Distingtiished ,Author Series

n
w%%? +%+ ~:, ...

,y~l~llq

Nodal Systems Analysis of X..? *:? -,.. .7 ~+: Oil and Gas Wells , :
By KermitE. Brown,SPE, and
James F, Lea, SPE

Kermit E. Brown is F. M. Stevenson Professor of Petroleum En9ineerin9 at the U. of Tulsa. Since 7966 @wh has served es head of the Petroleum Egineerhg Dept., vice president of research, and chairman of the Resources Engineering Div. He has conducted many courses m gas lift, nwltiphase flow, and inflow peiformamx ad served as a Distinguished Lectwsr dudg 1969-70. Brow holds a ES deg,ee in niech?icaf ad U. petroleum engineering from, Texas A&M and MS and PhD deg!ees from the U. Of Texas, both in petroleum engineering. Brown sewed as the SPE faculty advisor for the U. of Tulsa student chapter during 1982-83. He also sewed on the SPE board during 1969-72, the Education and Pm fessioalism Committee during 1966-67, and the Education and Accreditation Committee dudg 1964-66 ad was Balcoes Sectim chairman during 1964-65. He is currently o the Public Service Award Committee, James F. Lea is a research associate in the Production Mechanics Group of Amoco Production Co,, in Tulsa, He works on computer hnplen?entation of existing design and analysis methods for a,fiificial lilt md improved application techniques. Previous~, he worked with Pratt & Whitney Aircrati and .% 0;/ Co. and taught engimserig science at the tmiwrsity level. Lea holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical egieering and a PhD degree in thermal{ fluid science from Southern Methodist U., Dallas.

Summary Nodal 1 analysis, defined as a systems approach to the optimization of oil and gas wells, is used to ev61uate tboruughly a complek producing system. Every component in a producing well or all wells in a producing system can be optimized to achieve the objective flow rate most economically. Ml present componentsbeginning with the static resemoir pressure, endkg with the separator, and including inflow performance, as weU as. flow across the completion, up the tublig string (inChIdlng 811Y downhole restrictions and safety valves), across the surface choke (if applicable), thrbugh horizontal flow lines, and into the separation factilties-are tiulyzed. Introduction The objectives of nodBI aualysis are as follows. 1. To determine tlie flow me at which an existing oil or gas yell wifl produce considering wellbore geometry and completion limitations (first by natural flow). 2. To determine under what flow condhions (which may be related to time) a well will load or die. 3. To select the most economical time for the installation of afiticial lift and to assist in the selection of the optimum lift method, 4. To optimize the system to produce the objective flow rate most economically. o Ewi.eefs WYW 19s5 societyf Petroleum
OCTOBER 1985

5. To check each component in the well system to determine whether it is restricting the flow.mte unnecessatiy. 6. To permit quick recognition by the operwors management and engineering staff of ways to increase production rates. Theie are numerous oil and. gas wefls aruund the world that have not been optimized to achieve an objective rate e~lciently. In fact, many may have been completed in scb a m~er tit their maximum potenti81 kite cannot be achieved. Also, many wells placed on anificial lift do n6t achkve the efficiency key shtiuld. The pruductioi optimization of oil and gas wells by nodal systems analvsis has contributed to improved completion techniques, pfiduction, and efficiency for many wells. @thou h this type of analysis was proposed by Gilbert i. m 1954, it has been used extensively in the U.S. only in the last few yeari. One principul ieason for tbk was the changing of allowable producing. rates, and another has been the development of computer technology that allows rapid calculation of complex algorithms and provides ea.sify understood data. Past conservation practices in the U.S. more or less restricted operaors t6 2- and 2 IA-in. [5.08- and 6.35-cm] tubing and 4 shots/ft [13.1 shots/m] for pmfomting. The use of larger tubing (41Aand 51Ain.
175I

&P, = P, - Pwf, AP2 = Pw,-Pwf

= LOSS IN POROUSMEOIUM = LOSS AcROSS COMPLETION t REsTRlcTl ON SAFETY VALVE SURFACECHOKE

A% = k -%. = dP4 = PKv-Po~v = AP5 = Pw~- PD~c = AP6 = PO$C-P5,P=

IN FLOWLINE

AP7 = Pwf -Pwh = TOTAL LOSS Ilq TUBING nPs = Pw~ -P,ep = r FLOWLINE

Fig. lPossible

pressure losses in complete

system.

[11.43 and 13.97 cm]) and 16 shots/ft [52.5 shots/m] is common today. Although the increase in flow rates in hlghproductivity wells has popularized nodal analysis, it is, nevertheless, an excellent tool for low-rate wells (both oil and gas) as well as for all aititicid lift wells. Some of the greatest percentage increases in production rates have occurred in low-rate oil wells (from 10 to 30 B/D [1.59 to 4.77 m3/d]) and low-rate gas wells (from 50 Ilp to 100 to 200 Mscf/D [1416 Up to 2832 to 5663 std m3 /d]). Numerous gas wells have needed adjustments in tubitg sizes; surface pressures, etc., to prolong the onset of liquid Ioadlng problems. Nodsf analysis cm be used to estimate the benefits of such changes before they am made. Oneof ,jhe most impommt aspects of nodal analysis is to recognize wells that should be producing at rates higher than their current rate. Therefore, it can serve as an excellent tool to verify that a problem exists and that additional testing is necessacy. For example, assume that a well is producing 320 B/D [51 m3 /d] of oil. Applying nodal analysis .to this well shows that it is capable of producing 510 B/D [81 m3/d], This difference may be attributed to several factors, but nodal analysis can determine which component ii restricting the rate or can .detetine that iricomect data are the cause of tbe higher predicted rate, A basic requirement for weli analysis is the ability to detine the current inflow performance relationship (IPR) of the well. Accurate well test data must be obtained and the proper IPR applied for successful analysis, Then 1752

models of other welf components can be used to complete the p=dicted well pe,ffocmsnce. Fig. 1 shows ,components that make up a detailed flowirtg wefl system. Beginning with the reservoir and procecdin~ to tie separator, the components are (1) resemoir pressure, (2) well productivity, (3) wellbore completion, (4] tubing string, (5) possible downitole re@ctive device, (6) tubing, (7) safety valve, (8) tubing, (9) surface choke, (10) flowline, and (11) separator. To optimize tie system effectively, each component must be evaluated separately and then as a group to evaluate tbe entire well producing system. The effect of the chang&of any one component on the entire system is ve~ impomant and can be displayed graphically yitb well analysis. Some aspects Of the IPR component are covered in Appendix A; discussion of myltiphase- flow pressure-drop correlations for pipelines is found in Appendix B, The most common positions for nodal analysis graphlcd solutions are listed below. 1. At the center of the producing intefial, at the bottom of the well. This isolates the wells inflow performance. 2. At the top of the well (wellhead). This isolates the flowline or the effects of surface mressure on production. 3., Differential pressure solutioris (Ap) across the completion intecwi to evaluate the effect of the number of perforations on production in gravel-packed or standard completion wells.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

c~ q...

BHP or. AP

c
+ IPR curve.

x
RATE + Fig. 3Constructed

TUBING INTAKE CURVE

RATE Fig. 2-Constructed

tuping intake curve,

4. Solutions at the separutor, especially with gas-lift wells. This isolates the effect of separator pressure on production. 5. Other solution positions for graphical solution are at surface chokes, safety valves, tapered string connection points, and dowuhole restrictions. The user must understand how pressure-flow components of the weIl are grouped to form a graphicul solution at a node point. For example, if the solution is plotted at the bottom of the well (center of completed intmvat), then the reservoir and the completion effects can be isolated completely from the enthe piping and production system. Caution should be taken in ne~lecting even 200 to 300 ft [61 to 91 m] of casing flow fmm the center of the completed interval to the bottom of the tubing. Because of lower velocities, the larger pipe may not be flushed out with produced fluids. This large section of pipe still can be neady full of completion fluids (water turd mud), even though the well may be producing 100% oil. Numerous flowing-pressure surveys have verified this occurrence. A major company recently surveyed a will producing 1,600 B/D [254 m3/d] of oil up 2~-in. [7.3-cm] tubing. Because of a dogleg, tubing was set 1,000 ft [305 m] off bottom in the 11,000-ft [3353-m] well, Both water and mud were found in the 7-in. [17.8-cm] casing below the tubing, even though rbe well produced 100% oil. Cleaning Wk well resulted in an increase of the rate to more than 2 ,0i30 B/D [318 m3/d] of oil. This points out one type of practical limitation of nodal analysis when tubing-pressum-drnp calculations are used to calculate accurately a bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP). Here, the unalysis showed that the rate should be higher and, hence, served as a diagnostic tool that prompted the mnning of a prsssure traverse. Irr many cases, the anafysis predicts what should be expected, and the operator is advised to look for problems if the well is producing below that prediction.
OCTOBER 1985

Specific ExantpIes A liited number of examples are presented here; numerous examples, however, appear in the literature. I-5 Two specific subjects have been selected for example solutions. 1. The effect of the downhole completion on flow rate is illustrated. An example solution for both a gravel-packed well and a stundtwd perforated well is presented. Procedures to optimize the completions sre cmttined. 2. Quick recognition of those wells with a greater predicted potential thatr the present production rate is covered. These situations may be caused by a restriction in one of the components in the system. Gravel-Packed Oti and Gas WeIls A paper presented by Jones et al. 4 seemed to be the catalyst that started operators looking more closely at their completions. This paper nlso suggests procedures for determining whether a wells inflow capability is restricted by lack of area open to flow, by skin caused by mud infiltration, etc. Ledlow and Granger3 have prepared an excellent summary of background material on gravel packing, including detaifs on mechanical running procedures and selection of gravel size. The nodaf aua.lysis procedure for a gmvel-pscked well, illustrated with a sequence of figures, is presented here. The appropriate details, additional references, and equations can be found in Ref. 3. The foflowing procedure is vtild for either an oil or gas well with tie solution node at bottomhole. 1. Prepare the node IPR curve (Fig. 2). (This step assumes no Ap across the completion. ) 2. Prepare the node outflow curve (tubing intake curve in Fig. 3), which is the surface pressure plus the tubing pressure drnp plotted as a function of rate.
1753

3
w T

API AP2 AP3

4
BHP
flP

(AP=O
\
( RATE Fig. 4Transfer + Ap. Fig. 5Construct

cl
RATE + Ap across gravel pack.

3. Transfer the differential pressure available between the node inflow and node outflow curve on the same plot (FQ. 4) to a Ap curve. 4. Using the appropriate equations, 3,4 calculate the pressure drop across the completion for various rates. Nnmerous variables have to he considered here, includ]ng shots per foot, gravel permeability, viscosity and density of the fluid, and length of the perforation tunnel for linear flow. Add this Ap curve on Fig. 4, as noted in Fig. 5, 5. Evsluate this completion (Fig. 5) to detemnine whether the objective rnte can be achreved with an accepted differential across the grnvel pack. Company philosophies on accepted Ap values differ. A reasonable maximum allowable Ap that has given good results rnnges from 200 to 300 psi [1379 to 206g kl%t]for single-phase gas or liquid flow. Most operatom will design for smaOer Aps for multiphase flow across the pack.

6. Evaluate other shot densities or perhaps other hole sizes until the appropriate Ap is obtained at the objective mte (Fig. 6). Perforation efficiency should be considered at thk time. A good review on perfoiatiug techniques, which poiuts out such factors as the number of effective holes expected and the. effect of the number of holes and hole sizes on casing strength, was presented by Bell. 6 7. The Ap across the pack can be included in the IPR curve, as noted in Fig. 7.

Example ProblemTypicaI Gulf Coast Well With GraveI Pack. Below is a list of given data. ~, = 4,000 psi [27.6 MPa], D = 11,000 ft [3352 m] (center of perforations), k = 100 md (penneabfiity to gas), h = 30 ft [9.1 m] (pay interval), h, = 20 ft [6.1 m] (perforated interval),

4
RATES POSSIBLE

o
RATE Fig. 6Evaluation + of various shot densities.

\
RATE +

Fig. 7Gravel pack solution by including IPR curve.

Ap completion

in

1754

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM

TECHNOLOGY

8r

3 q &;2 L 8 m 1Pr =

4000 Psl

DEPTH = 11,000 K = 100 MD

1
00

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Oo,
M RATE, MCFD

70

RATE, MMCFD Fig. 8IPR curve for gas wellgravel-pack analysis.

Fig. 9Evaluation

of tubing sizes.

40/60-mesh gravel-packed sand, 640-acre [259-ha] spacing, 8~.in. [21.9-cm] casing; 1()%-in. [27.3-cm] drilled hole, Tg = 0.65, screen size = 5-itr. [12.7-cm] OD, gas-sales-line pressure = 1,200 psi [8273 Wla], short flowline. This well is to he gravel packed. The tubing size and the number of shots per foot are to he evaluated with an undcrbalanced tubhrg-conveyed gun. It is assumed that thereis no computable zone restriction

around the perforation because of unconsolidated forrrmtion-that is, sand flows immediately into all perforated holes until properly prepacked. Procedure. 1. The IPR curve is prepared with Darcys law, and the additional turbulence pressure drop4 is included (Fig. 8). 2. Tubing sizes of 2%, 31A, and 41A in. [7.3, 8.89, and 11.43 cm] are evaluated at a wellhead pressure of 1,200 psi [8272 kpa], which is needed to flow gas into the sales fine. From analysis of Fig. 9, 41A-in. [11.43-cm] tubing is selected. Note that, if market

RATE, MMCFD Fig. 1OAP available OCTOBER 1985 fmm sandface to tubing intake. Fig. 1lAp

RATE, MMCFD across gravel pack at 4, 8, 12, and 16 shotslft. 1755

RATE, MMCFD Fig. 12Completion effects packed well. included with lPRgravelFig. 1S-Effects

RATE, MMCFD of wellhead pressure-gravel-packed well.

conditions permitted, much figher rates cotdd be projected with adequate sand control. 3. The Ap is transferred, as noted in Fig. 10. This is the Ap available across the gravel pack. 4. The Ap across tie pack for 0.75-in. [1.905-cm] -diameter holes with 4, 8, 12, and 16 effective shots/ft [13. 12,26.2, 39.4, and 52.5 effective shots/m] (Pig. 11) should be calculated with Jones et al.s equations m with modifications of these equations adjusted to tit field data. 5. Figs. 11 and 12 show the final two plots indicating that 16 shots/ft [52,5 shots/m] are necessary to obtain a Ap of about 300 psi [2068 kPa] at a rate df 58.5 MMscf/D [1.7x 106 std m3 /d]. Additional perforations could bring thk AP below 200 psi i1379 kPa~. ~ 6. To bring tik well on production properly, one more plot (such as FQ. 13) should be made with several weffhead prcssmes so that Ap across the pack can be watched through fhe observation of rate and wellhead pressure. Thk procedure is described by Crouch and Packs and Brown et al. 3 Nodal Atwdysis To Evafuate a Standard Perforated WeU In 1983 NfcLeod7 published apaper that prompted operators to examine completion practices on normally perforated wells. Although numerous prior p~bli@tioss-10 discussed this topic and Companies bad evaluated the problem, Wk paper sparked new interest. A modification of dds procedure is presented in Ref. 3. The procedure is similar to that offered for gravelpacked weUs, except that the equations used for the calculation of pressure drop acmsa the completion have been altered to model flow through a perforation
iT56

surrounded by a low-permeabfity zone. They still incorporate basic concepts suggested by Jones et al. 4 for gravel-packed weUs. ExztnpIe ProbIem and Procedure a Perforated Weff for

Iu thk section, a sample oil well with a low GOR, a low bubblepoint pressure, and assumed single-phase liquid flow across the completion will be anutyzed. The reason for thk selection is that current technology has offered solutions only for single-phase flow (gas or liquid) across such completions. When two-phase flow occurs across either a gravel-packed or a standard perforated well, relative permeability effects must be considered. Additional turbulence then occurs in grovel-packed weUs and creates more energy losses. McLeod7 noted that most of the pressure drop can occur across a compacted zone at the pe.tioration wall because of turbulence. He annlyzed a gas-well example and showed that 90% of the totaf Ap across the completion, in fact, was caused by turbulence across the approximately IA-in. [1.27-cm] -thick compacted zone. (.Eefs. 3 and 7 provide more details). To use this technique, the crashed-zone thickness, e,, the pemneabllity, kc, the perforation-tunnel diameter, dp, and the length, Lp, must be ~own. Obviously, because of the many input variables required, the technique can only be approximate and iadicate trends. It is hoped that fature research in this area wiU lead to mom accumte models of pressure drup through perfomtions shot in both over- and underbalanced condkions. Example Problem. j, = 3,500 psi [24.1 MPa], D = 8,000 ft [2438 m], JOURNAL OFPETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

3.0 2.5 ~ 2.0 L &; 1.5n. I m 1.0,5 DEPTH= 800L7 Pr = 3500 Pwh = 140 PSI
! 1000
1 I

3.0 DEPTH = 8000 R = 3500 Psl TUBING I.D. = 2.992

2.5

[\.

2000

3000
RATE, BID

4000

5000

6000

+! \,
o 1000 2000 3000 RATE, BID Fig. 15Transfer

I 4000

,\l
5000 6000 oil well.

Fig. 14-IPR

and tubing curves for peqorated

oil well.

for Ap curve-perforated

36API [0.84-g/cm3] oil, Solution GOR = 180 scf/bbl [32 std m3 /m3], 80-acre [32. 3-h2] spacing, 5Win. [13.97-cm] casing, 8 k-in. [21.59-cm] hole, Lp =4-in. [10.16-cm] perforation tunnel (see Table 6 of Ref. 7 for tabulated values), e. around perforated tunnel = O.5 in. [1.27 cm], ph = 800 psi [5515 kPa], h = 30 ft [9.1 m], hp = 20 ft [6.1 m], 78 = 0.7, T = 180F [82C], and p WA = 140 psig [965 kpa]. Procedure. 1. Prepare the IPR ctt~e with Darcys law, assuming no Ap across the completion. 2. Plot the node outflow curve (tubhg intake) for 2x- 2%,, ~d 31h-in. [6.03-, 7.3-, and S.w-mnl tubing, This dekmmines the pressure requited at the bottom of tubing for flow through the tubing. Steps 1 (IPR) and 2 (tubing intake) a~ shown in Fig. 14. Assume 3 k-in. [8.89-cm] tubing is selected. 3., T~sfer the Ap curve, as shown in Fig. 15. 4. Using the appmpriite equations fmm McLeod7 (and as discussed by Brown et al. 3), determine the Aps across the completions listed. in Table 1. An an~ysis of Fig. 16 shows the importance of perforating undeinlanced. Of course, the best fluids and techniques should be used. Recognition of Components Causing Restricted Flow Rates in a WeIl Example ProbIemAnafysk of Flowline Capacity. The following well is on gas lift.
OCTOBER 1985

D = 8,000 ft [2438 m], 2~-in. [7.3-cm] tubing, p, = 2,100 psi [[4.5 MPa], 35API [0.85-g/cm3] oil, 50% water [yW= 1.07], solution GOR=300 scf/bbl [54 std m3/m3], sepamtor pressure =60 psig [413 kla], flowline len=@=4,000 ft [1219 m], well test 500 B/D [79.5 m3/d] at 1,740 psi [12 MPa], pb = 2,400 psi [16.6 MPa], -yX = 0.7, and tubing size = 2 Win. [6.35-cm] ID.

Sufficient gas pressure is available (2,000 psi [13.8 MPa]) to inject gas near the bottom, and a total gas/liquid ratio of 800 scf/bbl [143 std m3/m3] is maintained for gas lift. The flowline might be restricting the rate. With nodal analysis, a graphical solution can be generated auicklv at the wellhead location. Examination of the results in F]g. 17 indicates that the flowline is a restriction because the Dmssure loss in the flowline (21%-in. [6.35-cm] ID) sho~s a significant increase in pressure loss with rate and is angled sharply upward at the intersection point between the two cuwes shown. The intersection point of the pressure required at the flowline intake and the IPR pmsure minus the pressure drop in the well from sandface to the wellhead is the point of predicted flow from the well. A 3- and 4-in. [7.62- and 10. 16-cm] flowline is then evaluated on the same plot. As soon as the slope of the flowline intake pressure VS. rate becomes small (showing very little increase of Ap with rate), thin the flowline diameter is sufficiently large. The diameter should not be oversized because additional slugging and head@ may occur. Some operators just add a i757

TABLE

I-SAMPLE

COMPL5T10Ns Feet

FOR PERFORATED Perforation Condition Overbalanced with filtered salt water Overbalanced with salt water Underbalanced with filtered salt water Underbalanced With filtered salt water

OIL WELLS kc as%of k, Formation 10 10

1
2 3

Number

ShotslFt ?erforated 4 20
a 4 20 20

30

20

30

parallel line instead of replacing the current line with a larger size, Restriction Caused by Incorrect Tubing Size. The tubing may be either too large (causing unstable flow) or too small (reducing flow rate). This can be recognized immediately on a nodal plot and is as important in high-rote gas lift wells as in low-rate gas wells. A weak gas well is chosen to show how to deterroipe when thetubingistoolar eand to predict when loading will occur. The Gmy ,? cyrelationis =commended for use in the calculation of tubing pressure drops in gas wells that produce some liquids. Example ProbIemWeak Gas Well with Liquid Production. P, = 3,200 psi [22 MP?], 30 bbl/MMcf [168 x 106 m3 /m3] condensate, 5 bbl/MMcf [28.1 X10-6 m3/m3] water, D= 10,000 ft [304$ m], ,4 = 15 ft [4.57 m],

320-acm [129-ha] spacing, T = 200F [93C], k = 0.12 md, p~h = 100 psig [689 kfa], hp = 15 ft [4.57 m], -yg = Q.7, hole size = 8% in. [21.6 cm], and
no skin effects.

Evaluate 3 Y-, 234-, 2X-, and 1%-in. [8.89-, 7.3-, 6.35-, and 3.81-cm] tubing (1.66-in. [4.21-cm] ID) and l-in. [2.5-cm] tubig (1 .@19-in. [2.66-cm] ID) for MS well. Note in Fig. 18thataU sizes oftubing are too large fortbis particular caseexcept thel.049-in. [2.66-cm] -ID tubing. Unstable flow isindicated bythetubig curves crossing the IPR at a point to the left of the minimnm forthelarger tubimg. The ?.O-in. [2.54-cm] tubing shows stable flow, The same type of analysis can he made for oil wells for various tubing sizes.

3.0 DEPTH = 8000 TUBING I.D. = 2.992 R = 3500 PSI

500 79

2,5 5 . & ; s : 1.0 -

2,0 . 1,5

.5 -

500

1500

2500 RATE, B/D

3500

4s00

02~
RATE, B/D Fig. 17Wel!head nodal plotflowline size effects. TECHNOLOGY

Fig. 16Production 1758

vs. various

perforated

completions.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM

Well Inflow und Completion Restrictions. It is very important for operutora, engineers, and managers to recognize inflow restrictions immediately. Some companies have arranged their computerized well records to do such things as call up a group of wells in one field in descending-kh-vahe order. In addkion, all other available pertinent information, includlng the latest test data, cm also be printed out. Exsmple Problem. Compare predicted perfonnanm to actual oilwell performance.

TABLE 2AOFP,S

FOR HIGHER VALUES OF n AOFP

n 0.7 0.s 0.s5

(MMscf/D) 7 38 90 211 1,157

[m3,,jx, 2 11 92 60 32S

o-5]

0.9
1.0

A closer k = 50 md (cores), h = 30 ft [9.14 m] (logs), 35API [0.85-g/cm3] oil, casing = 7 in. [17.78 cm], tubing = 2X in. [6.1 cm], D = 7,000 ft [2134 m], yg = 0.65, T = 170F [77C], p, = estimated,400 psi [16.5 MPa], and 2 pwh = 250 psi [1723 k%]. The latest well test shows thk well producing 600 B/D [95 m3/d] oil (no water) with a GOR of 400 scf/bbl [71.2 std m3/m3 ] (natural flow). Determine whether this well is producing near ita capacity. It is the engineers responsibility to recognize thk wells potential quickly and to recommend addkional testing, a workover, a change in tubing, or other action. A very quick estimate of the productivity index can be estimated from the product kh in darcy-feet. kh

estimate

can be made from (50)(30)

BID =1.56 , KOBO = (1,000)(0.8)(1.2) psi but it requires that PO and 30 are known. One can recognize that a 35API [0.85-g/cm3] cmde at 170F ~77C] with 400 scf/bbl [71 std m3/m3] i solution will have a viscosity less than 1 and that the product poBO will be close to 1. Heavy cmdes, of course, will have high viscosities, and a larger value must be used in estimating the productivi~ index. Also, a reasonable estimate at lower pressures ia that about 500 psi [3447 kPa] is required to place 100 scf/bbl [17.8 atd m3/m3] in solution giving a bubblepoint pressure, pb, of 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa]. Standkgs 14 correlation shows the pb to be very close to 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa] for these conditions. This permits a quick calculation of the maximum flow rate.
Jp~ %ax=qb+= ..-

= 1.5 (2,400-2,000)+ =600+ 1,667 =2,267 BID.

1.5 (2,000) 1.8

2.5 DEPTH = i 0,00W Fwh = 100 PSI R = 3200 PSI 30 B/MMCFD COND. 5 B/MMCFD WATER $

30

r
.995

2,0 ~ ~- 1.5 x L %1.0 -

25 -

20 -

~- 15 x & ~ 10 7

,5 -

5 -

I
0

c 50

, 100

I 200
gas well.

150 RATE, MCFD effects-weak

250

I
00

[t [
500

I
2500

1000

i 500

2000

RATE, MCFD Fig. 19Predicted vs. observed oilwell performance.

Fig. 18Tubing.diameter OCTOBER 1985

1759

3.0

7UU

2.5 [~

,s~ %:,fl::.9g5 ,
0

}
2000

,
2500

;mjMy!y,:
200 400 600 RATE, B)D Fig. 21 Pmduction vs. wellhead

,>,
800 1000 1200

500

T000

1500

RATE, WD Fig. 20Wellhead pressure effects on ratenodal plot.

pressure.

The IPR curve can be drawn quickfy and the tobing curve imposed on the sample plot (Fig. 19). The intersection shows a rate of 760 BID [121 m3Id] of oil. The question of whether this well is worth spending sufficient money to determine why the rate is less than the prdcted rate now arises. The source of error could be with two. bits of information. Is the permeability of 50 md (obtained fmm cores) correct? 1s there a completion problem? For this well, the possibility of additional production justifies the expenditure to ron a buildup test to verify M/yOBo and to check for skin. A high skin may indicate that farther testing is needed to determine whether a rntesensitive skin exists to decide whether stimulation or teperforating is required. Restricted Gas Well Many operatora fail to tecognize the significance of the exponent n for gas-well IpR equations obtained from four-point tests. It is common to see expcments of 0.7 to 0,8 .or less in gas wells. For exnmple, the following equation was obtained from a U.S. @f coast well after data were plotted on log-log paper.

area to flow than to stimniation. Refs. 3 aad 4 provide more details on this procedure. Effects of Wellhead And Separator Pressure

Specific cases of gas wells and gas-lift oil wells may be influenced signiftaotly by changes in separator pressure andior welfhead pressure. A good plot for both oil and gas wells is a deliverability plot of wellhead pressure vs. rnte and, in turn, separator pressure vs. rate. This plot a.tso can show the loading or critical rate and offers immediate selection of rates based on wellhead pressures. The sample data used to construct Fig. 19 arc used to construct Flg. 20 at various wellhead pcessures. From tMs graph, data are used to consmtct Fig. 21, which demonstrates dte well response as a function of surface pressu~. Summm_y and Conclusions NodaJ analysis is an excellent tool for optimizing the objective ffow rnte on boti oil aod gas wells. A common misconception is that often there are insui%cient data to use thk analysis. Thk is tme in some cases, but mzmy amazing improvements have been made with very few data. The use of nodal analysis has &so prompted the obtaining of additional data by proper testing of numerous wells. Aaother common statement is that there is too much error involved in the vmious multiphase-flow tubing or flowfiie correlations, completion formulas, etc., to obtain meaningful resufts. Because of these possible errors, it is sometimes dficult to get a pmdlctive nodal plot to intersect at exacdy the same production rate of the actual well. Even if current conditions cannot be matched exactfy, however, the analysis can show a percentage. increase in production with a change, for instance, in wellhead pressure. These JOORNAL PETROLEUM OF
TECHNOLOGY

c?gm@@W(5>oo02PW2107 Mcf/d.
The operntor of tiIs well had a market of 15 MMscf/D [424x 103 std m3 Id]. Note that tbk well has an abso[ute o en-flow potential (AOFP) of 6,984 Mcf/D [198x 103P 3/d]. See Table 2 for AOFPs for m higher values of n. Obviously, this well has a serious completion restriction. Sufficient data are nlready available to plot in the form suggested by Jones et al. 4 They suggested plotting (p, 2 p ~f 2)/qg,, on the onihwe vs. qg.c on the abscissa to evaluate the need for opening more
1760

predicted possible increases often are fairly accufate even without an exact match to existing flow rates. Two detailed illustrations are given in this paper to show .jhe effect of perforation shot density in both gravel-packed and standard perforated wells on production. Nodsl analysis has completely altered perforation philosophy in the U.S. snd has encouraged higherdensity perforating and use of open-hole completions when practical. One of the most important aspects Of nodal tiysis is that it offers engineers and managers a tool to recognize quickly those components that an restricting production rates. Although not discussed in this paper, nodal analysis is used to optimize all artificial lift methods. 3 Rate predictions, along with horsepower requirements for sll lift methods, cm be predicted, thereby permitting easier selection of lift methods. Finally, some ve~ complex network systems, such as ocean-floor gas-lift fields (including gas allocation t.omsximize rates) and most economical gas rates, can be pfedlcted with this procedure. Nodd analysis, however, should not be used indkcriminately without the recognition of the significance of all plots and the meaning of each rslationsbip. Engineers should be tmined to understand the assumptions that were used iR developing the various mathematical models to describe well components. Also, recognizing obvious ermrsnd using practical judgment are necessary. Experience in diffenmt opemting areas can indicate the accumcy to be expected from various correlations used in nodal mzalysis well models. Nomenclature B. = FVF, bbl/stb [m3/stock-tank m3] Cl = numerical cnefticient dp = perforation-tunnel diameter, in. [cm] D = depth, ft [m] e. = .cmshed-cone tlickness, in. [cm] .h=height of pay interval, h [m] hP =height of interval perforated, ft [m] J= productivity index, B/D/psi [m3/d/kPa] k= permeability kc = penneabiity ofcmshed zone around perforation, md kf = formation penneabllity, md LP =length of perfora.tion tunnel, in. [cm] p = pressure, psi [kPa] P_b bubblepoint pressure, psi [kPa] p, = Kservoirpressure, psi [kPa] pwf = BHFP, psi [~a] P ~fi = wellhead pressure, psi [kpa] Ap = pressure difference, psi ma] qb = flOWrate at the bubblepoint, Mscf/D [103 std m3 /d] q~~ = msxirnum flow rate, B/D [m3/d] cIe = liquid flow rate, B/D [mS/d]
OCTOBER 19S5

T yg y,, y.

= = = =

temperature, F [C] gas gravity (air= 1.0) water gfavity oil viscosity, cp pa.s]

1, Mach, J,, Pmano, E., and Brown, K.E.: A Nodal Approach for Applying SYSteInS AndysiS to the Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas Well,,, paper SPE 8025 available at SPE, .Richardson,TX. 2 Giiben, W. E.: , Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance, Drill. and Prod Proc. , API (1954) 126-43. Prod.cdm Optimization of Oil and Gas 3, Brown, K,E. et cl,: & Wells hy No&f Systems Analysis,>XTechml.g3 of Artificial Lf$ Methods, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa (1984) 4. 4 Joes, L.G. Bloum, E.M., and Glaze, C.E.: Use of Shofi Term

Multiple ateFlowTeststo Predict erfmmmeofWellsHaving R P 5

T.I+JUleme,>7 paperSPE6133 presented at the 1976 SPE Amma3 Technical Conference and Exhibiticm, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6. Crouch, E.C. and Pack, K.J.: &SystemsAnalysis Use for the DesiS and Evahafim of Higi-Ram Gas Wells,,, paper SPE 9424 presented.at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Confe=?ce and Exhibition, Dalfas, Sept. 21-24. Bell, W.T.: Perforating UnderbalancedEvolving Techniques,, >J, Per, Tech. (Oct. 1984) 1653-62. McLead, 33.0. Jr.: l%. Effect of Perforating Ccmditicms Well on Performance,,> 3. Per. Tech. (lam 1983) 31-39. Locke, S,: LAnAdvanced Method for Predicting fhe Prod. ctivitj Ratio of a Pmfmated Well,,> 3. Per. Tech. (D,,. 19S1) 2481-S8. Hong, K.C.: Productivity of Petiotated Completions in Formations With or Without Damage, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1975) 1027-3% Tram; , AIME, 259. IGotz, I. A.,. Xmeger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: EffectofPerfomtion Damage cm WdJ Productivity,,, J. Per. Tech. (Nov. 1974) 1303-1% Trans., AIME, 257. Gxay, H.E.: Verticd Flow Comelation in Gas WeUs, User
a Maumi for API 14B, .Mbswf ce Conmiled Safety Valve SizinS Cbmpurer Program, App. B. API. Dallas (June 1974).

6, 7 8, 9
10

11

12 Vogel, J.V.: ..Inflow Performance Relationships for Soknion-Gas Drive Well s, J. Pet. Jech. (Jan. 1968)S3-92 Trans.,AfME,
243.

13 Fetkovich, M,J.; .Thc Isochronal Testing of Oil W.Us,, paper

SPE 4529 presented at tie 1973 SPE Annuaf Meeting, Las Vegas, seDL 30-oct. 3, 14 Suindig, M.B.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Damased Wells Pmd.cing by Solution-Gas Drive,, > J. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1970) 1399-1400. 15 Eickmeier, J. R,: *How to Accurately Predict Future Well Pmductilities,,, World Oil (May 1 1968) 99. H.: 16 Dia.-Couto, L.E, and Gobm, N <GeneralInflow Performance Relationship for Solntion-Gas Reservoir Wells, J. Per. Tech.

. 17 Uhri, D.C
1s

19

20

21

22

(Feb. 1982, .-. .-. -., ?~~-~~ and Blount, E. M,: ,& Pivot Poim Methcd Quickly Predicts Well Pdmmance, ,S Wmid Oil (Mw 1982) 153-64 Aga@ R. G., A1-H.ssainY, ?., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: .A. In. vemgmon of Wellbore Storage md Ski Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: L Amdvtical Treatment. Sot. Pet. Em. J. (Sect. 1970) 279-9Ll T,&?., AIME, 249. Agarwaf, R, G., Carter, R. D., and PoRock, C.B.: Evaluation and Performance Predictim of Low-Permeability Gas Wells S&mdamd by Massive Hydraulic Fracture,,3 J. Per. Tech. (March 1979) 362-72 Trans. , AIME, 267. Lea, J. F.: C-AvoidPremamm Liquid fmadig in Tight Gas Wells by Using Pmfrac and Pomfrac Test Da% Oil ??d Gas J. (Sept. 20, 19S2) 123. Meg, H. M .1.: Production Systems Analysis of VerticaUy Fmctured Wells,, paper SPHDOE 10S42 presented 81the 1982 SPFJDOE Unconventional Gas Recove~ Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 16-18, Greene, W.R.: ,Analyzing the Performance of Gas Wells, Pm,, , 1978 .%utiwestem Petmlem Shmt Cows., Lubbock, TK (APril 20-21) 129-35. 1761

23. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K. E.: ?3xperimentd Study of Fmssure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in SmaJJ-Diameter Vertical Conduits,. J. Pet. Tech. (April 1963J 475-S4 Trans. ANE, .234. F 24. Dins, H. Jr. andRos,N.CJ.: Vertical lowof GasandLiquid i M,xturesn Wells,,, Pro.., gixti World Pet. Cong. (1963) 451. 25, Orkiwcwsti, J.: Wedicdng Two-Phase Prass.re Drops in Vertical P,pes,,, J. Pet. Tech. (J.ne 1967) 829-38; Trans., A2ME,
240.

; 26, Beggs, H.D, and Brill, J. P.: A Study of Twc-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,, >J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973) 607- 1.% Tram., .41ME, 255, 27, Aziz, K., Govicr, G.W., and Fogammsi, M.: %essure Dmp in Wells Producing Oil and Gas,,, J. Cd.. Pet. Tech. (July-Sepl. 1972). 38-d8 . ..-.,.. 28. Dukkr, A, E. et .[.: Gas-Liqoid Flaw in Pipelines, 1. Research Results, AGA-API Pmjmt NX-28 (May 1969). 29, Du!der, A.E. and Hubbard, M. G.: A Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes, Ind. and Eng.
Chen. (1975) 14. No. 4.33747.

The Fetkovich procedura 13 requifes a three-or fomflow-rate test plotted on log-log paper to determine sn equation in the form of a gas-well backpressure equation with a coeffkient and exponent determined from plotted data. This is equivalent to armlysis of an oil well with gas well relationships. %audmgs 14 extension of Vogels wmk accom3ts for flow-efficiency values other than 1.00. Jones et al. s4 procedure will determine whetier sufficient mea is open to flow. Futnre IPR Curves The prediction of future IPR curves is critical in determining when a well will die or will load up or when it shoufd be placed on artiticid lift. The foUowing procedures can be used (1) Fetkovich 13 procedure, (2) combination of Fetkotich and Vogels equation, IS (3) Coutos 16 procedure, and the (4) PivOt point method. 17 Transient IPR Curves Oil or Gas WeIIs. A time element allowing fhe constmction of IPR cmves for transient conditions can be brought into Darcys law. This is important in some wells because of the long stabfiza.tion time. (See Ref. 3 for discussions by several authors.) Fractured Oil and Gus Wells. The constmction of IPR ctnves for fractured oil or gas wells has been treated in the literature by Agsfwal et al., 18,19Lea, 20 and Meng. 21 Fractured wells can show flush production initially but drop off considerably in rate at future timex. IPR Methods For Gas Weffs. GenemIIy, a three- or four-flow-fste testis required for a gas weJl from which a plot is made on log-log paper and the appropriate equation derived.
q=cl(P2PLfV

30. Eaton, i. A. et il.: The Predction of Flow Paftems, Liquid Holdup and Ptessure Losses Occurring During Continuous TwGPhme Flow In HorizontalPipelines,,, J. Pet. .Tt-ch. (June 1967) m,. , A3ME, 240. 815-28; Tra 31, CuUen&r, h M,H. and Smith, R. V.: Practical Solution of GasFlow Equations for Wells and Pipelines witi Large Temperature Gradients,, J. l+v. Tech, (D... 1956) 281-8R Tmm., A2ME,
207. 32. Poeimmnn, F.H. and Cmpenter, P. G.: The Muldpbase Flow of

Gas, Oil and Water Through Verdcal Flow String wilh Appliw.tion to the Designof Gas-Lift Installations, Drill. and Prod.
Pm,., API (1952) 251-317,

APPENDIX A Inflow Performance

Inflow performumc is the ability of a well to give up fluids to the welJbore per unit drawdown. For flowing

and gas-lift wells, it is plotted normally as stock-tunk barrels of liquid per day (abscissa) vs. bottomhole pressure (BHP) opposite the center of the completed intend (ordimte). The total volumetric flow rote, includlng free gas, can also be found with production values and PVT data to cdcuIate, for instartce, a total volume into a pump. Brown et al. has given detailed example probIems for most methods of constmcting IPR curves. Nothing, however, replaces good test data, and many procedures, in fact, do require from one to four dlffemnt test pointsthat is, a stabl@ed rate and conesponding BHFP, as well as the static BHP, arc usually a minimum requirement for establiahlng a good IPR. IPR Methods for Oil Wells For flowing pressure above the bubblepoint, test to find the productivity index, or cnlculate the productivity index from Darcys law. For two- base flow in a reservoir, apply Vogels ? procedure 1 or Darcys law using relative permeability data. For reservoir pressure greater thau bubblepoint
(P, >P~) and BHFp above or below the bubblepoint,

where q is the mte of flow, Cl is a numerical coeftkient, characteristic of the particular well, p, is the shut-in rcse~oir pressure, p .f is the BHFP, and n is a numerical exponent that is characteristic of the psrticxdw weJL (See Ref. 22 for a discussion on gas well pefionnance). Also, Darcys law can be used, and the turbulence terms should always be included6 for all but the lowest rates. Fructured and transient wells have Alsobeen treated in the literature. APPENDJX B Muftiphase Flow Correlations The use of multiphsse-flow-pipeline pressure-drop correlations is very important in applying nodal analysis. The corrclationa that am most widely used at the present time for vetical multipbase flow were
JOURhAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

use a combination of a straight-line productivity above pb and Vogels 12 procedure below.

1762 .

index

developed by Hagedorn and Brown, 23 Duns smd Ros, M Ros modification (Shell Oil Co., unpublished), Orkizewski, ~ Beggs and BriU,26 snd Aziz. 27 These correlations calculate pressure drop ve~ well in certain wells snd fields. However, one may be much better than the other under certain conditions, and field pressure surveys are the onfy way to find out. Without knowledge of a particular field, we would recommend beginning work with the correlations listed in the above order. Horizontal MuIti haae-Flow Pipeline CorreIationa. Beggs and Brill, 2? Dukler et al., 28 Dukler snd Hubbard, 29 Eaton er al., 30 and Dukler using Eatons holdup28,30 nre the best horizontal-flow correlations. Again, we recommend to begin work using them in the order given.

Vertical

Gas Flow. The procedu~ by (ldlender and Smith 31 and Poettmann aud C~enter32 are recommended for gas-flow calculation in wells.

Wet Gas Wefla. We recommend the Gray correlation 11 for wet gas wells. S1 Metric Conversion Factors bbl X 1.589873 E01 cu ft X 2.831 685 E02 ft X 3.048* E01 in. x 2.54* E+OO psi x 6.895757 E+OO
-conversion

= = = = =

m3 m3 m cm kPa

tam, i, exact.
(SPE 14714]

Jrlr%,bed in
the SOcieV d Peto[eum Engineef$ .f.

Origlml mans+t tic, Aug. 19, 19S5,

. .

OCTOBER 1985

1763