Distingtiished ,Author Series ,y~l~llq

n w%%?+%+
~:,
-
X..?*:? -,..
.7 ~+:
...
Nodal Systems Analysis of
,: Oil and Gas Wells
By KermitE. Brown,SPE, and

Kermit E. Brown is F. M. Stevenson Professor of Petroleum En9ineerin9 at the U. of

Tulsa. Since 7966 @wh has served es head of the Petroleum Egineerhg Dept., vice
president of research, and chairman of the Resources Engineering Div. He has conducted
James F, Lea, SPE

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

Summary
Nodal 1 analysis, defined as a systems approach to the
optimization of oil and gas wells, is used to ev61uate
tboruughly a complek producing system. Every
component in a producing well or all wells in a
producing system can be optimized to achieve the
objective flow rate most economically. Ml present
componentsbeginning with the static resemoir
pressure, endkg with the separator, and including
inflow performance, as weU as. flow across the
completion, up the tublig string (inChIdlng 811Y
downhole restrictions and safety valves), across the
surface choke (if applicable), thrbugh horizontal flow
lines, and into the separation factilties-are tiulyzed.
Introduction
The objectives of nodBI aualysis are as follows.
1. To determine tlie flow me at which an existing
oil or gas yell wifl produce considering wellbore
geometry and completion limitations (first by natural
flow).
2. To determine under what flow condhions (which
may be related to time) a well will load or die.
3. To select the most economical time for the
installation of afiticial lift and to assist in the selection
of the optimum lift method,
4. To optimize the system to produce the objective
flow rate most economically.
WYW 19s5societyof PetroleumEwi.eefs
5. To check each component in the well system to
determine whether it is restricting the flow.mte
unnecessatiy.
6. To permit quick recognition by the operwors
management and engineering staff of ways to increase
production rates.
Theie are numerous oil and. gas wefls aruund the
world that have not been optimized to achieve an
objective rate e~lciently. In fact, many may have been
completed in scb a m~er tit their maximum
potenti81 kite cannot be achieved. Also, many wells
placed on anificial lift do n6t achkve the efficiency
key shtiuld.
The pruductioi optimization of oil and gas wells by
nodal systems analvsis has contributed to improved
completion techniques, pfiduction, and efficiency for
many wells. @thou h this type of analysis was
proposed by Gilbert i. m 1954, it has been used
extensively in the U.S. only in the last few yeari. One
principul ieason for tbk was the changing of allowable
producing. rates, and another has been the development
of computer technology that allows rapid calculation of
complex algorithms and provides ea.sify understood
data.
Past conservation practices in the U.S. more or less
restricted operaors t6 2- and 2 IA-in. [5.08- and
6.35-cm] tubing and 4 shots/ft [13.1 shots/m] for
pmfomting. The use of larger tubing (41Aand 51Ain.

OCTOBER 1985 175I

 &P, = P, - Pwf, = LOSS IN POROUSMEOIUM
AP2 = Pw,-Pwf = LOSS AcROSS COMPLETION
A% = k -%. = REsTRlcTl ON
dP4 = PKv-Po~v = SAFETY VALVE
AP5 = Pw~- PD~c = t SURFACECHOKE
AP6 = PO$C-P5,P= IN FLOWLINE
AP7 = Pwf -Pwh = TOTAL LOSS Ilq TUBING
nPs = Pw~-P,ep = r FLOWLINE

Fig. lPossible pressure losses in complete system.

[11.43 and 13.97 cm]) and 16 shots/ft [52.5 shots/m]
is common today.
Although the increase in flow rates in hlgh-
productivity wells has popularized nodal analysis, it is,
nevertheless, an excellent tool for low-rate wells (both
oil and gas) as well as for all aititicid lift wells. Some
of the greatest percentage increases in production rates
have occurred in low-rate oil wells (from 10 to 30 B/D
[1.59 to 4.77 m3/d]) and low-rate gas wells (from 50
Ilp to 100 to 200 Mscf/D [1416 Up to 2832 to 5663 std
m3 /d]). Numerous gas wells have needed adjustments
in tubitg sizes; surface pressures, etc., to prolong the
onset of liquid Ioadlng problems. Nodsf analysis cm
be used to estimate the benefits of such changes before
they am made.
Oneof ,jhe most impommt aspects of nodal analysis
is to recognize wells that should be producing at rates
higher than their current rate. Therefore, it can serve
as an excellent tool to verify that a problem exists and
that additional testing is necessacy. For example,
assume that a well is producing 320 B/D [51 m3 /d] of
oil. Applying nodal analysis .to this well shows that it
is capable of producing 510 B/D [81 m3/d], This
difference may be attributed to several factors, but
nodal analysis can determine which component ii
restricting the rate or can .detetine that iricomect data
are the cause of tbe higher predicted rate, A basic
requirement for weli analysis is the ability to detine
the current inflow performance relationship (IPR) of
the well. Accurate well test data must be obtained and
the proper IPR applied for successful analysis, Then
models of other welf components can be used to
complete the p=dicted well pe,ffocmsnce.
Fig. 1 shows ,components that make up a detailed
flowirtg wefl system. Beginning with the reservoir and
procecdin~ to tie separator, the components are (1)
resemoir pressure, (2) well productivity, (3) wellbore
completion, (4] tubing string, (5) possible downitole
re@ctive device, (6) tubing, (7) safety valve, (8)
tubing, (9) surface choke, (10) flowline, and (11)
separator.
To optimize tie system effectively, each component
must be evaluated separately and then as a group to
evaluate tbe entire well producing system. The effect
of the chang&of any one component on the entire
system is ve~ impomant and can be displayed
graphically yitb well analysis. Some aspects Of the
IPR component are covered in Appendix A; discussion
of myltiphase- flow pressure-drop correlations for
pipelines is found in Appendix B,
The most common positions for nodal analysis
graphlcd solutions are listed below.
1. At the center of the producing intefial, at the
bottom of the well. This isolates the wells inflow
performance.
2. At the top of the well (wellhead). This isolates
the flowline or the effects of surface mressure on
production.
3., Differential pressure solutioris (Ap) across the
completion intecwi to evaluate the effect of the
number of perforations on production in gravel-packed
or standard completion wells.

1752 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 o RATE
Fig. 2-Constructed
\
+
c~
q...
IPR curve.
4. Solutions at the separutor, especially with gas-lift
wells. This isolates the effect of separator pressure on
production.
5. Other solution positions for graphical solution are
at surface chokes, safety valves, tapered string
connection points, and dowuhole restrictions.
The user must understand how pressure-flow
components of the weIl are grouped to form a
graphicul solution at a node point. For example, if the
solution is plotted at the bottom of the well (center of
completed intmvat), then the reservoir and the
completion effects can be isolated completely from the
enthe piping and production system.
Caution should be taken in ne~lecting even 200 to
300 ft [61 to 91 m] of casing flow fmm the center of
the completed interval to the bottom of the tubing.
Because of lower velocities, the larger pipe may not be
flushed out with produced fluids. This large section of
pipe still can be neady full of completion fluids (water
turd mud), even though the well may be producing
100% oil. Numerous flowing-pressure surveys have
verified this occurrence. A major company recently
surveyed a will producing 1,600 B/D [254 m3/d] of
oil up 2~-in. [7.3-cm] tubing. Because of a dogleg,
tubing was set 1,000 ft [305 m] off bottom in the
11,000-ft [3353-m] well, Both water and mud were
found in the 7-in. [17.8-cm] casing below the tubing,
even though rbe well produced 100% oil. Cleaning
Wk well resulted in an increase of the rate to more
than 2 ,0i30 B/D [318 m3/d] of oil. This points out one
type of practical limitation of nodal analysis when
tubing-pressum-drnp calculations are used to calculate
accurately a bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP).
Here, the unalysis showed that the rate should be
higher and, hence, served as a diagnostic tool that
prompted the mnning of a prsssure traverse. Irr many
cases, the anafysis predicts what should be expected,
and the operator is advised to look for problems if the
well is producing below that prediction.
OCTOBER 1985
+
BHP
or.
AP
c
u
x
Fig. 3Constructed
RATE +
TUBING
INTAKE
CURVE
tuping intake curve,
Specific ExantpIes
A liited number of examples are presented here;
numerous examples, however, appear in the
literature. I-5
Two specific subjects have been selected for
example solutions.
1. The effect of the downhole completion on flow
rate is illustrated. An example solution for both a
gravel-packed well and a stundtwd perforated well is
presented. Procedures to optimize the completions sre
cmttined.
2. Quick recognition of those wells with a greater
predicted potential thatr the present production rate is
covered. These situations may be caused by a
restriction in one of the components in the system.
Gravel-Packed Oti and Gas WeIls
A paper presented by Jones et al. 4 seemed to be the
catalyst that started operators looking more closely at
their completions. This paper nlso suggests procedures
for determining whether a wells inflow capability is
restricted by lack of area open to flow, by skin caused
by mud infiltration, etc.
Ledlow and Granger3 have prepared an excellent
summary of background material on gravel packing,
including detaifs on mechanical running procedures
and selection of gravel size.
The nodaf aua.lysis procedure for a gmvel-pscked
well, illustrated with a sequence of figures, is
presented here. The appropriate details, additional
references, and equations can be found in Ref. 3.
The foflowing procedure is vtild for either an oil or
gas well with tie solution node at bottomhole.
1. Prepare the node IPR curve (Fig. 2). (This step
assumes no Ap across the completion. )
2. Prepare the node outflow curve (tubing intake
curve in Fig. 3), which is the surface pressure plus the
tubing pressure drnp plotted as a function of rate.
1753
 3 API AP2 AP3
/

4
BHP

flP

(AP=O
T \
w (
cl
RATE + RATE +

Fig. 4Transfer Ap. Fig. 5Construct Ap across gravel pack.

3. Transfer the differential pressure available
between the node inflow and node outflow curve on
the same plot (FQ. 4) to a Ap curve.
4. Using the appropriate equations, 3,4 calculate the
pressure drop across the completion for various rates.
Nnmerous variables have to he considered here,
includ]ng shots per foot, gravel permeability, viscosity
and density of the fluid, and length of the perforation
tunnel for linear flow. Add this Ap curve on Fig. 4, as
noted in Fig. 5,
5. Evsluate this completion (Fig. 5) to detemnine
whether the objective rnte can be achreved with an
accepted differential across the grnvel pack. Company
philosophies on accepted Ap values differ. A
reasonable maximum allowable Ap that has given
good results rnnges from 200 to 300 psi [1379 to 206g
kl%t]for single-phase gas or liquid flow. Most
operatom will design for smaOer Aps for multiphase
flow across the pack.
6. Evaluate other shot densities or perhaps other
hole sizes until the appropriate Ap is obtained at the
objective mte (Fig. 6). Perforation efficiency should
be considered at thk time. A good review on
perfoiatiug techniques, which poiuts out such factors
as the number of effective holes expected and the.
effect of the number of holes and hole sizes on casing
strength, was presented by Bell. 6
7. The Ap across the pack can be included in the
IPR curve, as noted in Fig. 7.
Example ProblemTypicaI Gulf Coast Well With
GraveI Pack. Below is a list of given data.
~, = 4,000 psi [27.6 MPa],
D = 11,000 ft [3352 m] (center of perforations),
k = 100 md (penneabfiity to gas),
h = 30 ft [9.1 m] (pay interval),
h, = 20 ft [6.1 m] (perforated interval),

RATES
POSSIBLE

o \
RATE + RATE +

Fig. 6Evaluation of various shot densities. Fig. 7Gravel pack solution by including Ap completion in
IPR curve.

1754 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 4 8r /

3 -
q

&-
;2 -
L
8
m Pr = 4000 Psl
DEPTH = 11,000
1- K = 100 MD

I
1 I I 1 I 1 1 I Oo,
00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 70
RATE, MMCFD RATE,MMCFD

Fig. 8IPR curve for gas wellgravel-pack analysis. Fig. 9Evaluation of tubing sizes.

40/60-mesh gravel-packed sand, around the perforation because of unconsolidated

640-acre [259-ha] spacing,
8~.in. [21.9-cm] casing; 1()%-in. [27.3-cm]
drilled hole,
Tg = 0.65,
screen size = 5-itr. [12.7-cm] OD,
gas-sales-line pressure = 1,200 psi [8273 Wla],
short flowline.
This well is to he gravel packed. The tubing size
and the number of shots per foot are to he evaluated
with an undcrbalanced tubhrg-conveyed gun. It is
assumed that thereis no computable zone restriction
forrrmtion-that is, sand flows immediately into all
perforated holes until properly prepacked.
Procedure.
1. The IPR curve is prepared with Darcys law, and
the additional turbulence pressure drop4 is included
(Fig. 8).
2. Tubing sizes of 2%, 31A, and 41A in. [7.3, 8.89,
and 11.43 cm] are evaluated at a wellhead pressure of
1,200 psi [8272 kpa], which is needed to flow gas into
the sales fine. From analysis of Fig. 9, 41A-in.
[11.43-cm] tubing is selected. Note that, if market

RATE, MMCFD RATE, MMCFD

Fig. 1OAP available fmm sandface to tubing intake. Fig. 1lAp across gravel pack at 4, 8, 12, and 16 shotslft.

OCTOBER 1985 1755

 RATE, MMCFD
Fig. 12Completion effects included with lPRgravel-
packed well.
conditions permitted, much figher rates cotdd be
projected with adequate sand control.
3. The Ap is transferred, as noted in Fig. 10. This is
the Ap available across the gravel pack.
4. The Ap across tie pack for 0.75-in. [1.905-cm]
-diameter holes with 4, 8, 12, and 16 effective shots/ft
[13. 12,26.2, 39.4, and 52.5 effective shots/m] (Pig.
11) should be calculated with Jones et al.s equations
m with modifications of these equations adjusted to tit
field data.
5. Figs. 11 and 12 show the final two plots
indicating that 16 shots/ft [52,5 shots/m] are necessary
to obtain a Ap of about 300 psi [2068 kPa] at a rate df
58.5 MMscf/D [1.7x 106 std m3 /d]. Additional
perforations could bring thk AP below 200 psi
i1379 kPa~. - ~
6. To bring tik well on production properly, one
more plot (such as FQ. 13) should be made with
several weffhead prcssmes so that Ap across the pack
can be watched through fhe observation of rate and
wellhead pressure. Thk procedure is described by
Crouch and Packs and Brown et al. 3
Nodal Atwdysis To Evafuate a Standard
Perforated WeU
In 1983 NfcLeod7 published apaper that prompted
operators to examine completion practices on normally
perforated wells. Although numerous prior
p~bli@tioss-10 discussed this topic and Companies
bad evaluated the problem, Wk paper sparked new
interest. A modification of dds procedure is presented
in Ref. 3.
The procedure is similar to that offered for gravel-
packed weUs, except that the equations used for the
calculation of pressure drop acmsa the completion
have been altered to model flow through a perforation
iT56
RATE, MMCFD
Fig. 1S-Effects of wellhead pressure-gravel-packed well.
surrounded by a low-permeabfity zone. They still
incorporate basic concepts suggested by Jones et al. 4
for gravel-packed weUs.
ExztnpIe ProbIem and Procedure for
a Perforated Weff
Iu thk section, a sample oil well with a low GOR, a
low bubblepoint pressure, and assumed single-phase
liquid flow across the completion will be anutyzed.
The reason for thk selection is that current technology
has offered solutions only for single-phase flow (gas or
liquid) across such completions. When two-phase flow
occurs across either a gravel-packed or a standard
perforated well, relative permeability effects must be
considered. Additional turbulence then occurs in
grovel-packed weUs and creates more energy losses.
McLeod7 noted that most of the pressure drop can
occur across a compacted zone at the pe.tioration wall
because of turbulence. He annlyzed a gas-well
example and showed that 90% of the totaf Ap across
the completion, in fact, was caused by turbulence
across the approximately IA-in. [1.27-cm] -thick
compacted zone. (.Eefs. 3 and 7 provide more details).
To use this technique, the crashed-zone thickness,
e,, the pemneabllity, kc, the perforation-tunnel
diameter, dp, and the length, Lp, must be ~own.
Obviously, because of the many input variables
required, the technique can only be approximate and
iadicate trends. It is hoped that fature research in this
area wiU lead to mom accumte models of pressure
drup through perfomtions shot in both over- and
underbalanced condkions.
Example Problem.
j, = 3,500 psi [24.1 MPa],
D = 8,000 ft [2438 m],
JOURNALOFPETROLEUM
TECHNOLOGY
 3.0 - 3.0
DEPTH = 8000
R = 3500 Psl
2.5 - 2.5
[\. TUBING I.D. = 2.992

~ 2.0 -
L
&-
; 1.5-
n.
I
m 1.0-
DEPTH= 800L7
,5 - Pr = 3500
Pwh = 140 PSI

! 1 I 1 (
5000 6000
I +! \, I ,\l
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
RATE, BID RATE, BID

Fig. 14-IPR and tubing curves for peqorated oil well. Fig. 15Transfer for Ap curve-perforated oil well.

36API [0.84-g/cm3] oil, D = 8,000 ft [2438 m],

Solution GOR = 180 scf/bbl [32 std m3 /m3],
80-acre [32. 3-h2] spacing,
5Win. [13.97-cm] casing,
8 k-in. [21.59-cm] hole,
Lp =4-in. [10.16-cm] perforation tunnel (see
Table 6 of Ref. 7 for tabulated values),
e. around perforated tunnel = O.5 in. [1.27 cm],
ph = 800 psi [5515 kPa],
h = 30 ft [9.1 m],
hp = 20 ft [6.1 m],
78 = 0.7,
T = 180F [82C], and
p WA = 140 psig [965 kpa].
Procedure.
1. Prepare the IPR ctt~e with Darcys law,
assuming no Ap across the completion.
2. Plot the node outflow curve (tubhg intake) for
2x- 2%,, ~d 31h-in. [6.03-, 7.3-, and S.w-mnl
tubing, This dekmmines the pressure requited at the
bottom of tubing for flow through the tubing. Steps 1
(IPR) and 2 (tubing intake) a~ shown in Fig. 14.
Assume 3 k-in. [8.89-cm] tubing is selected.
3., T~sfer the Ap curve, as shown in Fig. 15.
4. Using the appmpriite equations fmm McLeod7
(and as discussed by Brown et al. 3), determine the
Aps across the completions listed. in Table 1.
An an~ysis of Fig. 16 shows the importance of
perforating undeinlanced. Of course, the best fluids
and techniques should be used.
Recognition of Components Causing Restricted
Flow Rates in a WeIl
Example ProbIemAnafysk of Flowline Capacity.
The following well is on gas lift.
OCTOBER 1985
2~-in. [7.3-cm] tubing,
p, = 2,100 psi [[4.5 MPa],
35API [0.85-g/cm3] oil,
50% water [yW= 1.07],
solution GOR=300 scf/bbl [54 std m3/m3],
sepamtor pressure =60 psig [413 kla],
flowline len=@=4,000 ft [1219 m],
well test 500 B/D [79.5 m3/d] at 1,740 psi [12 MPa],
pb = 2,400 psi [16.6 MPa],
-yX = 0.7, and
tubing size = 2 Win. [6.35-cm] ID.
Sufficient gas pressure is available (2,000 psi [13.8
MPa]) to inject gas near the bottom, and a total
gas/liquid ratio of 800 scf/bbl [143 std m3/m3] is
maintained for gas lift. The flowline might be
restricting the rate. With nodal analysis, a graphical
solution can be generated auicklv at the wellhead
location. - -
Examination of the results in F]g. 17 indicates that
the flowline is a restriction because the Dmssure loss in
the flowline (21%-in. [6.35-cm] ID) sho~s a significant
increase in pressure loss with rate and is angled
sharply upward at the intersection point between the
two cuwes shown. The intersection point of the
pressure required at the flowline intake and the IPR
pmsure minus the pressure drop in the well from
sandface to the wellhead is the point of predicted flow
from the well.
A 3- and 4-in. [7.62- and 10. 16-cm] flowline is then
evaluated on the same plot. As soon as the slope of
the flowline intake pressure VS. rate becomes small
(showing very little increase of Ap with rate), thin the
flowline diameter is sufficiently large. The diameter
should not be oversized because additional slugging
and head@ may occur. Some operators just add a
i757
 TABLE I-SAMPLE COMPL5T10Ns FOR PERFORATED OIL WELLS

Feet Perforation kc as%of

Number
ShotslFt
?erforated Condition k, Formation
1 4 20 Overbalanced with 10
filtered salt water
2 a 20 Overbalanced with 10
salt water
3 4 20 Underbalanced
with 30
filtered salt water
4 8 20 Underbalanced
With 30
filtered salt water

parallel line instead of replacing the current line with a 320-acm [129-ha] spacing,
larger size, T = 200F [93C],
k = 0.12 md,
Restriction Caused by Incorrect Tubing Size. The p~h = 100 psig [689 kfa],
tubing may be either too large (causing unstable flow) hp = 15 ft [4.57 m],
or too small (reducing flow rate). This can be -yg = Q.7,
recognized immediately on a nodal plot and is as
hole size = 8% in. [21.6 cm], and
important in high-rote gas lift wells as in low-rate gas
no skin effects.
wells.
A weak gas well is chosen to show how to
deterroipe when thetubingistoolar eand to predict
Evaluate 3 Y-, 234-, 2X-, and 1%-in. [8.89-, 7.3-,
when loading will occur. The Gmy ,? cyrelationis
=commended for use in the calculation of tubing 6.35-, and 3.81-cm] tubing (1.66-in. [4.21-cm] ID)
pressure drops in gas wells that produce some liquids. and l-in. [2.5-cm] tubig (1 .@19-in. [2.66-cm] ID) for
MS well.
Example ProbIemWeak Gas Well with Note in Fig. 18thataU sizes oftubing are too large
Liquid Production. fortbis particular caseexcept thel.049-in. [2.66-cm]
-ID tubing. Unstable flow isindicated bythetubig
P, = 3,200 psi [22 MP?], curves crossing the IPR at a point to the left of the
30 bbl/MMcf [168 x 106 m3 /m3] condensate, minimnm forthelarger tubimg. The ?.O-in. [2.54-cm]
5 bbl/MMcf [28.1 X10-6 m3/m3] water, tubing shows stable flow,
D= 10,000 ft [304$ m], The same type of analysis can he made for oil wells
,4 = 15 ft [4.57 m], for various tubing sizes.

3.0 -

DEPTH = 8000
r
500
79

2,5 - TUBING I.D. = 2.992

R = 3500 PSI
5
. 2,0 -
&
.
; 1,5

s
: 1.0 -

.5 -

1500 2500 3500 4s00

02~
500
RATE, B/D RATE, B/D

Fig. 16Production vs. various perforated completions. Fig. 17Wel!head nodal plotflowline size effects.

1758 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Well Inflow und Completion Restrictions. It is very TABLE 2AOFP,S FOR HIGHER VALUES OF n
important for operutora, engineers, and managers to AOFP
recognize inflow restrictions immediately. Some [m3,,jx, o-5]
n (MMscf/D)
companies have arranged their computerized well
0.7 7 2
records to do such things as call up a group of wells in 0.s 38 11
one field in descending-kh-vahe order. In addkion, all 0.s5 90 92
other available pertinent information, includlng the 0.9 211 60
latest test data, cm also be printed out. 1.0 1,157 32S

Exsmple Problem. Compare predicted perfonnanm to

actual oilwell performance.
A closer estimate can be made from
k = 50 md (cores), kh (50)(30) BID
h = 30 ft [9.14 m] (logs), =1.56 ,
KOBO = (1,000)(0.8)(1.2) psi
35API [0.85-g/cm3] oil,
casing = 7 in. [17.78 cm], but it requires that PO and 30 are known. One can
tubing = 2X in. [6.1 cm], recognize that a 35API [0.85-g/cm3] cmde at 170F
D = 7,000 ft [2134 m], ~77C] with 400 scf/bbl [71 std m3/m3] i solution
yg = 0.65, will have a viscosity less than 1 and that the product
T = 170F [77C], poBO will be close to 1. Heavy cmdes, of course, will
p, = estimated 2,400 psi [16.5 MPa], and have high viscosities, and a larger value must be used
pwh = 250 psi [1723 k%]. in estimating the productivi~ index.
Also, a reasonable estimate at lower pressures ia that
about 500 psi [3447 kPa] is required to place 100
The latest well test shows thk well producing 600
B/D [95 m3/d] oil (no water) with a GOR of 400 scf/bbl [17.8 atd m3/m3] in solution giving a
bubblepoint pressure, pb, of 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa].
scf/bbl [71.2 std m3/m3 ] (natural flow).
Standkgs 14 correlation shows the pb to be very close
Determine whether this well is producing near ita
to 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa] for these conditions. This
capacity. It is the engineers responsibility to recognize
thk wells potential quickly and to recommend permits a quick calculation of the maximum flow rate.
addkional testing, a workover, a change in tubing, or Jp~
other action. %ax=qb+=
..-
A very quick estimate of the productivity index can
1.5 (2,000)
be estimated from the product kh in darcy-feet. = 1.5 (2,400-2,000)+
1.8
=600+ 1,667

=2,267 BID.

r
2.5 - 30
DEPTH = i 0,00W
Fwh = 100 PSI
R = 3200 PSI 25 -
2,0 -
30 B/MMCFD COND.
~ 5 B/MMCFD WATER
20 -
~- 1.5 - $ .995
x ~- 15 -
L
x
%1.0 - &
~ 10 -

7
,5 -
5 -

I c , I 1 I [t [ ! ! I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 00 500 1000 i 500 2000 2500
RATE, MCFD
RATE, MCFD
Fig. 18Tubing.diameter effects-weak gas well. Fig. 19Predicted vs. observed oilwell performance.

OCTOBER 1985 1759

 3.0 7UU
2.5 [~ a
,s~%:,fl::.9g5 , } ,
0 500 T000 1500 2000 2500
RATE, WD
Fig. 20Wellhead pressure effects on ratenodal plot.
The IPR curve can be drawn quickfy and the tobing
curve imposed on the sample plot (Fig. 19). The
intersection shows a rate of 760 BID [121 m3Id] of
oil.
The question of whether this well is worth spending
sufficient money to determine why the rate is less than
the prdcted rate now arises. The source of error
could be with two. bits of information. Is the
permeability of 50 md (obtained fmm cores) correct?
1s there a completion problem? For this well, the
possibility of additional production justifies the
expenditure to ron a buildup test to verify M/yOBo
and to check for skin. A high skin may indicate that
farther testing is needed to determine whether a rnte-
sensitive skin exists to decide whether stimulation or
teperforating is required.
Restricted Gas Well
Many operatora fail to tecognize the significance of
the exponent n for gas-well IpR equations obtained
from four-point tests. It is common to see expcments
of 0.7 to 0,8 .or less in gas wells. For exnmple, the
following equation was obtained from a U.S. @f
coast well after data were plotted on log-log paper.
c?gm@@W(5>oo02PW2107
Mcf/d.
The operntor of tiIs well had a market of 15
MMscf/D [424x 103 std m3 Id]. Note that tbk well
has an abso[ute o en-flow potential (AOFP) of 6,984
Mcf/D [198x 103Pm 3/d]. See Table 2 for AOFPs for
higher values of n.
Obviously, this well has a serious completion
restriction. Sufficient data are nlready available to plot
in the form suggested by Jones et al. 4 They suggested
plotting (p, 2 p ~f 2)/qg,, on the onihwe vs. qg.c on
the abscissa to evaluate the need for opening more
1760
;mjMy!y,: ,>,
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 I
RATE, B)D
Fig. 21 Pmduction vs. wellhead pressure.
area to flow than to stimniation. Refs. 3 aad 4 provide
more details on this procedure.
Effects of Wellhead And Separator Pressure
Specific cases of gas wells and gas-lift oil wells may
be influenced signiftaotly by changes in separator
pressure andior welfhead pressure.
A good plot for both oil and gas wells is a
deliverability plot of wellhead pressure vs. rnte and, in
turn, separator pressure vs. rate. This plot a.tso can
show the loading or critical rate and offers immediate
selection of rates based on wellhead pressures. The
sample data used to construct Fig. 19 arc used to
construct Flg. 20 at various wellhead pcessures. From
tMs graph, data are used to consmtct Fig. 21, which
demonstrates dte well response as a function of surface
pressu~.
Summm_y and Conclusions
NodaJ analysis is an excellent tool for optimizing the
objective ffow rnte on boti oil aod gas wells. A
common misconception is that often there are
insui%cient data to use thk analysis. Thk is tme in
some cases, but mzmy amazing improvements have
been made with very few data. The use of nodal
analysis has &so prompted the obtaining of additional
data by proper testing of numerous wells.
Aaother common statement is that there is too much
error involved in the vmious multiphase-flow tubing or
flowfiie correlations, completion formulas, etc., to
obtain meaningful resufts. Because of these possible
errors, it is sometimes dficult to get a pmdlctive
nodal plot to intersect at exacdy the same production
rate of the actual well. Even if current conditions
cannot be matched exactfy, however, the analysis can
show a percentage. increase in production with a
change, for instance, in wellhead pressure. These
JOORNALOF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
predicted possible increases often are fairly accufate
even without an exact match to existing flow rates.
Two detailed illustrations are given in this paper to
show .jhe effect of perforation shot density in both
gravel-packed and standard perforated wells on
production.
Nodsl analysis has completely altered perforation
philosophy in the U.S. snd has encouraged higher-
density perforating and use of open-hole completions
when practical. One of the most important aspects Of
nodal tiysis is that it offers engineers and managers
a tool to recognize quickly those components that an
restricting production rates.
Although not discussed in this paper, nodal analysis
is used to optimize all artificial lift methods. 3 Rate
predictions, along with horsepower requirements for
sll lift methods, cm be predicted, thereby permitting
easier selection of lift methods.
Finally, some ve~ complex network systems, such
as ocean-floor gas-lift fields (including gas allocation
t.omsximize rates) and most economical gas rates, can
be pfedlcted with this procedure.
Nodd analysis, however, should not be used
indkcriminately without the recognition of the
significance of all plots and the meaning of each
rslationsbip. Engineers should be tmined to understand
the assumptions that were used iR developing the
various mathematical models to describe well
components. Also, recognizing obvious ermrsnd
using practical judgment are necessary. Experience in
diffenmt opemting areas can indicate the accumcy to
be expected from various correlations used in nodal
mzalysis well models.
Nomenclature
B. = FVF, bbl/stb [m3/stock-tank m3]
Cl = numerical cnefticient
dp = perforation-tunnel diameter, in. [cm]
D = depth, ft [m]
e. = .cmshed-cone tlickness, in. [cm]
.h=height of pay interval, h [m]
hP =height of interval perforated, ft [m]
J= productivity index, B/D/psi [m3/d/kPa]
k= permeability
kc = penneabiity ofcmshed zone around
perforation, md
kf = formation penneabllity, md
LP =length of perfora.tion tunnel, in. [cm]
p = pressure, psi [kPa]
P_b bubblepoint pressure, psi [kPa]
p, = Kservoirpressure, psi [kPa]
pwf = BHFP, psi [~a]
P ~fi = wellhead pressure, psi [kpa]
Ap = pressure difference, psi ma]
qb = flOWrate at the bubblepoint, Mscf/D [103
std m3 /d]
q~~ = msxirnum flow rate, B/D [m3/d]
cIe = liquid flow rate, B/D [mS/d]
OCTOBER 19S5
T = temperature, F [C]
yg = gas gravity (air= 1.0)
y,, = water gfavity
y. = oil viscosity, cp pa.s]
1, Mach, J,, Pmano, E., and Brown, K.E.: A Nodal Approach for
Applying SYSteInSAndysiS to the Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil
or Gas Well,,, paper SPE 8025 available at SPE, .Richardson,TX.
2 Giiben, W. E.: , Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance, Drill.
and Prod Proc. , API (1954) 126-43.
3, Brown, K,E. et cl,: &Prod.cdm Optimization of Oil and Gas
Wells hy No&f Systems Analysis,>XTechml.g3 of Artificial Lf$
Methods, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa (1984) 4.
4 Joes, L.G. Bloum, E.M., and Glaze, C.E.: Use of Shofi Term
MultipleRateFlowTeststo PredictPerfmmmeofWellsHaving
T.I+JUleme,>7paperSPE6133 presented at the 1976 SPE Amma3
Technical Conference and Exhibiticm, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
5 Crouch, E.C. and Pack, K.J.: &SystemsAnalysis Use for the
DesiS and Evahafim of Higi-Ram Gas Wells,,, paper SPE 9424
presented.at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Confe=?ce and Ex-
hibition, Dalfas, Sept. 21-24.
6, Bell, W.T.: Perforating UnderbalancedEvolving Tech-
niques,, >J, Per, Tech. (Oct. 1984) 1653-62.
7 McLead, 33.0. Jr.: l%. Effect of Perforating Ccmditicmson Well
Performance,,> 3. Per. Tech. (lam 1983) 31-39.
8, Locke, S,: LAnAdvanced Method for Predicting fhe Prod. ctivitj
Ratio of a Pmfmated Well,,> 3. Per. Tech. (D,,. 19S1) 2481-S8.
9 Hong, K.C.: Productivity of Petiotated Completions in Forma-
tions With or Without Damage, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1975)
1027-3% Tram; , AIME, 259.
10 IGotz, I. A.,. Xmeger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: EffectofPerfomtion
Damage cm WdJ Productivity,,, J. Per. Tech. (Nov. 1974)
1303-1% Trans., AIME, 257.
11 Gxay, H.E.: Verticd Flow Comelation in Gas WeUs, User
Maumi for API 14B, .Mbswface Conmiled Safety Valve SizinS
Cbmpurer Program, App. B. API. Dallas (June 1974).
12 Vogel, J.V.: ..Inflow Performance Relationships for Soknion-Gas
Drive Well s, J. Pet. Jech. (Jan. 1968)S3-92 Trans.,AfME,
243.
13 Fetkovich, M,J.; .Thc Isochronal Testing of Oil W.Us,, paper
SPE 4529 presented at tie 1973 SPE Annuaf Meeting, Las Vegas,
seDL 30-oct. 3,
14 Suindig, M.B.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Damased
Wells Pmd.cing by Solution-Gas Drive,, > J. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1970) 1399-1400.
15 Eickmeier, J. R,: *How to Accurately Predict Future Well Pm-
ductilities,,, World Oil (May 1
1968) 99.
16 Dia.-Couto, L.E, and Gobm, N H.: <GeneralInflow Performance
Relationship for Solntion-Gas Reservoir Wells, J. Per. Tech.
(Feb. 1982,-., .-. .-.
?~~-~~
17 Uhri, D.C. and Blount, E. M,: ,&Pivot Poim Methcd Quickly
Predicts Well Pdmmance, ,S Wmid Oil (Mw 1982) 153-64
1s Aga@ R. G., A1-H.ssainY, ?., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: .A. In.
vemgmon of Wellbore Storage md Ski Effect in Unsteady Liq-
uid Flow: L Amdvtical Treatment. Sot. Pet. Em. J. (Sect.
1970) 279-9Ll T,&?., AIME, 249.
19 Agarwaf, R, G., Carter, R. D., and PoRock, C.B.: Evaluation
and Performance Predictim of Low-Permeability Gas Wells
S&mdamd by Massive Hydraulic Fracture,,3 J. Per. Tech. (March
1979) 362-72 Trans. , AIME, 267.
20 Lea, J. F.: C-AvoidPremamm Liquid fmadig in Tight Gas Wells
by Using Pmfrac and Pomfrac Test Da% Oil ??d Gas J. (Sept.
20, 19S2) 123.
21 Meg, H. M .1.: Production Systems Analysis of VerticaUy
Fmctured Wells,, paper SPHDOE 10S42 presented 81the 1982
SPFJDOE Unconventional Gas Recove~ Symposium, Pittsburgh,
May 16-18,
22 Greene, W.R.: ,Analyzing the Performance of Gas Wells,
Pm,, , 1978 .%utiwestem Petmlem Shmt Cows., Lubbock, TK
(APril 20-21) 129-35.
1761
 23. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K. E.: ?3xperimentd Study of
Fmssure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase
Flow in SmaJJ-Diameter Vertical Conduits,. J. Pet. Tech. (April
1963J 475-S4 Trans. ANE, .234.
24. Dins, H. Jr. andRos,N.CJ.: VerticalFlowof GasandLiquid
M,xturesin Wells,,, Pro.., gixti World Pet. Cong. (1963) 451.
25, Orkiwcwsti, J.: Wedicdng Two-Phase Prass.re Drops in Ver-
tical P,pes,,, J. Pet. Tech. (J.ne 1967) 829-38; Trans., A2ME,
240.
; 26, Beggs, H.D, and Brill, J. P.: A Study of Twc-Phase Flow in In-
clined Pipes,, >J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973) 607- 1.% Tram., .41ME,
255,
27, Aziz, K., Govicr, G.W., and Fogammsi, M.: %essure Dmp in
Wells Producing Oil and Gas,,, J. Cd.. Pet. Tech. (July-Sepl.
. ..-.,.. 38-d8
1972).
28. Dukkr, A, E. et .[.: Gas-Liqoid Flaw in Pipelines, 1. Research
Results, AGA-API Pmjmt NX-28 (May 1969).
29, Du!der, A.E. and Hubbard, M. G.: A Model for Gas-Liquid Slug
Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes, Ind. and Eng.
Chen. (1975) 14. No. 4.33747.
30. Eaton, i. A. et il.: The Predction of Flow Paftems, Liquid
Holdup and Ptessure Losses Occurring During Continuous TwG-
Phme Flow In HorizontalPipelines,,, J. Pet. .Tt-ch. (June 1967)
815-28; Tram,. , A3ME, 240.
31, CuUen&r, hM,H. and Smith, R. V.: Practical Solution of Gas-
Flow Equations for Wells and Pipelines witi Large Temperature
Gradients,, J. l+v. Tech, (D... 1956) 281-8R Tmm., A2ME,
207.
32. Poeimmnn, F.H. and Cmpenter, P. G.: The Muldpbase Flow of
Gas, Oil and Water Through Verdcal Flow String wilh Appliw.-
tion to the Designof Gas-Lift Installations, Drill. and Prod.
Pm,., API (1952) 251-317,
APPENDIX A
Inflow Performance
Inflow performumc is the ability of a well to give up
fluids to the welJbore per unit drawdown. For flowing
and gas-lift wells, it is plotted normally as stock-tunk
barrels of liquid per day (abscissa) vs. bottomhole
pressure (BHP) opposite the center of the completed
intend (ordimte). The total volumetric flow rote,
includlng free gas, can also be found with production
values and PVT data to cdcuIate, for instartce, a total
volume into a pump.
Brown et al. has given detailed example probIems
for most methods of constmcting IPR curves. Nothing,
however, replaces good test data, and many
procedures, in fact, do require from one to four
dlffemnt test pointsthat is, a stabl@ed rate and
conesponding BHFP, as well as the static BHP, arc
usually a minimum requirement for establiahlng a
good IPR.
IPR Methods for Oil Wells
For flowing pressure above the bubblepoint, test to
find the productivity index, or cnlculate the
productivity index from Darcys law.
For two- base flow in a reservoir, apply Vogels
procedure 1? or Darcys law using relative
permeability data.
For reservoir pressure greater thau bubblepoint
(P, >P~) and BHFp above or below the bubblepoint,
use a combination of a straight-line productivity index
above pb and Vogels 12 procedure below.
1762
.
The Fetkovich procedura 13 requifes a three-or fom-
flow-rate test plotted on log-log paper to determine sn
equation in the form of a gas-well backpressure
equation with a coeffkient and exponent determined
from plotted data. This is equivalent to armlysis of an
oil well with gas well relationships.
%audmgs 14 extension of Vogels wmk accom3ts for
flow-efficiency values other than 1.00. Jones et al. s4
procedure will determine whetier sufficient mea is
open to flow.
Futnre IPR Curves
The prediction of future IPR curves is critical in
determining when a well will die or will load up or
when it shoufd be placed on artiticid lift. The
foUowing procedures can be used (1) Fetkovich 13
procedure, (2) combination of Fetkotich and Vogels
equation, IS (3) Coutos 16 procedure, and the (4) PivOt
point method. 17
Transient IPR Curves
Oil or Gas WeIIs. A time element allowing fhe
constmction of IPR cmves for transient conditions can
be brought into Darcys law. This is important in
some wells because of the long stabfiza.tion time. (See
Ref. 3 for discussions by several authors.)
Fractured Oil and Gus Wells. The constmction of
IPR ctnves for fractured oil or gas wells has been
treated in the literature by Agsfwal et al., 18,19Lea, 20
and Meng. 21 Fractured wells can show flush
production initially but drop off considerably in rate at
future timex.
IPR Methods For Gas Weffs. GenemIIy, a three- or
four-flow-fste testis required for a gas weJl from
which a plot is made on log-log paper and the
appropriate equation derived.
q=cl(P2PLfV
where q is the mte of flow, Cl is a numerical
coeftkient, characteristic of the particular well, p, is
the shut-in rcse~oir pressure, p .f is the BHFP, and n
is a numerical exponent that is characteristic of the
psrticxdw weJL (See Ref. 22 for a discussion on gas
well pefionnance). Also, Darcys law can be used,
and the turbulence terms should always be included6
for all but the lowest rates.
Fructured and transient wells have Alsobeen treated
in the literature.
APPENDJX B
Muftiphase Flow Correlations
The use of multiphsse-flow-pipeline pressure-drop
correlations is very important in applying nodal
analysis.
The corrclationa that am most widely used at the
present time for vetical multipbase flow were
JOURhAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
developed by Hagedorn and Brown, 23 Duns smd Vertical Gas Flow. The procedu~ by (ldlender and
Ros, M Ros modification (Shell Oil Co., unpublished), Smith 31 and Poettmann aud C~enter32 are
Orkizewski, ~ Beggs and BriU,26 snd Aziz. 27 These recommended for gas-flow calculation in wells.
correlations calculate pressure drop ve~ well in certain
wells snd fields. However, one may be much better Wet Gas Wefla. We recommend the Gray
than the other under certain conditions, and field correlation 11 for wet gas wells.
pressure surveys are the onfy way to find out. Without
knowledge of a particular field, we would recommend S1 Metric Conversion Factors
beginning work with the correlations listed in the bbl X 1.589873 E01 = m3
above order. cu ft X 2.831 685 E02 = m3
ft X 3.048* E01 = m
Horizontal MuIti haae-Flow Pipeline CorreIationa. in. x 2.54* E+OO = cm
Beggs and Brill, 2? Dukler et al., 28 Dukler snd psi x 6.895757 E+OO = kPa
Hubbard, 29 Eaton er al., 30 and Dukler using Eatons
holdup28,30 nre the best horizontal-flow correlations. -conversion tam, i, exact. Jrl-
Again, we recommend to begin work using them in Origlml mans+t (SPE 14714] r%,bed in the SOcieV d Peto[eum Engineef$ .f.
the order given. tic, Aug. 19, 19S5,

. .

OCTOBER 1985 1763