Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
( . ) / 114644 10
5 2 5
(4.1)
where,
p = pressure drop, psia
fm = Moody's friction factor, dimensionless
= fluid density, gm/cm
3
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
q
p p d
TZL
g
g
15320
1
2
2
2 16 3
( )
/
(4.2)
where
q
g
= gas flowrate, scfd
p
1
= pipe inlet pressure, psia
p
2
= pipe outlet pressure, psia
L = pipe length, miles
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-9
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
T = average temperature,
o
R
Z = average gas compressibility factor
d = pipe diameter, in
g
= 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.
4-10 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 (
2
p=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.
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-11
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Figure 4.4 Horizontal Well Drainage Pattern
For isotropic reservoirs (k
h
=k
v
),
q =
0. 007078 k h p ( B )
ln [
a + a L
L
h L )ln [
h
2 r
]
h
h o o
w
/
( / )
/
] + ( /
2 2
2
2
(4.3)
and
a = (L 0. 25 + (2r L) ]
4 0 .5
/ )[0.5 + / 2
eh
(4.4)
where
q
h
= flowrate, STB/day
p = pressure drop, psi
L = horizontal well length, ft
h = reservoir height, ft
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
r
eh
= drainage radius of horizontal well, ft
o
= oil viscosity, cp
B
o
= oil volume formation factor, RB/STB
k
h
= 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
q =
0. 007078 k h p ( B )
ln[
r
(L )
]
h
h o o
eh
/
/
4
(4.5)
Muskat (1937) suggested a simple transformation to account for
permeability anisotropy. An effective permeability, k
eff
, is defined as
k = k k
eff v h
(4.6)
To account for vertical anisotropy, the reservoir thickness can be
modified as follows
h = h
k
k
h
v
(4.7)
4-12 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
q =
0. 007078 k h p ( B )
ln [
a + a L
L
h L ) ln [
( h
2 r
]
h
h o o
2 2 2 2
w
/
( / )
/
] + ( /
/ ) +
2
2
2
2
(4.8)
where
=
k
k
h
v
(4.9)
and 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, r
w,eff
r = r exp (-s)
w, eff w
(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, r
eh
=r
ev
, and equal productivity indices, J
h
=J
v
to give
the following for an anistropic reservoir
r =
r ( L
a L a h r
w, eff
eh
w
h L )
/ )
[1 + 1 ( / ) ] +[( / )]
2 ( /
2
2
(4.11)
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
pronounced as it is in vertical wells. Celier (1989) came to the same
conclusion with respect to the effect of non-Darcy flow.
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-13
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
q
kh p B
A C R s s Dq
v
o o
A w m v
+ + +
/ .
ln [ . / ( ) ]
1412
2 2458
2
(4.11)
where
s
m
= mechanical skin factor due to drilling and completion
related well damage.
s = total skin due to perforations, partial penetration and
stimulation.
C
A
= shape factor
Dq
v
= 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, s
m
=0 and
Dq
v
=0),
q =
kh p . 2 B
ln[(
r
r
) - 0. 75]
v
o o
e
w
/141
(4.13)
Equation (4.13) is for a vertical well which is located in the centre 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 = ln [ C C ]
CA A , ref A
/ (4.14)
The horizontal well shape factor depends on the following
drainage area shape.
well penetration.
dimensionless well length, L
D
= (L/h)(k
v
/k
h
)
0.5
.
4-14 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Joshi (1991) explains that the well performance approaches a fully
penetrating infinite-conductivity fracture when the horizontal well
length is L
D
> 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 inifinite
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
q =
0 . 0 0 7 0 7 8 b k k p ( B )
ln [
A
r
] + l nC - 0 . 7 5 + s
h
x z o o
1
w
H R
/
(4.15)
where
b = extension of the drainage volume in the direction along
the well axis, ft
s
R
= skin factor due to partial penetration.
C
H
= geometric shape factor defined by Babu (1989)
k
x
= permeability in the horizontal plane perpendicular to the
well axis, md
k
z
= permeability in the vertical plane, md
A
1
= drainage area in the vertical plane, ft
2
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-15
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
The equation is derived from a very complex general solution. It
requires the calculation of the C
H
and S
R
. 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
q
q
= [1- V(
p
p
) - (1- V)(
p
p
) ]
o
o , max
wf
R
wf
R
2 n
(4.16)
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
deleverability 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
m(p) = 2
p
z
dp
0
p
z
(4.17)
4-16 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
q =
0. 007027 k h ( p - p )
ln [
r
r
] ZT
h
h
e
w ,eff
e
2
wf
2
(4.18)
where
q
h
= gas flowrate, mmscf/day
p
e
= pressure at external radius, psia
p
wf
= wellbore flowing pressure, psia
k
h
= horizontal permeability, md
h = reservoir height, ft
r
e
= drainage radius, ft
r
w,eff
= effective wellbore radius, ft
= average viscosity, cp
Z = average compressibility factor
T = reservoir temperature,
o
R
The pseudo-steady state gas flow equation can be written as follows
(Joshi, 1991)
q =
0. 007027 kh(p - p )
[ln[
r
r
] - 0. 75 + s + s + s - c + Dq ] ZT
h
e
w
m ca h
r
2
wf
2
(4.19)
D =
2. 222 x 10 ( k h )
r h
-15
g a
pwf w
p
2
(4.20)
= 2. 73x10 k
10
a
-1.1045
(4.21)
or
= 2. 33 x10 k
10
a
-1.201
(4.22)
where
q
h
= gas flowrate, mmscf/day
p
r
= average reservoir pressure, psia
p
wf
= wellbore flowing pressure, psia
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-17
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
s = negative skin due to horizontal well
s
m
= mechanical skin damage
s
ca
= shape related skin factor
c = shape fact conversion constant
k = permeability, md
h = reservoir height, ft
r
e
= drainage radius, ft
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
= average viscosity, cp
Z = average compressibility factor
T = reservoir temperature,
o
R
pwf
= viscosity at well flowing conditions, cp
= high velocity flow coefficient, 1/ft
g
= gas gravity
h
p
= perforated interval, ft
k
a
= 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 modelled with PIPESIM 2000. Each layer can
have the following, different, properties;
Static Pressure
Temperature
Depth
IPR specification
Fluid description
The IRR for each individual layer can be specified using any of the
standard completion options (described above).
4-18 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Similarly, the fluid description for each individual layer can be
specified using the standard black oil or compositional fluid
descriptions.
PIPESIM 2000 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 modelling of artificial lift
in PIPESIM 2000 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 2000 will calculate the injection gas
throughput for each valve (dependent on the casing, tubing and dome
pressures and valve temperature)
PIPESIM 2000 contains a database of gas lift valve details for most of
the commonly used gas lift valves from various manufactures.
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-19
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
4.4.2 ESP Lift
ESP's are modelled 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 ESP's used in the oil & gas industry have been
made available within PIPESIM 2000 via a database.
The manufactures covered are;
Reda
ODI
Centrilift
Ramco Alnas
Trico
For each manufacture a number of models are available.
The user can vary the following for each ESP;
Speed
Number of sages
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 modelling 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)
4-20 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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, C
p
/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 presure.
4.6.1 Ashford-Pierce
The correlation of Ashford and Pierce [1975] is valid for critical and
sub-critical flows.
q Cd
o e
351
2
.
( ) +
B F
o wo
1
2
( ) ( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
_
,
_
,
+
1
]
1
1
+ +
'
1
]
1
+ +
n
n
Tz R R e p e R F
Tz
p
R R e R F
s
n
n
g s wo w
s
n
g wo w
1
1 198 6 1 0000217
198 6 0000217
1 1
1
1 0
1 1
1
1
0
1
2
. .
. .
where
q
o
- oil flow rate at standard conditions (bbl/d)
C - choke discharge coefficient
d
e
- choke diameter (64th in.)
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-21
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
F
wo
- Water to oil ratio (WOR)
B
o
- oil formation factor volume factor (bbl/STB)
n - specific heat ratio
p
1
- upstream choke pressure (lb/ft
2
)
p
2
- downstream choke pressure (lb/ft
2
)
R - producing GOR (scf/STB)
R
s
- solution GOR at p
1
and T
1
(scf/STB)
T
1
- upstream choke temperature (
o
R)
z
1
- gas compressibility factor at T
1
and p
1
e - choke downstream to upstream pressure ratio, p
2
/p
1
g - gas specific gravity at T
1
and p
1
o - oil specific gravity at T
1
and p
1
w - water specific gravity at T
1
and p
1
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 N N Q N
qL Pl d D
0 263
3 49 3 19 0 657 1 8
.
. . . .
where
4-22 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
N q
qL L
o L
L
_
,
184
1 25
.
.
N
G
L
N P
pl
L L
174 10
1
2
1
.
Q
R
d
+
1
1
1
N D
D c
L
L
120872 .
Final re-arranged equation:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) q R D P
L
o
L L c G
+
1953 10 1
3
1 245 1 545
1
0 657 1 8 3 49
1
3 19
.
. . . . . .
N
qL
- Omana liquid volume rate number
N
D
- Omana diameter number
N
pl
- upstream pressure number
Q
d
- Omana dimensionless production number
- density at upstream conditions(lb/ft
3
)
- surface tension at upstream conditions (dynes/cm)
R
1
- In situ GOR (ft
3
/ft
3
)
D
c
- choke diameter (ft)
P
1
- upstream pressure (psia)
subscripts
G - gas
L - liquid
4.6.3 Gilbert, Ros, Baxendall, Achong and Pilehvari
The correlation proopsed by Gilbert, Ros, Baxendall, Archong and
Pilehvari [Ghassan, Maha, 1991] are valid for critical flow.
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-23
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
The equations proposed are all of the form
c b o
L
d GOR aP q
) (
1
(1)
where
P
1
- upstream pressure (psia)
q
o
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.
e c b o
L
d GOR aP q
) ) ( (
1
This modification has been implemented in PIPESIM 2000 via the
engine keyword tool. The parameters are proprietary.
4.6.4 Poettmann-Beck
The correlation of Pottemann & Beck [1963] is valid for critical flow.
( )
( )
q
A
GOR
P
V m
R
R
o
o c
L
o
G
+
+
+
+
1
]
1
1
88992
561 0 0765
9273 6
1 05
04513 0 766
05663
0
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
. .
.
.
.
.
. ( . )
.
where
( ) ( )
( )
R
T z GOR R
P B
s
o
1
1
1 1
0
1
1
0 00504
.
4-24 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
m
R
G
L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
V
m
L
1
1
q - oil flow rate (STB/D)
A
c
- choke cross-sectional area (ft
2
)
P - pressure (psia)
- specific gravity at P
1
& T
1
GOR - gas to oil ratio (scf/STB)
R
s
- Solution gas (scf/STB)
B - formation volume factor
- density (lb/ft
3
)
T - temperature (
o
R)
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.
p p p
TP L L G G
+
p
g
q
C A
L
L
c
L
L c
_
,
2 144
2
p
g
q
YC A
G
L
c
G
G c
_
,
2 144
2
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-25
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
( ) Y
d
d
K
p p
p
+
_
,
1
]
1
1
_
,
10 041 035 1
2
1
2
2 1
1
. . . /
C
C
d
d
d
_
,
1
1
2
4
Total pressure drop for the two-phase system is given by:
p p
C
YC
TP L G
dL
dG
+
_
,
1
]
1
1
1
]
1
1
1 1
2
where
p
d
d
q
d C
L L
m
dL
_
,
1
]
1
1
1
]
1
1
8083
1
2
4
1
2
G
- no-slip fraction of free gas in the stream approaching the
choke
L
- no-slip fraction of liquid in the stream approaching the
choke
q
L
- liquid flow rate (ft
3
/sec)
q
G
- gas flow rate (ft
3
/sec)
A
c
- choke cross-sectional area (ft
2
)
p
1
- pressure upstream of choke (psi)
p
2
- pressure downstream of choke (psi)
- density (lb
m
/ft
3
)
C - flow coefficient
C
d
- discharge coefficient
Y - compressibility factor
d
1
- upstream tubing diameter (same units as d
2
)
d
2
- orifice diameter (same units as d
1
)
K - ratio of specific heats (c
p
/c
v
)
Subscripts
L - liquid
G - gas
4-26 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 orific flow equations with the no-slip fraction of free
gas
G
in the stream approaching the choke.
4) The density and flow rates of each phase can be replaced by a no-
slip mixture density,
NL
, and a total mixture flowrate, q
m
.
p p
C
YC
TP L G
dL
dG
+
_
,
1
]
1
1
1
]
1
1
1 1
2
where
p
d
d
q
d C
L N
m
dL
_
,
1
]
1
1
1
]
1
1
8083
1
2
4
1
2
C
G
= 0.9
C
L
= 0.85
Using the above equations we get:
p p
Y
tp L G
+
1
]
1
1
]
1
1
1121
1
2
.
where
p
d
d
q
d
L N
m
_
,
1
]
1
1
687055
1
2
4
1
2
.
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-27
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
G
- no-slip fraction of free gas in the stream approaching the
choke
q
m
- total mixture flow rate (ft
3
/sec)
P
L
- liquid phase pressure change (psi)
P
G
- gaseous phase pressure change (psi)
N
- no-slip mixture density (lb
m
/ft
3
)
C
dG
- discharge coefficient for the gas phase
C
dL
- discharge coefficient for the liquid phase
Y - compressibility factor
d
1
- upstream tubing diameter (same units as d
2
)
d
2
- orifice diameter (same units as d
1
)
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 modelled 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 2000 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 p
i
is given by [Dake - 1978]
4-28 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Production = Gas Initially in Place - Un-produced Gas
(sc) (sc) (sc)
or
G G
G
E
E
p
i
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 undepleted reservoir
conditions
For fields units at standard conditions of p=14.17psia, T=520 R and
Z=1
E
p
ZT
35 37 .
and by using the equation of state for a real gas
pV = ZnRT
we can re-write the material balance equation as
p
Z
p
Z
G
G
i
i
p
_
,
1
The initial conditions p
i
, Z
i
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
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-29
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
4-30 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-31
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
4-32 Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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).
Reservoir, Well & Completion Modeling 4-33
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
5 FIELD EQUIPMENT 5-1
5.1 Compressor 5-1
5.2 Expander 5-2
5.3 Single Phase Pump 5-3
5.4 Multiphase Boosting 5-3
5.4.1 Multiphase Boosters Positive Displacement Type 5-8
5.4.2 Twin Screw Type Multiphase Boosters 5-9
5.4.3 Progressing Cavity Type Multiphase Boosters 5-11
5.4.4 Multiphase Boosters Dynamic Type 5-12
5.4.5 Helico-Axial Type Multiphase Boosters 5-13
5.4.6 Contra-Rotating Axial Type Multiphase Booster 5-15
5.4.7 Alternative approach 5-16
5.5 Separator 5-17
5.6 Re-injection point 5-17
5.7 Heat Transfer 5-17
5.8 References 5-17
Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Field Equipment 5-1
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
5 Field Equipment
5.1 Compressor
The basic compressor model uses centrifugal compressor 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 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 centrifugal
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 compressor equations used are as follows:
Adiabatic Route
Head = (Z
avg
RT
in
/(M(k-1)/k))((P
out
/P
in
)
((k - 1)/k)
- 1)
where k = Cp/Cv
Polytropic Route
Head = (Z
avg
RT
in
/(M(n-1)/n))((P
out
/P
in
)
((n - 1)/n)
- 1)
where n = 1/(1 - ((Cp/Cv - 1)/(eCp/Cv)))
Mollier Route (compositional cases only)
5-2 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Head (H
out
- H
in
)
where the values of H
out
and H
in
are obtained from isentropic
compression from P
in
to P
out
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 = (Z
avg
RT
in
/(M(k-1)/k))((P
out
/P
in
)
((k - 1)/k)
- 1)
where k = Cp/Cv
Polytropic Route
Head = (Z
avg
RT
in
/(M(n-1)/n))((P
out
/P
in
)
((n - 1)/n)
- 1)
where n = 1/(1 - ((Cp/Cv - 1)/(eCp/Cv)))
Mollier Route (compositional cases only)
Field Equipment 5-3
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Head (H
out
- H
in
)
where the values of H
out
and H
in
are obtained from isentropic
compression from P
in
to P
out
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].
5-4 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Particularly for the development of satellite fields, multiphase
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.
Field Equipment 5-5
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 3.1 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
recognise 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);
5-6 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
(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 3.2.
Figure 3.2 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 p
th
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.
Field Equipment 5-7
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Figure 3.3 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.
Figure 3.3 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 3.3 will change to that
shown in Figure 3.4. 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%.
Producti on System Anal ysi s
0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Production rate (kg/s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
a
t
w
e
llh
e
a
d
(
b
a
r
a
)
Outfl ow curve
THP c ur ve
5-8 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Figure 3.4 Production system analysis: the effect of multiphase
boosting visualised
Through the type of analysis outlined in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, 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
Production System Analysis
0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Production rate (kg/s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
a
t
w
e
l
l
h
e
a
d
(
b
a
r
a
)
Outflow curve - No boosting
Outflow curve - Boosting 20 bar
THP curve
Field Equipment 5-9
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 3.5 shows an example of a twin screw type pump.
Figure 3.5 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.
5-10 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
However, due to the pressure differential between pump discharge
and pump suction, an internal leakage in the pumping elements
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 3.6).
Figure 3.6 Pump performance curves (typical)
As can be seen from Figure 3.6, 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
Twin Screw Multiphase Pump - Performance Curve
(valid for GVF=0%, p1=1 bara)
0
200
400
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pump differential pressure [bar]
F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
[
m
3
/
h
]
0
500
1000
1500
S
h
a
f
t
p
o
w
e
r
[
k
W
]
Flow rate
Shaft power
Twin Screw Multiphase Pump - Performance Curve (valid
for GVF=85%, p1=1 bara)
0
200
400
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Pump differential pressure [bar]
F
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
[
m
3
/
h
]
0
500
1000
1500
S
h
a
f
t
p
o
w
e
r
[
k
W
]
Flow rate
Shaft power
Field Equipment 5-11
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
As can also be seen from Figure 3.6, 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].
5-12 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Figure 3.7 Moyno progressing cavity pump
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 Moynos 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 modelling 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
Field Equipment 5-13
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 Institut Francais du Petrole
(IFP). For very high gas volume fractions (GVF>95%), there is also
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 3.8 shows an example of a helico-axial pump stage.
Figure 3.8 Helico-axial pump stage
5-14 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 3.9. The quoted flow
rates and speed limitation represent present technology status.
Figure 3.9 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.
Field Equipment 5-15
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Figure 3.10 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 consist of
several stages on the inside of a concentric, larger diameter cylinder,
see Figure 3.11.
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
p
e
e
d
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
s
p
e
e
d
8
0
%
s
p
e
e
d
9
0
%
s
p
e
e
d
M
a
x
.
D
P
l
i
n
e
Maximum booster differential pressure
B
o
o
s
t
e
r
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Total volumetric flow rate at suction
Best efficiency line
Helico-axial type multiphase booster - Performance curve
(valid for given GVF, p
-suction
and fluid density)
5-16 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Figure 3.11Contra-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 realised
efficiencies (approximately 25%) are significantly less than whats
achievable with conventional boosting systems.
Given their wider operating range and wider established application
in the oil and gas industry, the modelling of dynamic type multiphase
boosters in PIPESIM 2000 has been limited to the helico-axial type
multiphase booster only.
5.4.7 Alternative approach
The alternative approach, figure 5.1 has also been implemented in
PIPESIM 2000.
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.
Field Equipment 5-17
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
5.5 Separator
Placing a separator in the model removes up to 100% 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 modelled.
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, 2
nd
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
5-18 Field Equipment
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
[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
Field Equipment 5-19
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
6 OPERATIONS 6-1
6.1 Check model 6-1
6.2 No operation 6-1
6.3 Run model 6-1
6.4 System Analysis 6-2
6.5 Pressure Temperature profile 6-2
6.6 Pressure Temperature profile matching 6-2
6.7 Wax Prediction 6-3
6.8 Nodal Analysis 6-3
6.9 Artificial Lift Performance 6-4
6.9.1 Optimization module performance curves 6-5
6.10 Gas Lift Design & Diagnostics 6-7
6.10.1 Check for Gas Lift instability 6-7
6.11 Horizontal well analysis 6-10
6.12 Reservoir tables 6-10
6.13 Network analysis 6-11
6.14 Optimization 6-11
6.15 Field Planning 6-12
6.15.1 Dynamic Eclipse link 6-12
6.15.2 Look-up tables 6-14
6.15.3 Compositional tank models 6-15
6.15.4 Event handling 6-16
6.16 Multi-lateral well analysis 6-17
6.17 Post processor 6-17
6.17.1 Graphical plots 6-17
6.17.2 Tabular data 6-18
Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
6.17.3 Onscreen data 6-18
6.18 References 6-18
Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Operations 6-1
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
6 Operations
The operations of PIPESIM 2000 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
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 Baker Jardine's Production data
management software ProdMan.
6.3 Run model
Run the selected operation.
6-2 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
O
u
t
l
e
t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Flow Rate
Watercut=30%
Watercut=60%
Watercut=90%
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.
Operations 6-3
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
6.7 Wax Prediction
The wax prediction in PIPESIM 2000 was developed by Shell EP
Technology Applications and Research in Houston and is only
available to Shell and Shell approved companies.
A separate user guide is available (from our web site) for this
operation.
6.8 Nodal Analysis
PIPESIM 2000 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 modelling 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.
6-4 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Figure 6.2 Nodal Analysis Inflow/Outflow Curves
Main features of the Nodal Analysis operation
NA point can be at any point (between components) in the system
Inflow sensitivity can be on any inflow variable
Outflow sensitivity can be on any outflow variable
Future IPR (Vogel & Fetkovitch IPR's only)
User set limit to define the range of the result NA graph
Liquid Loading line
6.9 Artificial Lift Performance
This option allows the user to analyze the effects of artificially
(injecting gas or ESP) lifting a production well.
This also allows the necessary well performance curves to be created
for the optimization model, so that the complete field can be
optimized.
PIPESIM 2000 generates artificial lift (gas or ESP) performance
curves of either gas lift injection rate or ESP Power versus gross
liquid flowrate from the standard system model data with the
additional with artificial lift device in place. The performance curves
are created by sensitivity analysis on various parameters, such as
wellhead pressure, watercut, tubing ID and flowline ID.
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Flowrate
Inflow
Outflow
NA Point
Operations 6-5
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
6.9.1 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.
6.9.1.1 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
modelling gas lifted wells that are choked back.
Manifold
Flowline
Wellhead
Wellhead Choke
Well
6-6 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
modelled 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 modelled to the choke.
A maximum liquid constraints into individual wells
Choke optimization
Pressure calibration
Method 1: GOAL model with wells modelled to the manifold
Model 2: GOAL model with wells modelled to the well head
Operations 6-7
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
6.10 Gas Lift Design & Diagnostics
PIPESIM 2000 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 2000 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
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.
6-8 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
C F
r
F
r
F
v
v
v
v
c 1 1 3 1
2
_
,
. . .
C F
r r
F
v
v
v
c
2 1 1
_
,
+ .
where
( )
F
B g q J
C A Y V q
f
go
D p
v
a fo
1
2
2
. . .
. .
( )
( )
F
q q A
g
P
q
fo go t
f g
to
fo
3
.
.
.
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
F
C A Y C A Y
r r
C A Y
r r
c
D p
ch
D p
v
ch v
ch
D p
v
ch v
ch
1
]
1
_
,
1
]
1
2 2
2
2
2
.
.
r
P
P
v
to
co
( )
( )
v
t
c
zT
zT
r
P
P
ch
co
m
( )
( )
ch
c
m
zT
zT
Nomenclature
A
t
Cross sectional area of tubing (in
2
)
B
f
Volume factor for reservoir fluids at injection point
C
D
Gas Valves Discharge coefficient. Default = 0.8
Operations 6-9
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
J Productivity index (stbd/psi)
V
a
Volume of tubing-casing annulus (ft
3
)
g Acceleration of gravity (ft/s
2
)
P
co
Steady state casing pressure (psia)
P
to
Steady state tubing pressure (psia)
q
fo
Steady state reservoir fluids flow rate (stbd)
q
go
Steady state injected gas flow rate (mmscf)
P
m
Gas injection manifold pressure (psia)
Y Gas expansion factor
T Temperature (F)
r ratio of pressures
z gas compressibility factor
t
reservoir fluids density (lb/in
3
)
g
injected gas density (lb/in
3
)
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 modelled 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.
The factors can be viewed graphically for any well by select the
Alhanati Criterion for the y axis from the series option within the
6-10 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
plotting utility PSPLOT. Both factors can be displayed on then same
plot, if required, by adding a second series.
Wel l P A 13 - Al hanati
Cr i ter i on
A l
h a
n a
t i
C r
T o t a l I n j e c t i o n G a s
0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
1 .
1 .
L i c e n s e d t o : B J A i n h o u s e ( K -
0 0 0 1 )
P I P E S I M P l o t A u g 0 9
1 9 9 6
P I P E S I M f o r W i n d o w s B a k e r J a r d i n e & A s s o c i a t e s ,
Figure 6-3 Alhanati Criterion
6.11 Horizontal well analysis
The Horizontal well operation is an integral part of PIPESIM 2000'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
VFP curves supply the simulator with the necessary data to define
bottom hole flowing pressures and tubing head pressures as a
Operations 6-11
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 (Shells 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 modelled
correctly.
Baker Jardine 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.
Develop individual artificial lift performance curves for the wells in
the model. Even if the wells are not on artificial lift a performance
6-12 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 2000.
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 modelled 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 Geoquests
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.
Operations 6-13
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
6-14 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Sample decline curve
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 5 10 15
Cumulative liquid production [mmstb]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Pressure [psia] GOR [scf/stb] Watercut [%]
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
from a table defined in an ASCII
text file, which provide pressure
(and optionally pressure and
watercut) as a function of
cumulative production of oil,
liquid, or gas.
PROS:
Very fast reservoir modelling
as no iteration is required
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 modelling 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.
Operations 6-15
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Well
1
Well
2
Aquifer
influx
User supplied
composition, initial
volumetric
inventory, and
All wells linked to a decline curve have the same pressure, and
also the same watercut and GLR if that is defined in the table.
Capabilities:
Full FPT capabilities are available through look-up table reservoir
modelling.
A number of look-up tables can be defined.
Limitations:
No way to change watercut and/or GLR in a compositionally
defined Network model.
Running from look-up tables generally produces results of lower
fidelity than from a dynamically linked Eclipse simulation but generally
will significantly reduces simulation time and will be particularly useful
where:
i. an Eclipse model is NOT available, or
ii. to perform a preliminary screening of field plans before
performing a time-consuming high-fidelity simulation using a
true reservoir simulation package such as Eclipse.
6.15.3 Compositional tank models
Here the reservoirs are modelled by defining the geometry of a
simple cylinder containing a user-supplied volume of fluid (either in
terms of liquid or gas). Given a user supplied composition, this tank is
then depleted via wells mapped to it, hence leading to pressure
6-16 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 modelling is perf ormed upon the fluid in the
reservoir to obtain the correct pressure.
CONS:
The watercut in the tank model can not 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.
Operations 6-17
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 2000 graphical utility
Microsoft Excel
Tabular data
Standard text editor
Microsoft Excel
Onscreen data
PIPESIM 2000 GUI
6.17.1 Graphical plots
Graphical plots are the most common method used to view data
(input and results) from PIPESIM 2000.
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.
6-18 Operations
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
6.17.2 Tabular data
Tabular data is in the form of text (ASCII) output files. These can be
viewed from with PIPESIM 2000 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.
Operations 6-19
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
7 CASE STUDIES 7-1
7.1 Pipeline & facilities Case Study Condensate Pipeline 7-3
7.1.1 Task 1. Develop a Compositional Model of the Hydrocarbon
Phases 7-3
7.1.2 Task 2. Identify the Hydrate Envelope 7-4
7.1.3 Task 3. Select a Pipeline Size 7-5
7.1.4 Task 4. Determine the Pipeline Insulation Requirement 7-7
7.1.5 Task 5. Screen the Pipeline for Severe Riser Slugging 7-9
7.1.6 Task 6. Size a Slug Catcher 7-12
7.1.7 Data Available 7-14
7.2 Well Performance Case Study Oil Well Design 7-16
7.2.1 Task 1. Develop a Calibrated Blackoil Model 7-17
7.2.2 Task 2. Develop a Well Inflow Performance Model 7-22
7.2.3 Task 3. Select a Tubing Size for the Production String 7-22
7.2.4 Data Available 7-24
7.3 Network Analysis Case Study Looped Gathering Network 7-
27
7.3.1 Task 1. Build a Model of the Network 7-27
7.3.2 Task 2. Specify the Network Boundary Conditions 7-31
7.3.3 Task 3. Solve the Network and Establish the Deliverability 7-32
7.3.4 Data Available 7-33
7.4 Production Optimization 7-37
7.5 Field Planning 7-37
7.6 Multi-lateral 7-37
Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Case Studies 7-1
PIPESIM 2000
7 Case Studies
The PIPESIM 2000 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;
Condensate pipeline
Compositional
Phase envelope creation
Hydrate envelope
Pipeline sizing
Pipeline insulation
Slugging
Slug catcher sizing
Oil well design
Black Oil fluid calibration
Well IPR
Tubing sizing
Looped Gas gathering network
Compositional
Network model
Boundary conditions
Establish field deliverability
7-2 Case Studies
PIPESIM 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Case Studies 7-3
PIPESIM 2000
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 2000 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>>"
7-4 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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:
Case Studies 7-5
PIPESIM 2000
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.
7-6 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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):
Case Studies 7-7
PIPESIM 2000
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
7-8 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
Case Studies 7-9
PIPESIM 2000
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.
7-10 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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:
Case Studies 7-11
PIPESIM 2000
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:
7-12 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
Case Studies 7-13
PIPESIM 2000
.
As shown above, the 1/1000 slug length is 1,781.2 ft, which gives a slug
volume of 971.5 ft
3
.
Now select the <reports/view summary> menu and check the liquid
swept in front of a pig ("liquid by sphere").
7-14 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
It can be seen that the turndown case gives the larger volume of 279.1
bbl or 1,567 ft
3
.
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 ft
3
.
Therefore the pigging volume of 1,567 ft
3
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
platform
1,000 psia
Minimum arrival temperature at processing
platform
75 F.
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
Point (F)
Molecular
Weight
Specific
Gravity
Moles
C7+ 214 115 0.683 12
Case Studies 7-15
PIPESIM 2000
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/ft
2
/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/ft
2
/F
7-16 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Case Studies 7-17
PIPESIM 2000
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 modelling 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.
7-18 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
After starting PIPESIM 2000 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:
Case Studies 7-19
PIPESIM 2000
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
7-20 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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:
Case Studies 7-21
PIPESIM 2000
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.
7-22 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 3, 4 or 5 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.
Case Studies 7-23
PIPESIM 2000
- 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):
7-24 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
It can be seen that 4 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 4
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
pressure)
1.49 @ 4,269 psia and 210 F
OFVF (below bubble point
pressure)
1.38 @ 2,000 psia and 210 F
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
Case Studies 7-25
PIPESIM 2000
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/ft
2
/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 (P
wf
),
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
Case Studies 7-27
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
7.3 Network Analysis Case Study Looped 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 2000 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:
Double click on the vertical completion to enter the inflow performance
data. Enter a gas PI of 0.0004 mmscf/d/psi
2
. The reservoir temperature
7-28 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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/psi
2
. Double click on the tubing,
and define a vertical tubing with a wellhead TVD 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 Studies 7-29
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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:
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 centre 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
7-30 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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:
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:
Case Studies 7-31
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
- Specify all the fluid inlet pressures and the delivery pressure.
7-32 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
In this case study, the following steps are required:
- Set the network tolerance.
- Run the model.
- View the tabular reports.
- View the graphical reports.
Case Studies 7-33
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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 -
Finshed 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:
7.3.4 Data Available
Layout:
The network is laid out as shown below:
7-34 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
Completion and Tubing Data:
Wells 1 & 2 Well 3
Gas PI 0.0004
mmscf/d/psi
2
0.0005
mmscf/d/psi
2
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
Temperature
130 F 140 F
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
Isobutane 1
Butane 1
Isopentane 1
Pentane 0.5
Hexane 0.5
Petroleum Fraction (Wells 1 & 2):
Name Boiling
Point (F)
Molecular
Weight
Specific
Gravity
Moles
Case Studies 7-35
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
Point (F)
Molecular
Weight
Specific
Gravity
Moles
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
Inner diameter 6"
Wall thickness 0.5"
Roughness 0.001"
Ambient temperature 60 F
Overall heat transfer coefficient 0.2 Btu/hr/ft
2
/F
Data for Deliver Line (B5):
Separator type Liquid
Separator efficiency 100%
Compressor differential pressure 400 psi
7-36 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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
coefficient
0.2 Btu/hr/ft
2
/F
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)
Case Studies 7-37
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
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.
7-38 Case Studies
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Index 8-1
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
8 Index
A
Alhanati instability criteria.... 6-7
Artificial Lift
ESP Lift ........................... 4-17
Gas Lift ............................ 4-17
Performance ..................... 6-4
B
Back pressure IPR............... 4-3
Bit lock ....... See Security Device
Black Oil
correlations ....................... 3-1
fluid type............................ 2-2
Building a model ................... 2-1
C
C and n IPR.......................... 4-3
Chokes................................ 4-18
Compositional
EOS................................... 3-9
fluid type............................ 2-4
Compressor .......................... 5-1
Coning................................... 3-4
D
Darcy IPR ............................. 4-4
Dongle........ See Security Device
E
Expander .............................. 5-2
F
Fetkovich,liquid IPR ............ 4-1
Flow correlation
Multiphase - horizontal ... 3-25
Multiphase - vertical ....... 3-19
Single Phase................... 3-18
Flow regimes.......................3-15
Fluid calibration...................2-11
Black Oil ..........................2-11
Compositional ..................2-12
Fluid data...............................2-2
Forchheimer gas, IPR...........4-3
G
Gas Lift
Design................................6-7
Diagnostics........................6-7
instability............................6-7
H
Horizontal Completions ........4-4
How to ...
Analyis a field over time..2-20
Analyse artificial lift
requirements................2-17
Analysis a production well ..2-
14
Calibrate a fluid ...............2-11
Create GOAL curves.......2-17
Create reservoir tables ...2-17
Design a Multiphase Booster
......................................2-14
Develop a pipeline & facilities
model ...........................2-12
Find the optimal completion
length ...........................2-18
Match data to a flow
correlation....................2-12
Model a multi-lateral well 2-21
Perform a field wide
optimization..................2-20
Perform a Nodal Analysis...2-
15
8-2 Index
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
produce a pressure /
temperarture plot......... 2-13
Set boundary conditions. 2-18
Size equipment ............... 2-13
I
Inflow Performance .............. 4-1
J
Jones gas, IPR..................... 4-3
Jones liquid, IPR .................. 4-1
L
Limitations of Model &
Component ....................... 2-9
M
Model components overview2-5
Multiphase Boosting............. 5-3
Contra-Rotating Axial ..... 5-15
Dynamic Type................. 5-12
Helico-Axial..................... 5-13
Positive Displacement Type
....................................... 5-8
Progressing Cavity ......... 5-11
Twin Screw ....................... 5-9
Multiple Layers / Completions4-
17
Multi-rate tests
gas IPR ............................. 4-4
liquid IPR........................... 4-2
N
Nodal Analysis...................... 6-3
Future IPR......................... 6-4
Liquid Loading line ........... 6-4
O
Oil/Water Mixture Viscosity ..3-8
Optimization module
performance curves ..........6-5
P
Pressure Drop Calculation .3-14
Pseudo-Steady state IPR.....4-4
Pseudo-Steady state, IPR....4-2
S
Security Device...................1-12
Separator.............................5-17
Single Phase Pump ..............5-3
Steam, fluid type ...................2-5
Straight line PI liquid, IPR.....4-2
Stream Re-injection ............5-17
Support Services.................1-14
U
Units System.........................2-1
V
Viscosity
Gas ....................................3-9
Liquid.................................3-5
Live Oil ...............................3-6
Viscosity
Dead Oil.............................3-5
Vogel, IPR.............................4-2
W
Well PI, IPR...........................4-2
Index 8-3
P I P E S I M P I P E S I M 2000
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY