Distinguished Author Series Nodal Systems Analysis of Oil and Gas Wells ‘By Kermit E. Brown, SPE, and James F. Lea, SPE Kermit E. Brown is FM. Stovenson Professor of Petroleum Engineering atthe U. of Tulsa. Since 1966 Brown has sorved as head ofthe Petroleum Engineering Dept. vice Dresidont of esearch, and chavman of the Resources Engineering Dv. He has conducted ‘many courses on gas if, multiphase flow, and inflow perlormance and served as 2 Distinguished Lecturr during 1969-70. Brown holds a BS degree in mochanical and petroleum engineering rom Texas A&M U. and MS and PhD degrees from the U-of| Texas, both n petrolaum engineering. Brown served as the SPE faculty advisor for the U, of Tulsa student chaptor dung 1982-83, He also s0/ved on the SPE board dung 1965-72, the Ecucation and Protessionalism Committee during 7966-67, and the Education and Accreditation Commitee during 1964-86 and was Balcones Section ‘chairman during 1964-65. He is currenty on the Public Service Award Commitee ‘James F. Lea isa research associate Inthe Production Mechanics Group of mace Production Co. in Tulsa. He works on computor implementation of existing design and ‘analysis methods for artical it and improved application techniques. Previously, he Worked with Pratt & Whitney Aircraft and Sun Of Co. and taught engineering sofonce at the university level. Les holds BS and IS degrees in mechanical anginering and a PAD \dogroe in tMermalfuld science from Southern Methodist U, alias, ‘Summary Nodal! analysis, defined as a systems approach to the ‘optimization of oil and gas wells, is used to evaluate thoroughly a complete 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. All present ‘components—beginning with the static reservoir pressure, ending with the separator, and including inflow performance, as well as flow across the completion, up the tubing string (including any downhole restrictions and safety valves), across the surface choke (if applicable), through horizontal flow lines, and into the separation faclities—are analyzed. Introduction ‘The objectives of nodal analysis are as follows. 1. To determine the flow rate at which an existing oil or gas well will produce considering wellbore ‘geometry and completion limitations (first by natural flow). 2. To determine under what flow conditions (which ‘may be related to time) a well will load or dic. 3. To select the most economical time for the installation of artificial 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. Cony 568 Sao of Pataeum Engrs OCTOBER 1985 5. To check each component in the well system to determine whether it is restricting the flow rate ‘unnecessarily, 6. To permit quick recognition by the operato ‘management and engineering staff of ways to increase production rates. ‘There are numerous oil and gas wells around the world that have not been optimized to achieve an objective rate efficiently. In fact, many may have been completed in such a manner that their maximum, potential rate cannot be achieved. Also, many wells, placed on artificial lift do not achieve the efficiency they should The production optimization of oil and gas wells by ‘nodal systems analysis has contributed to improved completion techniques, production, and efficiency for many wells. Although this type of analysis was proposed by Gilbert? in 1954, it has been used extensively in the U.S. only in the last few years. One principal reason for this 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 easily understood ata, ast conservation practices in the U.S. more or less restricted operators to 2- and 2¥4-in. [5.08- and 6.35-em] tubing and 4 shots/ft {13.1 shots/m] for perforating. The use of larger tubing (41 and 54 in\seeararor yowio Rov Pose! |G) : Ah + Py =Pate = L085 m1 POROUS wEDIUM sere Af + Rats-Pat + LOSS ACROSS CONPLETION FatPan * ResTRICTION BOTTOM Ho4 SAFETY vaLvE ReSTmeTON | Ie +" sunace HOKE anon | Lp % . LOWLINE Tew AR, + Pyt Pah = TOTAL LOSS IN TUBING 7 BP + Panay * Flown Lids MC an stgelaes Boansth-runal Fig. 1—Possible pressure losses in complete system. [11.43 and 13.97 em)) and 16 shots/t (52.5 shots/m] is common today’ Although the increase in flow rates in high: productivity wells has popularized nodal analysis, i is. nevertheless, an excellent tool for low-rate wells (both oil and as) a8 well as for all artificial lit wells. Some of the greatest percentage increases in production rates have occurred in low-rate oil wells (from 10 to 30 B/D 11.59 10 4,77 m*/d) and low-rate gas wells (from 50 up to 100 to 200 Mscf/D [1416 up to 2832 10 $663 std m?/dl). Numerous gas wells have needed adjustments, in tubing sizes, surface pressures, et., to prolong the onset of liquid Toading problems. Nodal analysis ean be used to estimate the benefits of such changes before they are made, One of the most important 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 necessary. For example, assume that a well is producing 320 B/D [51 m¥/d] of oil. Applying nodal analysis to this well shows that it is capable of producing $10 B/D [81 m3/d]. This difference may be attributed to several factors, but nodal analysis can determine which component is restricting the rate of can determine that incorrect data are the cause of the higher predicted rate. A basic requirement for well analysis isthe ability to define 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 1982 ‘models of other well components can be used 10 complete the predicted well performance. Fig. 1 shows components that make up a detailed flowing well system. Beginning with the reservoir and proceeding to the separator, the components are (1) reservoir pressure, (2) well productivity, (3) wellbore completion, (4) tubing string, (5) possible downhole restrictive device, (6) tubing, (7) safety valve, (8) tubing, (9) surface choke, (10) flowline, and (11) separator. ‘To optimize the system effectively, each component ‘must be evaluated separately and then as a group 10 evaluate the entire well producing system. The effect Of the change of any one component on the entire system is very important and can be displayed graphically with well analysis. Some aspects of the IPR component are covered in Appendix A: discussion of multiphase-flow pressure-drop correlations for pipelines is found in Appendix B. ‘The most common positions for nodal analysis ‘graphical solutions are listed below. 1. At the center of the producing interval, at the bottom of the well. This isolates the well’s inflow performan 2. At the top of the well (wellhead). This isolates the flowline or the effects of surface pressure on production, 3. Differential pressure solutions (4p) across the completion interval to evaluate the effect of the ‘number of perforations on production in gravel-packed fr standard completion wells JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYo oP ° ° Rate RATE => Fie, 2-Consructed PR cure Fig, S~Constructed tubing Intake curve 4. Solutions atthe separator, especially with palit Specific Examples 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 downhole restrictions. ‘The user must understand how pressure-flow ‘components of the well are grouped to form a graphical solution at a node point. For example, if the solution is plotted at the bottom of the well (center of completed interval), then the reservoir and the completion effects can be isolated completely from the entire piping and production system. Caution should be taken in neglecting even 200 to 300 ft (61 to 91 m] of casing flow from 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 nearly full of completion fluids (water and mud), even though the well may be producing 100% oil. Numerous flowing-pressure surveys have verified this occurrence. A major company recently surveyed a well producing 1,600 B/D (254 m°/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-f [3353-m] well. Both water and mud were [17.8-cm] casing below the tubing, ceven though the well produced 100% oil. Cleaning this well resulted in an increase of the rate to more than 2,000 B/D [318 m3/d} of oil. This points out one type of practical limitation of nodal analysis when tubing-pressure-drop calculations are used to calculate accurately a bottomhole flowing pressure (BHEP). Here, the analysis showed that the rate should be higher and, hence, served as a diagnostic tool that prompted the running of a pressure traverse. In many ‘cases, the analysis predicts what should be expected, and the operator is advised to look for problems if the well is producing below that prediction OCTOBER 1985 ‘A limited number of examples are presented here; ‘numerous examples, however, appear in the literature. ‘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 standard perforated well is presented. Procedures to optimize the completions are outlined. 2. Quick recognition of those wells with a greater predicted potential than the present production rate is covered, These situations may be caused by restriction in one of the components in the system. Gravel-Packed Oil and Gas Wells ‘A paper presented by Jones et al.* seemed to be the catalyst that started operators looking more closely at their completions. This paper also suggests procedures for determining whether a well’s inflow capability is restricted by lack of area open to flow, by skin caused by mud infiltration, etc. Ledlow and Granger? have prepared an excellent summary of background material on gravel packing, including details on mechanical running procedures and selection of gravel size. ‘The nodal analysis procedure for a gravel-packed well, illustrated with a sequence of figures, is presented here. The appropriate details, additional references, and equations can be found in Ref. 3 The following procedure is valid for either an oil or gas well with the solution node at bottombole. 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 drop plotted as a function of rate. nsAP, OP, AP BHP exe or ap “AP ap. GRAVEL PACK oO, ° RATE > ° RATE > Fig. 4—Transter ap. 3. Transfer the differential pressure available between the node inflow and node outflow curve on the same plot (Fig. 4) to a Ap curve. 4. Using the appropriate equations, calculate the pressure drop across the completion for various rates. Numerous variables have to be considered here, inchuding shots per foot, gravel permeability, viscosity and density of the fuid, and length ofthe perforation tunnel for linear low. Add this Ap curve on Fig. 4, as noted in Fig. 5. 5. Evaluate this completion (Fig, 5) wo determine whether the objective rate can be achieved with an accepted differential across the gravel pack. Company Philosophies on accepted Ap values differ. A reasonable maximum allowable Ap that has given {good results ranges from 200 to 300 psi (1379 to 2068 Pal for single-phase gas or liquid flow. Most ‘operators will design for smaller Ap's for multiphase flow across the pack. Fig. 5—Construct Ap across gravel pack. 6. Evaluate other shot densities or perhaps other hole sizes until the appropriate Ap is obtained at the objective rate (Fig. 6). Perforation efficiency should ’be considered at this time. A good review on perforating techniques, which points out such factors a the number of effective holes expected and the effect of the number of holes and hole sizes on casing strength, was presented by Bell.® 7. The Ap across the pack can be included in the TPR curve, as noted in Fig. 7, Example Problem—Typical Gulf Coast Well With Gravel Pack. Below is a list of given data .000 psi (27.6 MPa}, 1,000 ft [3352 m] (center of perforations), 100 md (permeability to gas), 30 ft {9.1 m} (pay interval), ‘hy = 20 fi (6.1. m} (perforated interval), RATE => Fig. 6—Evaluation of various shot densities. vse RATE => Fig. 7—Gravel pack solution by including Ap completion in IPR curve. JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYa DEPTH: = 11,000 Pin = 1200 PSI 6 8 g x x 4 a P, = 4000 Psi é DEPTH = 11,000 ab k= 100 mo A 1 Ly 14 14 3 a ao 80100 F200 03304087 ATE, MMCFO RATE, MMCFD Fig. @IPR curve for gas well—gravel-pack analysis. 40/60-mesh gravel-packed sand, 640-acre [259-hal spacing, 8¥-in, [21.9-cm] casing; 10%-in. [27.3-em] riled hole, y= 0.65, screen size = S-in. [12.7-em] OD, gas-sales-line pressure short flowline. 200 psi 18273 kPa}, This well is to be gravel packed. The tubing size ‘and the number of shots per foot arc to be evaluated ‘with an underbalanced tubing-conveyed gun. It is assumed that there is no computable zone restriction Evaluation of tubing sizes. around the perforation because of unconsolidated formation—that is, sand flows immediately into all perforated holes until properly prepacked, Procedure. 1. The IPR curve is prepared with Darcy's law, and the additional turbulence pressure drop* is included Fig. 8). 2. Tubing sizes of 2% 3%, and 44% in. [7.3, 8.89, and 11.43 em] are evaluated at a wellhead pressure of 1,200 psi {8272 kPal, which is needed to flow gas into the sales line. From analysis of Fig, 9, 44%-in [11.43-cm] tubing is selected, Note that, if market iP | vepra = 13,000 wal Pane i200 Pst . % 2 2 I 4 ap q a a a a a ATE, MCFD ATE, MMCED Fig. 30—Ap avaliable rom sandtac to tubing i Fig. 1p across gravel pack a 4 ocrostk 19s iss4 4 3 See B . z 8g x 2 a2 ‘ 5 AP Dept = 11,000" 1 41/2" TuBING Pah = 1200 PS! 0 102030485870 002030470 RATE, MMCFD RATE, MMCFO Fig. 12—Completion effects included with IPR—gravet- packed well conditions permitted, much higher rates could 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 the pack for 0.75-in, [1,905-em] diameter holes with 4, 8, 12, and 16 effective shots/ft 113.12, 26.2, 39.4, and 52.5 effective shots/m) (Fig, 11) should be calculated with Jones et al.’s equations ‘or with modifications of these equations adjusted to fit 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] ata rate oF 58.5 MMscf/D [1.7% 10° std m¥/d]. Additional perforations could bring this 4p below 200 psi (1379 kPa 6. To bring this well on production properly, one more plot (such as Fig. 13) should be made with several wellhead pressures so that Ap across the pack can be watched through the observation of rate and wellhead pressure, This procedure is described by Crouch and Pack’ and Brown ef al.? Nodal Analysis To Evaluate a Standard Perforated Well In 1983 McLeod” published a paper that prompted ‘operators to examine completion practices on normally perforated wells. Although numerous prior publications®-" discussed this topic and companies had evaluated the problem, this paper sparked new interest. A modification of this procedure is presented in Ref. 3. ‘The procedure is similar to that offered for gravel- packed wells, except that the equations used for the calculation of pressure drop across the completion have been altered to model flow through a perforation 1736 Fig. 13—Etects of wellhead pressure—gravel-packed well surrounded by a low-permeabilty zone. They still incorporate basic concepts suggested by Jones et al¢ for gravel-packed wells Example Problem and Procedure for a Perforated Well In this section, a sample oil well with a low GOR, a low bubblepoint pressure, and assumed single-phase liquid flow across the completion will be analyzed, ‘The reason for this 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 ‘gravel-packed wells and creates more energy losses. McLeod? noted that most of the pressure drop can ‘occur across a compacted zone at the perforation wall because of turbulence. He analyzed a gas-well example and showed that 90% of the total Ap across the completion, in fact, was caused by turbulence ‘across the approximately '4-in, [1.27-cml -thick ‘compacted zone. (Refs. 3 and 7 provide more details). ‘To use this technique, the crushed-zone thickness, €c, the permeability, k, the perforation-tunnel diameter, dp, and the length, Lp, must be known. ‘Obviously, because of the many input variables required, the technique can only be approximate and indicate trends. It is hoped that future research in this area will lead to more accurate models of pressure and Aziz.?” These correlations calculate pressure drop very well in certain wells and fields. However, one may be much better than the other under certain conditions, and field pressure surveys are the only way to find out. Without knowledge of a particular field, we would recommend beginning work with the correlations listed in the above order. Horizontal Multiphase-Flow Pipeline Correlations. Beggs and Bril®* Dukler et al.,?® Dukler and Hubbard,” Eaton er al.,2 and Dukler using Eaton's holdup?*2° are the best horizontal-flow correlations Again, we recommend to begin work using them in the order given. OCTOBER 1985, Vertical Gas Flow. The procedures by Cullener and Smith*" and Poettmann and Carpenter™ are recommended for gas-flow calculations in wells. Wet Gas Wells We recommend the Gray correlation" for wet gas wells. SI Metric Conversion Factors bbl x 1.589873 E-0l = m? cu ft x 2.831685 E-02 = m? fi x 3.048" Ol =m in, x 2.54% E+00 = cm psi X 6.895757 E+00 = kPa coment at wr iat ne 19 nnn sy acon Erne v8