Water cut 30,35,40,45 (%)
Oil Rate (STB/d)
Reservoir Pressure 2500,2600,2700,2800 (psig)
2800 4703 3818 2993 2232
2700 3922 3073 2288 1564
Table-5.10 Economic base case conditions
2600 3120 2307 1436 0
Scenario Maximum Economic Production Rate @ 30 (%)
Water Cut Water Cut 2500 2292 0 0 0

Base Case 45 (%) 4703.(STB/day)

 A sensitivityrun on the current reservoir
conditions for decreasing well head
pressure (WHP) was performed.
 WHP can be adjusted using choke in an
oil well.
 Reduction in WHP causes the drawdown
to increase which in turn increases the oil
production.
 Table-5.11 Oil rate at various WHP & WC
WHP (psig) WC @ 45 WC @ 50 WC @ 60 WC @ 70 WC @ 80
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Oil Rate (STB/d)
445 0 0 0 0 0
400 1538 0 0 0 0
300 3125 2294 0 0 0
200 4788 3873 2140 465 0
100 6153 5238 3463 1833 364

Table5.12 Oil rate at economic water cut

Scenario Maximum Economic Water Production Rate @ 45 (%)
Cut Water Cut
Lowering christmas tree 70 (%) 6153 (STB/d)
pressure
 For further production of the remaining oil in the
reservoir, adjusting the tubing size was required
and sensitivity analysis of various tubing sizes
(internal diameter) was performed.
 The effect of increasing the tubing size is to give
a higher node pressure for a given flow rate
because the pressure drop in the tubing is
decreased.
 If the tubing is too small even though the
reservoir may be capable of producing a large
amount of fluid too much pressure drop occurs in
the tubing.
Table-5.13 Oil rate at various tubing internal diameter sizes
Tubing Size ID (in) Oil Rate (STB/d)

2.441 257

2.992 315

4.09 346

4.892 0
 A gas lift for X-3 was undertaken based on
current conditions and engineering
assumptions.
 The purpose of injecting gas into the tubing is
to decrease the density of the flowing gas-
liquid mixture and therefore decrease the
required flowing bottom hole pressure.
 As the gas rate is increased the fluid velocity
and therefore the friction losses also increase.
 Table-5.15 Oil rate with various gas injection rates
WC @ 45 WC @ 50 WC @ 60 WC @ 80 WC @ 90
Gas Inj. (MM scf/d)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Oil Rate @ Different Water Cut (STB/d)
2 6908 6091 4534 1870 824
3 7039 6233 4697 2003 900
4 7111 6313 4782 2075 938

Table-5.16 Economic oil rate with optimized gas lift

Scenario Maximum Economic Water Production Rate @ 45 (%)
Cut Water Cut
Optimised gas lift 80 (%) 6900 (STB/d)
 Lowering the Christmas tree pressure to 100 psi is
recommended because the well’s life can be extended
to 70% water cut
 The next possible option is to change the tubing size.
However changing the tubing size is not
recommended, since it does not produce a fruitful
increment in oil production rate.
 The gas lift method is more economically beneficial
as it produces up to a maximum economic water cut
of 80% with gas injection rate of 2-4 MM scf/d
producing oil rates of 1800-2000 STB/d.