Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PREPARED BY
Ahmed
mohamed Abdullah Refaat Galal Abol Fotoh Nader Ali Fahim Hesham Ahmed Abo-zaid Yahia Ali Shawky
CONTENTS
Introduction Well
Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model PVT Modelling IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
tools.
model oil reservoirs, production and injection wells and surface pipeline networks as an integrated production system.
SOFTWARE PACKAGES
IPM PACKAGE
The engineer is able to design complex field models.
The Reservoir, Wells and Complete Surface Systems model, having been matched for production history, will accurately optimize the entire network and run predictions.
IPM PACKAGE
GAP
PVTP
PROSPER
IPM
REVEAL
MBAL
IPM PACKAGE
GAP enables the engineer to build representative field models, that include the reservoirs, wells and surface pipeline production and injection system. MBAL package contains the classical reservoir engineering tool, using analytical techniques to analyze the fluid dynamics in the reservoir.
IPM PACKAGE
PVTP allows tuning of Equations of State (EoS) to match laboratory data. The tuned EoS can then be used to simulate a range of reservoir and production processes, which impact equipment sizing and reservoir recovery. REVEAL is a specialized reservoir simulator modeling near well bore effects including mobility and infectivity issues. Thermal and chemical effects are modeled rigorously.
PROSPER
PROSPER is designed to allow the building of reliable and consistent well models
Design and optimize well completion Tubing size Artificial lift method IPR model
CONTENTS
Introduction Well
Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
Well modelling defines the pressure/rate relationship to facilitate: Well design Predicting well performance Identify well performance sensitivity to changes in operating parameters or design
Involves:
PVT Wellbore IPR Nodal Analysis
It is the methodology used in well modelling to analyse the performance of a multi-component system Objectives are to:
Quantify total pressure loss as a function of rate Quantify components within total pressure loss Identify bottlenecks to flow Optimise system design and operation given constraint Address specific well issues such as Artificial lift, well load up, completion design optimisation and productivity improvement opportunities.
Important: Nodal analysis assumes a steady state and does not allow transient flow behaviour.
INFLOW
P?
OUTFLOW
Qout
Qin
Solution node
Pressure defined at start and end nodes Solution node can be any intermediate position where pressure must be calculated
Comments
Separates IPR from VLP To match given test data Separates well-reservoir from surface Combines choke effect with well-reservoir Concentrating on Network modelling with known contribution from well(s)
CONTENTS
Introduction Well Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model PVT modelling IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
Completion diagram / tally and directional survey data, together with any recent work-over info/data Fluid data (PVT reports or existing PVT model) Complete production test data (recent as well historical sets) comprising of rates, phase ratios, end pressures, etc. Reservoir and available near-wellbore data (reservoir pressure & temperature, FBHP/downhole gage pressure, PI, skin, permeability and rel perm, etc).
Pwh
P6 = (PDSC - Psep)
Gas
Sales Line
Separator
PDSC Surface choke P5 = (Pwh - PDSC) PDSV
Psep
To Sales
P4 = (PUSV - PDSV)
PUSV
P7 = (Pwf - Pwh)
P3 = (PUR - PDR)
Bottom hole restriction
PDR
PUR
P1 = Pr - Pwfs P2 = Pwfs - Pwf P3 = PUR - PDR P4 = PUSV - PDSV P5 = Pwh - PDSV P6 = PDSC - Psep P7 = Pwf - Pwh P8 = Pwh - Psep P9 = Pr - Pwf
= Loss in porous medium = Loss across completion = Loss across restriction = Loss across safety valve = Loss across surface choke = Loss in flowline = Total loss in tubing = Total loss in flowline = Total loss in reservoir / completion
Pwf
P2 = (Pwfs - Pwf)
Pwfs
P1 = (Pr - Pwfs)
P9 = (Pr - Pwf)
Pr
Pe
Pre-processing data
Completion data consistent with directional survey and other work-over info. Fluid data/PVT model consistent with other wells and formation info. Production test data complete and consistent with current well performance. Reservoir data dates consistent with the production test dates.
Information only
Specify whether a single well or multilateral Useful repository for well test and model information
(Pb) Bubble-point Pressure (psia) (Bo) Bubble-Point Oil FVF (rb/stb) (GOR or Rs) Gas/Oil Ratio (scf/stb) Reservoir Temperature (F) Stock Tank Oil Gravity (API) Gas Specific Gravity (air = 1) Separator Pressure (psia) Separator Temperature (F)
130 7000
48 5780
165 7142
1200 4600
1.024 2.15
N/A
1.028 2.226
1.087 2.588
1.1178 1.622
1.2 2.0
20 1425
3 2905
0.0 2199
90 2637
217 1406
200 1200
100 258
82 272
75 294
80 280
114 288
180 290
16.5 63.8
17.9 51.1
15.3 59.5
22.3 48.1
16.3 45.0
25 40
0.59 0.95
0.574 1.22
0.511 1.351
0.65 1.276
0.5781 0.85
0.7 1.0
265 465
15 605
60 565
415
N/A
N/A
100
36 - 106
76 150
125
N/A
N/A
CONTENTS
Introduction PVT Fundamentals Well Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model PVT Modelling IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
PVT correlations are empirically derived mathematical fits of real experimental data Correlations approximate real fluid behaviour some more suitable than other for certain fluid systems Matching is a regression process which reduces the error between correlation and PVT data User can specify which gas properties it is critical to match (to reflect possible uncertainty in input data accuracy Parameter 1 and 2 statistics provide match quality and correlation predictive reliability
Parameter 1 is the multiplier which has to be applied to correlation (should be within 10% of unity) Parameter 2 is the shift
Include effect of any pipework from wellhead to manifold (incl choke) ID / OD and roughness of all tubing and casing, restrictions etc down to the reservoir. Mid-perf depth is bottom depth entered. Input formation temperatures versus depth, and overall Heat Transfer coefficient (U value) Enter specific heats for oil, water and gas use default Values In this example
Surface equipment
Roughness Guidelines Plastic Cr Steel SS C Steel New to Old .0002 in .0006 in .0006 in .0018 in .0060 in
Notes: Typically use drilling depth references i.e. relative to rotary table - e.g. in a subsea well Xmas tree depth may be +400 ft Enter bottom depth of each section of same diameter tubing, associated ID and roughness Enter SSSVs and restrictions Casing depth where you wish pressure loss calculations to begin (typically mid perf). In a long perforated interval may be better to use more complex inflow model
Notes: Enter a temperatures survey obtained from STATIC logging, or best offset data Ensure a survey point for the bottom node in the equipment data is included.
CONTENTS
Introduction PVT Fundamentals Well Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
IPR MODELLING
Rock permeability & anisotropy Producing interval, perforations, deviation & drainage area Gravel Pack properties & dimensions
IPR MODELLING
IPR Fundamentals
The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) defines the pressure drawdown in a well as a function of production rate
Drawdown is a complex function of PVT, permeability (absolute & relative), effective overburder etc
Several IPR model available optimum choice depends on data available and calculations required including:Gas Well PI Models Jones ~ includes a linear (Darcy) pressure drop and a rate-squared (non-Darcy) term. Uses pseudopressure, better for high reservoir pressures (>2000 psi) Backpressure, Forcheimer, C and N ~ use various backpressure equations to describe the Darcy and non-Darcy inflow behaviour Petroleum Experts ~ uses a multi-phase pseudo pressure function to allow for changing gas and condensate saturations with pressure applicable to gas condensate modelling or dry gas
IPR MODELLING
Oil Well PI Models
PI entry ~ simplest, useful where no where no reservoir perm or skin data available, and where the PI is already known
Vogel ~ uses an empirical correlation to account for deviation from straight line PI below bubble point Composite ~ interpolates a Vogel IPR for oil and straight line IPR for oil as a function of watercut useful for sensitivities on increasing watercut Darcy ~ classic radial flow equation useful for estimating productivity from petrophysical data Fetkovich ~ adapted from isochronal theory gives similar results to Vogel
IPR MODELLING
Defining IPR model to be used:
IPR MODELLING
Entering IPR data
Enter data in all sheets with highlighted tabs (working left to right)
IPR MODELLING
Entering IPR data
When data entry complete, click on Calculate button to generate IPR plot
IPR MODELLING
IPR curve gas well
AOF: Absolute Open Hole Flow Potential (theoretical flow potential assuming zero Backpressure)
CONTENTS
Introduction PVT Fundamentals Well Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
VLP MODELLING
Flow Patterns/Regimes in Vertical Upward Flow
BUBBLY FLOW
SLUG FLOW
CHURN FLOW
ANNULAR FLOW
VLP Modelling
ROLE OF MULTI-PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS
VLP correlations predict the pressure loss in pipe, allowing for the gravity, friction and acceleration effects Correlations handle Slip, holdup and multiphase flow pattern in different ways e.g. slip, flow regime accounted for / not accounted for
Correlations using flow maps may give discontinuous results modern mechanistic correlations overcome this.
No single correlation is best, and comparison of the correlations is recommended to select the the optimum one for a given application
VLP MODELLING
Multiphase Flow Correlations available in Prosper
Author Duns & Ros Original Duns & Ros Modified Francher & Brown 1963 Field data from plastic coated tubing 1.995 ID Gas and water at < Being no-slip always predicts lowest pressure 400stb/d & GOR drops therefore good for data QC >5000 Air, water & crude oils Most widely used VLP correlation - good over of 10, 30 & 110cp a wider range particularly for slug flows Generally obsolete Year 1961 Data Source 185' high experimental loop+field data Nominal ID 1.26" to 5.6" with 2 annulus config. Fluids & Rates Air, water & liquid hydrocarbon Comment Good over a wide range, more so for mist flows, tend to overpredict VLP in oil wells
1965 ?
? ?
Petroleum Experts 4
475 test data sets from 1500' deep vertical experimental well Uses the Gould et al flow map, Hagedorn & Brown for slug, Duns and Ros for mist Improved version of PE1, better for preditcing low rate VLP Include PE2 featues with additional features for viscous, volatile and foamy oils Advanced mechanistic model suitable for any fluid (including condensates) Huge set of field data
1" to 2.5"
Good all round correlation, avoids discontinuities which apply to empirical correlations, runs slower than empirical various! various! 'Hybrid' model of different 'best' correlations. Hence found discontinuous! Use not encouraged! Better for all angles. Mukherjee & Brill attempted to improve it in 1985
Orkiszewiski
1967
1973
90' long acrylic pipe with 90 inclination changes. 584 measure tests with flow pattern observations. BP Mechanistic Correlation 108 well test data with 88 producing free liquids
1" to 1.5"
3.5"
Developed to model slug flow in pipelines but also found to be applicable to tubing Condensate up to Excellent for gas and gas-condensate wells 50b/MM & water up to but should be used with caution for higher 5b/MM with velocities WGR/CGR up to 50ft/s
CONTENTS
Introduction PVT Fundamentals Well Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
CONTENTS
Introduction PVT Fundamentals Well Modelling Fundamentals Setting up a well model IPR modelling VLP modelling VLP / IPR matching and model validation Conclusions
THANK YOU