SPE-171768-MS

Nodal Analysis for a Transient Production SystemPrinciples and

Application
Wentao Zhou and Raj Banerjee, SPE; Eduardo Proano, Schlumberger

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10 13 November 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Nodal analysis is the standard technique used to evaluate the performance of integrated production
systems. Two curves represent the capacities of the inflow and of the outflow, and the intersection of the
two curves gives the solution operating point. Limitations of traditional nodal analysis include that
results are offered only at a snapshot, not as a function of time
inflow performance relationship (IPR) models are limited, with none available for shale gas wells
analysis is performed on a well-by-well basis, with no account of multiwell interference.
We propose a new nodal-analysis method that enables the study of transient production systems in a
multiwell context and at different timesteps, with IPR models generated from a high-speed semianalytical
reservoir simulator and outflow curves output from a steady-state pipeline simulator. The use of analytical
reservoir simulation allows accurate, reliable modeling of the real inflow system, including deepwater and
unconventional wells. The new approach studies the time-lapse behavior of the system, with consideration
of production history and neighboring well interference.
This new method enables the study of transient deliverability at the wellhead, where the measurement
is usually available, and shows the time-lapse relationship between wellhead pressure and production rate.
We provide examples of wellhead deliverability and choke management and explain advantages of the
method with case studies involving tight and shale wells. The method is also applied to design and
optimize artificial lift in unconventional wells and to study the methods validity over time. In addition,
we discuss an example of operational well dynamics using time-lapse nodal analysis.
Additionally, this new method generates discussion about some concepts that are often taken for
granted. For example, what should be the definition of IPR in a transient production system? On the IPR
curve, is the zero-rate pressure the reservoir pressure? Can IPR curves at two different timesteps cross
each other? Finding the answers to these questions will help us better understand production systems.
The commonly used productivity index (PI) method is reviewed and compared with the new method.
Results show that the PI method should not be used when well operational conditions change.
2 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 1Location of various nodes (Mach et al. 1979).

Figure 2Nodal analysis with bottomhole solution (Mach et al. 1979).

Introduction
Nodal analysis has long been a key method used to evaluate the performance of an integrated production
system. Components in the system can include reservoir, completion, tubing string, subsurface safety
valves, surface choke, flowline and separator, etc. Nodes are placed to segment the system; each segment
is defined by different equations or correlations (Fig. 1; Mach et al. 1979). The solution node can be
selected, for example, at the bottomhole location or at Node 6 in the figure. Pressure drops or gains from
the starting point are added until the solution node is reached, which gives the inflow capacity or inflow
performance relationship (IPR). The same calculation applies from the solution node to the end point,
SPE-171768-MS 3

Figure 3Transient IPR (Meng et al. 1982).

Figure 4 Production history of a shale oil well. BHP bottomhole pressure, qo initial production rate, Qo cumulative production.

Figure 5Transient IPR by simple extrapolation from production history.

4 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 6 Rate transient analysis.

Figure 7Production prediction, from which future PI can be calculated by Eq. 4.

which gives the outflow capacity or tubing performance curve (TPC). The intersection of the two curves
gives the solution operating point, as in Fig. 2.
Traditional nodal analysis is static and considers a snapshot of the whole production life. It assumes
a pseudosteady-state or steady-state condition of the system. The IPR correlations are used to describe the
inflow system and are based on certain assumptions and are available for limited models: vertical well,
horizontal well, fractured well, etc. The analysis is performed on a well-by-well basis and without
considering the interference effect of a neighbouring well.
Transient IPR in Literature and Current Practice
When it comes to production in tight or shale formulations, it is widely accepted that pseudosteady-state
or steady-state IPR curves are not applicable and a transient time-changing IPR is required.
SPE-171768-MS 5

Meng et al. developed a transient IPR for finite

conductivity in vertically fractured wells that is
based on a semianalytical model at constant-rate
production, described by the following equation
(Meng et al. 1982):
(1)

where m(p) is real gas pseudopressure, pwf is

flowing bottomhole pressure (BHP), pi is initial
pressure, mwD is the dimensionless pseudopressure
drop solution of a fractured vertical well, tDxf is
dimensionless time, Fcd is dimensionless conductiv-
ity, qg is gas rate, and T is reservoir temperature.
With this equation, the IPR at any timestep t can be
computed given the input parameters. These IPRs
and the outflow curve at different wellhead pres-
sures are shown in Fig. 3. With this transient IPR,
two things are noteworthy: Figure 8 Time-lapse nodal analysis workflow.

Pwf Pi if qg 0, meaning that IPR always

starts from (0, pi)
IPR at time t is predetermined and not im-
pacted by the production history before time
t.
We will compare those findings with the results
from the new approach proposed by this paper in the
following sections.
Transient IPR curves for other models are found
in the literature and in industry software. In general,
Figure 9 Outflow curve.
if a dimensionless pressure solution is pD (t), then
IPR at any time t is given by
(2)

Or denote the unit rate pressure solution as

then
(3)

When production history is available, the current common practice to get the transient IPR is to
calculate the well PI (productivity index) using the traditional equation
(4)

to capture the time-changing behaviour of well productivity. Future IPRs are then obtained by simple
extrapolation. As an example, a shale oil production history is as shown in Fig. 4. The PI is then fitted
with the red line and extrapolated for a future transient PI, as in
6 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 10 Inflow for current timestep.

Fig. 5. Another approach is to match the produc-

tion history by reservoir simulation or rate transient
analysis (RTA), as in Fig. 6, and predict future
production using the history-matched model and
calculate a future PI using Eq. 4, as in Fig. 7.
Whether obtained by simple extrapolation, RTA, or
simulation, the predicted IPRs are then used for
future design of well completion, artificial lift, etc.
Note that when discussing IPR, all methods de-
scribed in this section use the same traditional PI
concept (i.e., Eq. 4) involving initial reservoir pres-
Figure 11Inflow curve and outflow curve.
sure pi. For the sake of discussion, we name this
group of methods the PI method, which will be
compared with the new method proposed in this paper.

Time-Lapse Nodal Analysis Principles

In numerical reservoir simulation, outflow curves can be defined for wells and simulation can be run with
wellhead pressure (WHP) control. This approach is sometimes referred to as integrated asset modeling
(IAM). Time-lapse nodal analysis mimics the IAM approach and conducts nodal analysis through
time-stepping, as shown in Fig. 8.
Each timestep comprises two primary partsinflow simulation and outflow simulation. The intersec-
tion of the inflow curve with the outflow curve gives the operating point, which is the solution of the rate
and BHP, given a wellhead pressure. The calculation then proceeds to the next timestep. Outflow
simulation, as usual, is performed using a steady-state pipeline simulator. For a given WHP, it gives a
relationship between production rate q and BHP pwf, similar to the relationship shown in Fig. 9. Expressed
in a mathematical form,
SPE-171768-MS 7

(5)

where h(n) represents the outflow curve at the nth

timestep. Inflow performance, rather than using cor-
relations as in traditional nodal analysis, is obtained
by running a semianalytical reservoir simulation
(Thambynayagam 2011; Zhou et. al. 2013; Gilchrist
et. al. 2007; Busswell et. al. 2006). It has the flex-
ibility of modeling the transient behaviour of real
reservoir and well configurations.
For instance, for a system (such as shown in Fig.
10) with two years of production history, the objec-
tive of inflow simulation is to get the relationship
between the BHP and rate for the current timestep.
Its obtained by running simulation from the start of
production, using all the historical rates and an
assumed rate for the current timestep. A multitude
of rates can be tried with a corresponding group of
BHP responses. These rates and their BHP re- Figure 12Next timestep.
sponses, represented on a plot of rate vs. BHP,
define the IPR for the current timestep, as in Fig. 11.
Or in a mathematical form,
(6)

where g(n) represents the inflow curve at the nth timestep. The semi-analytical reservoir model can be
single- or multiwell. For a multiwell model, all neighbouring well production is taken into account and
has an impact on the IPR. The intersection of the inflow curve and outflow curve in Fig. 11 gives the
solution of rate and BHP at the current timestep, and rate q(n), which concludes the computation of
this step:
(7)

Simulation then moves on to the next timestep, as in Fig. 12. The whole process continues until it
reaches the final timestep.
Time-lapse nodal analysis gives the solution at requested timesteps, which when taken all together,
shows the evolution of production. For example, in Fig. 13, early-time and late-time IPR curves obtained
from the simulator, together with the outflow curve throughout the time period, yield the production rate
and BHP as functions of time, as shown in Fig. 14. Another important observation is that average reservoir
pressure pavg, which is a required input for traditional nodal analysis, is not required in time-lapse nodal
analysis. Instead, pavg is an output.

Understanding IPR from Time-Lapse Nodal Analysis: Superposition Rule

An IPR derived from semi-analytical reservoir simulation shows distinct behaviour, sometimes contra-
dicting conventional nodal analysis wisdom. To explain this behaviour, we need to understand how
semi-analytical reservoir simulation is done, and most importantly, understand the superposition rule.
The analytical solution of the pressure diffusion equation follows this superposition rule: the variable-
rate solution can be obtained from the constant-rate solution.
8 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 13Inflow and outflow curves in time-lapse nodal analysis.

Figure 14 Time-lapse nodal analysis results.

Denote a unit rate solution, or consider the pressure drop because of a unit rate production, where p
pi pwf(t) pu(t). Then the pressure of the varying rate q(t) is
(8)

or for discrete rate changes,

(9)

Compare Eq. 9 to Eq. 3; we see that the PI method takes no account of superposition.
If rate history is known, qi q(ti), i 1 . . . N 1, the pressure response at the Nth timestep is
SPE-171768-MS 9

Figure 15IPR from superposition.

Figure 16 Pressure at zero rate: buildup pressure at a shut-in, not necessarily reservoir pressure.

(10)

which is essentially the IPR at the Nth timestep, with pwf(tN) as a function of qN. From this equation,
we can see that this IPR curve starts at a pressure , and the
slope is pu(tN tN1), as shown in Fig. 15.
Besides the rate superposition just described, there is also pressure superposition: the variable-BHP
solution can be obtained from the constant-BHP solution by superposition, using the following equation:
(11)

or for discrete BHP changes,

(12)

The effect of gas nolinearities is handled by gas pseudopressure and gas pseudotime. Just for the sake
of simplicity, this is not discussed in this paper.
10 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 17Productivity index (PI) from traditional concepts (left) and time-lapse nodal analysis (TLNA; right).

Figure 18 IPR curves independent of outflow curves.

Figure 19 IPR curves dependent on outflow curves: IPR curves for TPC1 (left) and TPC2 (right).

The superposition rule holds for tight formations and conventional reservoirs with high to medium
permeability. It holds for a transient, pseudo-steady state, and steady-state system. For a well centered in
a bounded, circular conventional reservoir, Eq. 10 becomes the following [according to Eq. A-42 in
Blasingame and Lee (1986)]:
(13)

where is the average reservoir pressure, and the slope ln is the well PI
according to Eq. A-25 in Blasingame and Lee (1986). Therefore, for such systems, time-lapse nodal
analysis reduces to traditional nodal analysis.
SPE-171768-MS 11

Figure 20 TLNA result for TPC1 and TPC2.

Figure 21Results of TLNA with timestep of 10 days (left), with sub-steps of 2 days between 30 40 days (right).

Figure 22Both methods show same rate result (left). But the IPR at t 40 days with 10-day step is steeper (or appears as lower productivity) than
that with 2-day step, and they intersect at the operating point (right).

Discussion of IPR Curve

The new concept of time-lapse nodal analysis brings new ideas to consider how we think of the inflow
performance curve. Some examples follow.
What does the pressure at zero rate mean on an IPR curve? According to the conventional IPR
concept, pressure at zero rate is the average reservoir pressure. But from the preceding analysis, we can
see this pressure is actually the buildup pressure for a shut-in (rate equals zero). In high-permeability
12 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 23Rate profile at constant BHP.

Figure 24 PI method (left) and TLNA (right) for a flat TPC.

conventional reservoirs, it may build up to the ac-

tual reservoir pressure, as shown by the black
dashed line in Fig. 16; then the meaning of pressure
at zero rate converges to the meaning in the con-
ventional concept. For unconventional shale reser-
voirs, the pressure may not be able to reach reser-
voir pressure, as depicted by the black solid line
(pwf) in Fig. 16. This new behavior renders it ideal
to model an unconventional reservoir because (1)
average reservoir pressure, which is extremely dif- Figure 25PI method and TLNA give the same result.
ficult if not impossible to measure, is no longer a
required input to create an IPR curve; and (2) the
so-called average reservoir pressure is a vague concept in an unconventional reservoiris it the average
pressure of the stimulated area, or the well space, or the entire reservoir?
What does well productivity mean? Well productivity, expressed in the field unitstock-tank barrels
per day per psi (STB/D/psi), is possibly the most common concept used in production engineering. It is
used to design completion, artificial lift, stimulation, and all aspects of well construction and operation.
On an IPR curve, well productivity is the reciprocal of the slope. For example, in the left graph of Fig.
17, PI1 PI2 PI3, whereas t1 t2 t3productivity decreases as a function of time. However,
according to the time-lapse nodal analysis IPR concept, the slope of the curve is always pu(tN tN1),
as shown in the right graph of Fig. 17. If timesteps are equally spaced, the slopes will be identical at all
times, making the so-called PI constant. Is it a contradiction to our common wisdom that productivity in
SPE-171768-MS 13

Figure 26 PI method (left) and TLNA (right) for an upward trending TPC.

Figure 27PI method and TLNA give similar result.

Figure 28 PI method (left) and TLNA (right) with a shut-in.

a shale well decreases as a function of time? Or that the conventional definition of the slope reciprocal
as productivity is no longer valid in a tight formation?
Is IPR a predefined property? The IPR of a well is generally considered a predefined attribute
independent of outflow curves and production history. For example, in Fig. 18, a set of IPRs are
predefined at three times and used for analysis for any outflow curves (e.g., curve TPC1 and TPC2), which
then gives the two production predictions as shown on the right. From time-lapse nodal analysis, however,
we know that IPR at one timestep is the result of superposition and is related to production history prior
to this timestep, which in turn is determined also by the outflow curve. As a result, IPR curves cannot be
predefined and can only be determined during the analysis. For example, in Fig. 19, IPR curves for TPC1
14 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 29 PI method fails to account for the shut-in.

Figure 30 PI method (left) and TLNA (right) with changing TPC.

Figure 31PI method fails to capture the rate increase due to lower BHP.

(high, constant pwf) are higher than those for TPC2 (low, constant pwf). The rate from TPC1 is lower than
the rate from TPC2 (Fig. 20).
Is well productivity a function of time only? Well productivity is normally considered a well
property associated with time (e.g., 05/26/2014) but not with timesteps (delta time, one day, one month,
one year, etc). For example, one always asks this kind of question: What is my well productivity today?
SPE-171768-MS 15

Figure 32Wellhead pressure vs. rate, and wellhead deliverability curve.

Figure 33Production history matching (before Feb. 2010) and prediction using TLNA with different wellhead pressures.

From time-lapse nodal analysis, however, we can see that IPR is strongly related to the timesteps used.
Given a constant unit rate, pressure drop always increases as time increases (i.e., Pu(t1) pu(t2) if t1
t2); therefore, we will have low productivity at large timesteps, regardless of the time itself. Results
shown on the left plot in Fig. 21 are from the nodal analysis with a constant pwf 1,500 psi at equal
timesteps, t 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 days. Because the timestep remains the same (10 days), all IPRs share
the same slope. The right plot in Fig. 21 shows results of the same nodal analysis, but one timestep (from
the time interval 30 days to 40 days) is divided into five sub-steps of 2 days each, t 32, 34, 36, 38, 40
16 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 34 Wellhead deliverability curves.

Figure 35Schmatic of shale oil well 4,600-ft lateral at TVD 6,500 ft with 28 fractures.

days. The IPRs at these five sub-steps show a distinctly different slope. Both analyses give the same result,
as shown on the left plot of Fig. 22. However, as shown on the right in Fig. 22, the IPR curve at t 40
days with the 10-day step is steeper, or appears as lower productivity, than that with the 2-day step, and
the two curves intersect at the operating point.
The dependence of the IPR on timestep is important because it means we cannot use the same set of
IPRs for long-term production prediction with a monthly timestep and for operational well dynamics when
a timestep is on the order of minutes and hours. This will be elaborated in a later section.
Comparison between Time-Lapse Nodal Analysis and the PI Method
We used a synthetic example under a variety of scenarios to compare the PI analysis method with the
time-lapse nodal analysis method. The synthetic model is a shale oil well in a reservoir with initial
reservoir pressure of 10,000 psi. The well production profile at constant pwf 6,000 psi is as shown in
Fig. 23. For the PI method, the transient PI at each month can be simply calculated by Eq. 4: PI
SPE-171768-MS 17

Figure 36 Sensitivity analysis of wellhead pressure for a shale oil well.

Figure 37Time-lapse nodal analysis result.

q(t)/(10000 6000) (Fig. 24). However, in the time-lapse nodal analysis method, PI at timestep N is
calculated by pressure-superposition (Eq. 12), considering the history pj, j 1 . . . N 1. The resulting
IPRs are shown on the right in Fig. 24. Because a period of 30 days is used for all timesteps, the IPRs
have the same slope, as explained in Fig. 17.
Flat tubing performance curve
Under constant BHP, the two methods give the same result (Fig. 24 and Fig. 25).
18 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 38 Production profile under constant pwf 2000 psi for a shale well.

Figure 39 Well under natural flow, by PI method (left) and TLNA (right).

Figure 40 PI and TLNA methods give same result for natural flow.

Upward tubing performance curve

Even for a slightly upward trending tubing performance curve, the two methods give similar results (Fig.
26 and Fig. 27).
SPE-171768-MS 19

Figure 41Future production under natural flow, by PI method (left) and TLNA (right).

Figure 42Well follows the same trend with natural flow.

Figure 43Future production with ESP and frequency 60 Hz, by PI method (left) and TLNA (right).

Effect of shut-in
Suppose the well produced for three months and then was shut down for three months and opened again
afterwards. The modeling of this process by the two methods with a constant pwf is shown in Fig. 28.
When compared with Fig. 24, we see that the PI method yields the same IPR curves, with or without
shut-in. After shut-in, the IPR curves in the time-lapse analysis move to the right, indicating a higher
production rate.
20 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 44 Future production with ESP and frequency 60 Hz.

Figure 45Future production with ESP and frequency 45 Hz, by PI method (left) and TLNA (right).

Figure 46 Future production with ESP and frequency 45 Hz.

Production after a shut-in will increase because of the charging of the formation during shut-in. The
time-lapse nodal analysis correctly captures this behaviour (Fig. 29). In contrast, the PI method fails to
account for the shut-in, giving exactly the same production trend despite the shut-in. Also, examine pwf
SPE-171768-MS 21

Figure 47Future production with ESP and frequency 30 Hz, by PI method (left) and TLNA (right).

Figure 48 Future production with ESP and frequency 30 Hz.

Figure 49 Production profile at 60 Hz (red), 45 Hz (green), and 30 Hz (blue), from PI method (dashed line) and TLNA (solid line).

during the shut-in, from 90 days to 180 days; the PI method moves pwf back to the initial pressure of
10,000 psi, but the time-lapse analysis correctly models the pressure buildup.
Two tubing performance curves
When the operational parameter of the well changes, for example, when the choke is opened wider or
artificial lift is installed and the BHP is lowered from 2,500 psi to 1,100 psi, we see from Fig. 30 and Fig.
22 SPE-171768-MS

Figure 50 Pump VSD curves overlayed with the production profile at different frequency, from PI method (left) and TLNA (right).

Figure 51Choke position cycle, by PI method (left) and TLNA (right).

Figure 52Slope difference between PI method and TLNA.

31 that the time-lapse nodal analysis method captures the rate increase correctly, and the PI method fails
to do so.
The PI method yields a good approximation when well operational conditions remain unchanged. If
there are changes in, for example, choke positions, lifting mechanisms, or shut-ins, the PI method will
greatly underestimate the production after the change and should not be used.
SPE-171768-MS 23

Figure 53PI method overestimates pwf flunctuation and underestimates rate fluctuation.

Application of Time-Lapse Nodal Analysis

The following examples show the application of time-lapse nodal analysis. Although the examples are
either tight or shale wells, the principles apply to studies of any type of wells when the traditional nodal
analysis falls short of expectations.
Wellhead deliverability
Well deliverability is usually referenced at bottomhole conditions in terms of the PI (STB/D/psi).
However, bottomhole deliverability is hard to use operationally if downhole pressure measurement is not
available in relevant time. Because wellhead pressure is readily available most of the time, wellhead
deliverability will shed light on well performance and guide well operations. For example, Fig. 32 is the
crossplot of wellhead pressure vs. gas rate for a tight gas well. The color scale represents time blue
refers to time back in history and red refers to the most recent time. The dots are aligned in a set of straight
lines corresponding to different choke positions. What is the wellhead deliverability today? If it is Curve
A, the well has a lot more production potential than if it is Curve B.
To predict wellhead deliverability curves, we can history-match the production using rate transient
analysis and predict into the future at different wellhead pressures using time-lapse nodal analysis, as
shown in Fig. 33. Keeping the same WHP of 1689 psi would continue the rate-declining trend (brown
curve in the bottom pane of the figure); lowering WHP to 250 psi would boost the rate from 1 MMscf/D
to 4 MMscf/D before it falls back again due to depletion. Wellhead pressure vs. predicted rate at different
timesteps can be plotted together, as in Fig. 34, which shows the wellhead deliverability. These curves can
be used in well operations, for example, in choke management.
Shale oil well production performance
A 4,600-ft-long shale oil well at a depth of 6,500 ft has 28 hydraulic fractures and a tubing size of 2.875
in., as shown in Fig. 35. For simplicity, fractures are equidistant and of equal length. We analyzed the
sensitivity of wellhead pressure with the time-lapse nodal analysis method. Fig. 36 shows the IPR and
TPC curves at eight timesteps for two wellhead pressures: 100 psi and 500 psi. The upper TPC is for WHP
500 psi; the lower one is for WHP 100 psi. The IPR at the first timestep (the outermost one) is the
same for both pressures. Starting from the second timestep (because the history from previous timesteps
is different), the IPR curves differ for these two cases. In Fig. 37, the result, plotted as a function of time,
shows that cumulative production at low WHP is about twice that the cumulative production at high WHP.
Production at WHP 500 psi would reach the economic limit of 20 barrels per day (B/D) in 7 months;
for WHP 100 psi, the limit would be reached in 2 years. The BHP of the scenario with WHP 500
psi is about 3,000 psi, and it is about 2,500 psi when the WHP 100 psi.
24 SPE-171768-MS

Artificial lift design and optimization for shale well

Next, we will apply time-lapse nodal analysis and model the production of a shale oil well under artificial
lift and optimize the performance of the pump.
The shale oil well has a reservoir with initial reservoir pressure of 4,200 psi. Fig. 38 shows the well
production profile at constant pwf 2,000 psi. We modeled production under natural flow of 100 days
using the PI method and the time-lapse nodal analysis method (Fig. 39); both give the same result (Fig.
40), which is expected because the well operational condition is unchanged.
Now, consider this 100-day production as the well history, and we want to investigate artificial lift
methods for the future. If the same natural flow is maintained, production follows the same trend and both
methods give the same result (Fig. 41 and Fig. 42). If an electrical submersible pump (ESP) is installed,
in this case A REDA DN1750 with 322 stages, and we set the frequency at 60 Hz, as seen in Fig. 43 and
Fig. 44, pwf is lowered to 1,000 1,500 psi. The production jumps to 1,200 B/D and falls back to 800 B/D
in 100 days. On average, the PI method underestimates the rate by 200 B/D.
The production rate through a pump should be optimized so that it falls within the recommended
operating range (ROR) to avoid downthrust and upthrust. Variable speed drives (VSDs) can vary the
speed of pumps and enable pumps to operate across a wider range, improve performance, and optimize
productivity. So next, we investigate the effect of different frequencies on the resulting production profile.
If the frequency is set at 45 Hz, as seen in Fig. 45 and Fig. 46, pwf is lowered to 2,000 2,500 psi. The
production jumps to 1,100 B/D and falls back to 600 B/D in 100 days. On average, the PI method
underestimates the rate by 160 B/D. If the frequency is set at 30 Hz, as seen in Fig. 47 and Fig. 48, pwf
is lowered to ~2,000 psi. The rate jumps to 800 B/D and falls back to 500 B/D in 100 days. On average,
the PI method underestimates the rate by 85 B/D. Fig. 49 is a summary of the production rate at different
frequency values, modeled using both methods. In general, both the effect of an ESP on production and
the impact of a different frequency are underestimated by thePI method.
The production rate at different frequency values, modeled using both methods, is overlayed with the
pump VSD curves in Fig. 50. The rate predicted by the PI method is totally outside the recommended
operating range, whereas the rate profile from time-lapse analysis falls into the efficient range for 45 Hz
and 30 Hz. This means that the use of the PI method would result in a false optimization of the pump.

Operational well dynamics

The preceding examples show the application of time-lapse nodal analyis on long-term production
behaviour, on the order of months to years. The method also has application on short-term operational well
dynamics, those with a time scale of hours to days. Timesteps can be as small as seconds. As previously
discussed, the timestep is a key parameter that determines the slope of the IPR curves, and the use of a
wrong IPR would give wrong results. Full study of well dynamics would require the link of transient
inflow simulation with transient outflow simulation. In this paper, we will explain only the importance of
having the right transient inflow model by linking with a steady-state outflow simulation. A full study is
the topic of another paper.
As an example, in the shale well in Fig. 40 under natural flow after 100 days, the choke is opened at
8/64, 16/64, 32/64 and 64/64 in. sequentially, each for one hour in a four-hour cycle. The well behaviour
is modelled with both methods in Fig. 51. Two sets of IPR curves from the two methods shown in Fig.
51 have totally different slopes. If the IPRs from time-lapse nodal analysis are overlayed on top of the
results from the PI method, as shown in Fig. 52, well productivity from time-lapse analysis is 12.5 B/D/psi
and only 0.285 B/D/psi according to the PI method, a difference of 44 times.
For the resulting rate and pressure profile, as shown in Fig. 53, the PI method predicts a BHP
fluctuation of about 1,000 psi, but the time-lapse method predicts that the BHP fluctuation will be less
than 200 psi. The rate from the PI method fluctuates in a range of 500 B/D, whereas the time-lapse method
predicts a fluctuation range of 1,500 B/D in this 4-hour cycle.
SPE-171768-MS 25

The huge difference in the IPRs and the resulting pressure and rate profile has a big impact in
multiphase flow regimes and dynamic well behaviour. This topic will be further investigated with both the
transient inflow model and transient outflow model in a separate paper.

Conclusions
With respect to the traditional nodal analysis technique (PI method), the new nodal analysis method
provides significant advantages:
Time-lapse nodal analysis has application in both unconventional and conventional resources.
Time-lapse nodal analysis captures the transient behaviour of a production system.
The IPR is generated using semi-analytical reservoir simulation or superposition; no IPR corre-
lations are required.
Production performance as a function of time can be investigated, not just a static snapshot.
Time-lapse nodal analysis captures wellhead deliverability as a function of time.
Time-lapse nodal analysis is suitable for study of operational well dynamics and artificial lift
design and optimization.
The PI method only can be used when well operational conditions remain unchanged.
The PI method underestimates production and should not be used for artificial lift design and
optimization for wells in tight/shale formations.
The PI method overestimates BHP fluctuation and underestimates rate fluctuation.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Schlumberger for supporting this work and giving permission to publish
this paper. We also thank Diego A. Narvaez for the discussion on ESP optimization.

Nomenclature
A reservoir area, ft^2
B volume factor
CA Dietz shape factor
ct total compressbility, 1/psi
Fcd fracture conductivity, dimensionless
h pay zone thickness, ft
k formation permeability, md
mwD pseudopressure drop of a fractured vertical well, dimensionless
Pu unit rate pressure, psi/(B/D)
Pi initial reservoir pressure, psi
Pwf flowing bottomhole pressure, psi
Pwh wellhead pressure, psi
q production rate, B/D or Mscf/D
qo oil production rate, B/D or Mscf/D
qu unit drawdown rate, (B/D)/psi
Q cumulative production, bbl or Mscf
rw wellbore radius, ft
t time
tDxf dimensionless time
T temperature
0.577216, Eulers constant
viscosity, cp
26 SPE-171768-MS

porosity, fraction

CONVERSION FACTORS
bbl 1.589 873 E 01 m3
cp 1.0* E 03 Pas
ft 3.048* E 01 m
in. 2.54* E 00 cm
psi 6.894 757 E 00 kPa

References
Blasingame, T.A., and Lee, W.J. 1986. The Variable-Rate Reservoir Limits Testing. Presented at the
SPE Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, 1314 March. SPE-15028-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15028-MS.
Busswell, G., Banerjee, R., Thambynayagam, R.M.K., et alet al. 2006. Generalized Analytical
Solution for Reservoir Problems with Multiple Wells and Boundary Conditions. Presented at the
Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1113 April. SPE-99288-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99288-MS.
Gilchrist, J.P., Busswell, G., Banerjee, R., et alet al. 2007. Semi-analytical Solution for Multiple Layer
Reservoir Problems with Multiple Vertical, Horizontal, Deviated and Fractured Wells. Presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, UAE, 4 6 December. IPTC-11718-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2523/11718-MS.
Mach, J., Proano, E., and Brown, K.E. 1979. A Nodal Approach for Applying Systems Analysis to the
Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas Well. SPE-8025-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/8025-MS.
Meng, H.Z., Proano, A.P., Buhidma, I.M., et alet al. 1982. Production Systems Analysis of Vertically
Fractured Wells. Presented at the SPE/DOE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 16 18 May. SPE/DOE-10842. SPE of AIME.
Thambynayagam, R.M.K. 2011. The Diffusion Handbook: Applied Solutions for Engineers. New
York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Zhou, W., Samson, B., Krishnamurthy, S., et alet al. 2013. Analytical Reservoir Simulation and Its
Applications to Conventional and Unconventional Resources. Paper SPE 164882-MS Presented at the
EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC, London, UK, 10 13 June.
SPE-164882-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164882-MS.

* Conversion factor is exact.