Você está na página 1de 196

PIPESIM Suite

User Guide
Proprietary Notice
Copyright 1985 - 2005 Schlumberger. All rights reserved.
No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or translated in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without the prior written permission of Schlumberger.
Use of this product is governed by the License Agreement. Schlumberger makes no warranties, express, implied, or
statutory, with respect to the product described herein and disclaims without limitation any warranties of merchantability or
fitness for a particular purpose.
Patent information
Schlumberger ECLIPSE reservoir simulation software is protected by US Patents 6,018,497, 6,078,869 and 6,106,561,
and UK Patents GB 2,326,747 B and GB 2,336,008 B. Patents pending.

Service mark information


The following are all service marks of Schlumberger:
The Calculator, Charisma, ConPac, ECLIPSE 100, ECLIPSE 200, ECLIPSE 300, ECLIPSE 500, ECLIPSE Office, EDIT,
Extract, Fill, Finder, FloGeo, FloGrid, FloViz, FrontSim, GeoFrame, GRAF, GRID, GridSim, NWM, Open-ECLIPSE,
PetraGrid, PlanOpt, Pseudo, PVTi, RTView, SCAL, Schedule, SimOpt, VFPi, Weltest 200.

Trademark information
Silicon Graphics and IRIX are registered trademarks of Silicon Graphics, Inc. OpenGL® and the oval logo are trademarks
or registered trademarks of Silicon Graphics, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries worldwide. OpenInventor and
WebSpace are trademarks of Silicon Graphics, Inc. IBM, AIX and LoadLeveler are registered trademarks of International
Business Machines Corporation. Sun, SPARC, Solaris, Ultra and UltraSPARC are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Macintosh is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. UNIX is a registered trademark of
UNIX System Laboratories. Motif is a registered trademark of the Open Software Foundation, Inc. The X Window System
and X11 are registered trademarks of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. PostScript and Encapsulated PostScript
are registered trademarks of Adobe Systems, Inc. OpenWorks and VIP are registered trademarks of Landmark Graphics
Corporation. Lotus, 1-2-3 and Symphony are registered trademarks of Lotus Development Corporation. Microsoft,
Windows, Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Internet Explorer, Intellimouse, Excel,
Word and PowerPoint are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or
other countries. Netscape is a registered trademark of Netscape Communications Corporation. AVS is a registered
trademark of AVS Inc. ZEH is a registered trademark of ZEH Graphics Systems. Ghostscript and GSview are Copyright of
Aladdin Enterprises, CA. GNU Ghostscript is Copyright of the Free Software Foundation, Inc. Linux is Copyright of the
Free Software Foundation, Inc. IRAP is Copyright of Roxar Technologies. LSF is a registered trademark of Platform
Computing Corporation, Canada. VISAGE is a registered trademark of VIPS Ltd. Cosmo is a trademark and PLATINUM
technology is a registered trademark of PLATINUM technology, inc. PEBI is a trademark of Veritas DGC Inc./HOT
Engineering GmbH. Stratamodel is a trademark of Landmark Graphics Corporation. GLOBEtrotter, FLEXlm and
SAMreport are registered trademarks of GLOBEtrotter Software, Inc. CrystalEyes is a trademark of StereoGraphics
Corporation. Tektronix is a registered trade mark of Tektronix, Inc. GOCAD and JACTA are trademarks of T-Surf. Myrinet
is a trade name of Myricom, Inc. This product may include software developed by the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org). Copyright (c) 1999-2001 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. MPI/Pro is a
registered trademark of MPI Software Technology, Inc. The TGS logo is a trademark of TGS, Inc. LAPACK is Copyright
1999 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, http://www.netlib.org/lapack/.

Contact information

Web: www.sis.slb.com
Support: Service Desk
Note: Information in this document is subject to change without notice. Companies, names and data used in examples
herein are fictitious unless otherwise noted.
Contents 3

Table of Contents
Proprietary Notice ............................................................................ 2

Patent information............................................................................ 2

Service mark information ................................................................ 2

Trademark information .................................................................... 2

Contact information ......................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................... 3

DOCUMENT CONVENTIONS ............................................ 10

PIPESIM HOT KEYS ........................................................ 10

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 15
1.1 Setting up ............................................................................. 15
1.1.1 Before you run setup ...................................................... 15
1.1.2 Running setup ................................................................ 17
1.1.3 Changing Options after quitting setup ............................ 17

1.2 Documentation..................................................................... 17
1.2.1 PIPESIM additional documentation ................................ 17
1.2.2 Case Studies .................................................................. 18
1.2.3 Online Help..................................................................... 18

1.3 PIPESIM overview................................................................ 19


1.3.1 Modules .......................................................................... 20
1.3.2 Options ........................................................................... 23

1.4 File Management.................................................................. 25

1.5 Security ................................................................................ 26


1.5.1 Stand-alone security (dongle)......................................... 26
1.5.2 LAN Security................................................................... 27

PIPESIM
4 Contents

1.6 New features ........................................................................ 28

1.7 Schlumberger Support Services ........................................ 28

1.8 What to do next.................................................................... 28

2 MODEL OVERVIEW .................................................... 31


2.1 Steps in building a model ................................................... 31

2.2 Starting PIPESIM.................................................................. 31

2.3 Units System ........................................................................ 31

2.4 Fluid data.............................................................................. 32


2.4.1 Black Oil ......................................................................... 32
2.4.2 Compositional................................................................. 34
2.4.3 Steam ............................................................................. 35

2.5 Model components overview.............................................. 35


2.5.1 Model & Component limitations...................................... 39

2.6 Flow correlation ................................................................... 40

2.7 Run an operation ................................................................. 40

2.8 Saving & Closing PIPESIM.................................................. 41

2.9 How to build models............................................................ 41


2.9.1 Fluid calibration .............................................................. 41
2.9.2 Pipeline & facilities.......................................................... 42
2.9.3 Well Performance ........................................................... 45
2.9.4 Network Analysis ............................................................ 48
2.9.5 Production Optimization ................................................. 50
2.9.6 Field Planning................................................................. 50
2.9.7 Multi-lateral ..................................................................... 51

3 FLUID & MULTIPHASE FLOW MODELING ............... 52


3.1 Black Oil ............................................................................... 52
3.1.1 Lasater............................................................................ 52

PIPESIM
Contents 5

3.1.2 Standing ......................................................................... 53


3.1.3 Vazques and Beggs ....................................................... 53
3.1.4 Glasø .............................................................................. 54
3.1.5 Coning ............................................................................ 55
3.1.6 Liquid Viscosity............................................................... 56
3.1.7 Dead Oil Viscosity .......................................................... 56
3.1.8 Live Oil Viscosity ............................................................ 57
3.1.9 Undersaturated Oil Viscosity .......................................... 58
3.1.10 Oil/Water Mixture Viscosity............................................. 59
3.1.11 Gas Viscosity.................................................................. 60

3.2 Compositional...................................................................... 60
3.2.1 EOS (Equations of State) ............................................... 60
3.2.2 Viscosity model............................................................... 61
3.2.3 BIP (Binary Interaction Parameter) Set .......................... 63
3.2.4 Hydrates ......................................................................... 63

3.3 Pressure Drop Calculation.................................................. 65


3.3.1 Flow regimes .................................................................. 66
3.3.2 Single Phase Flow Correlations ..................................... 69
3.3.3 Vertical Multiphase Flow Correlations ............................ 70
3.3.4 Horizontal Multiphase Flow Correlations ........................ 76

3.4 References ........................................................................... 80

4 RESERVOIR, WELL & COMPLETION MODELING ... 87


4.1 Vertical Completions ........................................................... 87
4.1.1 Liquid Reservoirs............................................................ 87
4.1.2 Gas and Gas Condensate Reservoirs............................ 89

4.2 Horizontal Completions ...................................................... 91


4.2.1 Effect of Pressure Drop on Productivity.......................... 91
4.2.2 Single Phase Pressure Drop .......................................... 94
4.2.3 Multiphase Pressure Drop .............................................. 95
4.2.4 Inflow Production Profiles ............................................... 95
4.2.5 Steady-State Productivity ............................................... 96
4.2.6 Pseudo-Steady State Productivity .................................. 99
4.2.7 Solution Gas-Drive IPR ................................................ 101

PIPESIM
6 Contents

4.2.8 Horizontal Gas Wells .................................................... 101

4.3 Multiple Layers / Completions.......................................... 103

4.4 Artificial Lift........................................................................ 104


4.4.1 Gas Lift ......................................................................... 104
4.4.2 ESP Lift......................................................................... 105

4.5 Tubing................................................................................. 105

4.6 Chokes................................................................................ 106


4.6.1 Ashford-Pierce.............................................................. 106
4.6.2 Omana.......................................................................... 107
4.6.3 Gilbert, Ros, Baxendall, Achong and Pilehvari............. 108
4.6.4 Poettmann-Beck ........................................................... 109
4.6.5 Mechanistic Correlation, ............................................... 110
4.6.6 API 14-B Formulation ................................................... 112

4.7 Heat transfer....................................................................... 113

4.8 Reservoir Depletion........................................................... 113


4.8.1 Volume Depletion Reservoirs ....................................... 113
4.8.2 Gas Condensate Reservoirs ........................................ 115

4.9 References ......................................................................... 115

5 FIELD EQUIPMENT ................................................... 119


5.1 Compressor........................................................................ 119

5.2 Expander ............................................................................ 120

5.3 Single Phase Pump ........................................................... 121

5.4 Multiphase Boosting ......................................................... 121


5.4.1 Multiphase Boosters – Positive Displacement Type..... 126
5.4.2 Twin Screw Type Multiphase Boosters ........................ 127
5.4.3 Progressing Cavity Type Multiphase Boosters............. 129
5.4.4 Multiphase Boosters – Dynamic Type .......................... 130
5.4.5 Helico-Axial Type Multiphase Boosters ........................ 131
5.4.6 Contra-Rotating Axial Type Multiphase Booster........... 133

PIPESIM
Contents 7

5.4.7 Alternative approach..................................................... 134

5.5 Separator ............................................................................ 135

5.6 Re-injection point .............................................................. 135

5.7 Heat Transfer...................................................................... 135

5.8 References ......................................................................... 135

6 OPERATIONS ............................................................ 139


6.1 Check model ...................................................................... 139

6.2 No operation....................................................................... 139

6.3 Run model .......................................................................... 140

6.4 System Analysis ................................................................ 140

6.5 Pressure Temperature profile........................................... 140

6.6 Flow correlation matching ................................................ 140

6.7 Wax Prediction................................................................... 141

6.8 Nodal Analysis ................................................................... 141

6.9 Artificial Lift Performance................................................. 142


6.9.1 Well Performance Curves............................................. 143
6.9.2 Optimization module performance curves .................... 143

6.10 Gas Lift Design & Diagnostics ......................................... 145


6.10.1 Check for Gas Lift instability ......................................... 145

6.11 Horizontal well analysis .................................................... 148

6.12 Reservoir tables................................................................. 148

6.13 Network analysis ............................................................... 149

6.14 Production Optimization ................................................... 149

PIPESIM
8 Contents

6.15 Field Planning .................................................................... 150


6.15.1 Dynamic Eclipse link..................................................... 150
6.15.2 Look-up tables .............................................................. 152
6.15.3 Compositional tank models .......................................... 153
6.15.4 Event handling.............................................................. 154

6.16 Multi-lateral well analysis.................................................. 155

6.17 Post processor................................................................... 155


6.17.1 Graphical plots.............................................................. 155
6.17.2 Tabular data ................................................................. 156
6.17.3 Onscreen data .............................................................. 156

6.18 References ......................................................................... 156

7 CASE STUDIES ......................................................... 159


7.1 Pipeline & facilities Case Study – Condensate Pipeline 161
7.1.1 Task 1. Develop a Compositional Model of the
Hydrocarbon Phases .................................................................. 161
7.1.2 Task 2. Identify the Hydrate Envelope.......................... 162
7.1.3 Task 3. Select a Pipeline Size ...................................... 163
7.1.4 Task 4. Determine the Pipeline Insulation Requirement
165
7.1.5 Task 5. Screen the Pipeline for Severe Riser Slugging 167
7.1.6 Task 6. Size a Slug Catcher ......................................... 170
7.1.7 Data Available .............................................................. 172

7.2 Well Performance Case Study – Oil Well Design............ 175


7.2.1 Task 1. Develop a Calibrated Blackoil Model ............... 175
7.2.2 Task 2. Develop a Well Inflow Performance Model...... 180
7.2.3 Task 3. Select a Tubing Size for the Production String 180
7.2.4 Data Available .............................................................. 182

7.3 Network Analysis Case Study – Looped Gas Gathering


Network ...................................................................................... 7-184
7.3.1 Task 1. Build a Model of the Network........................ 7-184
7.3.2 Task 2. Specify the Network Boundary Conditions ... 7-189

PIPESIM
Contents 9

7.3.3 Task 3. Solve the Network and Establish the deliverability


7-190
7.3.4 Data Available ........................................................... 7-192

7.4 Optimization .................................................................... 7-194

7.5 Field Planning ................................................................. 7-194

7.6 Multi-lateral...................................................................... 7-194

8 INDEX ......................................................................8-194

PIPESIM
10 Conventions

Document conventions

<edit/copy> - used to denote commands enter into the computer from


either Microsoft Windows operating systems or PIPESIM

PIPESIM
Conventions 11

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

PIPESIM
12 Conventions

PIPESIM Hot Keys


File
Create New Well Model CTRL+W
Create New Pipeline Model CTRL+
Create New Network model CTRL+N
Open model CTRL+O
Open engine file CTRL+T
Save model CTRL+S
Close PIPESIM ALT+F4
Text Edit CTRL+T
Export to Engine file CTRL+E
Purge Engine Files CTRL+Y

Simulation
Run model CTRL+G
Restart Model CTRL+R
Check model CTRL+E

Windows
New Model Window CTRL+W
Close Active Window CTRL+F4
Go to Next Window CTRL+F6 or CTRL+TAB
Go to Previous Window CTRL+SHIFT+F6 or
CTRL+SHIFT+ TAB

Tools
Print CTRL+P
Access Help F1

Editing/General
Access Pull-down menus ALT or F10
Cut CTRL+X
Copy CTRL+C
Paste CTRL+V
Delete Del
Select All CTRL+A
Find CTRL+F
Sticky key mode SHIFT

PIPESIM
Conventions 13

Zoom in SHIFT+Z
Zoom out SHIFT+X
Zoom Full View SHIFT+F
Restore View SHIFT+R

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 15

1 Introduction
Welcome to Schlumberger’s PIPESIM - the integrated Petroleum
Engineer and Facilities package for Design, Operation and
Optimization.

1.1 Setting up
You install PIPESIM on your computer by using the program
SETUP.EXE. The setup up program installs ESI
M
16 Field Equipment

• A mouse
• 32Mb of RAM
• Microsoft Windows 98 or higher
• The PC system date is set to the current date. The security
system uses the current PC date.

The recommended system requirements are:


• Pentium III processor 600MHz
• 3Gb hard disk
• A 4x CD-ROM drive
• A SVGA display running in 1024x768 and 256 colors
• A 2 button mouse
• 64Mb of RAM
• Microsoft Windows 2000

1.1.1.2 Check the PIPESIM package


The following items should be in the PIPESIM package:
• PIPESIM User Guide
• PIPESIM Additional Notes
• PIPESIM Service Pack Notes (if applicable)
• PIPESIM Installation Guide
• PIPESIM CD
• Registration form (also available on our web site)
• Software license reference number. This should be quoted
on all correspondence.

If any of the above are missing then please contact your nearest
Schlumberger office.

1.1.1.3 Make backup copies


Before you run the install procedure please back up copies of any
important data stored on your PC.

You are also encouraged to make a back up copy of the install CD.

1.1.1.4 Read the additional notes document


The additional notes' document (shipped with the package) lists any
changes to the User Guide since its publication.

PIPESIM 2000
Field Equipment 17

1.1.2 Running setup


When you run the setup program

To start Setup

Once you have installed PIPESIM the following links will be created
on the Programs menu;
• Schlumberger
• PIPESIM
• GOAL
• FPT
• HoSim
• Documentation
• OpenLink
• Utilities
• B26 to P2K Converter
• Security utilities
• User defined DLL registry editor
• Plotting utility

1.1.3 Changing Options after quitting setup


You can run they setup program as many times as you like to install,
re-install or remove components. However, only 1 copy of PIPESIM
can be installed on a single PC.

1.2 Documentation
1.2.1 PIPESIM additional documentation
In addition to this User Guide the following documentation is available
to assist users in using PIPESIM or some of its modules.

The latest versions of these documents are available from any


Schlumberger support office or can be downloaded directly from the
Schlumberger web site in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

1.2.1.1 Artificial lift Performance curve


The optimizer module utilizes artificial lift performance curves to
model the wells. These can be created by a suitable Nodal analysis
software package.

PIPESIM 2000
18 Field Equipment

1.2.1.2 User Defined Multiphase flow correlation


The user can create their own multiphase flow correlations and link
these into PIPESIM.

1.2.1.3 OpenLink
A collection of COM object that allows PIPESIM to be accessed from
3rd party applications, e.g. Microsoft Excel, Visual basic, etc.

An up to date list of features and functionality can be obtained from


the Schlumberger web site, along with all the necessary
documentation.

1.2.1.4 PVT file format


The composition can be transferred from third party applications
directly into PIPESIM, provide that it is supplied in the correct format.
This document details that format.

1.2.1.5 Sentinel LM Security


The LAN version of PIPESIM utilizes Sentinel LM License manger as
its security system The Sentinel LM Administrators Guide can be of
assistance to IT personnel.

Note: This User Guide does not cover the menus or dialogs that are
used within the software. These are covered, in detail, in the Help
system, supplied with PIPESIM.

1.2.2 Case Studies


The PIPESIM installation installs sample models on to your hard disk.

1.2.3 Online Help


You can access Help through;
• the Help Contents command,
• by searching for specific topics with the Help Search tool
• pressing F1 to get context-sensitive Help.

1.2.3.1 Help contents


For information on Help topics, choose Contents from the Help menu
or press F1 and click the Contents button. You can use the Contents

PIPESIM 2000
Field Equipment 19

screen to jump to topics that tell you how to useaBT5/TT4 1- Tc 0.000 Tc 0 Tw 13.98
20 Field Equipment

Field Planning
Multi-lateral well
Multi-zone wells

This release of PIPESIM does not have all modules fully integrated,
i.e. Production Optimization (GOAL), Field Planning (FPT), Multi-
lateral well (HoSim).

1.3.1 Modules
PIPESIM consists of the following modules:
• Pipeline & Facilities
• Well Performance Analysis
• Network Analysis
• Production Optimization (GOAL)
• Field Planning (FPT)
• Multi-lateral (HoSim)

1.3.1.1 Pipeline & Facilities


A comprehensive multiphase flow model with "System Analysis"
capabilities. Typical applications of the module include:
• multiphase flow in flowlines and pipelines
• point by point generation of pressure and temperature profiles
• calculation of heat transfer coefficients
• flowline & equipment performance modeling (system analysis)

1.3.1.2 Well Performance analysis


A comprehensive multiphase flow model with "Nodal & System
Analysis" capabilities. Typical applications of the module includes:
• Well design
• Well optimization
• Well inflow performance modeling
• Gas Lift Design
• ESP Design
• Gas lift performance modeling
• ESP performance modeling
• Horizontal well modeling (including optimum horizontal
completion length determination)
• Injection well design
• Annular and tubing flow

PIPESIM 2000
Field Equipment 21

1.3.1.3 Network analysis module


Features of the network model include:
• unique network solution algorithm to model wells in large
networks
• rigorous thermal modeling of all network components
• multiple looped pipeline/flowline capability
• well inflow performance modeling capabilities
• rigorous modeling of gas lifted wells in complex networks
• comprehensive pipeline equipment models
• gathering and distribution networks

1.3.1.4 Production Optimization (GOAL)


This module allows production optimization of an artificial lifted (gas
lift or ESP) oil field to be performed given a number of practical
constraints on the system.

The module will predict the optimum artificial lift quantity (lift gas or
ESP speed) so as to optimize oil production from the entire field. As
an alternative to calculations based on produced oil the optimization
can be performed on gross liquids, gross gas or revenue. The
program models the full network on a point-by-point basis, and offers
a choice of flow correlation options for multiphase flow.
In addition to being able to optimize field production it includes a
unique production prediction mode, which allows current field
production rates and pressures to be predicted and the results
compared directly against actual field data.

The module has been primarily developed for use by operations staff
in the day-to-day optimization and allocation of lift gas for complex
multi-well networked configurations.

GOAL has been designed with to allow answers to specific problems


to be easily obtained. This could be, for example, when a well is shut-
in and the extra quantity of lift gas or horse power is made available.
The module can then be used to determine the best re-allocation of
the lift gas to the remaining wells, while taking into account any
production constraints, to optimize the total production.

PIPESIM 2000
22 Field Equipment

To allow the day-to-day modeling of the system to be performed


quickly, modeling of the wells and the optimization process have
been separated. This allows answers to specific problems, by
examining a number of scenarios, to be generated in a very short
time.

Input is taken from individual well performance models created from a


multiphase flow simulator, in the form of well performance curves.
These performance curves should be generated and checked before
being included in the model.

To obtain the correct solution the pressure drop must be correctly


accounted for along the surface network. This is simulated by the use
of (tuned) industrial standard multiphase flow correlation's to predict
the pressure loss and liquid hold-up in the pipeline.

In its production prediction mode of operation it can be used to


validate the individual well gas lift or ESP lift performance curves by
using them to predict current production rates.

Results are displayed in tabular form, graphical plots or by utilizing


the sophisticated graphical user interface to display a variety of rates
and pressures. The solution provides a comprehensive report that
includes the required gas injection rate for each well or required
operating speed for each well, the flow rate and pressure at each
manifold in the system and economic data.

Full features of the model include:


• interfaces with the well Analysis module
• solves multi-well commingled scenarios
• allows well production performance modeling
• offers operator decision support functions
• Black Oil only

1.3.1.5 Multi-lateral wells (HoSim)


HoSim is designed to model horizontal and multilateral
heterogeneous wells in detail. The software uses a rigorous network
solution algorithm to solve horizontal and multilateral wells as
gathering networks.

PIPESIM 2000
Field Equipment 23

The program enables detailed horizontal well models to be built


quickly and easily through a graphical user interface. The user can
define various IPR relationships, and specify a detailed well
description. Certain equipment models, which are common to the
pipeline and facilities module, are available such as chokes, gas lift,
ESP’s and also separators, compressors, pumps etc.

Fluid description can be either black oil or compositional and different


fluids can be specified which are mixed together using appropriate
mixing rules.

Specifying either an outlet pressure or an outlet flow rate (or a range


of values for a batch run) to run the model.

Results can be displayed either as text (point values) or graphically


for any part of the model.

1.3.1.6 Field Planning (FPT)


Allows the network module to be coupled to a “reservoir model” to
model reservoir behavior over time. In addition conditional logic
decision can be taken into account, i.e. bring well 56 on steam in year
5, etc.
The reservoir may be described as either;
• Black oil tank model
• Compositional tank model
• look-up tables
• Commercial reservoir simulator
• Commercial material balance program

1.3.2 Options
In addition to the above basic modules a number of options are
available.

1.3.2.1 Compositional option


Allows a PVT package to be used to determine the fluid properties.
Options are
• SIS Flash (provided by Schlumberger)
• Multiflash (provided by InfoChem)

PIPESIM 2000
24 Field Equipment

• SPPTS (for Shell users only)

The compositional options have the following features;


• Standard library of 50+ components
• Petroleum Fraction
• Phase envelope generation
• Dew point line
• Bubble point line
• Critical point
• Hydrate formation line (if present)
• Ice formation line (if present)
• Quality lines
• EOS
• Peng-Robinson (standard and advanced)
• SRK (standard and advanced)
• Corresponding EOS
• SMIRK (limited access)
• Stand alone flash (PT, PH, etc) details
• Viscosity models
• Pederson
• LBC

In addition the Multiflash option has the following features;


• Multiple Bubble point matching
• Multiple Dew point matching
• Multiple Viscosity data matching
• Multi-stage flashing
• Setting of BIPs
• Emulsion options
• User defined BIPs

1.3.2.2 OLGAS 2000


Utilizes the steady-state version of the multiphase flow correlation
from Scandpower as used in OLGA Transient.

This option has 2 versions;


(i) 2-phase and
(ii) 3-phase.

PIPESIM 2000
Field Equipment 25

1.3.2.3 ECLIPSE 100


Allows the Field Planning module to use the ECLIPSE 100 (Black Oil)
reservoir simulator to model the reservoir performance. The system
has been designed so that ECLIPSE can reside on UNIX or PC.

1.3.2.4 ECLIPSE 300


Allows the Field Planning module to use the ECLIPSE 300 reservoir
simulator (Compositional) to model the reservoir performance. The
system has been designed so that ECLIPSE can reside on UNIX or
PC.
1.3.2.5 MBAL
Allows the Field Planning module to use the material balance
program Mbal (from Petroleum Experts) to model the reservoir
performance.

1.4 File Management


PIPESIM uses the following to store data;
• ASCII files
• Binary files
• Microsoft Access Database.

Input data (*.BPS, *.BPN, *.PGW, *.FPT,*.HSM)


Contains all the data that is necessary to run a model. This includes
data for; units, fluid composition, well IPR, system data, etc. The
support team requires these files when support queries are made.

Output data (*.OUT, *.SUM)


Contains program output data in different formats.

Transfer files (*.PLT, *.PLC, *.PWH, *.PBT, *.TNT, *.PST)


Files that transfer data from one PIPESIM module to another.

PVT table (*.PVT)


A file that contains a single stream composition and a table of fluid
properties for a given set of pressure and temperature values. This
file can (if required) be created by a commercial PVT package e.g.
Multiflash, Hysys, PVTSim, EQUI90, etc. or via the compositional
module in PIPESIM.

PIPESIM 2000
26 Field Equipment

Database files (*.MDB)


Microsoft Access Database file that contains;
• Black Oil fluid data,
• ESP performance curves
• User defined pump and compressor curves

Units file (*.UMF)


Units files. Used to store user defined unit sets. These files can be
passed from user-to-user.

1.5 Security
Stand-alone (single PC) versions of PIPESIM are protected from
unauthorized use by means of either a license file or a hardware
security module (generally referred to as a 'dongle' or 'bit lock'). Local
Area Network (LAN) versions are normally protected via License
Manager software.

1.5.1 Stand-alone security (dongle)


When the program executes the dongle must be attached to the
parallel port of the computer otherwise it will not run. The dongle
remains the property of Schlumberger while in use by customers, and
are not replaceable if lost.

You can connect another device (or more Schlumberger dongles) to


the parallel port while the dongle is still attached to it without affecting
the operation of the device or the dongle. Do this simply by plugging
the device into the back of the dongle. If you already have another
program protected by a similar dongle, they can both be plugged into
the port at the same time, and should not interfere with each other.
The dongle is quite robust, so no particular care need be taken in
handling it.

Users are able to view the Schlumberger software modules licensed


on their dongles by using the Dongle Utility. On start-up of the utility,
the attached dongle license details for the various software modules
are displayed. When renewing or purchasing additional software
licenses you will need to update the licenses on your dongle(s) by
receiving instructions from Schlumberger.

PIPESIM 2000
Field Equipment 27

The dongles have an internal timing mechanism to enforce the


license periods. It is important NOT to set your PC’s clock into the
future and run PIPESIM, as the dongle will prevent you from using
PIPESIM after you have set your clock back. If you do accidentally do
this, contact Schlumberger for information on how to “reset” your
dongle.
28 Field Equipment

1.6 New features


You are advised to review the Release Notes document supplied
with your version of the software for a complete list of new features.

1.7 Schlumberger Support Services


Schlumberger offers full technical support for PIPESIM from our
offices worldwide. Please see the web site for your nearest support
center or contact the support centers in the United Kingdom or in
Houston (USA).
Center Tel
United Kingdom +44 1293 55 68 97
mailto:helpdesk-gquk@lslb.com
America +1 713 513 2037
helpdesk-houston-sis@slb.com

To offer the best and fastest support our preferred method for
support services is via email.

1.8 What to do next


Depending upon your needs the following is recommended;

New users
• Familiarize yourself with the all PIPESIM modules, their function
and application.
• Work through the case studies for your particular area of interest

Existing users
• Read the Release Notes document to obtain an overview of new
features.

PIPESIM 2000
Field Equipment 29

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 31

2 Model Overview

2.1 Steps in building a model


The steps involved in building a PIPESIM model are slightly different
for each module but follow the same basic steps.
• Select units
• Set fluid data
• Calibrate data (optional)
• Define components in the model
• Well components (completion, tubing)
• Pipeline component
• Field equipment
• Set heat transfer options
• Select multiphase flow correlation
• Perform an operation
• Analyze the results
• Graphical
• Tabular
• Via schematic

2.2 Starting PIPESIM


The PIPESIM GUI can be run from the start menu <start/program
files/Schlumberger/PIPESIM>.

2.3 Units System


The built in units system allows you the flexibility to select any
variable and define the unit of measurement to be used. Thus you
can use this feature to modify the units system to match reports or
data supplied by a service company or to simply customize the units
system to suit your own personal preferences.

Two non-customizable unit sets are provided;


• Engineering (oil field) and
• SI.

In addition the customizable unit sets are available.


Any number of customized unit sets can be created and saved (each
one to a different external data file) under a new name. These
customized files can be provided to other PIPESIM users.

PIPESIM
32 Model Overview

The units system used for any particular model is saved with the
model data, thus allowing models to be moved easily.

Any unit set can be set as the default for new models or new
sessions of PIPESIM.

2.4 Fluid data


One of the first things that you need to do before using PIPESIM is to
decide what type of fluid system you are going to use.

PIPESIM can model the following fluid types:


• Gas
• Gas condensate
• Liquid
• Liquid & Gas
• Steam

The fluid can be described by one of the following methods;


• Fully Compositional
• Black Oil correlations
• Steam tables

The fluid model that you use will depend upon:


• Properties of the fluids in the system
• Flow rates and conditions (pressure & temperature) at which the
fluid(s) enter and leave the system.
• Available data, etc.

For a quick screening study where the accuracy of the physical


properties is not essential, we advise the user to use a Black oil fluid
model specification.

2.4.1 Black Oil


Black oil fluid modeling utilizes correlation models to simulate the key
PVT fluid properties of the oil/gas/water system. These empirical
correlation's treat the oil/gas system as a simple two component
system - unlike the more rigorous multi-component compositional
model methods. The hydrocarbon is treated simply as a liquid

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 33

component (if present) and a gas component related to stock tank


conditions. All that is needed for most applications is a minimum of
production data, oil gravity, gas gravity, solution gas/oil ratio and, if
water is also present in the system, the watercut.

Black oil fluid modeling is appropriate for use with a wide range of
applications and hydrocarbon fluid systems. In general, the basic
black oil correlations will provide reasonable accuracy in most PVT
fluid property evaluations over the range of pressures and
temperatures likely to be found in production or pipeline systems.

However, care should be taken when applying the black oil approach
to a highly volatile crude or a condensate where accurate modeling of
the gaseous light ends is required. In this case, the user should
consider the use of compositional modeling technique that describes
the fluid as a multi-component mixture.

In order to increase the accuracy of the basic black oil correlations for
modeling multiphase flow, PIPESIM provides the facility to adjust
salient values of a number of the most important PVT fluid properties
to match laboratory data.

These PVT fluid properties are considered the single most important
parameters affecting the accuracy of multi-phase flow calculations.
Calibration of these properties can greatly increase the accuracy of
the correlations over the range of pressures and temperatures for the
system being modeled.

This facility is optional, but the above calibrations will significantly


improve the accuracy of the predicted gas/liquid ratio, the flowing oil
density and the oil volume formation factor. If the calibration data is
omitted, however, PIPESIM will calibrate on the basis of oil and gas
gravity alone and thus, there will be a loss in accuracy. It should be
noted that the black oil calibration feature is only applicable to oil fluid
types, as it is not appropriate for a gas fluid type.

The following blackoil correlations are available:


• Solution gas and bubble point pressure: Lasater, Standing,
Vasquez and Beggs, Kartamodjo, Khan, or Glasø.

PIPESIM
34 Model Overview

• Oil formation volume factor of saturated systems: Standing,


Vasquez and Beggs, or Glasø.
• Oil formation volume factor of undersaturated systems:
Vasquez and Beggs, or Glasø.
• Dead oil viscosity: Beggs and Robinson, Glasø, or User’s data.
• Live oil viscosity of saturated systems: Chew and Connally or
Beggs and Robinson.
• Live oil viscosity of undersaturated systems: Vazquez and
Beggs, Kousel, or None.
• Viscosity of oil/water mixtures: Inversion, Volume Ratio, or
Woelflin.
• Gas viscosity: Lee et al.
• Gas compressibility: Standing, or Hall and Yarborough.

2.4.2 Compositional
For compositional fluid modeling of hydrocarbon fluids and
associated gas and water components, PIPESIM uses a PVT
modeling package.

Compositional fluid modeling is generally regarded as more accurate,


but also more expensive in terms of time and computer resources
than black oil modeling. It is justified for problems involving volatile
fluids needing rigorous heat transfer calculations. However, the black
oil modeling approach can often give satisfactory results with volatile
fluids.

Oil systems contain in reality many thousands of pure components,


consisting of a spectrum of molecules with different carbon numbers
and large numbers of different isomers. It would be impossible to
model the behavior of such systems by explicitly defining the amount
of each of these molecules, both because of the excessive computing
power needed and the fact that laboratory reports could not possibly
supply all this information.

Since the alkane hydrocarbons are non-polar and therefore mutually


relatively ideal, lumping them together in the form of a number of
'pseudo-components' results in fairly accurate phase behavior and
physical property predictions.

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 35

Petroleum fractions are normally defined by splitting off sections of a


laboratory distillation of the C7+ mixture. Curves of boiling point,
density and molecular weight are produced from which the properties
of the individual pseudo-components may be derived.

Petroleum fractions are characterized by either;


• Measured Properties;
• boiling point (BP),
• specific gravity (SG) and
• molecular weight (MW). T
• Critical Property
• critical temperature (TC),
• critical pressure (PC),
• acentric factor (Omega) and
• specific gravity (SG).

Further details of the equations used, etc can be found in the


PIPESIM help system.

2.4.3 Steam
For steam systems (production and injection) PIPESIM uses the
GPSA stream tables.

When modeling stream systems the pressure and quality are


required. If the quality is superheated (quality =100%) or sub-cooled
(quality=0%) then the temperature is also required.

2.5 Model components overview


A PIPESIM model is built (via the GUI) by adding components (from
the toolbox) to the model window.

Components are divided into 2 groups;


• Node type components
• Boundary nodes - Must be on the edge of the system and can
only have one connection either leaving (source) or entering
(sink).
• Internal nodes - Cannot be on the edge of the system and can
have any number of connections.
• Linking type components - Joins 2 node type components

PIPESIM
36 Model Overview

Node type components are connected by linking components and


thus must be added to the model first.

The components available depend upon the modules purchased.


Details on the inputs for each component can be found in the help
system.

A full list of components and their type is listed below.

Pipeline & facilities module


Component Type Description
Source Boundary The point where the fluid enters the
Node system.
Flowline Link A flowline to a point where it meets
another flowline (with different
characteristics) or another object.
Maybe horizontal or inclined and
surrounded by air, water or both;
insulated or bare
Riser Link A description of the riser (vertical or
near-vertical - up or down) to a point
where it meets another riser or another
object.
Pump Internal A single or multistage pump for the
Node pumping of liquids.
Multiphase Node A multiphase booster.
Booster
Separator Internal Allows fluid separation to take place in
Node the model. It is a two-phase separator,
(i.e. gross liquids, water or gas).

The removed fluid can be re-injected


back into the network model via the
injection point component.
Compressor Internal A single or multistage centrifugal gas
Node compressor
Expander Internal An expander.
Node

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 37

Heat exchanger Internal Allows a change in temperature and


Node pressure to be modeled
Choke Internal A device to restrict the flow of fluids.
Node
Generic Internal A general device that can alter the
Equipment Node pressure or temperature.
Injection point Internal Allows a side stream (compositional
Node only) to be injected into the main
stream. The incoming pressure and
flowrate (along with the composition)
are required.
Multiplier/Adder Internal Changes the flowrate by the amount
Node specified.
Spot report Internal Allow key pieces of information to be
Node retrieved at any point (between links) in
the system. This component has no
effect on the temperature or pressure in
the system.
Keyword tool Internal Allows engine keywords to be inserted
Node into a model. A full list of the keywords
can be found in the Help system under
keyword reference.
Connector Link Joins to nodes without having any
effect on the calculations, i.e. a zero
length piece of pipe.

Well Performance module


Component Type Description
Vertical Boundary Describes the well IPR and the
completion Node reservoir static pressure for a vertical
completion. These are then used to
determine the bottom hole pressure.
Horizontal Boundary Describes the horizontal completion,
completion Node the IPR and the reservoir static
pressure. These are then used to
determine the bottom hole (heal)
pressure
Tubing Link Joins the reservoir top the surface. The
fluid can flow either through the tubing

PIPESIM
38 Model Overview

or outside the tubing (inside the casing)


or both. The tubing may also have
down hole equipment installed.
Nodal analysis Node The point in the system where the
point (nodal) analysis is to be conducted.
The model is then broken into two
parts; inflow to the NA point and
outflow from the NA point.

Network module
Component Type Description
Production well Boundary Models the source as a production well.
Node The well is (normally) defined from the
sand face to the point where it joins
another object, i.e. well head, manifold,
etc.
Generic source Boundary The point where a fluid enters the
Node system. Can be used when a well is
modeled from the well head.
Injection well Boundary Models the sink as an injection well,
Node including tubing and completion.
Generic sink Boundary The point where the fluid leaves the
Node systems. A model may have any
number of sinks.
Node Node A point in the system where 1 or more
branches meets
Branch Link Connects 2 or more nodes, sources or
sinks. Any combination of flowline, riser
or pieces of equipment can be used to
describe a branch. When connected
between a well and a node the
resulting branch has no physical
meaning
Re-injection Node Connects 3 branches;
node 1 - the incoming fluid stream
2 - the outlet stream
3 - the stream removed by the
separator. All the fluid removed from
the separator is re-injected. The re-

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 39

injected stream can be upstream or


downstream of the separator.

2.5.1 Model & Component limitations


The following limitations;

General:
• Maximum number of components in a stream: 50

Pipeline & facilities


• Maximum number of sources: 1
• Maximum number of sinks: 1
• Maximum number pipe coatings: 4
• Maximum number of nodes for a pipeline or riser: 101

Well Performance
• Maximum number of completions: 10
• Maximum number of sinks 1
• Maximum number tubing coatings: 10
• Maximum number of nodes for a tubing: 100
• Maximum number of geothermal survey points: 100
• Maximum number of tubing strings:
• Detailed model: 20
• Simple model: 4

Network
• Maximum number of wells / branches: unlimited
• Maximum number of nodes: unlimited
• Maximum number of PVT files: 500
• Maximum number of compositions: 1,000
• Maximum number of Black Oil compositions: 1,024
• Maximum number of PQ data points: 30

Field Planning
• Maximum number of stored timesteps: 256
• Maximum number of auxiliary properties: 1,500
• Maximum number of Eclipse models: 1
• Maximum number of network models: 5

PIPESIM
40 Model Overview

• Maximum number of events: 2,500


• Maximum number of schedule 'bean' lists: 99
• Maximum number of look-up tables: 500
• Maximum number of data lines in all look-up tables: 1500
• Maximum number of tank reservoirs: 50

Production Optimization (GOAL)


• Maximum number of wells/branches: 500
• Maximum number of nodes: 400
• Maximum number of sinks: 1

Multi-lateral (HoSim)
• Maximum number of multi-laterals: 500

2.6 Flow correlation


Flow correlations are used to determine the pressure drop and hold-
up in the system

Flow correlations are split in to the following section;


• Single phase
• Multiphase - vertical
• Multiphase - horizontal

A number of flow correlations have been proposed over the years.

In addition to the standard supplied flow correlations user's can


create and add their own multiphase flow correlation in to PIPESIM
via the user DLL facility.

The linkages are documented in the user defined flow correlations


document, which can be obtained from Schlumberger or down loaded
from our web site.

2.7 Run an operation


Select the operation that is relevant to the model developed. The
simulation will commence and the post-processor can then be used
to analyze the results.

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 41

2.8 Saving & Closing PIPESIM


When PIPESIM is closed all files (models) that have been modified
during the session are checked and an option to save any that have
changed is presented to the user.

2.9 How to build models


This section provides a brief overview of the steps involved in building
a model with each of the basic PIPESIM modules.

See the PIPESIM Help system " How do I…" section for full details
on setting up the basic models.

PIPESIM can build the following basic models;


• Pipeline and facilities
• Production well
• Single completion well
• Multiple completion well
• Horizontal completion well
• Injection well
• Sub-surface and surface Networks
• Gathering systems
• Looped systems
• Distribution systems
• Multi-lateral wells
• Production
• Injection

2.9.1 Fluid calibration


2.9.1.1 Black Oil
The following basic steps are required to calibrate the black oil
defined fluids;
• Select the units set of your preference
• Enter the basic fluid data
• Enter the Bubble Point data
• Enter the Advanced calibration data (optional)
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

PIPESIM
42 Model Overview

In a network model the calibration data is "mixed" at junctions to


provide average calibration data for the resulting stream.

2.9.1.2 Compositional
The following basic steps are required to calibrate the compositionally
defined fluids;
• Select the units set of your preference
• Enter the basic fluid data (library components, petroleum
fractions)
• Produce the phase envelop (for reference)
• Select the quantity to match to; Bubble Point or Dew point
• Enter the matching data
• Select viscosity matching options if applicable
• Enter the viscosity data
• Run the matching operation
• Update the composition
• Produce the new phase envelop
• Save the model!

2.9.2 Pipeline & facilities


The following basic steps are required to build a pipeline & facilities
model;
• Select the units set of your preference
• Add the necessary components to the model (source, flowline,
equipment, etc) and defined the necessary data.
• Define the fluid specification (black oil or compositional).
• Define the flow correlation to use.
• Save the model!

One the basic model has been developed a number of operations


can be performed or the model can be utilized in additional PIPESIM
modules.

2.9.2.1 Correlation matching


The following basic steps are required to determine the most suitable
horizontal multiphase flow correlation;
• Build the pipeline & facilities model.
• Select the Correlation matching operation
• Determine the boundary condition to compute

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 43

• Select suitable Horizontal correlations


• Enter any known measured pressure and temperature values
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

Insure that the most suitable correlation is then selected from the
horizontal flow correlation list for subsequent simulations.

2.9.2.2 Pressure/Temperature profile


The following basic steps are required to determine the pressure or
temperature profile along the system;
• Build the well performance model.
• Select the Pressure/Temperature profile operation
• Determine the boundary condition to compute
• Select any sensitivity parameters
• Enter the sensitivity parameters
• Run the operation
• Save the model!

2.9.2.3 Equipment/Flowline sizing (1 parameter)


The following basic steps are required to size a flowline/riser or a
piece of equipment;
• Build the pipeline and facilities model.
• Include the flowline/equipment/riser to be sized.
• Select the Pressure/Temperature profile operation
• Select the sensitivity parameter
• Enter the data for the sensitivity parameter
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

2.9.2.4 Equipment/Flowline sizing (Multiple parameter)


The following basic steps are required to size a flowline/riser or a
piece of equipment;
• Build the pipeline and facilities model.
• Include the flowline/equipment/riser to be sized.
• Select the System Analysis operation
• Select the multiple sensitivity
• Select the x-axis and sensitivity parameters

PIPESIM
44 Model Overview

• Enter the data for the sensitivity parameters


• Decide if the sensitivity parameters are permuted or change in
step.
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

2.9.2.5 Multiphase booster design


The following basic steps are required to complete a multiphase
booster design;
• Build the pipeline and facilities (including the well if required)
model.
• Include the multiphase booster.
• Perform the analysis (nodal, PT profile, etc) with the booster
inactive.
• Invoke the generic Multiphase booster option and set the
booster parameters. Details on efficiency factors are supplied in
the help system.
• Re-run the analysis.
• Verify that multiphase booster van enhance production.
• Decide upon the Multiphase booster type required (Helico Axial
or Twin Screw).
• For twin screw boosters
• Select the generic twin screw module
• Enter the required data and re-run the analysis
• PIPESIM will automatically select the most suitable size
of the twin screw booster.
• Select the Twin screw booster module
• Select the nominal booster as recommend by the
previous operation
• Enter the data required data and re-run the analysis
• Select the vendor Twin screw module
• Enter the data required data and re-run the analysis
• For Helico Axial boosters
• Enter the required a data and re-run the analysis
• Save the model!

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 45

2.9.3 Well Performance


The following basic steps are required to build a well model (single or
multiple completion);
• Select the units set of your preference
• Determine the completion of the well
• Single
• Multiple
• Horizontal
• Add the necessary components to the model (completion,
tubing, etc) and defined the necessary data.
• Define the fluid specification
• Define the flow correlation to use.
• Save the model!

Once the basic model has been developed a number of operations


can be performed or the well model can be utilized in additional
PIPESIM modules.

2.9.3.1 Correlation matching


The following basic steps are required to determine the most suitable
vertical multiphase flow correlation;
• Build the well o.aTm(well dules. )TjETEMC/P <</MMCID 7 >>BDCBT/C2_1 1 T
46 Model Overview

• Determine the inflow and outflow parameters.


• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

2.9.3.3 Pressure/Temperature profile


The following basic steps are required to determine the pressure or
temperature profile along the system;
• Build the well performance model.
• Select the Pressure/Temperature profile operation
• Determine the boundary condition to compute
• Select any sensitivity parameters
• Enter the sensitivity parameters
• Run the operation
• Save the model!

2.9.3.4 Equipment/Tubing sizing (1 parameter)


The following basic steps are required to size tubing or a piece of
equipment;
• Build the well model.
• Include the tubing/equipment to be sized.
• Select the Pressure/Temperature profile operation
• Select the sensitivity parameter
• Enter the data for the sensitivity parameter
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

2.9.3.5 Equipment/Tubing sizing (Multiple parameter)


The following basic steps are required to size tubing or a piece of
equipment;
• Build the pipeline and facilities model.
• Include the tubing/equipment to be sized.
• Select the System Analysis operation
• Select the multiple sensitivity
• Select the x-axis and sensitivity parameters
• Enter the data for the sensitivity parameters
• Decide if the sensitivity parameters are permuted or change in
step.
• Run the operation.

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 47

• Save the model!

2.9.3.6 Artificial Lift analysis


The following basic steps are required to analysis the effects of
artificial lift on a well;
• Build the well performance model.
• Insure that the gas lift or ESP lift depth has been set.
• Select the Artificial Lift operation
• Select the sensitivity parameters
• Run the operation
• Save the model!

2.9.3.7 Well performance curves for GOAL


The following basic steps are required to create well performance
curves for the Optimization module (GOAL);
• Build the well performance model.
• Insure that the gas lift or ESP lift depth has been set.
• Select the Artificial Lift operation
• Select the GOAL curve format
• Enter the required data
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

The resulting data transfer files (*.PLT & *.PWH) are required by the
optimization model. These files must then be transferred (manually)
to the required optimization (GOAL) directory.

2.9.3.8Well performance curves for Network Solver


The following basic steps are required to create well performance
curves for the Network module (GOAL);
• Build the well performance model.
• Select the Well Performance operation
• Select the sensitivity parameters
• Enter the required data
• Run the operation
• Save the model!

The resulting data transfer files (*.WPI) are required by the network
model if the well is to be represented by a performance curve. These

PIPESIM
48 Model Overview

files must then be transferred (manually) to the required network


directory.

2.9.3.9 Reservoir Tables


The following basic steps are required to create reservoir look-up
tables;
• Build the well performance model.
• Select the reservoir tables operation
• Select the reservoir simulator
• Enter the required data
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

The resulting ASCII file can then be used directly by the reservoir
simulator.

2.9.3.10 Horizontal completion length


The following basic steps are required to determine the optimal
horizontal completion length;
• Build the well (horizontal) performance model.
• Select the Horizontal completion length operation
• Enter the required data
• Run the operation.
• Save the model!

2.9.3.11 Gas Lift Rate v's Casing head pressure


The following basic steps are required to analysis the effects of gas
lift rate on the casing head pressure for a well;
• Build the well performance model.
• Insure that the gas lift depth and quantity has been set.
• Select the Gas Lift rate v's casing head pressure operation
• Select the sensitivity parameters
• Run the operation
• Save the model!

2.9.4 Network Analysis


2.9.4.1 Fluid properties
In a network model different fluid descriptions can not be used, i.e.
the model must be either black oil, compositional or steam.

PIPESIM 2000
Model Overview 49

Each source can have it's own fluid description or use shared data.

2.9.4.2 Boundary Conditions


In order to solve the network model the correct number of boundary
conditions must be entered. Boundary nodes are those that have only
one connecting branch, e.g. production well, injection well, source
and sink.

The number of boundary conditions that are required for a model is


known as the models Degrees of Freedom. This is computed by the
total number of boundary nodes, i.e. number of well (production and
injection) + number of sources + number of sinks.

For example a 3 production well system producing fluid to a single


delivery point has 4 degrees of freedom (3+1) regardless of the
network configuration between the well and the sink.

Each boundary can be specified in terms of;


• Pressure
• Flowrate
OR
• Pressure/Flowrate (PQ) curve.

To enable the system to be solved


1: the number of Pressure, flowrate or PQ specifications must
equal the degrees of freedom of the model.
2: At least 1 pressure must be specified
3: All each source (production well & source) the fluid
temperature must be set.

For example the above 3 well / 1 sink model could be specified as;
• Well 1: Reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature
• Well 2: Reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature
• Well 3: Reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature
• Sink: Delivery pressure
OR
• Well 1: Reservoir pressure, Flowrate, reservoir temperature
• Well 2: reservoir temperature

PIPESIM
50 Model Overview

• Well 3: Reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature


• Sink: Delivery pressure
OR
• Well 1: Flowrate, reservoir temperature
• Well 2: Flowrate, reservoir temperature
• Well 3: Flowrate, reservoir temperature
• Sink: Delivery pressure
Etc.

2.9.4.3 Network model


The following basic steps are required to build a network model;
• Select the units set of your preference
• Develop the network model (wells and surface facilities). Pre-
built models of wells/flowline can be used.
• Set the fluid properties
• Set the boundary conditions
• Save the model!

2.9.5 Production Optimization


The following basic steps are required to build an optimization
(GOAL) model;
• Select the units set of your preference
• Develop the surface network model
• Set the outlet pressure
• Develop individual well models
• Create well performance curves for each well
• Save the model!

See the GOAL Used Guide for details on;


• building an optimization model
• Calibrating the surface network
• Calibrating the individual well models
• Optimizing the field
• Applying field constraints

2.9.6 Field
Model Overview 51

• Tanks
• Tables
• Reservoir simulator
• Set the name of the host UNIX workstation
• Material balance program
• Develop the network model (well and surface network) or
models.
• Link the wells to the reservoir description.
• Specify any flowrate constraints
• Define the time dependent events.
• Define the conditional based events.
• Select any auxiliary properties that are to be stored during the
simulation and analyzed in the post-processor.
• Set the convergence tolerance
• Save the model!

See the FPT Used Guide for an example of building a Field Planning
model.

2.9.7 Multi-lateral
The following basic steps are required to build a multi-lateral well
model;
• Select the units set of your preference
• Add the necessary components to the model (horizontal well
section, branch, etc) and defined the necessary data.
• Define the fluid specification (black oil or compositional).
• Define the flow correlation to use.
• Save the model!

See the HoSim Used Guide for an example of building a multi-lateral


well model.

PIPESIM
52 Model Overview

3 Fluid & Multiphase Flow Modeling


This section defines the fluid models and flow correlation modeled
available in PIPESIM.

3.1 Black Oil


Fluid properties can be predicted by black-oil correlations that have been
developed by correlating gas/oil ratios for live crude’s with various
properties, such as oil and gas gravities. The selected correlation is used to
predict the quantity of gas dissolved in the oil at a particular pressure and
temperature.

The black oil correlations have been developed specifically for crude
oil/gas/water systems and are therefore most useful in predicting the
phase behavior of crude oil well streams. When used in conjunction
with the calibration options, the black oil correlations can produce
accurate phase behavior data from a minimum of input data. They
are particularly convenient in gas lift studies where the effects of
varying GLR and water cut are under investigation. However, if the
accurate phase behavior prediction of light hydrocarbon systems is
important, it is recommended that the more rigorous compositional
models is employed.

3.1.1 Lasater
A correlation developed in 1958 from 158 experimental data points.
The data points spanned the following ranges:
pb (bubble point pressure): 48 to 5,780 psia
TR (reservoir temperature): 82 to 272 °F
g API (API gravity): 17.9 to 51.1 °API
g g (gas specific gravity): 0.574 to 1.223
Rsb (solution gas at bubble point pressure): 3 to 2,905 scf/STB

3.1.1.1 Bubble point pressure


Step 1: Calculate Mo (molecular weight of the stock tank oil)
For API <= 40: Mo = 630 - 10g API
For API > 40: Mo = 73,110(g API)-1.562
Step 2: Calculate yg (mol fraction of gas)
yg = (Rsb/379.3)/(Rsb/379.3 + 350g o/Mo)
where g o = oil specific gravity
Step 3: Calculate the bubble point pressure factor (pbg g/TR)

PIPESIM 2000
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 53

For yg <= 0.6: pbg g/TR = 0.679 exp(2.786yg) - 0.323


For yg > 0.6: pbg g/TR = 8.26yg3.56 + 1.95
Step 4: Calculate pb
pb = (pbg g/TR )(T/g g)

3.1.1.2 Solution gas


Rs = 132755 g o yg/(Mo(1 - yg))

3.1.2 Standing
Standing presented an equation to estimate bubble point pressures
greater than 1,000 psia. The correlation was based on 105
experimentally determined bubble point pressure of California oil
systems.

The data points spanned the following ranges:


pb (bubble point pressure): 130 to 7,000 psia
TR (reservoir temperature): 100 to 258 °F
gAPI (API gravity): 16.5 to 63.8 °API
g g (gas specific gravity): 0.59 to 0.95
Rsb (solution gas at bubble point pressure): 20 to 1,425 scf/STB

3.1.2.1 Bubble point pressure


Step 1: Calculate yg (mol fraction of gas)
yg = 0.00091TR - 0.0125g API
Step 2: Calculate pb
pb = 18(Rsb/g g)0.83 x 10yg

3.1.2.2 Solution gas


Rs = g g (p/(18 x 10yg))1.204

3.1.2.3 Oil formation volume factor - saturated systems


Step 1: Calculate F (correlating factor)
F = Rs (g g /g o)0.5 + 1.25T
Step 2: Calculate Bo (oil formation volume factor in bbl/STB)
Bo = 0.972 + 0.000147F1.175

3.1.3 Vazques and Beggs


Vasquez and Beggs used results from more than 600 oil systems to
develop empirical correlations for several oil properties including
bubble point pressure.

PIPESIM
54 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

Approximately 6,000 measured data points were collected across the


following ranges:
pb (bubble point pressure): 50 to 5,250 psia
TR (reservoir temperature): 70 to 295 °F
g API (API gravity): 16 to 58 °API
g g (gas specific gravity): 0.56 to 1.18
Rsb (solution gas at bubble point pressure): 20 to 2,070 scf/STB

3.1.3.1 Bubble point pressure


pb = (Rsb/(C1g g exp(C3g API/( TR + 460))))1/C2
where for
g API <= 30: C1 = 0.0362, C2 = 1.0937, C3 = 25.724
g API > 30: C1 = 0.0178, C2 = 1.187, C3 = 23.931

3.1.3.2 Solution gas


Rs = C1 g g pC2 exp((C3 g API )/(T + 460))
where for
g API <= 30: C1 = 0.0362, C2 = 1.0937, C3 = 25.724
g API > 30: C1 = 0.0178, C2 = 1.187, C3 = 23.931

3.1.3.3 Oil formation volume factor - saturated systems


Bo = 1 + C1 Rs + C2 (T - 60)(g API/g gc) + C3 Rs (T - 60)(g API/g gc)
where for
g API <= 30: C1 = 4.677e-4, C2 = 1.751e-5, C3 = -1.811e-8
g API > 30: C1 = 4.67e-4, C2 = 1.1e-5, C3 = 1.337e-9

3.1.3.4 Oil formation volume factor - undersaturated systems


Bo = Bob exp(co (pb - p))

3.1.4 Glasø
Glasø developed PVT correlations from analysis of crude oil from the
following North Sea Fields:-
Ekofisk
Stratfjord
Forties
Valhall
COD
30/7-2A

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 55

3.1.4.1 Bubble point pressure and solution gas


pb = f 1 [(Rs /g g )0.816 (T 0.172/g API 0.989)]

3.1.4.2 Oil formation volume factor - saturated systems


Bob = f 2 [Rs (g g/g o)0.526 + 0.968T]

3.1.4.3 Oil formation volume factor - undersaturated systems


Bt = f 3 [Rs (T 0.5 /g g0.3) g oA p-1.1089]
Where
A = 2.9 x 10-0.00027Rs

3.1.5 Coning
In order to simulate gas and/or water breakthrough from the reservoir,
flowrate-dependent values of GOR and watercut may be entered.
In a homogeneous reservoir, analysis of the radial flow behavior of
reservoir fluids moving towards a producing well shows that the rate
dependent phenomenon of coning may be important.

The effect of increasing fluid velocity and energy loss in the vicinity of
a well leads to the local distortion of a gas-oil contact or a water-oil
contact. The gas and water in the vicinity of the producing wellbore
can therefore flow towards the perforation. The relative permeability
to oil in the pore spaces around the wellbore decreases as gas and
water saturation increase. The local saturations can be significantly
different from the bulk average saturations (at distances such as a
few hundred meters from the wellbore). The prediction of coning is
important since it leads to decisions regarding:
• Preferred initial completions
• Estimation of cone arrival time at a producing well
• Prediction of fluid production rates after cone arrival
• Design of preferred well spacing

PIPESIM
56 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

3.1.6 Liquid Viscosity


There are four steps to calculating the liquid viscosity as follows:

1 Calculate the dead oil viscosity at atmospheric pressure and the


flowing fluid temperature. The methods available for calculating
dead oil viscosity are: Beggs and Robinson, Glasø method, or
Users data.
2 Calculate the saturated live oil viscosity at the flowing fluid
pressure and temperature assuming that the oil is saturated with
dissolved gas. The methods available for calculating live oil
viscosity
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 57

3.1.7.1 Beggs and Robinson method


Beggs and Robinson used results from 600 oil systems to develop
relationships for dead and live oil viscosity. 460 dead oil observations
and 2,073 live oil observations were taken.

The range of data analyzed was as follows:


p (pressure): 50 to 5,250 psia
T (temperature): 70 to 295 °F
g API (API gravity): 16 to 58 °API
Rsb (solution gas at bubble point pressure): 20 to 2,070 scf/STB

Dead oil viscosity is calculated as follows:

m OD = 10x - 1
where
x = yT-1.163
y = 10z
z = 3.0324 - 0.02023 gAPI

3.1.7.2 Glasø method


Dead oil viscosity is calculated as follows:

mOD = c(loggAPI)d
where
c = 3.141(1010 )T-3.444
d = 10.313(logT) - 36.447

3.1.7.3 User's data method


A curve is fitted through the supplied data points of the following form:

Log(mOD) µ (1/T)

3.1.8 Live Oil Viscosity


The following live Oil Viscosity methods are available
• Chew and Connally
• Beggs and Robinson

PIPESIM
58 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

3.1.8.1 Chew and Connally


Chew and Connally used results from 457 oil systems to develop
relationships for live oil viscosity. The range of data analyzed was as
follows:-
p (pressure): 132 to 5,645 psia
T (temperature): 72 to 292 °F
Rsb (solution gas at bubble point pressure): 51 to 3,544 scf/STB

Live oil viscosity is calculated as follows:-


mOb = AmODB
where
A and B are given by the following table:
Rs (cu ft/bbl) A B
0 1.000 1.000
50 0.898 0.931
100 0.820 0.884
200 0.703 0.811
300 0.621 0.761
400 0.550 0.721
600 0.447 0.660
800 0.373 0.615
1,000 0.312 0.578
1,200 0.273 0.548
1,400 0.251 0.522
1,600 0.234 0.498

3.1.8.2 Beggs and Robinson


Live oil viscosity is calculated as follows:
mOb = AmODB
where
A = 10.715(Rs + 100)- 0.515
B = 5.44(Rs + 150)- 0.338

3.1.9 Undersaturated Oil Viscosity


3.1.9.1 Vasquez and Beggs
Undersaturated oil viscosity is calculated as follows:-

m = mOb(p/pb)m

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 59

where
m = 2.6p1.187 exp(-8.98x10-5 p - 11.513)

For dead oils at high pressures the Vasquez and Beggs correlation
overestimates the viscosity: Use Kousel.

3.1.9.2 Kousel method


Undersaturated oil viscosity is derived from the equation
Log(mp/ma) = p/1000(A + Bma0.278)
Where
A and B are parameters entered by the user.

Suggested values for A and B are 0.0239 and 0.01638 respectively.


m a is the viscosity of the oil at the same temperature and
atmospheric pressure.

3.1.9.3 No calculation
The undersaturated oil viscosity is assumed to be the same as the
saturated live oil viscosity at the same temperature and pressure.

3.1.10 Oil/Water Mixture Viscosity


3.1.10.1 Inversion method
The inversion method assumes that the continuous phase changes
from oil to water at a given watercut cutoff point. This means that, at a
watercut below or equal to the cut-off value, water bubbles are
carried by oil, and the mixture assumes the same viscosity as that of
the oil. At a watercut above the cut-off value, oil bubbles are carried
by water, and the mixture assumes the same viscosity as that of the
water.

3.1.10.2 Volume ratio method


Mixture viscosity is calculated as follows
mm = mO Vo + mw Vw
where
mO = oil viscosity
Vo = volume fraction of oil
mw = water viscosity
Vw= volume fraction of water

PIPESIM
60 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

3.1.10.3 Woelflin method


The Woelflin option assumes that the continuous phase changes
from emulsion to water at a given watercut cutoff point. This means
that, at a watercut below or equal to the cut-off value, an emulsion
forms and the emulsion viscosity is given by the Woelflin equation for
emulsions. At a watercut above the cut-off value, oil bubbles are
carried by water, and the mixture assumes the same viscosity as that
of the water.

The Woelflin equation is as follows


mm = mO (1 + 0.0023 Vw2.2 )

3.1.11 Gas Viscosity


3.1.11.1 Lee et al. Method
Gas viscosity is calculated as follows:
mg = Kexp(Xr y)
where
K = (7.77 + 0.0063M)T1.5/(122.4 + 12.9M + T)
X = 2.57 + 1914.5/T + 0.0095M
Y = 1.11 + 0.04X
M is the gas molecular weight
r is the gas density

3.2 Compositional
3.2.1 EOS (Equations of State)
Equations of state describe the pressure, volume and temperature
behavior of pure components and mixtures. Most thermodynamic and
transport properties are derived from the equation of state.

The following equations of state are available:-


• SRK (advanced and standard)
• PR (advanced and standard)
• SMIRK

3.2.1.1 Soave-Redlich-Kwong
The standard SRK equation is;
P = (NRT/(V - b)) + (a/(V(V + b)))

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 61

The values of "a" and "b" in the above equations are derived from
functions of the pure component critical temperatures, pressures, and
acentric factors.

The advanced implementation of SRK contains additional non-


standard features. These include the ability to match stored values for
the liquid density (Peneloux correlation) and the saturated vapor
pressure and a choice of mixing rule.

3.2.1.2 Peng-Robinson
The standard PR equation is;
P = (NRT/(V - b)) + (a/(V2 + 2bV - b2))

The values of "a" and "b" in the above equations are derived from
functions of the pure component critical temperatures, pressures, and
acentric factors.

The advanced implementation of PR contains additional non-


standard features. These include the ability to match stored values for
the liquid density (Peneloux correlation) and the saturated vapor
pressure and a choice of mixing rule.

3.2.1.3 SMIRK
The Shell SPPTS package uses the SMIRK equation of state.

3.2.2 Viscosity model


The following methods are available to predict the liquid and gas
viscosity;
• Pederson
• LBC (Lohrenz-Bray-Clark)

These are not available when using SMIRK (SPPTS)

Preliminary testing has shown the Pedersen method to be the most


widely applicable and accurate for oil and gas viscosity predictions.

Both methods are based on the corresponding state theory.

PIPESIM
62 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

The choice of the equation of state has a large effect on the


viscosities predicted by both methods. The LBC method is more
sensitive to equation of state effects than the Pedersen method.

3.2.2.1 Lower Alkanes


Predicted liquid viscosities using LBC and Pedersen methods have
been compared to experimental data for Methane and Octane as a
function of both temperature and pressure and for Pentane as a
function of temperature. For both Methane and Pentane the
Pedersen method predictions show close agreement with
experimental data. For Octane, the Pedersen and LBC methods give
comparable results. For the aromatic compound, Ethyl Benzene, the
Pedersen method is not as good as the LBC method.

3.2.2.2 Higher Alkanes


The results for higher alkanes Eicosane and Triacontane are mixed:
the Pedersen method is adequate for Eicosane whereas the LBC
method is slightly better than Pedersen for Triacontane. For
Triacontane both LBC and the Pedersen methods are inadequate.
However, in the majority of cases the higher hydrocarbons should be
treated as petroleum fractions rather than as single named
components.

3.2.2.3 Petroleum Fractions


The LBC method describes viscosity as a function of the fluid critical
parameters, acentric factor and density. The LBC model is therefore
very sensitive to both density and the characterization of the
petroleum fractions.

3.2.2.4 Water
The Pedersen method suffers the same drawback as the LBC
method in that it is unable to predict the temperature dependence of
water, a polar molecule. To overcome this problem, the Pedersen
method has been modified especially for water so that it now
accurately models the viscosity of water in the liquid phase. This was
achieved by the introduction of a temperature-dependent correction
factor. However the prediction of the viscosity of the gas phase is
also affected, though in only a minor way.

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 63

3.2.2.5 Methanol
Neither the LBC nor the Pederson method can deal with polar
components with the Pederson method slightly worse than the LBC
method. This is not surprising, as both methods were developed for
non-polar components and mixtures. The Pedersen method works
best with light alkanes and petroleum mixtures in the liquid phase. It
performs as well or better than the LBC method in nearly all
situations.

3.2.2.6 Emulsion
The following options are available for handing emulsions;
• Inversion method
• Volume ratio method
• Woelflin method
The methods are as described for Black Oil emulsions.

3.2.3 BIP (Binary Interaction Parameter) Set


Binary Interaction parameters (BIPs) are adjustable factors which Are
used to alter the predictions from a model until these reproduce as
closely as possible the experimental data.

BIPs apply between pairs of components. The SRK and PR EOS


(being cubic equations of state) require only a single BIP, kij, in the
model description. The closer the binary system to ideality the smaller
the size of kij, which will be zero for ideal systems. It is unlikely that
the value of kij will be greater than 1, although it is possible for it to be
negative.

3.2.4 Hydrates
Natural gas hydrates are solid ice-like compounds of water and light
components of natural gas. They form at temperatures above the ice
point and are therefore a serious concern in oil and gas processing
operations. The phase behavior of the systems involving hydrates
can be very complex because up to six phases must normally be
considered. The behavior is particularly complex if there is significant
mutual solubility between phases. The hydrate model uses a
modification of the RKS equation of state for the fluid phases plus
The van der Waals and Platteeuw model for the hydrate phases. The
model can explicitly represent all the effects of the presence of
inhibitors.

PIPESIM
64 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

Note: you must explicitly include water in the mixture if you wish to
do hydrate calculations. The amount of water may influence the
results of the calculations, particularly when inhibitors or water-
soluble gases are present.

The main features of the model are:


• The description of the hydrate phase behavior uses a
thermodynamically consistent set of models for all phases.
• The vapor pressures of pure water are reproduced.

The following natural gas hydrate formers are included: METHANE,


ETHANE, PROPANE, ISOBUTANE, BUTANE, NITROGEN, CO2
AND H2S.

The thermal properties (enthalpies and entropies) of the hydrates are


included, permitting flashes involving these phases. The properties of
the hydrates have been fixed by investigating data for natural gas
components in both simple and mixed hydrates to obtain reliable
predictions of both structure I and structure II hydrates.

The properties of the empty hydrate lattices have been investigated


and the most reliable recent values have been adopted. Proper
allowance has been made for the solubilities of the gases in water so
that the model parameters are not distorted by this effect. This is
particularly important for Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulphide
which are relatively soluble in water. Correct thermodynamic
calculations of the most stable hydrate structure have been made.
The model has been tested on a wide selection of open literature and
proprietary experimental data. In most cases the hydrate dissociation
temperature is predicted to within 1 degree Kelvin.

Hydrate inhibitors decrease the hydrate formation temperature or


increase the hydrate formation pressure in a given gas mixture. The
model includes parameters for the commonly used inhibitors such as
Methanol, and the glycols MEG, DEG and TEG. A new mixing rule
has been developed for the SRK equation of state to model the
inhibitors' effects on the fluid phases.

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 65

The treatment of hydrate inhibition has the following features. The


model can represent explicitly all the effects of inhibitors, including
the depression of hydrate formation temperature, the depression of
the freezing point of water, the reduction in the vapor pressure of
water (i.e. the dehydrating effect) and the partitioning of water and
inhibitor into the oil, gas and aqueous phases. The model has been
developed using all available data for mixtures of water with
Methanol, MEG, DEG and TEG. This involves simultaneously
representing hydrate dissociation temperatures, depression of
freezing point data and vapor-liquid equilibrium data. The solubilities
of hydrocarbons and light gases in water/inhibitor mixtures have also
been represented. There is no fundamental difference between
calculations with and without inhibitors. To investigate the effect of an
inhibitor it must be added to the list of components in the mixture and
the amount must be specified just as for any other component. It is
not possible to specify the amount of inhibitor in a particular phase,
only the total amount in the mixture. This is because the inhibitor will
be split among the different phases present at equilibrium with the
amount in a particular phase depending on the ambient conditions
and the amounts of other components present in that phase This is
exactly what happens in reality. The amount of inhibitor typically
needed would be approximately 35% by mass of inhibitor relative to
water.

3.3 Pressure Drop Calculation


The Pressure change in a flow device is determined from the general
momentum equations;
• Elevation: conversion of fluid potential energy into
hydrostatic pressure.
• Friction: shear stress between pipe wall and fluid(s)
• Acceleration: changes in velocity of the fluid.

This leads to the equation:-


(dp/dl) = elevational + frictional + accelerational
= (dp/dl)elev+ (dp/dl)fric+ (dp/dl)acc.

= -(ρ g sinθ )/gc + - ƒ ρ ν2/2gcd + - ρ ν /(gc dν /dl)


where
ƒ = friction factor
ρ = fluid density

PIPESIM
66 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

ν = fluid velocity
g = gravitational constant at current altitude
gc = universal gravitational constant
θ = flow angle
d = pipe diameter

The contribution from the major terms; elevational and frictional can
be summarized as;
• In well
• Elevation term (85-100%)
• Frictional (0-15%)
• In pipes
• Elevation term (0-30%)
• Frictional (70-100%)

For single phase flow the accelerational term is negligible and is


assumed to be zero. Thus the above equation reduces to an
elevational and frictional term.

In the simultaneous transportation of liquid (oil & water) and gas


along a single pipe (or well bore) the basic pressure drop equation is
the same as for single phase flow with mixture density and friction
factor specific to the correlation in which they are used.

3.3.1 Flow regimes

Flow Regimes Classification for Vertical Two Phase Flow


The general problem of predicting the pressure drop for the
simultaneous flow of gas and liquid is complex.

The problem consists of being able to predict the variation of


pressure with elevation along the length of the flow string for known
conditions of flow. Multiphase vertical flow can be categorized into
four different flow configurations or flow regimes, consisting of bubble
flow, slug flow, slug-mist transition flow and mist flow.

A typical example of bubble flow is the liberation of solution gas from


an undersaturated oil at and above the point in the flow string where
its bubble point pressure is reached.

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 67

In vslug, both the gas and liquid phases significantly contribute to the
pressure gradient. the gas phase exists as large bubbles almost filling
the pipe and separated by slugs of liquid. In transition flow, the liquid
slugs between the gas bubbles essentially disappear, and at some
point the liquid phases becomes discontinuous and the phase
becomes continuous.

The pressure losses in vtrans are partly a result of the liquid phase,
but are more the result of the gas phase. vannular is characterized by
a continuous gas phase with liquid occurring as entrained droplets in
the gas stream and as a liquid film wetting the pipe walls. A typical
example of mist flow is the flow of gas and condensate in a gas
condensate well.

Vertical bubble flow

Vertical Slug Flow

Vertical Transition Flow

PIPESIM
68 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

Vertical Annular/Mist Flow

Flow Regimes Classification for Horizontal Two Phase Flow


Prediction of liquid holdup is less critical for pressure loss calculations
in horizontal flow than for inclined or vertical flow, although several
correlations will require a holdup value for calculating the density
terms used in the friction and acceleration pressure drop
components. The acceleration pressure drop is usually minor and is
often ignored in design calculations.

As in the vertical flow, the two-phase horizontal flow can be divided


into the following flow regimes: smooth (smooth, wavy), Intermittent
Flow (plug and slug) and Distributive Flow (bubble and mist).

Smooth

Wavy

Slug

Elongated bubble/Plug

Annular/Mist

Bubble

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 69

3.3.2 Single Phase Flow Correlations


There are a number of different methods available for calculating the
friction factor (ƒ).

In all cases Re is the Reynolds number (Re) is given by


Re = ρ ν d/µ
Where
ρ = fluid density
ν = fluid velocity
d = pipe diameter
µ = fluid viscosity

3.3.2.1 Moody
For liquid or gas

For laminar flow (Re < 2000)


ƒ = 64/Re
For turbulent flow (Re > 2000)
ƒ -0.5 = 1.74 - 2log((2ε /d) + (18.7/Re ƒ 0.5))
where
ε = pipe roughness

3.3.2.2 AGA
For gas only.

For laminar flow (Re < 1000):


ƒ = 64/Re

For turbulent flow:


(0.25 ƒ)-0.5 = 4log10(3.7d/ ε)

For transition flow:


(0.25 ƒ)-0.5 = 4log10(Re/(0.25 ƒ)-0.5) - 0.6

The boundary between transition and turbulent flow is a function of


the Reynolds number and friction factor.

PIPESIM
70 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

3.3.2.3 Panhandle 'A'


For gas only
(0.25 ƒ)-0.5 = 6.872Re0.07305

3.3.2.4 Panhandle 'B'


For gas only
(0.25 ƒ)-0.5 = 16.49Re0.01961

3.3.2.5 Hazen-Williams
For liquid water only
ƒ = (1/192)(150/ ν m)0.15d-0.17 (in Engineering units)

3.3.2.6 Weymouth
For gas only
(0.25 ƒ) = 0.00272d-1/3 (in SI units)

3.3.3 Vertical Multiphase Flow Correlations


The following vertical multiphase flow correlations are available:

3.3.3.1 Ansari
The Ansari 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. 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.

3.3.3.2 Baker Jardine Revised


Baker Jardine & Associates (now is part of Schlumberger) have
developed a correlation for two phase flow in gas-condensate
pipelines with a no-slip liquid volume fraction of lower than 0.1.
This model represents no major advance in theory, but rather a
consolidation of various existing mechanistic models, combined with
a modest amount of theoretical development and field data testing.
The model uses the Taitel Dukler flow regime map and a modified set
of the Taitel Dukler momentum balance to predict liquid holdup. The

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 71

pressure loss calculation procedure is similar in approach to that


proposed by Oliemans, but accounts for the increased interfacial
shear resulting from the liquid surface roughness. The BJA
correlation is used for pressure loss and holdup with flow regime
determined by the Taitel Dukler correlation. The BJA correlation has
been developed by Baker Jardine & Associates specifically for
applications involving low liquid/gas ratios, e.g. gas/condensate
pipelines.

The BJA correlation is not recommended for systems having a non-


slip liquid volume fraction greater than 0.1 Users should note that
while quite extensive testing of the correlation against operating data
has been undertaken for horizontal and inclined flow, the test data for
vertical flow is not so comprehensive.

3.3.3.3 Beggs & Brill Original


The Original Beggs & Brill correlation is used for pressure loss and
holdup. The flow regime is determined by either the Beggs & Brill or
Taitel Dukler correlation. The Beggs & Brill correlation was developed
following a study of two-phase flow in horizontal and inclined pipes.
The correlation is based upon a flow regime map that 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. The test system included two 90 ft long acrylic pipes,
winched to a variable elevation in the middle, so as to model incline
flow both upwards and downwards at angles of up to 90°.

3.3.3.4 Beggs & Brill Original, Taitel Dukler map


As Beggs & Brill original, but utilizing the Taitel Dukler flow map

3.3.3.5 Beggs & Brill Revised


As above except that the revised version of the Beggs & Brill
correlation is used, with rough pipe friction factors, holdup limiters
and corrective constants as proposed by Palmer and Payne. 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 utilize a single phase friction factor based on the
average fluid velocity.

PIPESIM
72 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

3.3.3.6 Beggs & Brill Revised, Taitel Dukler map


As Beggs & Brill Revised, but utilizing the Taitel Dukler flow map

3.3.3.7 Brill & Minami


The Brill & Minami Holdup correlations can be used with any flow
map correlations except Mukerjee & Brill and No Slip.

3.3.3.8 Duns & Ros


The Duns & Ros correlation is used for pressure loss and holdup with
flow regime determination by either the Duns & Ros or the Taitel
Dukler correlations. The Duns & 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. 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.

3.3.3.9 Duns & Ros, Taitel Dukler map


As Duns & Ros, but utilizing the Taitel Dukler flow map

3.3.3.10 Govier & Aziz


The correlation of Aziz, Govier, and Forgasi is used for pressure loss,
holdup, and flow regime. The Govier, Aziz & Fogarasi correlation was
developed following a study of pressure drop in wells producing gas
and condensate. Actual field pressure drop v. flowrate data from 102
wells with gas-liquid ratios ranging from 3,900 to 1,170,000 scf/bbl
were analyzed in detail. The phase conditions in the well bore were
determined by standard flash calculations. Pressure-gradient data for
flow under single-phase conditions were compared with conventional
predictions, and found generally to confirm them. For the test in which
two-phase conditions were predicted throughout the well bore, the
field data were compared with several wholly empirical prediction
methods, with a previously proposed method, and with a new
prediction method partly based on the mechanics of flow. The new
prediction method incorporates an empirical estimate of the
distribution of the liquid phase between that flowing as a film on the
wall and that entrained in the gas core. It employs separate

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 73

momentum equations for the gas-liquid mixture in the core and for the
total contents of the pipe.

3.3.3.11 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. It is considered applicable for vertical flow cases where the
velocity is below 50 ft/s, the tube size is below 3½-in, the condensate
ratio is below 50 bbl/mmscf, and the water ratio is below 5 bbl/mmscf.

3.3.3.12 Hagedorn & Brown


The correlation of Hagedorn & Brown is used for pressure loss and
holdup. There is a choice of either Beggs & Brill, Duns & Ros or Taitel
Dukler flow regime determination. 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. A 1,500 ft experimental well was
used to study flow through 1-in, 1¼-in, and 1½-in nominal size tubing.
Tests were conducted for widely varying liquid flowrates, gas-liquid
ratios and liquid viscosities. All of the correlations involve only
dimensionless groups, which is a condition usually sought for in
similarity analysis but not always achieved. BJA consider the use of
the original correlation unwise, as it can grossly underestimate liquid
holdup. Users are advised to use the Hagedorn & Brown Revised
correlation.

3.3.3.13 Hagedorn & Brown, Duns & Ros map


As Hagedorn & Bown, but utilizing the Duns & Ros flow map

3.3.3.14 Lockhart & Martinelli

3.3.3.15 Lockhart & Martinelli, Taitel Dukler map


As Lockhard & Martinelli, but utilizing the Taitel Dukler flow map

3.3.3.16 Mukherjee & Brill:


The Mukerjee & Brill correlation is used for Pressure loss, Holdup and
flow map. Note: selection of alternative flow maps and/or holdups will

PIPESIM
74 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

cause unpredictable results. The Mukherjee & Brill correlation was


developed following a study of pressure drop behavior in two-phase
inclined flow. For bubble and slug flow a no-slip friction factor,
calculated from the Moody diagram, was found adequate for friction
head loss calculations. In downhill stratified flow, the friction pressure
gradient is calculated based on a momentum balance equation for
either phase assuming a smooth gas-liquid interface. For annular-
mist flow, a friction factor correlation was presented that is a function
of holdup ratio and no-slip Moody friction factor. Results agreed well
with the experimental data and correlations were further verified with
Prudhoe Bay and North Sea data.

3.3.3.17 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. Note: selection of alternative flow
maps and/or holdups will cause unpredictable results.

3.3.3.18 OLGA-S 2000 Steady State


OLGAS is based in larger part on data from the SINTEF two-phase
flow laboratory near Trondheim, Norway. The test facilities were
designed to operate at conditions that approximated field conditions.
The test loop was 800 m long and 8 inches in diameter. Operating
pressures between 20 and 90 barg were studied. Gas superficial
velocities of up to 13 m/s, and liquid superficial velocities of up to 4
m/s were obtained. In order to simulate the range of viscosities and
surface tensions experienced in field applications, different
hydrocarbon liquids were used (naptha, diesel, and lube oil). Nitrogen
was used as the gas. Pipeline inclination angles between 1° were
studied in addition to flow up or down a hill section ahead of a 50m
high vertical riser. Over 10,000 experiments were run on this test loop
during an eight year period. The facility was run in both steady state
and transient modes. OLGAS considers four flow regimes, stratified,
annular, slug and dispersed bubble flow and uses a unique minimum
slip criteria to predict flow regime transitions. This correlation is
available to all members of the SINTEF syndicate, and to non-
members on payment of the appropriate royalty fees.

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 75

A separate document is available that details OLGA-S 2000. This can


be downloaded from our web site.

3.3.3.19 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. The method can accurately predict, to within 10%, the
two phase pressure drops in naturally flowing and gas lifted
production wells over a wide range of well conditions. The precision
of the method was verified when its predicted values were compared
against 148 measured pressure drops. Unlike most other methods,
liquid holdup is derived from observed physical phenomena, and is
adjusted for angle of deviation.

3.3.3.20 Shell SIEP Correlations


These correlations are provided by Shell International Exploration &
Production (SIEP) and are for Shell or Shell approved clients only.

Correlations available;
• MMSM
• GZM

3.3.3.21 Shell SRTCA Correlations


These correlations are provided by Shell International Oil Products
and are for Shell or Shell approved clients only.

Correlations available;
• SRTCA two-phase
• STRCA two-phase slugging
• STRCA two-phase slugging & slug DP
• STRCA three-phase
• STRCA three-phase & water-oil dispersion

3.3.3.22 GRE Mechanistic Model BP


This correlation is provided by BP and is available for general use.

PIPESIM
76 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

3.3.4 Horizontal Multiphase Flow Correlations


The following horizontal multiphase flow correlations are available:

3.3.4.1 Baker Jardine Revised


Baker Jardine (is now part of Schlumberger) have developed a
correlation for two phase flow in gas-condensate pipelines with a
no-slip liquid volume fraction of lower than 0.1. This model
represents no major advance in theory, but rather a consolidation of
various existing mechanistic models, combined with a modest
amount of theoretical development and field data testing. The model
uses the Taitel Dukler flow regime map and a modified set of the
Taitel Dukler momentum balance to predict liquid holdup. The
pressure loss calculation procedure is similar in approach to that
proposed by Oliemans, but accounts for the increased interfacial
shear resulting from the liquid surface roughness. The BJA
correlation is used for pressure loss and holdup with flow regime
determined by the Taitel Dukler correlation. The BJA correlation has
been developed specifically for applications involving low liquid/gas
ratios, e.g. gas/condensate pipelines.

The BJA correlation is not recommended for systems having a non-


slip liquid volume fraction greater than 0.1

3.3.4.2 Beggs & Brill Original


The original Beggs & Brill correlation is used for pressure loss and
either the BBO or the BJA correlation is used to calculate holdup.
Flow regime is determined by either the Beggs & Brill or Taitel Dukler
correlation. The Beggs & Brill correlation 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.
The test system included two 90 ft long acrylic pipes, winched to a
variable elevation in the middle, so as to model incline flow both
upwards and downwards at angles of up to 90°.

3.3.4.3 Beggs & Brill Original, Taitel Dukler map


As Beggs & Brill Original, but utilizing the Taitel Dukler flow map

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 77

3.3.4.4 Beggs & Brill Revised


As above except that the revised version of the Beggs & Brill
correlation is used, with rough pipe friction factors, holdup limits and
corrective constants as proposed by Palmer and Payne. 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 utilize a single phase friction factor based on the
average fluid velocity.

3.3.4.5 Beggs & Brill Revised, Taitel Dukler map


As Beggs & Brill Revised, but utilizing the Taitel Dukler flow map

3.3.4.6 Brill & Minami:


The Brill and Minami Holdup correlations can be used with any
pressure loss and any flow map correlations except Mukherjee & Brill
and No Slip.

3.3.4.7 Dukler, AGA + Flanigan


The AGA & Flanigan correlation was developed for horizontal and
inclined two phase flow of gas-condensate gathering systems.
The Taitel Dukler flow regime map is used which considers five flow
regimes, stratified smooth, stratified wavy, intermittent, annular
dispersed liquid, and dispersed bubble. The Dukler equation is used
to calculate the frictional pressure loss and holdup, and the Flanigan
equation is used to calculate the elevational pressure differential.

3.3.4.8 Dukler , AGA + Flanigan (Eaton holdup)


As Duker, AGA + Flanigan but with liquid holdup calculated according
to the Eaton correlation.

3.3.4.9 Duns & Ros, Taitel Dukler map


The Duns & Ros correlation is used for pressure loss, with a choice of
either Duns & Ros or BJA holdup. Flow regime determination is
either the Duns & Ros or the Taitel Dukler correlations. The Duns &
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. These
regions have low, intermediate and high gas throughputs

PIPESIM
78 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

respectively. Each flow region has a different holdup correlation. The


equations were based on extensive experimental work using oil and
air mixtures.

3.3.4.10 Lockhart & Martinelli

3.3.4.11 Lockhart & Martinelli, Taitel Dukler map


As Lockhard & Martinelli, but utilizing the Taitel Dukler flow map

3.3.4.12 Mukherjee & Brill


The Mukherjee & Brill correlation is used for Pressure loss, Holdup
and Flow Map. Note: selection of alternative flow maps and/or
holdups will cause unpredictable results. The Mukherjee & Brill
correlation was developed following a study of pressure drop
behavior in two-phase inclined flow. For bubble and slug flow, a no-
slip friction factor calculated from the Moody diagram was found
adequate for friction head loss calculations. In downhill stratified flow,
the friction pressure gradient is calculated based on a momentum
balance equation for either phase assuming a smooth gas-liquid
interface. For annular-mist flow, a friction factor correlation was
presented that is a function of holdup ratio and no-slip Moody friction
factor. Results agreed well with the experimental data and
correlations were further verified with Prudhoe Bay and North Sea
data.

3.3.4.13 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. Note: selection of alternative flow
maps and/or holdups will cause unpredictable results.

3.3.4.14 OLGA-S 2000 Steady-State:


OLGAS is based in larger part on data from the SINTEF two-phase
flow laboratory near Trondheim, Norway. The test facilities were
designed to operate at conditions that approximated field conditions.
The test loop was 800 m long and 8 inches in diameter. Operating
pressures between 20 and 90 barg were studied. Gas superficial
velocities of up to 13 m/s, and liquid superficial velocities of up to 4
m/s were obtained. In order to simulate the range of viscosities and

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 79

surface tensions experienced in field applications, different


hydrocarbon liquids were used (naptha, diesel, and lube oil). Nitrogen
was used as the gas. Pipeline inclination angles between 1° were
studied in addition to flow up or down a hill section ahead of a 50m
high vertical riser. Over 10,000 experiments were run on this test loop
during an eight year period. The facility was run in both steady state
and transient modes. OLGAS considers four flow regimes, stratified,
annular, slug and dispersed bubble flow and uses a unique minimum
slip criteria to predict flow regime transitions. This correlation is
available to all members of the SINTEF syndicate, and to non-
members on payment of the appropriate royalty fees.

A separate document is available that details OLGA-S 2000. This can


be downloaded from our web site.

3.3.4.15 Oliemans
The Oliemans correlation was developed following the study of large
diameter condensate pipelines. The flow regime is predicted using
the Taitel Dukler flow regime map, and a simple model, which obeyed
the correct single phase flow limits was introduced to predict the
pressure drop. The model was based on a limited amount of data
from a 30-in, 100-km pipeline operating at pressures of 100 barg or
higher. The Oliemans pressure loss correlation can be used with the
Eaton, BJA, BRIMIN1 or BRIMIN2 holdup correlations.

3.3.4.16 Xiao
The Xiao comprehensive mechanistic model was developed as part
of the TUFFP research program. It was developed for gas-liquid two-
phase flow in horizontal and near horizontal pipelines. The model
is able first to detect the existing flow pattern, and then to predict the
flow characteristics, primarily liquid holdup and pressure drop, for the
stratified, intermittent, annular, or dispersed bubble flow patterns. The
model was tested against a pipeline data bank. The data bank
included large diameter field data culled from the AGA multiphase
pipeline data bank, and laboratory data published in literature. Data
included both black oil and compositional fluid systems. A new
correlation was proposed which predicts the internal friction factor
under stratified flow.

PIPESIM
80 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

3.3.4.17 Shell SIEP Correlations


These correlations are provided by Shell International Exploration &
Production (SIEP) and are for Shell or Shell approved clients only.
Correlations available;
• GZM

3.3.4.18 Shell SRTCA Correlations


These correlations are provided by Shell International Oil Products
and are for Shell or Shell approved clients only.

Correlations available;
• SRTCA two-phase
• STRCA two-phase slugging
• STRCA two-phase slugging & slug DP
• STRCA three-phase
• STRCA three-phase & water-oil dispersion

3.3.4.19 GRE Mechanistic Model BP


This correlation is provided by BP and is available for general use.

3.4 References

Multiflash for Windows - User Guide. Infochem.

Aziz, K., Govier, G. W. and Forgasi, M.: “Pressure Drop in Wells


Producing Oil and Gas,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1972) 38-48.

Baker, A., Nielsen, K., and Gabb, A.: “Pressure Loss, Liquid-Holdup
Calculations Developed,” Technology, Oil & Gas Journal (Mar. 14,
1988).

Beal, C.: “The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and its
Associated Gases at Oil Temperatures and Pressures,” Trans. AIME
(1946) 94.

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 81

Beggs, H. D., and Brill, J. P.: “A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973) 607-617.

Beggs, H. D. and Robinson, J. R.: “Estimating the Viscosity of Crude


Oil Systems,” J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1975) 1140-1.

Brill, J. P. et al.: “Analysis of Two-Phase Tests in Large Diameter Flow


Lines in Prudhoe Bay Field,” SPEJ (June 1981).

Brill, J. P. and Beggs, D. H.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, 6th Edition,


University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, December 1988.

Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Artificial Methods, Penwell


Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1984.

Chew, J. and Conally, C. A. Jr.: “A Viscosity Correlation for Gas


Saturated Crude Oils,” Trans., AIME (1974) 23.

Dukler, E. A., et al.: “Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, I. Research


Results,” AGA-API Project NX-28 (May 1969).

Duns, H., and Ros, N. C. J.: “Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures
in Wells,” 6th. World Pet. Congress (1963) 452.
Eaton, B. A.: “Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup and Pressure
Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal
Pipelines,” Trans., AIME (1967) 815.

Fetkovich, M.J. and Vienot, M.E.: “Shape Factors, CA, Expressed as


a Skin, sca,” JPT (February 1985) 321-322.

Flanigan, O.: “Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of Two-


Phase Gathering Systems,” Oil and Gas J. (March 10, 1958) 56, 132.

PIPESIM
82 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

Glaso, O., “Generalized Pressure Volume Temperature Correlation,” J.


Pet. Tech. (May 1980) 785.

Golan, M. and Whitson, C.H.: Well Performance, International


Human Resources Corporation, Boston, MA (1986).

Hagedron, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: “Experimental Study of Pressure


Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-
Diameter Vertical Conduits,” J. Pet. Tech. (April 1965) 475-484.

Katz, D. L. et al.: Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw Hill


Book Co., Inc., New York (1959).

Lasater, J. A.: “Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,” Trans., AIME


(1958) 379.

Lee, A. L. et al.: “The Viscosity of Natural Gases,” Trans., AIME (1966)


997.

Lockhart, R. W. and Martinelli, R. C.: “Proposed Correlation of Data for


Isothermal Two-phase, Two-Component Flow in Pipes,” Chem. Eng.
Prog. (January 1949) 45, 39.

McLeod, H. O.: “The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well


Performance,” JPT (Jan. 1983).

Manhane, J. M., Gregory, G. A. and Aziz, K.: "A Flow Pattern Map for
Gas-Liquid Flow Pattern in Horizontal Pipes," Int. J. of Multiphase
Flow.

Minami, K. and Brill, J. P.: “Liquid Holdup in Wet Gas Pipelines,” SPE
J. Prod. Eng. (May 1987).

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 83

Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: “Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined


Two-Phase Flow,” JPT (May 1983) 1003-1008.

Mukherjee, H. and Economides, M. J.: “A Parametric Comparison of


Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance,” SPE paper 18303
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in
Houston, October 1988.

Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous


Media, I.H.R.D.C., Boston (1937).

Norris, L.: “Correlation of Prudhoe Bay Liquid Slug Lengths and


Holdups Including 1981 Large Diameter Flowlines Tests,” Internal
Report Exxon (October 1982).

Oliemans, R. V. A.: “Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Transmission Pipeline,”


ASME paper 76-Pet-25, presented at Pet. Div. ASME meeting Mexico
City (Sept. 1976).

Orkiszewski, J.: “Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical


Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech. (June 1967) 829-838.

Palmer, C. M.: “Evaluation of Inclined Pipe Two-Phase Liquid Holdup


Correlations Using Experimental Data,” M.S. Thesis, The University
of Tulsa (1975).

Payne, G. A.: “Experimantal Evaluation of Two-Phase Pressure Loss


Correlations for Inclined Pipe,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa
(1975).

Renard, G. I. and Dupuy, J. M.: “Influence of Formation Damage on


the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal Wells,” SPE paper 19414 presented

PIPESIM
84 Fluid & Multiphase Modeling

at the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette (February


1990).

Scott, S. L., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P.: “Prediction of Slug Length in
Horizontal Large-Diameter Pipes,” SPE paper 15103 (April 1986).
Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field
Hydrocarbon Systems, Society of Petroleum Engineers, (1977) 121.

Standing, M. B.: “A General Pressure Volume-Temperature


Correlation for Mixtures Of California Oils and Greases,” Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1947) 275.

Standing, M. B. and Katz, D. L.: “Volumetric and Density of Natural


Gases,” Trans., AIME (1942) 140.

Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A. E.: “A Model for Predicting Flow Regime


Transitions in Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow,” AICHE J. (vol. 22, no. 1)
(Jan. 1976) 47-55.

Vasquez, M., and Beggs, H. D.: “Correlations for Fluid Physical


Property Prediction,” SPE paper 6719, presented at the 52nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Denver, Colorado (1977).

Woelflin, W.: “The Viscosity of Crude-Oil Emulsions,” Drill. and Prod.


Prac., API (1942) 148.

PIPESIM
Fluid & Multiphase Modeling 85

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

PIPESIM
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 87

4 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling


The well modeling components of PIPESIM are;
• Completion
• Vertical
• Horizontal
• Tubing
• Deviation survey
• Gas lift injection point or points
• ESP lift point
• chokes

4.1 Vertical Completions


Inflow performance relationships (IPRs) have been developed to
model the flow of fluids from the reservoir, through the formation, and
into the well. They are expressed in terms of Pws (static reservoir
pressure), Pwf (flowing bottom hole pressure), and Q (flowrate).

4.1.1 Liquid Reservoirs


4.1.1.1 Fetkovich / Normalized back pressure
Is a development of the Vogel equation to take account of high
velocity effects.

The equation is follows:


Q = Qmax(1 - (Pwf/Pws)2)n,
where
Qmax is the open flow potential, i.e. the liquid flowrate when the
bottom hole pressure is zero, and n is the PI coefficient

4.1.1.2 Jones
The Jones equation is
Pws - Pwf = AQ2 + BQ.
Where
A is the turbulent coefficient and
B is the laminar coefficient.

The coefficients must satisfy A => 0 and B=> 0.

PIPESIM
88 Field Equipment

4.1.1.3 Pseudo-Steady state / Darcy


The Pseudo Steady-state equation is given as
Q = kh(Pws - Pwf)/(141.2µoBo(ln(Re/Rw) - 0.75 + s)))
where
s = skin
k = formation permeability
h = formation thickness
µ = liquid viscosity
B = formation volume factor
Re = Drainage radius
Rw = wellbore radius

Alternatively, the skin (and related turbulence coefficient) values can


be calculated by describing the completion.

4.1.1.4 (Straight line) Well productivity Index


The productivity index relationship is
Q = J(Pws - Pwf)
where
J = productivity index.

4.1.1.5 (Straight line) Well productivity Index (with Vogel


correction below bubble point)
Below the bubble point pressure, the relationship can be modified to
take account of evolved gas. The correction is to apply the Vogel
relationship below the bubble point.

4.1.1.6 Vogel
Was developed to model saturated oil wells. The equation is as
follows:
Q = Qmax(1 - (1 - C)(Pwf/Pws) - C(Pwf/Pws)2),
where
Qmax is the absolute open flow potential, i.e. the liquid flowrate
when the bottom hole pressure is zero, and C is the PI coefficient.

The value of C is usually around 0.8.

4.1.1.7Hydraulic Fracture
See Help system for details.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 89

4.1.1.8Multi-rate tests
In addition multi-rate test data can be utilized so that the modeled
inflow matches the actual measured inflow in the well. Two types of
multi-rate test are available;
• multi-point - A 'flow-after-flow' test sequence. Static pressure is
taken as a constant throughout the test period.
• Isochronal - This type of test is normally performed in reservoirs
with low permeability where the time taken to reach stabilized flow
conditions is unacceptably long (e.g. low permeability sands).
Isochronal testing is performed by periods of flowing followed by
shutting-in of a well (normally with increasing rate). The wellbore
flowing pressure is recorded during each flow period at a specific
time (e.g. if the time is 4 hours, then the test is referred to as a 4-
hour isochronal test). Due to the long stabilization time normally
associated with the isochronal test, reservoir conditions need not
return to the original static pressure. Hence a different static
reservoir pressure is recorded.

Multi-rate test data can be applied to the following;


• Multi-rate Fetkovich
• Multi-rate Jones

4.1.2 Gas and Gas Condensate Reservoirs


4.1.2.1 Back pressure / C and n
Developed by Rawlins and Schellhardt in 1935 after testing 582
wells. The equation is
Q = C(Pws2 - Pwf2)n.

4.1.2.2 Forchheimer
The Forchheimer equation is;
Pws2 - Pwf2 = FQ2 + AQ.
Where
F is the turbulence coefficient and
A is the laminar coefficient.

The coefficients must satisfy F => 0 and A=> 0.

4.1.2.3 Jones
The Jones equation is :

PIPESIM
90 Field Equipment

Pws2 - Pwf2 = AQ2 + BQ.


Where
A is the turbulent coefficient and
B is the laminar coefficient.

The coefficients must satisfy A > 0 and B=> 0.

4.1.2.4 Pseudo-Steady state / Darcy


The Pseudo Steady-state equation is given as
Q = kh(Pws2 - Pwf2)/(1422µTz(ln(Re/Rw) - 0.75 + s)))

where
s = skin
k = formation permeability
h = formation thickness
µ = gas viscosity
T = temperature
Z = z factor
Re = Drainage radius
Rw = wellbore radius

Alternatively, the skin (and related turbulence coefficient) values can


be calculated.

4.1.2.5 (Straight line) Well productivity Index


The productivity index relationship is
Q = J(Pws2 - Pwf2)
where
J = productivity index.

4.1.2.6 Hydraulic Fracture

4.1.2.7Multi-rate tests
Multi-rate test data (as descried above) can be applied to the
following;
• Multi-rate Back pressure / C and n
• Multi-rate Forchheimer
• Multi-rate Jones
• Multi-rate (Straight line) Well Productivity Index

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 91

4.2 Horizontal Completions


This section focuses on the reservoir engineering aspects of
horizontal well technology. The pressure drop in horizontal wells and
its effect on well performance will be discussed. The steady state and
pseudo-steady state analytical solutions on the productivity of
horizontal wells will also be reviewed for both oil and gas wells.
The main purpose of drilling horizontal wells is to enhance
production. There are also many circumstances that lead to drilling
horizontal wells (Cooper, 1988):
• Thin reservoirs - The increased area of contact of the horizontal
well with the reservoir is reflected by the productivity index (PI).
Typically, the PI for a horizontal well may be increased by a factor of
4 when compared to a vertical well penetrating the same reservoir.
• Heterogeneous reservoirs - When irregular reservoirs exist, the
horizontal well can effectively intersect isolated productive zones
which might otherwise be missed. A horizontal well can also intersect
vertical natural fractures in a reservoir.
• Reduce water/gas coning - A horizontal well provides minimum
pressure drawdown which delays the onset of water/gas
breakthrough. Even though the production per unit well length is
small, the long well length provides high production rates.
• Vertical permeability - If the ratio of vertical permeability to
horizontal permeability is a high, a horizontal well may produce more
economically than a vertical well.

4.2.1 Effect of Pressure Drop on Productivity


In reservoir engineering calculations, the horizontal wellbore is
treated as an infinite conductivity fracture, i.e. the pressure drop
along the well length is negligible. However, in practice, there is a
pressure drop from the toe (tip-end) of the horizontal wellbore to the
heel (producing-end) so as to maintain fluid flow within the wellbore
(see Figure 4.1). Dikken (1989), Folefac (1991) and Joshi (1991)
have recently addressed the effect of wellbore pressure gradient on
horizontal well production performance.

PIPESIM
92 Field Equipment

Figure 4.1 Along-hole pressure gradient of a horizontal well (Joshi,


1991)

Dikken (1990) and Folefac (1991) contend that the assumption of


constant pressure wellbore is reasonable for single phase laminar
flow but is no longer valid when turbulent or multiphase flow occurs.
Folefac (1991) showed that a typical well with the following
properties: ρo = 800 kg/m3; µ = 1.0 cp; d = 0.1968 m; and Q = 5000
RB/d gives a NRe of ≥ 4000 which is well above the turbulence
transition limit of 2000. In most practical situations, Dikken (1990)
asserts that horizontal wells will exhibit non-laminar flow. In addition,
the pressure drop will be even greater when multiphase flow exists.
Joshi (1991), thus, asked the question: What is the magnitude of the
wellbore pressure drop as compared to pressure drop from the
reservoir to the wellbore? If the wellbore pressure drop is significant
as compared to the reservoir drawdown, then the reservoir
drawdown, and consequently, the production rate along the well
length will change. Thus, there is a strong interaction between the
wellbore and the reservoir. The reservoir flow and wellbore equations
must be solved simultaneously as shown in Figure 4.2.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 93

Figure 4.2 Schematic of reservoir and flow relationship (Joshi, 1991)

The coupled equations were solved by Dikken (1990) analytically by


simplified boundary conditions, notably, no inflow from the toe-end.
Folefac (1991) used a Black Oil type model that involved a finite
volume technique. Folefac (1991) concluded that the well length,
wellbore diameter and perforated interval had the most profound
effect on the level of pressure drop in the wellbore. Folefac (1991)
pointed out that the wellbore pressure profile is non-linear with
respect to the well length. This is because the mixture momentum
equation has a non-linear term in velocity, the friction force. This in
turn will result in an uneven drawdown in the reservoir that is
otherwise considered homogenous. Furthermore, Folefac (1991)
showed that as the wellbore radius increased from 64.5 mm (2.5") to
114.3 mm (4.5"), the rate at which pressure dropped along the
wellbore became nearly constant. This is mainly due to the turbulent
flow being converted to laminar flow by drilling a larger size hole.
Joshi (1991) mentions other situations where wellbore pressure drop
is considerable:
• High flowrates of light oil (10,000 to 30,000 RB/d).
• High viscous crude’s (heavy oils and tar sands).
• Long well lengths.

The wellbore pressure drop effects well deliverability and in turn


influences well completion and well profile design. The need to
accurately calculate well flowrates and wellbore pressures is
therefore, essential.

Joshi (1991) lists a few remedies to minimize high wellbore pressure


drops:
• Drilling a larger diameter hole would dramatically reduce the
pressure drop. The reason being that for single phase flow - ∆
P α 1/d5. For example, Joshi (1991), states " for a given
production rate, by increasing the well diameter twofold, the
pressure drop can be reduced at least thirty-two fold".
• Varying the shot density of a cemented hole or the slot size of a
slotted liner would control production rates and minimise
pressure drop along the wellbore

PIPESIM
94 Field Equipment

• Gravel packs are used in high permeability reservoirs. If the


well is completed with a slotted liner, the slots should be placed
as far apart as possible. Joshi (1991) states that "this will let
the gravel pack act as a choke and facilitate maintaining
minimum pressure drop across the well length".

Therefore, by selecting the appropriate well geometry, hole size and


length, wellbore pressure drops can be minimized.

4.2.2 Single Phase Pressure Drop


Assuming that the horizontal wellbore can be treated as a horizontal
pipe, the single phase flow pressure drop calculation for oil flow can
be written as follows:

∆p = (114644
. x10 −5 ) fm ρ q 2 L / d 5 (4.1)
where,
∆p = pressure drop, psia
fm = Moody's friction factor, dimensionless
ρ = fluid density, gm/cm3
q = flowrate, RB/d
L = horizontal length, ft
d = internal diameter of pipe, inches

For gas flow, however, the pressure drop calculations are more
complex. This is due to friction, which could change the temperature
of the gas as it travels through the wellbore. Moreover, density and
viscosity are strong functions of gas pressure and temperature. This
would result in a changing pressure drop per foot length of a well
along the entire well length. The Weymouth equation for dry gas is
the simplest equation to estimate pressure drop in a horizontal pipe

( p12 − p2 2 ) d 16 / 3
qg = 15320 (4.2)
γ g TZL
where
qg = gas flowrate, scfd
p1 = pipe inlet pressure, psia
p2 = pipe outlet pressure, psia
L = pipe length, miles

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 95

T = average temperature, oR
Z = average gas compressibility factor
d = pipe diameter, in
γg = oil volume formation factor, RB/STB
Also, several multiphase correlations (Brill, 1988) are applicable for a
single-phase flow of either oil or gas.

4.2.3 Multiphase Pressure Drop


There is very little discussion on multiphase pressure drop in
horizontal wells. Folefac (1991) studied the effect of two phase flow
(hydrocarbon liquid and water are treated as one phase with identical
velocity but averaged properties). The pressure drop along the
horizontal wellbore was similar to that for single phase flow.
However, the pressure drop was higher than for single phase flow for
the same volume of fluid intake.
For a horizontal pipe, Brill (1988) has discussed numerous
multiphase flow correlations. Slip velocities between phases make
these equations more complex than single phase flow equations. In
general, Joshi (1991) states that, "different multiphase correlations
may give different values of the pressure drop". The various
correlations should be compared with actual pressure drop data.
However, measuring the pressure at both ends of a horizontal well
and calibrating the data is very difficult. There is a definite need for
further study on multiphase flow in horizontal wells.

4.2.4 Inflow Production Profiles


Horizontal wellbore pressure drops also depend upon the type of fluid
inflow profiles. Figure 4.3 shows some horizontal well fluid inflow
profiles. On the basis of well boundary condition and reservoir
heterogeneity, several profiles are possible. Joshi (1991) examined
the effect of different fluid entry profiles on the wellbore pressure
drop. Depending on the type of profile, Joshi concluded that the total
pressure drop varied from 6 psi to 14.5 psi but it was not large
enough to effect the wellhead pressure.

PIPESIM
96 Field Equipment

Figure 4.3 Horizontal Well Inflow Profiles (Joshi, 1991)

4.2.5 Steady-State Productivity


The simplest forms of horizontal well productivity calculations are the
steady-state analytical solutions, which assume that the pressure at
any point in the reservoir is constant over time. According to Joshi
(1991), even though very few reservoirs operate under steady-state
conditions, steady state solutions are widely used because:

• Analytical derivation is easy.


• The concepts of expanding drainage boundary over time,
effective wellbore radius and shape factors allows the
conversion to either transient or pseudo-steady state results to
be quite straightforward.
• Steady-state mathematical results can be verified
experimentally.

Giger (1984), Economides (1989), Mukherjee (1988) and numerous


others have developed solutions to predict steady-state productivity.
Most are similar in form to the equation given by Joshi (1988) who
simplified the 3-D Laplace equation (∇2p=0) by coupling two 2-D
problems. This was based on the assumption that a horizontal well
drains an ellipsoidal volume around the wellbore of length L as shown
in Figure 4.4.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 97

Figure 4.4 Horizontal Well Drainage Pattern

For isotropic reservoirs (kh=kv),

0.007078k h h∆p /( µ o Bo )
qh = (4.3)
a + a 2 − ( L / 2 )2 h
ln[ ] + ( h / L)ln[ ]
L/2 2rw
and
a = (L / 2 )[0.5 + 0.25 + (2reh / L) 4 ]0.5 (4.4)
where
qh = flowrate, STB/day
∆p = pressure drop, psi
L = horizontal well length, ft
h = reservoir height, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
reh = drainage radius of horizontal well, ft
µo = oil viscosity, cp
Bo = oil volume formation factor, RB/STB
kh = horizontal permeability, md

If the length of the horizontal well is significantly longer than the


reservoir height, i.e. L >> h, then the second term in the denominator
of equation (4.3) is negligible and the solution simplifies to

0. 007078k h h∆p /( µ o Bo )
qh =
r
(4.5)
ln[ eh ]
(L / 4 )

Muskat (1937) suggested a simple transformation to account for


permeability anisotropy. An effective permeability, keff, is defined as

k eff = k v k h (4.6)

To account for vertical anisotropy, the reservoir thickness can be


modified as follows

PIPESIM
98 Field Equipment

kh
h=h (4.7)
kv

In addition, the influence of well eccentricity (distance from the center


of the reservoir in the vertical plane) was also implemented. Thus,
equation (4.3) was transformed as follows
0.007078k h h∆p /( µ o Bo )
qh = (4.8)
a + a − ( L / 2)
2 2 2
(βh / 2 ) + β δ
2 2
ln[ ] + (βh / L)ln[ ]
L /2 2rw

where
kh
β= (4.9)
kv

and δ is the horizontal well eccentricity (offset of the well from the
center of the pay zone) in feet.

Productivity comparisons of a horizontal well to that of a vertical well


can easily be made by using equation (4.8). In converting the
productivity of a horizontal well into that of an equivalent vertical well,
an effective wellbore radius can be calculated, rw,eff
rw,eff = rw exp(-s) (4.10)

The effective wellbore radius is defined as the theoretical well radius,


which will match the production rate. Joshi (1991) assumed equal
drainage volumes, reh=rev, and equal productivity indices, Jh=Jv to
give the following for an anisotropic reservoir

reh (L / 2 )
rw,eff = (4.11)
a[1+ 1− ( L / 2 a )2 ] + [(βh / rw )](βh / L)

In this way, controlling parameters like well length, permeability and


formation thickness can be used to screen potential candidates for
further simulation studies.

Renard (1990) studied the effect of formation damage around the


wellbore and modified the steady-state equation to include skin.
Renard (1990) concluded that due to the lower productivity index per
unit length in horizontal wells, the effect of skin damage is not as

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 99

pronounced as it is in vertical wells. Celier (1989) came to the same


conclusion with respect to the effect of non-Darcy flow.

4.2.6 Pseudo-Steady State Productivity


It is often desirable to calculate productivity from a reservoir with
unique boundary conditions, such as a gas cap or bottom water drive,
finite drainage area, well location, etc. In these instances pseudo-
steady state equations are employed. Pseudo-steady state or
depletion state begins when the pressure disturbance created by the
well is felt at the boundary of the well drainage area. Dake (1978) and
Golan (1985) describe the pseudo-steady state flow of an ideal fluid
(liquid) in a closed circular drainage area. Rearranging the equation
gives the familiar vertical well productivity
kh∆p / 141.2 µ o Bo
qv = (4.11)
ln [2.2458 A / (CA Rw 2 )] + s + sm + Dqv
where
sm = mechanical skin factor due to drilling and completion
related well damage.
s = total skin due to perforations, partial penetration and
stimulation.
CA = shape factor
Dqv = near wellbore turbulence factor

The above equation can be reduced to the following single-phase


pseudo-steady state equation for oil flow (assuming s=0, sm=0 and
Dqv=0),

kh∆p / 141.2 µ o Bo
qv =
r
(4.13)
ln[( e ) - 0. 75]
rw

Equation (4.13) is for a vertical well which is located in the center of a


circular drainage area. Fetkovich (1985) wrote the shape factor in
terms of an equivalent skin. This skin was expressed by choosing a
reference shape factor of a well at the center of circular drainage area

s CA = ln[ C A,ref / C A ] (4.14)

The horizontal well shape factor depends on the following

PIPESIM
100 Field Equipment

• drainage area shape.


• well penetration.
• dimensionless well length, LD = (L/h)(kv/kh)0.5.

Joshi (1991) explains that the well performance approaches a fully


penetrating infinite-conductivity fracture when the horizontal well
length is LD > 10.

Babu (1989), Goode (1989) and Mutalik (1988) have developed


methods to calculate pseudo-steady state productivity for single
phase flow in horizontal wells. Shape factors were used to arbitrarily
locate the well within a rectangular bounded drainage area and the
reservoir was bounded in all directions. Mutalik's model assumed the
horizontal well as an infinite conductivity well (i.e. the wellbore
pressure drop is negligible). Babu's model assumed uniform-flux
boundary condition. Goode's model used an approximate infinite
conductivity solution where the constant wellbore pressure is
estimated by averaging the pressure values of the uniform-flux
solution along the well length. Goode (1989) also considered the
effects of completion type on productivity. Their model allowed for
cased completion, selectively perforated completion, external casing
packers to selectively isolate the wellbore and slotted liner completion
with selectively isolating zones.

Babu (1989) looked upon the problem as a partially penetrating


vertical well, which is turned sideways. The derived pseudo-steady
productivity equation is
0.007078b k x k z ∆p /( µ o Bo )
qh = (4.15)
A1
ln[ ]+ lnC H - 0. 75 + s R
rw
where
b = extension of the drainage volume in the direction along
the well axis, ft
sR = skin factor due to partial penetration.
CH = geometric shape factor defined by Babu (1989)
kx = permeability in the horizontal plane perpendicular to the
well axis, md

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 101

kz = permeability in the vertical plane, md


A1 = drainage area in the vertical plane, ft2
rw = wellbore radius, ft

The equation is derived from a very complex general solution. It


requires the calculation of the CH and SR. The geometric shape
factor accounts effect of permeability anisotropy, well location and
relative dimensions of the drainage volume. The skin accounts for
the restricted entry associated with the well length. Babu (1989)
reported an error of less than 3% when compared to the more
rigorous solution.

4.2.7 Solution Gas-Drive IPR


Cheng (1990), Joshi (1991) and Bendakhlia (1989) have studied the
inflow performance relationship (IPR) for solution gas-drive
reservoirs. Bendakhlia followed the same approach used by Vogel
for vertical wells and developed the following equation

qo p wf p
= [1- V( ) - (1- V)( wf ) 2 ]n (4.16)
q o,max pR pR

Equation (4.16) can be used under the assumptions of Vogel's


original IPR correlation. The parameter V and n were correlated as a
function of recovery factor.

4.2.8 Horizontal Gas Wells


The preceding sections have dealt with oil flow. However, horizontal
wells are also appropriate for gas reservoirs. For example, in high-
permeability gas reservoirs wellbore turbulence limits the
deliverability of a vertical well. The most effective way, according to
Joshi (1991), to reduce gas velocity around the wellbore is to reduce
the amount of gas production per unit well length which can be
accomplished by horizontal wells. Joshi (1991) describes two
methods for the relationship between pressure and flowrate.

• The gas flowrate is proportional to the pressure square terms.


• Al-Hussainy (1966) defined a pseudo-pressure m(p). The gas
flowrate is directly proportional to the pseudo-pressures which
is defined as

PIPESIM
102 Field Equipment

p p
m( p ) = 2 ∫ dp (4.17)
0 µz

Joshi (1991) did a comparison of the two methods. Below reservoir


pressures of 2500 psia, either method can be employed. However,
above 2500 psia, the pseudo-pressure should be used.

The steady-state equation for gas flow is


2 2
0.007027k h h(p e - p wf )
qh =
r
(4.18)
ln[ e ]µZT
rw,eff
where
qh = gas flowrate, mmscf/day
pe = pressure at external radius, psia
pwf = wellbore flowing pressure, psia
kh = horizontal permeability, md
h = reservoir height, ft
re = drainage radius, ft
rw,eff = effective wellbore radius, ft
µ = average viscosity, cp
Z = average compressibility factor
T = reservoir temperature, oR

The pseudo-steady state gas flow equation can be written as follows


(Joshi, 1991)
2 2
0.007027kh(p r - p wf )
qh =
r
(4.19)
[ln[ e ]- 0.75 + s + s m + s ca - c + Dq h ]µZT
rw

2.222x10 -15 ( γ g k a hβ )
D= (4.20)
µ pwf rw h
2

β = 2.73x1010 k (4.21)
-1.1045

or
β = 2.33x1010 k (4.22)
-1.201

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 103

where
qh = gas flowrate, mmscf/day
pr = average reservoir pressure, psia
pwf = wellbore flowing pressure, psia
s = negative skin due to horizontal well
sm = mechanical skin damage
sca = shape related skin factor
c = shape fact conversion constant
k = permeability, md
h = reservoir height, ft
re = drainage radius, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
µ = average viscosity, cp
Z = average compressibility factor
T = reservoir temperature, oR
µpwf = viscosity at well flowing conditions, cp
β = high velocity flow coefficient, 1/ft
γg = gas gravity
hp = perforated interval, ft
ka = permeability in the near wellbore region, md

Equation (21) and (22) are from Golan (1986) and Brown (1984),
respectively. The above equations are based upon circular drainage
area. The turbulence term, Dq, accounts for the extra pressure drop
in the near wellbore region due to the high gas velocity. This term
was neglected when dealing with oil flow. In addition, the term makes
the solution of equation (19) iterative.

4.3 Multiple Layers / Completions


Multiple layers can be modeled with PIPESIM. Each layer can have
the following, different, properties;
• Static Pressure
• Temperature
• Depth
• IPR specification
• Fluid description

PIPESIM
104 Field Equipment

The IRR for each individual layer can be specified using any of the
standard completion options (described above).

Similarly, the fluid description for each individual layer can be


specified using the standard black oil or compositional fluid
descriptions.

PIPESIM performs the fluid mixing in the wellbore and also calculates
inter layer pressure drops.

4.4 Artificial Lift


Artificial lift is the process of assisting the production of fluids from the
reservoir by reducing the static head in the well bore.

There are a number of methods available for doing this;


• Gas Lift
• Electrical Submersible pumps (ESP)
• Rod Pump

Given their wider operating range and wider established


application in the oil and gas industry, the modeling of artificial lift
in PIPESIM has been limited to gas lift and ESP.

4.4.1 Gas Lift


Gas lift can be described as a simple single injection point or by
defining the gas lift valves as equipment in the tubing description.

With the single injection point description, the user explicitly specifies
the injection gas flowrate (and no details of the gas lift valves or ports
are required). In this mode of operation it is assumed that the casing
pressure is sufficient to inject all the lift gas at the specified depth.

Alternatively, if gas lift valves are described as part of the tubing


description, then PIPESIM will calculate the injection gas throughput
for each valve (dependent on the casing, tubing and dome pressures
and valve temperature)

PIPESIM contains a database of gas lift valve details for most of the
commonly used gas lift valves from various manufactures.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 105

4.4.2 ESP Lift


ESP's are modeled via an ESP performance curve that shows the
relationship between flowrate, head and efficiency. This data is
supplied at a set pump speed and number of stages.

The most common ESPs used in the oil & gas industry have been
made available within PIPESIM via a database.

The manufacturers covered are:


• Reda
• ODI
• Centrilift
• Ramco Alnas
• Trico
For each manufacturer a number of models are available.

The user can vary the following for each ESP;


• Speed
• Number of stages
• Head factor
to match the exact ESP in-situ.

In addition the user can extend the database by adding new ESP's
curve data in the form of flowrate, head and efficiency.

4.5 Tubing
The production of the fluids from the reservoir to the surface is via a
series of tubing strings.

The tubing allows the modeling of;


• Straight tubing
• Deviated tubing
• Changes in pipe diameter
• Tuning, Annular or Tubing and Annular flow
• Gas lift injection (single and multi-point)
• ESP lift point
• Down hole equipment (SSSV, choke, separator, etc)

PIPESIM
106 Field Equipment

4.6 Chokes
The pressure drop through a restriction is based on the following;
• Fluid properties computed from upstream pressure
• Heat capacities of the two phases computed from the upstream
conditions

The sonic velocity if the fluid is then computed from the heat capacity
ratio, Cp/Cv.

If the actual throat velocity is greater than the sonic velocity then the
flow is critical. If it is less then it is sub-critical.

The correlations used in each regime can be selected.

Note: The downstream pressure can not be determined in the case of


critical flow. If critical flow is determined in the case where the outlet
pressure has been specified then the choke downstream pressure is
computed from the flowrate and the outlet pressure.

4.6.1 Ashford-Pierce
The correlation of Ashford and Pierce [1975] is valid for critical and
sub-critical flows.

. Cd e2αβ
qo = 351

−1
α = ( Bo + Fwo ) 2

1
 n   n −1
   2


 n − 1  
[
 T1 z1 ( R − Rs ) 1 − e n  + 198.6 p1 (1 − e) × γ 0 + 0.000217γ g Rs + Fwoγ w

]

β=
 −1 
198.6 +

T1 z1
p1
[
( R − Rs )e n  γ 0 + 0.000217γ g R + Fwoγ w

]

where
qo - oil flow rate at standard conditions (bbl/d)
C - choke discharge coefficient
de - choke diameter (64th in.)

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 107

Fwo - Water to oil ratio (WOR)


Bo - oil formation factor volume factor (bbl/STB)
n - specific heat ratio
p1 - upstream choke pressure (lb/ft2)
p2 - downstream choke pressure (lb/ft2)
R - producing GOR (scf/STB)
Rs - solution GOR at p1 and T1 (scf/STB)
T1 - upstream choke temperature (oR)
z1 - gas compressibility factor at T1 and p1
e - choke downstream to upstream pressure ratio, p2/p1
γg - gas specific gravity at T1 and p1
γo - oil specific gravity at T1 and p1
γw - water specific gravity at T1 and p1

Assumptions:
• polytropic expansion of gas-liquid mixture
• equal gas and liquid velocities at the throat
• incompressible liquid phase
• liquid dispersed in a continuous gas phase
• negligible friction losses

Recommended values for discharge coefficient (C) are:

Choke size (64th in.) C


32 0.95
24 0.95
20 0.976
12 1.2
8 1.2

4.6.2 Omana
The correlation of Omana [1969] is valid for critical flow.

The original equation is:

N qL = 0.263 N ρ −3.49 N Pl 3.19 Qd 0.657 N D1.8

where

PIPESIM
108 Field Equipment

1.25
ρ 
N qL = 184 o
. q  L
σ L 
L

Nρ =
ρG
ρL

1
. × 10 −2 P1
N pl = 174
ρ Lσ L

1
Qd =
1 + R1

ρL
N D = 120.872 Dc
σL

Final re-arranged equation:

× 10 −3 (σ L ) ( ρ L )1.545 (1 + R1 )
−0.657
q Lo = 1953
.
−1.245
( Dc )1.8 ( ρ G ) −3.49 ( P1 ) 3.19

NqL - Omana liquid volume rate number


ND - Omana diameter number
Npl - upstream pressure number
Qd - Omana dimensionless production number
ρ - density at upstream conditions(lb/ft3)
σ - surface tension at upstream conditions (dynes/cm)
R1 - In situ GOR (ft3/ft3)
Dc - choke diameter (ft)
P1 - upstream pressure (psia)

subscripts
G - gas
L - liquid

4.6.3 Gilbert, Ros, Baxendall, Achong and Pilehvari


The correlation proposed by Gilbert, Ros, Baxendall, Archong and
Pilehvari [Ghassan, Maha, 1991] are valid for critical flow.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 109

The equations proposed are all of the form

qLo = aP1 (GOR) −b d c (1)


where
P1 - upstream pressure (psia)
o
q L - liquid flow rate at standard conditions (STB/D)
GOR - producing GOR (scf/STB)
d - choke diameter (64ths in.)
a,b,c - empirical coefficient given below

Correlation A B c
Gilbert 0.1 0.546 1.89
Ros 0.05747 0.5 2.00
Baxendall 0.10460 0.546 1.93
Achong 0.26178 0.650 1.88
Pilehvari 0.021427 0.313 2.11

4.6.3.1 PDVSA modification


Recently a modification, by PDVSA, was made to equation (1) to
incorporate another parameter "e" to better match their field data. For
the all above correlation's e=1.

qLo = (aP1 (GOR) −b d c ) − e

This modification has been implemented in PIPESIM via the engine


keyword tool. The parameters are proprietary.

4.6.4 Poettmann-Beck
The correlation of Poettmann & Beck [1963] is valid for critical flow.

9273.6 P1  0.4513( R1 + 0.766) 


1
88992 Ac
q oo = . . 
5.61ρ oL + 0.0765γ G (GOR )
0
V1 (1 + 0.5m1 )  R11 + 0.5663 

where

R =
1
(
0.00504T1 z1 ( GOR ) − ( Rs )1
0
)
1
P1 Bo

PIPESIM
110 Field Equipment

1
m1 =
ρ 1G
1 + R11
ρ1L

m1
V1 =
ρL

q - oil flow rate (STB/D)


Ac - choke cross-sectional area (ft2)
P - pressure (psia)
γ - specific gravity at P1 & T1
GOR - gas to oil ratio (scf/STB)
Rs - Solution gas (scf/STB)
B - formation volume factor
ρ - density (lb/ft3)
T - temperature (oR)
z - compressibility factor

subscripts
L - liquid
G - gas
1 - at upstream conditions
o - oil

Superscripts
o - at standard conditions

4.6.5 Mechanistic Correlation,


The mechanistic correlation, Brill & Beggs, is valid for critical and sub-
critical flows.
∆pTP = ∆p L λ L + ∆pG λ G
2
ρL  qL 
∆p L =  
2 g c 144  C L Ac 

2
ρL  qG 
∆p G =  
2 g c 144  YCG Ac 

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 111

  d2  
2
 p − p1 
. − 0.41 + 0.35  (1 / K ) 2
Y = 10 
  d1    p1 

Cd
C=
4
d 
1−  1 
 d2 

Total pressure drop for the two-phase system is given by:

  C 
2

∆pTP 
= ∆p L 1 + λ G  dL  − 1 
  YC dG  
  

where

  d  4  qm 
∆p L = ρ L 1 −  1    
  d 2    8083d1 CdL 
2

λG - no-slip fraction of free gas in the stream approaching the


choke
λL - no-slip fraction of liquid in the stream approaching the
choke
qL - liquid flow rate (ft3/sec)
qG - gas flow rate (ft3/sec)
Ac - choke cross-sectional area (ft2)
p1 - pressure upstream of choke (psi)
p2 - pressure downstream of choke (psi)
ρ - density (lbm/ft3)
C - flow coefficient
Cd - discharge coefficient
Y - compressibility factor
d1 - upstream tubing diameter (same units as d2)
d2 - orifice diameter (same units as d1)
K - ratio of specific heats (cp/cv)

Subscripts
L - liquid
G - gas

PIPESIM
112 Field Equipment

TP - two-phase
1 - at upstream conditions
2 - at downstream conditions

4.6.6 API 14-B Formulation


The API 14-B formulation, Brill & Beggs, is similar to the mechanistic
formulation, with the addition of the following assumptions and is valid
for critical flow.

1) Liquid flow through the choke is incompressible. The discharge


coefficient is constant with a value of 0.85.
2) Sub-critical gas flow through the choke is adiabatic and
compressible. The discharge coefficient is constant with a value of
0.9.
3) Sub-critical two-phase compressible flow is described by weighting
the liquid and gas orifice flow equations with the no-slip fraction of
free gas λG in the stream approaching the choke.
4) The density and flow rates of each phase can be replaced by a no-
slip mixture density, ρNL , and a total mixture flowrate, qm.

  C 
2

∆pTP 
= ∆p L 1 + λ G  dL  − 1 
  YC dG  
  

where
  d  4  qm 
∆p L = ρ N 1 −  1    
  d 2    8083d1 CdL 
2

CG = 0.9
CL = 0.85

Using the above equations we get:

 .  
1121
∆p tp = ∆p L 1 + λ G  2  − 1
 Y  

where
4
d   qm 
∆p L = ρ N 1−  1   2 
 d 2   6870.55d1 

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 113

λG - no-slip fraction of free gas in the stream approaching the


choke
qm - total mixture flow rate (ft3/sec)
∆PL - liquid phase pressure change (psi)
∆PG - gaseous phase pressure change (psi)
ρN - no-slip mixture density (lbm/ft3)
CdG - discharge coefficient for the gas phase
CdL - discharge coefficient for the liquid phase
Y - compressibility factor
d1 - upstream tubing diameter (same units as d2)
d2 - orifice diameter (same units as d1)

Subscripts
L - liquid
G - gas
TP - two-phase
1 - at upstream conditions
2 - at downstream conditions

4.7 Heat transfer


The effects of heat transfer in the well bore can be modeled by the
use of an overall heat transfer coefficient.

The heat transfer coefficient is relative to the outside pipe diameter.


The surrounding ambient temperature can also be entered.

4.8 Reservoir Depletion


The field planning module of PIPESIM can take into account the
depletion of the reservoir over time.

4.8.1 Volume Depletion Reservoirs


There is assumed to be no change in the reservoir volume occupied
by hydrocarbons during depletion of the reservoir.

The material balance equation, expressed at standard conditions for


a given volume of production Gp and consequent drop in the average
reservoir pressure ∆p = p i − p is given by [Dake - 1978]

PIPESIM
114 Field Equipment

Production = Gas Initially in Place - Un-produced Gas


(sc) (sc) (sc)

or
G
Gp = G − E
Ei
where:
Gp is the cumulative production expressed at standard
conditions
G is the gas initially in place at standard conditions
E is the gas expansion factor after cumulative production Gp
Ei is the gas expansion factor at initially un-depleted reservoir
conditions

For fields units at standard conditions of p=14.17psia, T=520ºR and


Z=1
p
E = 35.37
ZT

and by using the equation of state for a real gas

pV = ZnRT

we can re-write the material balance equation as

p pi  G p 
= 1 − 
Z Zi  G

The initial conditions pi, Zi and G are input from the user

The cumulative production, Gp, can be computed from the flow rate
that the network module calculates, and the flowing time (time-step)
specified.

In the case of multiple wells in the tank Gp is simply the sum of the
flow rates from wells in that reservoir over flowing time.

The p/Z term can now be evaluated and correlations at reservoir


pressure for the specified fluid composition can now be used to

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 115

evaluate pressure for the (constant) reservoir temperature and


volume.

The model assumes that the well flows at a constant rate between
each time-step.

4.8.2 Gas Condensate Reservoirs


The dry gas material balance as described above may be used to
model gas condensate reservoirs. When the pressure falls below dew
point, liquid hydrocarbons are deposited in the reservoir. Since FPT is
a fully compositional simulator the new 2-phase z-factor for the
reservoir will be automatically calculated.

4.9 References
Ghassan, H. A., and Maha, R. A., “Correlations developed to predict
two-phase flow through wellhead chokes”, The journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, Volume 30, N0. 6, 1991

F. H. Poettman and R. L. Beck, “New Charts Developed to Predict


Gas-Liquid Flow through Chokes”, World Oil, March 1963, 95-101.

Two-Phase Flow in Pipes (Dr. James P. Brill, Dr. H. Dale Beggs),


course notes, pp 6-8 through 6-12

Two-Phase Flow in Pipes (Dr. James P. Brill, Dr. H. Dale Beggs),


course notes, pp 6-36 through 6-39

Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey Jr., H. J. and Crawford, P. B.: “The Flow of


Real Gases Through Porous Media,” JPT (1966) 624-636.

Ashford, F.E. and Pierce, P.E. : “Determining Multiphase Pressure


Drops and Flow capacities in Down-Hole Safety Valves”, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, Paper No. SPE-5161, September, 1975 .

Babu, D. K. and Odeh, A. S.: “Productivity of a Horizontal Well,” SPE


Reservoir Engineering (November 1989) 417-421.

PIPESIM
116 Field Equipment

Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for


Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells,” SPE paper 19823 presented at
the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
October 1989.

Celier, G. C. M. R., Jouault, P. and de Montigny, O. A. M. C.:


“Zuidwal: A Gas Field Development With Horizontal Wells,” SPE
paper 19826 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in San Antonio, October 1989.

Cheng, A.M.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-


Drive Slanted/Horizontal Wells,” SPE paper 20720 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
September 1990.

Cooper, R.E., and Troncoso, J.C.: “An Overview of Horizontal Well


Completion Technology,” SPE paper 17582 presented at the
International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China,
November 1988.

Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier


Scientific Publishing Co., New York, 1978.

Dikken, B.J.: “Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and its Effect on


Production Performance,” JPT (November 1990) 1426-1433.

Economides, M.J., McLennan, J.D., Brown, E., and Roegiers, J.C.:


“Performance and Stimulation of Horizontal Wells,” World Oil, (July
1989) 69-76.

Folefac, A. N., Archer, J. S. and Issa, R. I.: “Effect of Pressure Drop


Along Horizontal Wellbores on Well Performance,” SPE paper 23094

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 117

presented at the Offshore Europe Conference held in Aberdeen


(September 1991).

Ghassan, H. A., and Maha, R. A., “Correlations developed to predict


two-phase flow through wellhead chokes “, The Journal of Canadian
Petroleum technology, Volume 30, No 6, 1991

Giger, F. M., Reiss, L. H., and Jourdan, A. P.: “The Reservoir


Engineering Aspects of Horizontal Drilling,” SPE paper 13024
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in
Houston, September 1984.

Goode, P. A. and Wilkinson, D. J.: “Inflow Performance of Partially


Open Horizontal Wells,” SPE paper 19341 presented at the SPE
Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WV, October, 1989.

Gurley, D. G., Copeland, C. T. and Hendrick, J. L.: “Design Plan and


Execution of Gravel-Pack Completion,” J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1977).

Jones, L. G. and Slusser, M. L.: “The Estimation of Productivity Loss


Caused by Perforation - Including Partial Completion and Formation
Damage,” SPE paper 4798 (1974).

Joshi, S. D.: Horizontal Well Technology, Penwell Publishing


Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1991).

Joshi, S. D.: “A Review of Horizontal and Drainhole Technology,” SPE


paper 16868 presented at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting in
Casper, WY (May 1988).

Lockhart, R. W. and Martinelli, R. C.: “Proposed Correlation of Data for


Isothermal Two-phase, Two-Component Flow in Pipes,” Chem. Eng.
Prog. (January 1949) 45, 39.

PIPESIM
118 Field Equipment

McLeod, H. O.: “The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well


Performance,” JPT (Jan. 1983).

Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous


Media, I.H.R.D.C., Boston (1937).

Mutalik, P. N., Godbole, S. P. and Joshi, S. D.: “Effect of Drainage


Area Shapes on Horizontal Well Productivity,” SPE paper 18301
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston (October 1988).

Omana, R. et al., “Multiphase Flow Through Chokes”, SPE 2682, 1969

Poettman, F. H. and Beck, R. L. “New Charts Developed to Predict


Gas-Liquid Flow Through Chokes”, World Oil, March 1963, 95-101
Pots, B. F. M., Bromilow, I. G. and Konijn, M. J. W.: “Severe Slug
Flow on Offshore Flowline/Riser Systems,” SPE paper 13723, (March
1985).

Renard, G. I. and Dupuy, J. M.: “Influence of Formation Damage on


the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal Wells,” SPE paper 19414 presented
at the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette (February
1990).

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 119

5 Field Equipment
5.1 Compressor
The basic compressor model uses centrifugal and reciprocating
compressor equations to determine the relationship between inlet
pressure and temperature, outlet pressure and temperature, flowrate,
power, and efficiency.

It is also possible to use built in, or user developed compressor


curves to describe the relationship between differential pressure,
flowrate, and efficiency for a range of compressor speeds.

If compressor curves are used, therefore, the compressor speed and


number of stages become a additional factors.

At least one parameter must be supplied. This could be:


• outlet pressure
• differential pressure
• pressure ratio (Pout/Pin)
• power (shaft power)
• speed and number of stages (if using curves)

The remaining quantities will then be calculated using compressor


equations. If more than one value is supplied, then the parameter
which leads to the smallest compressor differential pressure will be
used, and all other supplied parameters will be discarded.

The main centrifugal compressor equations used are as follows:

Adiabatic Route
Head = (ZavgRTin/(M(k-1)/k))((Pout/Pin)((k - 1)/k) - 1)
where k = Cp/Cv

Polytropic Route
Head = (ZavgRTin/(M(n-1)/n))((Pout/Pin)((n - 1)/n) - 1)
where n = 1/(1 - ((Cp/Cv - 1)/(eCp/Cv)))

Mollier Route (compositional cases only)


Head (Hout - Hin)

PIPESIM
120 Field Equipment

where the values of Hout and Hin are obtained from isentropic
compression from Pin to Pout

5.2 Expander
The basic expander model uses centrifugal expander equations to
determine the relationship between inlet pressure and temperature,
outlet pressure and temperature, flowrate, shaft power, and
efficiency.

It is also possible to use built in, or user developed expander curves


to describe the relationship between differential pressure, flowrate,
and efficiency for a range of expander speeds.

If expander curves are used, therefore, the expander speed and


number of stages become a additional factors.

At least one parameter must be supplied. This could be:


• outlet pressure
• differential pressure
• pressure ratio (Pin/Pout)
• power (shaft power)
• speed and number of stages (if using curves)

The remaining quantities will then be calculated using centrifugal


expander equations. If more than one value is supplied, then the
parameter which leads to the smallest expander differential pressure
will be used, and all other supplied parameters will be discarded.
The main expander equations used are as follows:

Adiabatic Route
Head = (ZavgRTin/(M(k-1)/k))((Pout/Pin)((k - 1)/k) - 1)
where k = Cp/Cv

Polytropic Route
Head = (ZavgRTin/(M(n-1)/n))((Pout/Pin)((n - 1)/n) - 1)
where n = 1/(1 - ((Cp/Cv - 1)/(eCp/Cv)))

Mollier Route (compositional cases only)


Head (Hout - Hin)

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 121

where the values of Hout and Hin are obtained from isentropic
compression from Pin to Pout

5.3 Single Phase Pump


The basic pump model uses centrifugal pump equations to determine
the relationship between inlet pressure and temperature, outlet
pressure and temperature, flowrate, shaft power, hydraulic power and
efficiency.

It is also possible to use built in, or user developed pump curves to


describe the relationship between differential pressure, flowrate, and
efficiency for a range of pump speeds. If pump curves are used,
therefore, the pump speed and number of stages become a
additional factors.

At least one parameter must be supplied. This could be:


• outlet pressure
• differential pressure
• pressure ratio (Pout/Pin)
• power (shaft power)
• speed and number of stages (if using curves)

The remaining quantities will then be calculated using centrifugal


pump equations. If more than one value is supplied, then the
parameter which leads to the smallest pump differential pressure will
be used, and all other supplied parameters will be discarded.

The main pump equations used are as follows:

Hydraulic Power Flowrate x Differential Pressure

Hydraulic Power = Shaft Power x Efficiency

5.4 Multiphase Boosting


Multiphase boosting technology (also referred to as multiphase
pumping technology) for the oil and gas industry has been in
development since the early 1980s, and is now rapidly gaining
acceptance as a tool to optimize multiphase production systems [1].
Particularly for the development of satellite fields, multiphase

PIPESIM
122 Field Equipment

boosting has been recognized as a promising technology: rather than


separation, gas compression, liquid pumping and use of dual flow
lines back to the host facility, multiphase boosting enables the full
(non-separated) well stream to be boosted in a single machine.
Besides the thus realized simplification of the production system, the
potential cost reductions could make development of marginal fields
economic.

Since 1990, well over one hundred multiphase boosters have been
installed worldwide, with the vast majority of the installations based
onshore or offshore topsides. Over the years, the development of
multiphase boosting has led to three types of boosters being
commercially available:
- twin screw type multiphase boosters
- progressing cavity type multiphase boosters
- helico-axial type multiphase boosters
The first two types mentioned belong to the category of positive
displacement type pumps and the third type to the category of
dynamic type pumps.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 123

Traditional Approach
The incoming fluid is separated in its
constituent gas and liquid phases.
The separated liquids are pumped up
to the required pressure and exported
via the liquid export line.
Separated gas is compressed up to the
required pressure and exported via the
gas export line.
Alternative Approach
The incoming fluid is separated in its
constituent gas and liquid phases.
The separated liquids are pumped up
to the required pressure and separated
gas is compressed up to the required
pressure, before the two phases are
recombined and exported via a
multiphase export line.
Multiphase Boosting
The incoming fluid is directly boosted
up to the required pressure without
separation of the gas and liquid
phases, and exported via a multiphase
export line.

Figure 5-1 Multiphase boosting vs. Traditional approaches

Multiphase boosters are pumps/compressors that can accommodate


fluids composed of 100% liquid to 100% gas, and anywhere in
between. Although commonly referred to as multiphase pumps, the
terminology used in this document is ‘multiphase booster’ to
recognize the fact that also 100% gas can be handled by this
equipment (albeit with some restrictions, as outlined in later chapters
of this document). Figure 3.1 depicts the difference between
multiphase boosting technology and the more traditional technology
of separation, pumping and compression.

The rationale for employing multiphase boosters stems from two


basic factors:
(1) Production Enhancement – accelerated and/or incremental
hydrocarbon production as a result of lowering the backpressure
on the well(s);

PIPESIM
124 Field Equipment

(2) Pressure Boosting – increasing fluid pressure for transportation


over long distances or to move fluid from low pressure systems to
higher pressure systems.
In many cases, there will be a combined effect of the two factors, e.g.
lowering the backpressure on a well by use of a multiphase booster
provides at same time a higher pressure available at the inlet to the
flowline.

To demonstrate the principle of multiphase boosting, take the


example of a well which is connected via a flowline and riser to the
inlet separator on the host facility. See Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2 Simplified production system

Based on estimates of the pressure drop across the tubing string, and
given the production characteristics of the formation and the IPR of
the well, the curve of tubing-head pressure pth against rate for an
individual well can be obtained; this curve is known as the tubing-
head pressure (THP) curve.

Similarly, based on estimates of the pressure drop across flowline


and riser, and given the pressure at the inlet separator of the host
facility, the curve of required flowline inlet pressure against rate can
be obtained; this curve is known as the outflow curve.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 125

Figure 5-3 demonstrates the principle of tubing-head pressure curve


and outflow curve; the point of intersection of the two curves is the
system operating point, i.e. pressure and production rate at the
wellhead.
P ro d u c tio n S y s te m A n a ly s is

7 0 .0

6 0 .0
O u tflo w c u r ve

5 0 .0
Pressure at wellhead (bara)

4 0 .0

3 0 .0
T H P c u r ve
2 0 .0

1 0 .0

0
0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0
P ro d u c tio n ra te (kg /s)

Figure 5-3 Production system analysis: THP curve and outflow curve

From Figure 3.3, it can be seen that the system operating point
involves a tubing head pressure of 39 [bara] and production rate of 5
[kg/s]. We can however also see from the THP curve that the flowing
potential of the well is far greater than the production rate of 5 [kg/s],
should the back pressure on the well be lower than the 39 [bara].
Assuming we could install a booster that allows us to provide a
‘boost’ of 20 [bar] to the well fluids directly downstream of the
wellhead, the outflow curve shown in Figure 5-3 will change to that
shown in Figure 5-4. The new system operating point involves a
tubing head pressure of 24 [bara] and production rate of 10 [kg/s], i.e.
through the boosting of the well stream production has increased by
100%.

PIPESIM
126 Field Equipment

Production System Analysis


70.0

60.0
Outflow curve - No boosting

50.0

Pressure at wellhead (bara)


40.0

30.0

Outflow curve - Boosting 20 bar


20.0

10.0
THP curve

0
0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Production rate (kg/s)

Figure 5-4 Production system analysis: the effect of multiphase


boosting visualized

Through the type of analysis outlined in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4,
the effect of multiphase boosting on production system operating
point (tubing head pressure, production rate) can readily be
established, as can be the multiphase booster operating point and
power requirement. Further details of this analysis, in particular with
respect to the system analysis tool PIPESIM, are given in Chapter 3.

5.4.1 Multiphase Boosters – Positive Displacement Type


Positive displacement type pumps work on the basis of pressure
being added hydrostatically rather than dynamically, which results in
these pumps being less sensitive to fluid density than dynamic type
pumps. As a result of this, positive displacement type pumps appear
to figure higher in surface applications than dynamic type pumps,
because with surface applications fluids tend to show higher gas
fractions and a greater tendency for density change than in subsea
applications [2].

Although initially piston type pumps were also considered for use as
multiphase boosters, the commercial development of positive
displacement has concentrated on two types only:
(1) twin screw type multiphase booster
(2) progressing cavity type multiphase booster
The majority of positive displacement type multiphase boosters on
the market are of the twin screw type, with the remainder being of the
progressing cavity type. Within the Shell EP Group of Operating

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 127

Companies, no progressing cavity type multiphase boosters have


been installed thus far. This chapter will therefore predominantly
address the working principle of twin screw type multiphase boosters,
but mention will be made of the progressing cavity type also.
5.4.2 Twin Screw Type Multiphase Boosters
The twin screw type booster, also referred to as two-spindle screw
pump, works on the basis of liquid carried between the screw threads
of two intermeshing feed screws and displaced axially as the screws
rotate and mesh. In principle, the intermeshing screws form
chambers [3], which are:
- filled with fluid at the pump suction side;
- closed to capture the amount of fluid that has entered the chamber
at pump suction;
- transported to the discharge side of the pump;
- opened to the outlet system once the chamber has reached the
pump discharge port.
Figure 5-5 shows an example of a twin screw type pump.

Figure 5-5 Twin screw type pump

It should be noted that, unlike screw type compressors, the volume of


the chambers is not reduced on its way from pump suction side to
pump discharge side, i.e. there is no in-built compression in the twin
screw type multiphase boosters. Pressure build-up by the twin screw
type multiphase booster is entirely caused by the fact that a definite
amount of fluid is delivered into the outlet system with every
revolution of the feed screws; the pressure developed at pump
discharge is thus solely the result of resistance to flow in the outlet
system.

However, due to the pressure differential between pump discharge


and pump suction, an internal leakage in the pumping elements

PIPESIM
128 Field Equipment

results and causes a pressure gradient across the moving chambers.


This internal leakage causes the pump net flow to be less than its
theoretical capacity, as demonstrated in pump performance curves
(see Figure 5-6).
Twin Screw Multiphase Pump - Performance Curve
(valid for GVF=0%, p1=1 bara)

600 1500

Shaft power
Flow rate

400 1000
[m3/h]

Flow rate

[kW]
200 500 Shaft power
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pump differential pressure [bar]

Twin Screw Multiphase Pump - Performance Curve (valid


for GVF=85%, p1=1 bara)

600 1500

Shaft power
Flow rate

400 1000
[m3/h]

Flow rate

[kW]
200 500 Shaft power
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pump differential pressure [bar]

Figure 5-6 Pump performance curves (typical)

As can be seen from Figure 5-6, pump flow rate is dependent on


pump differential pressure: the higher the pump differential pressure,
the higher the internal leakage, and thus the lower pump flow rate.

The theoretical capacity of the pump, i.e. the flow rate if no internal
leakage is present, is the flow rate found for zero pump differential
pressure – for the pump represented in Figure 6, the theoretical flow
rate is 500 m3/h; the difference between theoretical flow rate and
actual flow rate is the internal leakage, also called ‘pump slip’. As an
example, for the pump represented in Figure 6, GVF=0%, the actual
flow rate for pump differential pressure 40 bar is 400 m3/h, i.e. pump
slip is (500 – 400) = 100 m3/h. Given the relative insensitivity of flow
rate to differential pressure, especially for higher GVF, the twin screw
multiphase booster is sometimes referred to as a ‘constant flow rate’
pump.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 129

As can also be seen from Figure 5-6, pump flow rate is dependent on
GVF also, whereas the effect of GVF on pump shaft power is less
pronounced.

Whereas Figure 3.6 may suggest that an unlimited variety of twin


screw multiphase pumps is available to cover an unlimited amount of
(differential pressure / flow rate)-combinations, in practice however a
number of physical limitations applies:
pump differential pressure is typically limited to 70 bar to avoid
excessive deflection of feed screws and possible contact between
rotating screws and stator housing;
pump flow rate (total volumetric flow rate at pump suction) at
present limited to approximately 2000 m3/h per single pump;
gas volume fraction at pump suction typically limited to 95%
maximum (for GVF>95%, some form of liquid re-circulation is
typically required to maintain GVF-suction at 95% maximum);
pump inlet pressure and outlet pressures restricted by casing
design pressure and seal design pressure.

5.4.3 Progressing Cavity Type Multiphase Boosters


The progressing cavity type pump (also known as single-rotor screw
pump) operates on the basis of an externally threaded screw, also
called rotor, turning inside an internally threaded stator (see Figure
7); the most simple configuration is the one whereby there is one lead
on the rotor and two leads on the stator, commonly referred to as a
1:2 ratio element profile. Other configurations are also feasible,
provided that the stator has one more lead than the rotor [4].

Figure 5-7 Moyno® progressing cavity pump

PIPESIM
130 Field Equipment

As with the screw type pump, as the rotor rotates within the stator,
chambers are formed and filled with fluid and progress from the
suction side of the pump to the discharge side of the pump conveying
the process fluid. The continuous seal line between the rotor and the
stator helix keeps the fluid moving steadily at a fixed flow rate
proportional to the pump rotational speed.

Application of the progressing cavity type pump for multiphase


boosting has been less widespread than the twin screw type
multiphase booster, and flow rates and differential pressures are
typically lower than those achievable with the twin screw type.
Claimed to be the largest progressing cavity type pump for
multiphase applications is Moyno’s R&M Tri-Phaze® System,
capable of transferring multiphase flows up to 29,000 bbl/day (192
m3/h) at differential pressures up to 300 psi (20.7 bar).
Through the installations of various pumps in series/parallel
arrangement, higher flow rates and higher differential pressures are
achievable, however at the expense of complexity [4].

Given their wider operating range and wider established


application in the oil and gas industry, the modeling of positive
displacement type multiphase boosters in PIPESIM has been
limited to the twin screw type multiphase booster only.

5.4.4 Multiphase Boosters – Dynamic Type


Dynamic type pumps work on the principle of pressure being raised
by adding kinetic energy to the fluid, which is then converted to
pressure. The actual increase in pressure is directly proportional to
the density of the pumped fluid, i.e. the higher the fluid density, the
higher the pressure increase. Because of this, dynamic type pumps
are more sensitive to fluid density than positive displacement type
pumps, and tend therefore to be used in applications with lower
maximum gas volume fractions than positive displacement type
pumps, e.g. in subsea applications.

The commercial development of dynamic type multiphase boosters


has concentrated on the helico-axial type, based on helico-axial
hydraulics developed and licensed by Institute François du Petrole
(IFP). For very high gas volume fractions (GVF>95%), there is also

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 131

the contra-rotating axial (CRA) machine, originally developed by


Framo Engineering AS and Shell.

The design of the helico-axial type pump has further concentrated on


the driver mechanism for subsea use, and led to the availability of
electric motor driven units as well as hydraulic turbine driven units.
For onshore or offshore topsides applications, other driver types can
also be used.

5.4.5 Helico-Axial Type Multiphase Boosters


The helico-axial type multiphase booster features a number of
individual booster stages, each consisting of an impeller mounted on
a single rotating shaft, followed by a fixed diffuser. In essence, the
impeller imparts kinetic energy to the fluid, which is converted to
pressure in the diffuser. The impeller blades have a typical helical
shape, and profile of the open type impeller and diffuser blade
arrangement are specifically designed to prevent the separation of
the multiphase mixture inside the pump [5].

Figure 5-8 shows an example of a helico-axial pump stage.

Figure 5-8 Helico-axial pump stage

The boosting capabilities of the helico-axial type booster are a


function of GVF-suction and suction pressure, as well as speed, number
of impeller stages and impeller size. See Figure 5-9. The quoted flow
rates and speed limitation represent present technology status.

PIPESIM
132 Field Equipment

Figure 5-9 Helico-axial type multiphase booster – Pressure boosting


potential

As can be seen from Figure 3.9, the pressure boosting capability


drastically reduces for higher GVF. Also, for reduced speed or
reduced number of stages, the pressure boosting capability will be
less than the maximum shown in Figure 3.9. For a given pump with
given number of stages, speed and impeller diameter, pump
performance curves can be provided as shown in Figure 3.10. These
curves are valid for given GVF-suction, p-suction and fluid density only; for
differing GVF-suction, p-suction and fluid density, new performance curves
will apply.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 133

Helico-axial type multiphase booster - Performance curve

Booster differential pressure


(valid for given GVF, p -suction and fluid density)

Best efficiency line


Maximum booster differential pressure

e
lin
P
.D
ax

80%

90%

Ma
M

xim
spee

spee
M in

um
d

d
im u

s pee
ms

d
pee
d Total volumetric flow rate at suction

Figure 5-10 Pump performance curve (typical)

Practical operating limits of the helico-axial type multiphase booster


are [6]:
pump differential pressure typically limited to 70 bar
pump flow rate (total volumetric flow rate at pump suction) at
present limited to approximately 1500 m3/h per single pump;
gas volume fraction at pump suction typically limited to 95%
maximum;
pump inlet pressure 3.4 bara minimum;
pump outlet pressure restricted by casing design pressure and
seal design pressure.

5.4.6 Contra-Rotating Axial Type Multiphase Booster


The CRA operates on the basis of axial compressor theory, but rather
than having one rotor and a set of stator vanes, the CRA employs two
contra-rotating rotors. The inner rotor consists of several stages
mounted on the outside of an inner cylinder. The outer rotor consists
of several stages on the inside of a concentric, larger diameter
cylinder. See Figure 5-11.

PIPESIM
134 Field Equipment

Figure 5-11 Contra-rotating axial (CRA) compressor

The exact mechanism underlying pressure build-up inside the CRA


compressor have not yet been fully understood, nor are sufficiently
mature design rules available for the scale-up of CRA performance to
larger flow rates.

Flow rates that can be handled by the CRA are of same order of
magnitude as for helico-axial type multiphase booster, however
achievable differential pressures (maximum 20 bar) and realized
efficiencies (approximately 25%) are significantly less than what’s
achievable with conventional boosting systems.

Given their wider operating range and wider established application


in the oil and gas industry, the modeling of dynamic type multiphase
boosters in PIPESIM has been limited to the helico-axial type
multiphase booster only.

5.4.7 Alternative approach


The alternative approach described in Figure 5-1 has also been
implemented in PIPESIM.

This generic booster splits the fluid into liquid and gas and pumps the
liquid and compresses the gas. Efficiency values for the compressor
efficiency have been obtained from field data and are available in the
help system.

PIPESIM
Field Equipment 135

5.5 Separator
Placing a separator in the model removes up to 100% (by volume) of
the gas, water or liquid (oil plus water) phase.

The % efficiency (or efficiency fraction) refers to the amount of that


material removed. For example, a 90% efficient water separator
removes 90% of the water. From that point onward, flow of the
remaining fluids will be modeled.

5.6 Re-injection point


Works in conjunction with a separator in a network model only. All the
fluid removed from the separated will be re-injected.

The following must be defined;


• The incoming, outgoing and separated branches.
• Separated stream inlet temperature if different from the
separator temperature
• An estimate of the flowrate for the separated stream.

5.7 Heat Transfer

5.8 References
[1] How multiphase pumping can make you money
K.C.Oxley, J.M. Ward, W.G. Derks
Paper presented at Facilities 2000 Conference, New Orleans
1999

[2] Success grows in pumping high-gas-fraction multiphase fluids


B. Butler
Petroleum Engineer International, July 1999

[3] Pump Handbook, 2nd edition


J. Karassik et al.
McGraw-Hill Inc., 1986

[4] Progressing cavity multiphase pumping systems: expanding the


possibilities
K.Z. Mirza
Paper presented at BHR Conference Multiphase ’99

PIPESIM
136 Field Equipment

[5] Innovations in multiphase hydrocarbon operations


C. de Marolles, J. de Salis
Article from www.pump-zone.com, 1999

[6] Satellite multiphase boosting – Multiphase boosting study


Siep-RTS, ABB Lummus Global
Shell report SIEP 98-5463

PIPESIM
Operations 137

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


Operations 139

6 Operations
The operations of PIPESIM available for each module are

• Pipeline & facilities module


• Check model
• No operation
• Run model
• System analysis
• Pressure Temperature profile
• Flow correlation matching
• Wax prediction
• Well Performance module
• Check model
• No operation
• Run model
• System analysis
• Pressure Temperature profile
• Flow correlation matching
• Nodal analysis
• Reservoir tables
• Artificial lift analysis
• Well Performance Curves
• Network module
• Check model
• Run model
• Restart model
• Abort run

6.1 Check model


Allows the model to be check for missing input data input before a
simulation is performed.

6.2 No operation
Allows a model to be built and saved with no associated operation.
This is mainly for use with Schlumberger’s Production data
management software ProdMan.

PIPESIM 2000
140 Operations

6.3 Run model


Run the selected operation.

6.4 System Analysis


The systems analysis operation enables the user to determine the
performance of a given system for varying operating conditions on a
case-by-case basis (4.f. Pressure/Temperature Profiles where
performance is evaluated on a point-by-point basis).

Results of the system analysis operation are provided in the form of


plots of a dependent variable (e.g. outlet pressure) versus an
independent variable (e.g. flow rate). Families of X-Y curves can be
generated for the system by varying either a single sensitivity variable
(e.g. watercut) or through permutations of a group of sensitivity
values. The ability to perform analysis by combining sensitivity
variables in different ways makes the system analysis operation a
very flexible tool for plotting data on a case-by-case basis. A typical
systems analysis type plot is shown below.
Outlet Pressure

Watercut=30%
Watercut=60%

Watercut=90%
Flow Rate
Figure 6.1 Typical Systems Analysis Plot

6.5 Pressure Temperature profile


Pressure and temperature profiles of the system can be generated as
a function of distance and along the system. Both temperature and
pressure profiles are generated on a node-by-node basis for the
system

6.6 Flow correlation matching


This option allows the user to match well test data against each
correlation for a particular system, hence allowing the most suitable
correlation to be determined for each system model.

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 141

6.7 Wax Prediction


The wax prediction operation in PIPESIM was is at present, only
available to Shell (and Shell approved companies) and to BP (and BP
approved companies).

6.8 Nodal Analysis


PIPESIM has been designed as a nodal analysis tool so, rather than
just provide single point solutions to individual flow problems, the
model allows the user to perform sensitivity studies and generate
system performance curves.

Such graphical system analysis techniques are essential in well


performance modeling and in optimizing the design of complex
pipeline systems. This comprehensive nodal analysis capability has
been achieved without compromising the rigorous finite element
solution techniques necessary in generating accurate pressure and
temperature profiles throughout the system.

In essence, the objective of nodal analysis is to combine the various


components of a given oil or gas production or transportation system
in order to optimize the various components in the system. This is
done by splitting the system at the point of interest known as the
nodal analysis point and performing a solution for pressure at the
nodal analysis point on the upstream (Inflow) and downstream
(Outflow) sub-systems. The point at which there is no pressure
differential at the nodal analysis point for the sub-systems is known
as the operating point for the given system. This can be represented
graphically by the intersection point of the inflow and outflow
performance curves as shown in Figure 3.1. Optimization of the
system is conducted by investigating the effect on the operating point
of varying key system parameters.

PIPESIM 2000
142 Operations

Inflow

Pressure NA Point
Outflow

Flowrate
Figure 6.2 Nodal Analysis Inflow/r7 T5rvesPoint
Operations 143

6.9.1 Well Performance Curves


These can be created for us in the Network solver to produce faster
solution times. A curve is created that represents the performance of
the well under certain conditions. The network solver will then utilize
this curve instead of modeling the well directly.

6.9.2 Optimization module performance curves


As part of the artificial lift operation performance curves for the
optimization module, GOAL, can be created.

The curves are of the general form


x-axis : lift quantity
y-axis: liquid flowrate
sensitivity variable: system outlet pressure, normally the well
head, but see below on well head chokes.

The lift quantity should be set so that it spans the working range of
values. For gas lift this should include the case of zero injection gas,
i.e. can the well flow naturally?

The liquid flowrate will be computed at all the lift quantity rates for a
set system outlet pressure.

In order to utilize the performance curves in GOAL the system


performance needs to be ascertained at different system outlet
pressures. These pressures should span the normal working system
outlet pressure (normally well head or manifold pressure). Typically
4/5 values are required.

6.9.2.1 Well head chokes


The choking back of gas lifted wells is rare in the oil industry, but in
real-life operations, some gas lifted wells have to be choked back due
to instabilities of the wells.

Therefore, GOAL offers several ways to modeling gas lifted wells that
are choked back.

PIPESIM 2000
144 Operations

Wellhead Choke

Manifold

Flowline
Wellhead

Well

As GOAL uses gas lift performance curves the individual well models
can be developed to model a well to either:
1. the wellhead, upstream of a well head choke or
2. the manifold that the well is connected to (including a
wellhead choke and associated flowline between the well and
the manifold).

It is normally recommended that the well performance curves are


modeled to the manifold, i.e. the choke is included in the well model.

However, if any of the following situations are to be studied in GOAL


then the well must be modeled to the choke.
• A maximum liquid constraints into individual wells
• Choke optimization
• Pressure calibration

Method 1: GOAL model with wells modeled to the manifold

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 145

Model 2: GOAL model with wells modeled to the well head

6.10 Gas Lift Design & Diagnostics


PIPESIM is capable of performing gas lift designs for both new
mandrel spacing and also for existing mandrel spacing. The user has
considerable flexibility over the design method and design
parameters to use. For a new spacing the mandrel depths are
computed and for a new design the port size and test rack pressures.

PIPESIM contains a database of gas lift valve details for most of the
commonly used gas lift valves from various manufactures.

The gas lift diagnostic operation can be used to analyze the


performance of an existing gas lifted installation (or a proposed new
design). For any selected operational conditions (e.g. tubing and
casing head pressures), the status and gas throughput for each valve
will be computed. This operation will also take into account the
throttling behavior of the valves.

Linking to the production database via the ProdMan module can


further enhance the functionality of this module.

6.10.1 Check for Gas Lift instability


Unstable operational conditions may occur in a continuous gas lift
well because the characteristics of the system are such that small
perturbations can degenerate into huge oscillations in the flow
parameters. Therefore, a clearly defined mechanism is required to

PIPESIM 2000
146 Operations

show the relative importance of the different factors involved, and


help to assure stable flow conditions at the design phase or to decide
what actions to take in order to stabilize an unstable gas lift well.

Unified instability criteria were developed by Alhanati et al. (1993) for


continuous gas lift wells to overcome the drawbacks in previous
developments. The unified criteria can be used for all possible flow
regimes for the gas-lift valve and surface gas injection choke. The
unified criteria were developed using a number of simplifying
assumptions, and therefore they should not be considered as highly
accurate or that they can be applied to every type of instability
experienced in a gas lift installation. However, the criteria cover a
number of common cases encountered in the industry and certainly
indicate what can be done to improve operating instability.

Assumptions of the model:


• constant pressure at the gas injection manifold which is upstream
of the surface injection choke.
• adiabatic flow through the choke

In the unified criteria, two sets of criterion were defined, namely C1 &
C2, and both must be greater than zero for stable gas lift operation.

 rv  2 − rv  rv  rv
C1 =  F 1. − 1 + F 3. . Fc C 2 =  F 1. − 1 +
 µv  µv  µ v  Fc

where
F1 =
B f . ρg. q 2 go . J
F3 =
(q fo )
+ q go . At Pto
.
(C D ApY ) v
2
.Va . q fo (ρ )
f − ρg .g
q fo

  r ( 2 − rv ) 
(
 C D A p Y ) 2
(
+ CD ApY.  ch ) 2

  µ ch 
ch v
Fc =
2  r ( 2 − rv ) 
( C D A p Y .  ch ) 
 µ ch 
v

Pto ( zT ) t Pco ( zT ) c
rv = µv = rch = µ ch =
Pco ( zT ) c Pm ( zT ) m

Nomenclature

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 147

At Cross sectional area of tubing (in2)


Bf Volume factor for reservoir fluids at injection point
CD Gas Valves Discharge coefficient. Default = 0.8
J Productivity index (stb/d/psi)
Va Volume of tubing-casing annulus (ft3)
g Acceleration of gravity (ft/s2)
Pco Steady state casing pressure (psia)
Pto Steady state tubing pressure (psia)
qfo Steady state reservoir fluids flow rate (stbd)
qgo Steady state injected gas flow rate (mmscf)
Pm Gas injection manifold pressure (psia)
Y Gas expansion factor
T Temperature (F)
r ratio of pressures
z gas compressibility factor
ρt reservoir fluids density (lb/in3)
ρg injected gas density (lb/in3)
µ ratio of the products zT

SUBSCRIPTS
v gas lift vale
ch gas injection choke
t tubing
c casing
m manifold

In order to utilize this feature from the well model must be developed
with the following included;
• Well IPR is modeled by the PI method
• Casing inside diameter is set
• Port diameter. The inside diameter of the Gas Lift injection
valve that is currently being used.
• Surface injection pressure

From this additional data the well model will automatically calculate
the steady state casing and tubing pressures.

The (GOAL) Gas Lift performance curves should then be developed


as normal and the Alhanati factors will be automatically be generated.

PIPESIM 2000
148 Operations

The factors can be viewed graphically for any well by select the
Alhanati Criterion for the y axis from the series option within the
plotting utility PSPLOT. Both factors can be displayed on then same
plot, if required, by adding a second series.

W e l l P A 1 3 - AL ilc h
P IP E S IM P lo t A u g 0 9
a n a ti
e n se d to : B J A in h o u s e (K -
1. 1996 0001)

1.

Al 0.
ha
na
ti
Cr 0.

0.

0. 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

T o ta l In je c tio n G a s
P I P E S I M fo r W in d o w s © B a k e r J a r d in e & A s s o c ia te s

Figure 6-3 Alhanati Criterion

6.11 Horizontal well analysis


The Horizontal well operation is an integral part of PIPESIM's
reservoir-to-surface analysis. This option allows the user to predict
hydraulic well bore performance in the completion. The multiple
source concept used leads to a pressure gradient from the blind-end
(Toe) to the producing-end (Heel) which, if neglected, results in over-
predicting deliverability. The reduced drawdown at the Toe results in
the production leveling off as a function of well length and it can be
shown that drilling beyond an optimum length would yield no
significant additional production.

Several inflow performance relationships are available. These are


solved with the wellbore pressure drop equations to yield the
changing production rate along the well length.

To use this operation a horizontal well completion must be included in


the system model.

6.12 Reservoir tables


It is often necessary, for the purposes of reservoir simulation, to
generate VFP curves for input to a reservoir simulation program. The

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 149

VFP curves supply the simulator with the necessary data to define
bottom hole flowing pressures and tubing head pressures as a
function of various parameters such as flow rate, GOR, watercut,
surface pressure and the artificial lift quantity.

The reservoir simulator interface allows you to write tabular


performance data to a file for input into a reservoir simulation model.
Currently, the following reservoir simulators are supported:
• ECLIPSE
• PORES
• VIP
• COMP4
• MoReS (Shell’s in-house reservoir simulator)

The effects of variations of up to five parameters can be investigated


and reported and all combinations of the variables entered by the
user are used to generate the tables. Tabular data is then created in
a format specific to the reservoir simulator selected.

Note: Users may wish to model flow networks in their reservoir


simulator, by generating VFP curves items of well tubing, flowline or
riser. This will not result in an accurate model of the surface network
as temperatures at network connections will not be modeled
correctly.

Schlumberger also has a dynamic link to reservoir simulators via the


Field Planning module (FPT).

6.13 Network analysis


The basic stages involved in developing a model of a field are:
• Build a model of the field, including all wells and flowlines.
• Specify the boundary conditions
• Run the model

6.14 Production Optimization


The basic stages involved in developing an optimization model of a
field are:
• Build a model of the field, including all wells and flowlines.

PIPESIM 2000
150 Operations

• Develop individual artificial lift performance curves for the wells in


the model. Even if the wells are not on artificial lift a performance
curve is required. These performance curves can be created by
any approved Nodal Analysis software package. The
recommended program is the well performance module of
PIPESIM.
• Calibrate the models developed. This involves obtaining field
data so that the individual performance curves can be calibrated
and checked. The Perform Prediction mode should be used for
this.
• Optimise the system. Once the wells and surface network have
been calibrated an optimisation can be performed.

See the GOAL User Guide for full details.

6.15 Field Planning


The reservoir can be modeled by either;
1: the GeoQuest Eclipse™ reservoir simulation program (via
the Open Eclipse link) or
2: a single, or series of, look-up tables or
3: compositional tank models.

The network models are constructed using the network module and
solved using its calculation engine.

6.15.1 Dynamic Eclipse link


The network module models the surface Network from the bottom
hole conditions to the supply/distribution point while Geoquest’s
Eclipse reservoir simulator is used to model the reservoir. FPT
passes flowrate targets to Eclipse and the network in order to try to
converge on bottom-hole conditions.

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 151

PROS:
• An industry standard simulator simulates the reservoir.
• Phase flowrates are dependent on current flowrates from all wells
and reservoir history.
• Full account can be taken of the reservoir geometry and aquifer
behavior etc.

CONS:
• Simulation time is significantly longer.
• Need to set-up the communication link from the Eclipse simulator
based on a UNIX workstation to FPT based on a PC.
• Need to purchase OpenEclipse from Geoquest and install it
properly.
• It is much harder to converge on a solution between the network
and Eclipse.

Capabilities:
• Can model deliverability systems that have pressure specified
sinks.
• Can model blackoil Eclipse reservoir models in both Engineering
and SI units.
• Can flowrate constrain all source wells.

Limitations:
• Cannot model surface networks which have flowrate specified
sinks.
• Cannot model compositional Eclipse models.

PIPESIM 2000
152 Operations

Construction of the overall Eclipse linked model involves first


providing the name of the Eclipse model and on which
server/workstation it is located on the Network. This model contains
the time stepping information that will be used to control the surface
network and also decides when wells will be turned on or off. This
field planning data can be overridden by events defined in the field
events editor. It also contains the flowrate and pressure limits that are
to be imposed upon the wells. These can be ignored in deliverability
mode where the maximum capability of the surface network is used
to calculate the flow from each well, or obeyed in the usual running
mode.

A number of network models can be linked to the Eclipse model, so


injection and production networks can be modeled separately. The
surface injection network can be ignored which significantly reduces
simulation time.

6.15.2 Look-up tables


Reservoir properties are taken
Sample decline curve
from a table defined in an ASCII 5000 70
text file, which provide pressure 4000 60
(and optionally pressure and 50
3000 40
watercut) as a function of
2000 30
cumulative production of oil, 20
liquid, or gas. 1000 10
0 0
PROS: 0 5 10 15

• Very fast reservoir modeling Cumulative liquid production [mmstb]


as no iteration is required Pressure [psia] GOR [scf/stb] Watercut [%]

unless conditional logic in the field planning demands that a


timestep be run again.
• Tables can be generated in other packages such as Excel, by
Eclipse, by MBAL etc. and then read into FPT.
• This is the easiest form of reservoir modeling to set-up and use.
• Everything is included in the FPT package, no third party software
is required.

CONS:
• Phasic flowrate behavior is NOT dependent on total flowrate.

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 153
154 Operations

decline and possible composition changes. Simple aquifer models


and fluid injection options are also available.

PROS:
• Relatively straightforward to set-up with no third party software.
• Full compositional modeling is performed upon the fluid in the
reservoir to obtain the correct pressure.

CONS:
• The watercut in the tank model cannot be changed without
injecting a fluid stream containing water.

Capabilities:
• Simple aquifer (influx rate or volume replacement) and fluid
injection options are available.
• Product streams can be gas, liquid, or the tank mixture.

Limitations:
• Aquifer influx does not cause a gradual watering out of the well but
a sharp cut off when the aquifer is deemed to have raised the
water level in the reservoir to the well perforation point.
• Simple tank geometry is assumed. A tank is merely a cylinder that
does not account for any pore volume reduction as fluid is taken
from the reservoir.

6.15.4 Event handling


• FPT allows events to be specified either at certain timesteps, or
conditionally upon targets being reached, or exceeded etc, e.g. if
the watercut in branch XXX goes above 95%, shut well Y off.
• Flowrate constraints can be imposed on individual wells in the
network models. These wells will be automatically choked back (if
necessary) to meet production requirements.
• Gas lift rates, well PI values, and compressor horsepower settings
can be set and/or changed from the Events Editor.
• The look-up table editor now enables the user to specify a case
study mode for FPT enabling different scenarios to be run in batch
mode and the results analyzed in the postprocessor.
• Group flowrate constraints imposed in an Eclipse input file can be
honored by the FPT.

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 155

See FPT User Guide for full details.

6.16 Multi-lateral well analysis


See the HoSim User Guide for full details.

6.17 Post processor


The post processing is conducted via one of the following methods;
• Graphical plots
• PIPESIM graphical utility
• Microsoft Excel
• Tabular data
• Standard text editor
• Microsoft Excel
• Onscreen data
• PIPESIM GUI

6.17.1 Graphical plots


Graphical plots are the most common method used to view data
(input and results) from PIPESIM.

Input data may be viewed graphically to show;


• Tubing profile
• Flowline profile
• Inflow performance relationship

Calculated data may be viewed graphically to show;


• Phase envelop
• Calculated Inflow performance relationship
• PVT data
• Simulation results
• System data - data that changes as a result of some
input, i.e. system outlet pressure as a function of well PI,
etc.
• Profile data - data that changes along the system profile,
i.e. pressure, temperature, etc.

PIPESIM 2000
156 Operations

6.17.2 Tabular data


Tabular data is in the form of text (ASCII) output files. These can be
viewed from with PIPESIM or via a standard text editor. They can
also be printed.

6.17.3 Onscreen data


The input and output data from any object can be obtained via the
screen schematic.

In addition results from the network module can be obtained via the
output report tool.

6.18 References
Alhanati et al. (1993)

B Wilkens, M Apte, G Broze (1999) User's Guide for the wax


Deposition Option in PIPESIM. Project R13-0511.000.

PIPESIM 2000
Operations 157

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

PIPESIM 2000
Case Studies 159

7 Case Studies

The PIPESIM software comes preloaded with a number of case studies


that demonstrates some of its capabilities, some of which are fully
documented here.

The full list of case studies is;

Pipeline & facilities Case Study – Condensate Pipeline


• Compositional
• Phase envelope creation
• Hydrate envelope
• Pipeline sizing
• Pipeline insulation
• Slugging
• Slug catcher sizing

Well Performance Case Study – Oil Well Design


• Black Oil fluid calibration
• Well IPR
• Tubing sizing

Network Analysis Case Study – Looped Gas Gathering Network


• Compositional
• Network model
• Boundary conditions
• Establish field deliverability

Optimization

Field Planning

Multi-lateral

PIPESIM
Case Studies 161

7.1 Pipeline & facilities Case Study – Condensate Pipeline


A subsea pipeline is to be designed to transport condensate from a
satellite platform to a processing platform. Compositional analysis of the
condensate has been obtained. The engineer is asked to perform the
following tasks:-
- Develop a compositional model of the hydrocarbon phases.
- Add the aqueous phase to the compositional model and identify the
hydrate envelope. Hydrates are to be avoided by operating the
pipeline above the hydrate formation temperature.
- Select a pipeline size.
- Determine the pipeline insulation requirement.
- Screen the pipeline for severe riser slugging. Severe riser slugging is
to be avoided.
- Size a slug catcher.

The engineering data available is given at the end of this case study.

7.1.1 Task 1. Develop a Compositional Model of the Hydrocarbon


Phases
A compositional fluid model allows the fluid physical properties to be
estimated over the range of pressures and temperatures encountered by
the fluid. The fluid model is made up of individual pure library
components such as methane, and petroleum fractions. Petroleum
fractions are used to estimate the behavior of groups of heavier pure
components. The hydrocarbon phase envelope can be plotted on
pressure and temperature axes. The following steps are to be carried
out:-
- Add the pure hydrocarbon components.
- Characterize and add a petroleum fraction.
- Generate the hydrocarbon phase envelope.

After starting PIPESIM use the <File/New/pipeline and facilities model>


menu to open a new model and save this in the training directory (e.g. as
file c:\training\ps02.bps).

Use the <setup/compositional...> menu to enter the pure components


given at the end of the case study. Select the pure hydrocarbon
components from the component database. Multiple selection is possible
by holding down the control key. When all pure hydrocarbon components
have been selected, press the "Add>>" button. When the number of
moles of the pure components have been added, select the "Petroleum
Fractions" tab and characterize the petroleum fraction "C7+" by entering
the BP, MW, and SG in row 1. Then press the "Add to composition>>"

PIPESIM
162 Case Studies

button and enter the number of moles for C7+ under the "Component
Selection" tab.

Generate the hydrocarbon phase envelope by pressing the "Phase


Envelope" button. The following plot should be obtained:

7.1.2 Task 2. Identify the Hydrate Envelope


Certain fluid compositions show a tendency to form hydrate compounds
in the presence of water. These compounds can cause line blockages.
The tendency to form hydrates is dependent also on pressure and
temperature. In this study, hydrate formation is to be avoided by
operating above the hydrate formation temperature at all times. The
following steps are to be carried out:
- Add the aqueous component.
- Generate the hydrate envelope.

First it is necessary to add the aqueous component, pure water. Use the
<setup/compositional...> menu to select "water" and press the "Add>>"
button. Enter the water concentration of 10% volume ratio (bbl/bbl).
Generate the aqueous phase envelope and the hydrate formation line by
pressing the "Phase Envelope" button. The following plot should be
obtained:

PIPESIM
Case Studies 163

Note that hydrates tend to form in the region on or to the left of the
hydrate line. In this study, hydrate formation will be avoided by operating
the pipeline at temperatures above 75 °F at all times.

7.1.3 Task 3. Select a Pipeline Size


Find the smallest pipeline I.D. that will allow the design flowrate of 10,000
STB/d of condensate to be transported from the satellite platform whilst
maintaining an arrival pressure of not lower than 1,000 psia at the
processing platform. The pipeline sizes available are 8", 10", or 12" I.D.
as described in the data section at the end of the case study. This can be
determined as follows:
- Use the pressure temperature profiles operation to calculate the
pressure drop for each of the three pipeline size options.

First it is necessary to add a source to the model. This is done by


pointing and clicking on the source button at the top of the screen and
then pointing and clicking in the work area. A source appears as shown
below. Alternatively the wizard feature can be used.

source button source

To enter data relevant to the source double click on the object. Enter the
inlet pressure of 1,500 psia and the inlet temperature of 176 °F.

PIPESIM
164 Case Studies

Now add a boundary node to represent the arrival point at the processing
platform.

boundary node button boundary node

Then add nodes to represent each end of the pipeline:

node button node

Connect the model together by pointing, clicking and dragging using the
riser and flowline buttons:

riser button flowline button

Completed Model

Note that the red outline indicates that essential data is missing for that
component. Double click on "Riser_1" to enter the riser details i.e.
horizontal distance and elevation difference (length is automatically
computed), I.D., roughness, overall heat transfer coefficient and ambient
temperature. Repeat this for "Flowl_1" and "Riser_2".

Select the <operations/pressure-temperature profiles…> menu and set


up the operation so that the calculated variable is outlet pressure. Set the
Inlet pressure 1,500 psia and the Liquid Rate to 10,000 STB/d. The
sensitivity variable is Pipeline ID with values of 8", 10", and 12", this
select the component as "Flowline_1" , the variable as "ID" and enter the
sizes. Press the Run Model button when all the data has been added.
The following plot should be obtained (the axis may have to be changed
to show Total Distance v's Pressure):

PIPESIM
Case Studies 165

It can be seen that a 10" is the smallest pipeline size that will satisfy the
arrival pressure condition of at least 1,000 psia.

Note: Don't forget to now set the flowline ID to 10" for all subsequent
simulations.

7.1.4 Task 4. Determine the Pipeline Insulation Requirement


Find the smallest thickness of thermal insulation that can be used to
insulate the pipeline and maintain an arrival temperature of not less than
75 °F. This minimum arrival temperature is required to prevent the
formation of hydrates. The insulation has a thermal conductivity of 0.15
Btu/hr/ft/°F and a thickness of 0.75" or 1". This can be determined as
follows:
- Use the pressure temperature profiles operation to calculate the
temperature profile for the design and turndown flowrate cases with
0.75" thermal insulation thickness.
- Re-run the model with 1.0" thermal insulation thickness and compare
the temperature profiles.

Double click on "Flowl_1". Select the "Heat Transfer" tab, and then select
the "Calculate U" sub-tab. Enter the heat transfer data given at the end of
the case study, and add a layer of insulation with a thermal conductivity
of 0.15 Btu/hr/ft/°F and a thickness of 0.75". Press the "OK" button.
Select the <operations/pressure-temperature profiles> menu and set up
the operation so that the calculated variable is outlet pressure, and the

PIPESIM
166 Case Studies

sensitivity variable is System data/liquid rate with values of 5,000 and


10,000 STB/d. Run the model and configure the output to obtain the
following plot:

Re-run the model using a thermal insulation thickness of 1". Configure


the output to obtain the following plot:

It can be seen that 1" insulation is required to maintain an arrival


temperature of 75 °F.

PIPESIM
Case Studies 167

Note: Don't forget to now set the insulation thickness to 1" for all
subsequent simulations.

7.1.5 Task 5. Screen the Pipeline for Severe Riser Slugging


Severe riser slugging is likely in a pipeline system followed by a riser
under certain conditions. The elements leading to severe riser slugging
are:
1. The presence a long slightly downward inclined pipeline prior to the
riser.
2. Fluid flowing in the "stratified" or "segregated" flow regime (as
opposed to the usual "slug" or "intermittent" flow regime).
3. A slug number (PI-SS) of lower than 1.0.

The PI-SS number can also be used to estimate the severe riser slug
length from the equation:

slug length = riser height/PI-SS number.

Severe riser slugging is to be avoided in this case. The necessary


information can be extracted from the model as follows:-
- Configure the model output such that slug information, and flow
regime maps are printed for the fluid at the riser base.

Select the <setup/define output...> menu and check the "slug output
pages" box. Set "number of cases to print" to 2. Add a report tool to the
model in place of node "N2". This can be done by first selecting a report
tool and placing it in the work area.

report tool button report tool

Then reconnect "Flowl_1" to the report tool by first clicking on the middle
of "Flowl_1". You will see that highlight boxes appear at either end of the
flowline. Move the mouse over the right hand highlight box, and the
mouse pointer changes to an "up arrow" shape (↑). The line can then be
dragged from "N2" and dropped onto the report tool as shown below.

PIPESIM
168 Case Studies

Reconnecting the flowline to the report tool

Similarly reconnect "Riser_2" to the report tool. Delete "N2", and


reposition the report tool as shown below.

l
Modified model

Double click on the report tool and check the option "flow map".

Select the <operations/pressure-temperature profiles> menu and re-run


the model.

Select the <reports/view output> menu and check the PI-SS number at
the riser base for both flowrate cases. It can be seen that the PI-SS
number is higher than 1.0 at the riser base in both cases. In the turndown
flowrate case the PI-SS number is 1.18 as shown below:

PIPESIM
Case Studies 169

Check the riser base flow regime maps in the output file to see if the flow
is in the "stratified" or segregated region. It can be seen that flow is in the
intermittent (normal slugging) flow regime. The turndown case flow map
is shown below:

PIPESIM
170 Case Studies

It can be seen that the segregated region has been avoided and the
likelihood of severe riser slugging is reduced.
Note: Don't forget to save the final model!

7.1.6 Task 6. Size a Slug Catcher


Having established that normal slug flow is expected, it is now necessary
to size a slug catcher. The size will be determined by the largest of three
design criteria:
1. The requirement to handle the largest slugs envisaged (chosen to be
statistically the 1/1000 population slug size).
2. The requirement to handle liquid swept in front of a pig.
3. Transient effects, i.e. the requirement to handle the liquid slug
generated when the production flow is ramped up from 5,000 to
10,000 STB/d.

This can be achieved as follows:


- Review the simulation output to establish the slug catcher volume
required for each of the three design criteria and select the largest
volume.

Review the output file and it can be seen that the turndown case
generates larger slugs.

PIPESIM
Case Studies 171

.
As shown above, the 1/1000 slug length is 1,781.2 ft, which gives a slug
volume of 971.5 ft3.

Now select the <reports/view summary> menu and check the liquid
swept in front of a pig ("liquid by sphere").

PIPESIM
172 Case Studies

It can be seen that the turndown case gives the larger volume of 279.1
bbl or 1,567 ft3.

Now calculate the liquid generated when the flow is ramped up from
5,000 STB/d to 10,000 STB/d. This is the difference in total holdup
between the two cases, i.e. 692 - 623 = 69 bbl or 522 ft3.

Therefore the pigging volume of 1,567 ft3 is the determining design case.

7.1.7 Data Available


Layout:
Condensate flows down a 400 ft x 10" ID riser from the satellite platform
to the seabed, along a 5 mile pipeline, and up a 400 ft x 10" ID riser to
the processing platform.

Boundary Conditions:
Fluid inlet pressure at satellite platform 1,500 psia
Fluid inlet temperature at satellite platform 176 °F
Design liquid flowrate 10,000 STB/d
Maximum turndown 5,000 STB/d
Minimum arrival pressure at processing 1,000 psia
platform
Minimum arrival temperature at processing 75 °F.
platform

Pure Hydrocarbon Components:


Component Moles
Methane 75
Ethane 6
Propane 3
Isobutane 1
Butane 1
Isopentane 1
Pentane 0.5
Hexane 0.5

Petroleum Fraction:
Name Boiling Molecular Specific Moles
Point (°F) Weight Gravity
C7+ 214 115 0.683 12

PIPESIM
Case Studies 173

Aqueous Component:
Component Volume ratio (%bbl/bbl)
Water 10

Pipeline Sizes Available:


I.D.(") Wall thickness (") Roughness (")
8 0.5 0.001
10 0.5 0.001
12 0.5 0.001

Pipeline Data:
Height of undulations 10/1000
Horizontal distance 5 miles
Elevation difference 0
Wall thickness 0.5"
Roughness 0.001"
Ambient temperature 50 °F
Overall heat transfer coefficient 0.2 Btu/hr/ft2/°F

Pipeline Insulation Study Data:


Pipe thermal conductivity 50 Btu/hr/ft/°F
Insulation thermal conductivity 0.15 Btu/hr/ft/°F
Insulation thickness available 0.75" or 1.0"
Ambient fluid water
Ambient fluid velocity 1.64 ft/sec
Burial depth 0 (half buried)
Ground conductivity 1.5 Btu/hr/ft/°F

Data for Risers 1 and 2:-


Horizontal distance 0
Elevation difference (Riser_1) -400 ft
Elevation difference (Riser_2) +400 ft
Inner diameter 10"
Wall thickness 0.5"
Roughness 0.001"
Ambient temperature 50 °F
Overall heat transfer coefficient 0.2 Btu/hr/ft2/°F

PIPESIM
174 Case Studies

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

PIPESIM
Case Studies 175

7.2 Well Performance Case Study – Oil Well Design


An oil reservoir has been discovered in the North Sea. A vertical well has
been drilled, a test string inserted and flow characteristics measured.
Fluid properties at stock tank and laboratory conditions have been
obtained. Reservoir simulations have been performed to predict the
change in watercut over the field life. The reservoir pressure will be
maintained by water injection and the preference is to avoid the use of
artificial lift methods. The engineer is asked to perform the following
tasks:
- Develop a blackoil model to match the laboratory data. It is necessary
to develop a method of predicting the fluid physical properties so that
the pressure losses and heat transfer characteristics can be
calculated.
- Develop a well inflow performance model applicable throughout field
life. This provides a relationship between the reservoir pressure, the
flowing bottom hole pressure and flowrate through the formation.
- Select a suitable tubing size for the production string.

The engineering data available is given at the end of this case study.

7.2.1 Task 1. Develop a Calibrated Blackoil Model


No analysis work can be carried out until a blackoil fluid model has been
developed. This allows all of the fluid physical properties to be estimated
over the range of pressures and temperatures encountered by the fluid.
These physical properties are subsequently used to determine the
phases present, the flow regime, the pressure losses in single and
multiphase flow regions, and the heat transferred to or from the
surroundings. The following steps are to be carried out:-
- Obtain a partially calibrated blackoil model using the stock tank and
bubble point properties.
- Plot the partially calibrated oil formation volume factor (OFVF) over a
range of pressures and temperatures to identify any differences
between the measured and the predicted properties. Any
discrepancies will lead to fluid flow modeling errors.
- Apply calibration to the OFVF above the bubble point pressure and
observe how the property curves are corrected.
- Apply calibration to the OFVF below the bubble point pressure and
observe how the property curves are corrected.
- Apply calibration to the oil viscosity using first the measured dead oil
data and then further tuning with live oil data.
- Apply calibration to the gas viscosity and the gas compressibility.

PIPESIM
176 Case Studies

After starting PIPESIM use the <File/new/well> menu to open a new well
performance model and save this in your training directory (e.g.
c:\training\...).

Use the <setup/blackoil...> menu to enter the stock tank oil properties
and the bubble point properties given at the end of the case study. Help
on the definitions and valid ranges of these stock tank properties can be
obtained by selecting the button from the dialog header bar and
clicking on the relevant data entry field. Press the "OK” button and save
the model. Use the <setup/blackoil/advanced calibration data> menu and
press the "plot PVT data…” button (note: do not enter the advanced
calibration data at this stage). Use the <series> menu to plot the oil
formation volume factor on the y axis. The following plot should be
obtained:

The partially calibrated curve for a temperature of 210 °F shows that the
predicted OFVF is higher than the measured value both above and
below the bubble point pressure. At 4,269 psia the predicted value is
1.52 compared to the measured value of 1.49 and at 2,000 psia the
predicted value is 1.41 compared to the measured value of 1.38.
Therefore further calibration is required.

Apply OFVF calibration above the bubble point pressure. The measured
value is 1.49 @ 4,269 psia and 210 °F. The following plot should be
obtained:

PIPESIM
Case Studies 177

Apply OFVF calibration below the bubble point pressure. The measured
value is 1.38 @ 2,000 psia and 210 °F. The following plot should be
obtained:

Calibration of the oil viscosity requires two dead oil data points. The
uncalibrated default approach is to use the Beggs and Robinson
correlation which gives values of 1.561 cP @ 200 °F and 23.27 cP @ 70
°F. The Beggs and Robinson correlation uses the oil API gravity to

PIPESIM
178 Case Studies

predict two dead oil data points based upon data obtained from around
2,000 data points from 600 oil systems. Plot the un-calibrated oil
viscosity. The following plot should be obtained:

In this case it can be seen that the predicted oil viscosity value at a
temperature of 70 °F and 14.7 psia is 23.27 cP as specified by the Beggs
& Robinson correlation. This is significantly different from the measured
dead oil data and would lead to errors in the prediction of pressure loss.

Open the <setup/blackoil/viscosity data> menu and select the correlation


option "user data”. Enter the two measured values of 0.31 cP @ 200 °F
and 0.8 cP @ 70 °F. The following plot should be obtained:

PIPESIM
Case Studies 179

It can be seen that the predicted oil viscosity value at a temperature of 70


°F and 14.7 psia is 0.8 cP consistent with the laboratory dead oil data.

Open the <setup/blackoil/advanced calibration data> menu and enter the


live oil calibration data of 0.29 cP @ 2,000 psia and 210 °F. The following
plot should be obtained:

It can be seen that the predicted oil viscosity value at a temperature of


210 °F and 2000 psia is 0.29 cP consistent with the laboratory live oil
data.

PIPESIM
180 Case Studies

Proceed to calibrate the gas viscosity and the gas compressibility using
the calibration data given earlier.

7.2.2 Task 2. Develop a Well Inflow Performance Model


A straight line productivity index (PI) method is considered adequate in
this case because the fluid flows into the completion at a pressure
considerably above the bubble point and no gas comes out of solution at
this stage. This applies throughout field life and the productivity index is
not expected to change. The PI will not be affected by changes to the
reservoir pressure because the reservoir pressure is to be maintained by
water injection. The PI will not be affected by changes to the watercut
through field life because the oil and water have similar mobilities in this
reservoir structure. The following step is to be carried out:
- Use the drill string test data to obtain a representative productivity
index.

First it is necessary to add a vertical completion to the model. This is


done by pointing and clicking on the vertical completion button at the top
of the screen and then pointing and clicking in the work area. A vertical
completion appears as shown below.

vertical completion button vertical completion

Double click on the vertical completion in the work area to enter data
relevant to that item. Enter the static reservoir pressure of 4,269 psia and
the reservoir temperature of 210 °F. Press the "calculate/graph…” button
and enter the drill string test data given below. Press the "plot IPR”
button and this will calculate a productivity index to be used throughout
the analysis work.

7.2.3 Task 3. Select a Tubing Size for the Production String


Find the smallest tubing size that will allow this production plan to be met
on the basis that the production string will not be replaced during field
life. The tubing sizes available are 3½”, 4½” or 5½” for which the I.D.'s
are 2.992", 3.958" and 4.892".
This can be determined as follows:
- Use the systems analysis operation to generate a plot of oil flowrate
against watercut for each of the three tubing sizes.

PIPESIM
Case Studies 181

- Overlay the production plan data and identify the smallest size that
allows this plan to be met.

First it is necessary to extend the model to include a tubing string. Add a


boundary node to the model by pointing and clicking on the boundary
node button at the top of the screen and then pointing and clicking in the
work area:

boundary node button boundary node

Then use the tubing button to connect the well to the boundary node:

tubing button

Completed Model

Note that the red outline indicates that essential data is missing for that
component. Double click on the tubing to enter the well depth and the
tubing thickness, roughness, overall heat transfer coefficient and ambient
thermal gradient.

Select the <operations/systems analysis> menu and set up the operation


so that the calculated variable is liquid rate. The x axis variable is
watercut with values of 0, 12, 20, 35, 40, 47, 54 and 60%, representing
the various stages of field life. The sensitivity variable is tubing I.D. with
values of 2.992", 3.958" and 4.892".

Configure the output to give the water cut against the stock-tank oil rate
at the outlet (this is achieved via the series option of PSPLOT):

PIPESIM
182 Case Studies

It can be seen that 4½” tubing is the smallest size that will satisfy all of
the production plan conditions.

Note: Don't forget to now set the tubing ID to 3.958 to reflect the 4½”
tubing for all subsequent simulations.

7.2.4 Data Available


Reservoir Conditions:
Reservoir pressure 4,269 psia, Reservoir temperature 210 °F

Stock Tank Oil Properties:


Watercut 0%, GOR 892 scf/STB, Gas SG 0.83, Water SG 1.02, API
36.83

Bubble Point Properties:


Pressure 2,647 psia, Temperature 210 °F, Solution Gas 892 scf/STB

Blackoil Calibration Data:


OFVF (above bubble point 1.49 @ 4,269 psia and 210 °F
pressure)
OFVF (below bubble point 1.38 @ 2,000 psia and 210 °F
pressure)
Dead oil viscosities 0.31 cP @ 200 °F and 0.8 cP @ 70 °F
Live oil viscosity 0.29 cP @ 2,000 psia and 210 °F
Gas viscosity 0.019 cP @ 2,000 psia and 210 °F
Gas compressibility (Z) 0.85@ 2,000 psia and 210 °F

PIPESIM
Case Studies 183

Deviation Survey:
The well is vertical from the well head on the sea bed. Mid perforations
are at a depth of 9,500 ft from the well head. The ambient temperature
varies linearly between 210 °F at mid perforations and 60 °F at the
wellhead. The minimum casing inner diameter is 10”. The generally
accepted overall heat transfer coefficient of 2 BTU/hr/ft2/°F for wellbores
can be used throughout.

Minimum Pressure Allowed at the Wellhead:


300 psia

Multiphase flow correlation


Beggs & Brill revised

Production Strings Available:


I.D. (") Wall thickness (") Roughness (")
2.992 0.5 0.001
3.958 0.5 0.001
4.892 0.5 0.001

Drill String Test:


Oil Flowrate (Q), sbbl/d Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (Pwf),
psia
2,000 4,186
3,000 4,152
4,000 4,106
5,000 4,072

Production plan obtained from reservoir simulation:


Year Watercut (%) Oil Flowrate, sbbl/d
0 0 12,000
4 12 10,500
5 20 9,400
6 35 7,500
7 40 7,000
8 47 6,000
9 54 5,000
10 60 4,300

PIPESIM
7-184 Case Studies

7.3 Network Analysis Case Study – Looped Gas Gathering


Network
The deliverability of a production network is to be established. The
network connects three producing gas wells in a looped gathering
system and delivers commingled product to a single delivery point.
The engineer is asked to perform the following tasks:-
- Build a model of the network.
- Specify the network boundary conditions.
- Solve the network and establish the deliverability.

The engineering data available is given at the end of this case study.

7.3.1 Task 1. Build a Model of the Network


The following steps are to be carried out:-
- Enter the engineering data for the first well.
- Copy the data to wells 2 and 3.
- Modify the data for well 3.
- Specify the composition at each production well.
- Connect the network together.
- Define the engineering data for each branch.

After starting PIPESIM use the <file/new/network> menu to open a


new network model and save this in your training directory (e.g. as
file c:\training\pn01.bpn). Use the production well button to place Well
1 in the work area as shown below.

production well button production well

Double click on Well 1 to reveal the components as shown below:

PIPESIM
Index 7-185

Double click on the vertical completion to enter the inflow


performance data. Enter a gas PI of 0.0004 mmscf/d/psi2. The
reservoir temperature and pressure are defined below. Double click
on the tubing, and define a vertical tubing with a wellhead TVD of 0
and mid perforations TVD and MD of 4500 ft. The ambient
temperatures are 130 °F at mid perforations and 60 °F at the
wellhead. The tubing has an I.D. of 2.4". Note that the essential data
fields are shown in red outline (if the fields are not outlined, then data
entry in these fields is optional).

Close the view of Well 1 to return to the network view. Select "Well 1"
and using the commands <edit/copy> <edit/paste> copy "Well 1" to
"Well 2" and "Well 3". Position the new wells as shown below:

You will see that Wells 2 and 3 have adopted the data of Well 1.

Double click on Well 3 and modify the completion and tubing data.
Double click on the vertical completion to enter the inflow
performance data. Enter a gas PI of 0.0005 mmscf/d/psi2. Double
click on the tubing, and define a vertical tubing with a wellhead TVD

PIPESIM
7-186 Case Studies

of 0 and mid perforations TVD and MD of 4900 ft.. The ambient


temperatures are 140 °F at mid perforations and 60 °F at the
wellhead. The tubing has an I.D. of 2.4".

Close the view of Well 3 to return to the network view.

The next step is to define the compositions at the production wells.


Wells 1 & 2 are producing from the same reservoir and have the
same composition. Well 3 has a different composition as shown in the
data section at the end of the case study. The most efficient way
define the compositions is to set the more prevalent composition (i.e.
that for Wells 1 and 2) as the global composition and then to specify
the composition of Well 3 as a local variant. The composition of Wells
1 and 2 is the same as that for the pipeline and facilities case study 2
and can be imported. First save the current network model. Open the
pipeline and facilities case study (e.g. c:\training\ps02.bps). Use the
<setup/compositional...> menu and the export button to export the
composition to a file called "comp1.pvt". Now close the pipeline and
facilities case study.

In the network model, use the <setup/compositional...> menu and the


import button to import comp1.pvt as the global composition. Click the
right mouse button over Well 3, select fluid model and modify the
composition to be locally defined as given at the end of this case
study.

Now position the sink and some junction nodes. Note that holding
down the "Shift" key whilst placing junction nodes allows multiple
placement, you should release the "Shift" key before the final
placement. The network should now look like this:

PIPESIM
Index 7-187

Using the branch button connect J1 to J2. To do this, click on the


branch button, then hold down the left mouse button over J1 and drag
the mouse pointer to J2 before releasing the left mouse button.

branch button branch connected

Double click on the arrow in the center of "B1" to enter data for that
branch. Now double click on the flowline to enter data.

Close the "B1" window to return to the network view. As the looped
gathering lines are all identical, the data for branch "B1" can be
propagated to the other looped gathering lines. Select "B1" by
clicking on the arrow in the middle of the branch and using the
commands <edit/copy> and then <edit/paste> copy "B1" to "B2",
"B3", and "B4".

Position the new branches as shown below:

PIPESIM
7-188 Case Studies

In order to reconnect a pasted branch, first pick the arrow in the


middle of the new branch. You will see that highlight boxes appear at
either end of the branch. Move the mouse pointer over the right hand
highlight box, and you will see that the mouse pointer changes to an
"up arrow" shape (↑). This end of the branch can then be dragged
and dropped onto a junction node. Now connect the wells to the
adjacent junction node and connect "J4" to the sink as shown below:

Now enter the components and data for branch "B5". Branch "B5"
comprises a liquid separator with an efficiency of 100%, a
compressor with a pressure differential of +400 psi and an efficiency
of 70%, an after-cooler with an outlet temperature of 120 °F and a
delta P of 15 psi, and flowline sections.

The equipment is located at "B5" as shown below:

PIPESIM
Index 7-189

Note: You should use the connector to join the equipment


together.

7.3.2 Task 2. Specify the Network Boundary Conditions


First it is necessary to summarize the rules for specification of
network boundary conditions. The network solver solves the fluid
pressures, temperatures, and flowrates around a network for a user-
specified set of boundary conditions.

The following definitions are used:

Lone Node: A lone node is a node with only one branch connected,
i.e. a production well, an injection well, a source or a sink.

Boundary conditions: The fluid pressure, temperature, and flowrate at


each lone node in the network.

The following rules apply:

Rule for Temperatures: The fluid temperature at all sources and the
static reservoir temperature at all production wells must be specified
by the user. The fluid temperature at all sinks and injection wells are
always calculated.

Rules for Pressures and Flowrates: There are two rules for
specification of pressure and flowrate boundary conditions:

Rule 1 - Degrees of Freedom. The total number of flowrates,


pressures and PQ curves specified must equal the total number of
lone nodes.

Rule 2 - At Least one Pressure. A least one pressure must be


specified at one of the lone nodes.

All unspecified pressures and flowrates are calculated by PIPESIM-


Net.

In this case study, the above rules are satisfied by the following;
- Specify all the fluid inlet temperatures

PIPESIM
7-190 Case Studies

- Specify all the fluid inlet pressures and the delivery pressure.

Use the <Setup/boundary conditions> menu to specify the boundary


conditions below:

Node Pressure Temperature


Well_1 2,900 psia 130 °F
Well_2 2,900 psia 130 °F
Well_3 3,100 psia 140 °F
Sink_1 800 psia (calculated)

Note that all of the flowrates will be calculated.

7.3.3 Task 3. Solve the Network and Establish the deliverability


First it is necessary to explain the network tolerance. A network has
converged when the pressure balance and mass balance at each
node is within the specified tolerance.

The calculated pressure at each branch entering and leaving a node


is averaged. The tolerance of each pressure is calculated from the
equation:
Ptol = I(P - Pave.)/Pave. x 100%I

If all Ptol values are within the specified network tolerance then that
node has passed the pressure convergence test. This is repeated for
each node.

The total mass flowrate into and the total mass flowrate out of a node
are averaged. The tolerance is calculated from the equation:

Ftol = I(Tot. mass flowrate in - Tot. mass flowrate ave.)/Tot. mass


flowrate ave. x 100%I

If the Ftol value is within the specified network tolerance then that
node has passed the mass convergence test. This is repeated for
each node.

When all of the above conditions are satisfied, the network has
converged.

PIPESIM
Index 7-191

In this case study, the following steps are required:


- Set the network tolerance.
- Run the model.
- View the tabular reports.
- View the graphical reports.

Use the <setup/options/network iterations> menu to set the network


tolerance to 1%.

Save the model and then press the run button .

When the network has solved you should get the message "pn01 -
Finished OK". Press the "OK" button.

Press the report tool button and you will see the results from the
simulation.

More comprehensive tabular reporting is available using the summary


file button .

Select the branch from well "W3", branch "B3" and branch "B5". Hold
the "Shift" key down in order to effect a multiple selection. Then press
the system plot button . The following pressure profile for these
three branches should be obtained. The effect of the compressor at
"J4" on the system pressure can be seen:

PIPESIM
7-192 Case Studies

7.3.4 Data Available


Layout:
The network is laid out as shown below:

Completion and Tubing Data:


Wells 1 & 2 Well 3
Gas PI 0.0004 0.0005
mmscf/d/psi2 mmscf/d/psi2
Wellhead TVD 0 0
Mid Perforations TVD 4500 ft 4900 ft
Mid Perforations MD 4500 ft 4900 ft
Tubing I.D. 2.4" 2.4"
Wellhead Ambient Temperature 60 °F 60 °F
Mid Perforations Ambient 130 °F 140 °F
Temperature
Heat Transfer coefficient 0.2 Btu/hr/ft2/F 0.2
Btu/hr/ft2/F

Pure Hydrocarbon Components (Wells 1 & 2):


Component Moles
Methane 75
Ethane 6
Propane 3

PIPESIM
Index 7-193

Isobutane 1
Butane 1
Isopentane 1
Pentane 0.5
Hexane 0.5

Petroleum Fraction (Wells 1 & 2):


Name Boiling Molecular Specific Moles
Point (°F) Weight Gravity
C7+ 214 115 0.683 12

Aqueous Component (Wells 1 & 2):


Component Volume ratio (%bbl/bbl)
Water 10

Pure Hydrocarbon Components (Well 3):


Component Moles
Methane 73
Ethane 7
Propane 4
Isobutane 1.5
Butane 1.5
Isopentane 1.5
Pentane 0.5
Hexane 0.5

Petroleum Fraction (Wells 3):


Name Boiling Molecular Specific Moles
Point (°F) Weight Gravity
C7+ 214 115 0.683 10.5

Aqueous Component (Well 3):


Component Volume ratio (%bbl/bbl)
Water 5

Data for Looped Gathering Lines (B1, B2, B3, and B4):
Rate of undulations 10/1000
Horizontal distance 30,000 ft
Elevation difference 0 ft

PIPESIM
8-194 Case Studies

Inner diameter 6"


Wall thickness 0.5"
Roughness 0.001"
Ambient temperature 60 °F
Overall heat transfer coefficient 0.2 Btu/hr/ft2/°F

Data for Deliver Line (B5):


Separator type Liquid
Separator efficiency 100%
Compressor differential pressure 400 psi
Compressor efficiency 70%
Aftercooler outlet temperature 120 °F
Aftercooler delta P 15 psi
Flowline Rate of undulations 10/1000
Flowline Horizontal distance 10,000 ft
Flowline Elevation difference 0 ft
Flowline Inner diameter 8"
Flowline Wall thickness 0.5"
Flowline Roughness 0.001"
Flowline Ambient temperature 60 °F
Flowline Overall heat transfer 0.2 Btu/hr/ft2/°F
coefficient

Boundary Conditions:
Node Pressure Temperature
Well_1 2,900 psia 130 °F
Well_2 2,900 psia 130 °F
Well_3 3,100 psia 140 °F
Sink_1 800 psia (calculated)

7.4 Optimization
See the GOAL User Guide for optimization case studies.

7.5 Field Planning


See the FPT User Guide for Field Planning case studies.

7.6 Multi-lateral
See the HoSim User Guide for Multi-lateral case studies.
8 Index

PIPESIM
Index 8-195

Alhanati instability criteria ... 146 Analyse artificial lift


Artificial Lift requirements ................. 47
ESP Lift ........................... 105 Analysis a production well. 45
Gas Lift ........................... 104 Calibrate a fluid ................. 41
Performance ................... 142 Create GOAL curves......... 47
Back pressure IPR................ 89 Create reservoir tables...... 48
Bit lock...... See Security Device Design a Multiphase Booster
Black Oil ...................................... 44
correlations ....................... 52 Develop a pipeline & facilities
fluid type ........................... 32 model ............................ 42
Building a model ................... 31 Find the optimal completion
C and n IPR .......................... 89 length ............................ 48
Chokes ............................... 106 Match data to a flow
Compositional correlation ..................... 42
EOS .................................. 60 Model a multi-lateral well .. 51
fluid type ........................... 34 Perform a field wide
Compressor ........................ 119 optimization ................... 50
Coning .................................. 55 Perform a Nodal Analysis . 45
Darcy IPR ............................. 90 produce a pressure /
Dongle ...... See Security Device temperarture plot ........... 43
Expander ............................ 120 Set boundary conditions ... 49
Fetkovich,liquid IPR............. 87 Size equipment ................. 43
Flow correlation Inflow Performance .............. 87
Multiphase - horizontal...... 76 Jones gas, IPR ..................... 89
Multiphase - vertical .......... 70 Jones liquid, IPR .................. 87
Single Phase..................... 69 Limitations of Model &
Flow regimes ........................ 66 Component ....................... 39
Fluid calibration .................... 41 Model components overview 35
Black Oil............................ 41 Multiphase Boosting ........... 121
Compositional ................... 42 Contra-Rotating Axial...... 133
Fluid data.............................. 32 Dynamic Type ................. 130
Forchheimer gas, IPR........... 89 Helico-Axial ..................... 131
Gas Lift Positive Displacement Type
Design............................. 145 .................................... 126
Diagnostics ..................... 145 Progressing Cavity.......... 129
instability ......................... 145 Twin Screw ..................... 127
Horizontal Completions ........ 91 Multiple Layers / Completions
How to ... ........................................ 103
Analyis a field over time .... 50 Multi-rate tests
gas IPR ............................. 90

PIPESIM
8-196 Case Studies

liquid IPR .......................... 89 Steam, fluid type................... 35


Nodal Analysis.................... 141 Straight line PI liquid, IPR..... 88
Future IPR ...................... 142 Stream Re-injection ............ 135
Liquid Loading line .......... 142 Support Services .................. 28
Oil/Water Mixture Viscosity... 59 Units System ........................ 31
Optimization module Viscosity
performance curves ........ 143 Gas ................................... 60
Pressure Drop Calculation.... 65 Liquid ................................ 56
Pseudo-Steady state IPR ..... 90 Live Oil.............................. 57
Pseudo-Steady state, IPR .... 88 Viscosity
Security Device .................... 26 Dead Oil............................ 56
Separator............................ 135 Vogel, IPR ............................ 88
Single Phase Pump ............ 121 Well PI, IPR .......................... 88

PIPESIM