ml

SPE 29782

Development of a Network and Gas LiftAllocationModel for

ProductionOptimizationin the Ras Budran Field
Y.A.-W.E1-Massryand A.D. Price, Suez 011 Co.
-...,-.. -—.
arc MelnData
~ 1W5.
sOcktY
cdP.b’obum EwIIN61s, k

lhbpwwwm ~torpmMMiIM@HwsPE Mklflb@a OUShwhdd in Sduah, tl-14W 1S65

mbmwmnla2i9dti Pmnmmimbym
sPEPmgmmcamllMu
--~~wnhhd blmSlmImct
S4wMtodtyttwauthq
o).cllnl,md*~,
-~. titim~wti md~wwmtimw m~hbtims). m~, u~, ad~m~
POdt&mdt&O&lhc’c’cd
PObvlwm
E_, b_, w~. b~a=Qmameh h@~*mhdti~
malwultoan~l)tnalnmwmlme. shb8tbNnnynmb0w. nN~tiammin~~
01 whom md by whom =kma. WI’S, lJbIWUI, SPE, P.O. Son SSSSSS, ~, TX 7S0GSWS, U.SA., Tolmt, 1SS24S SPEUT.

ABSTRACT rw”ons to the first atage gas la-l separation at the

process platform, taking W accamt the interac-
Z& Ros Budran Field lies cm the eazt side of tim of the other wells in predicting pressure and
the GLlf of Suez 5 KM offshore. l%e field umwnen- ffow rate responses. The gaz liftaihcation model
ced pdUCt&Wl in Jan 1983 and gas lift was imple- has been used forrcutine produdon optimization
mented in 1985. The pmdudion System ~“sts of 3 and ahcatia of lift gas in a mwfti well netwo-
well-head platforma delivering prodwtia to a central rked model, as well as for predictkm of fwture sys-
process piatfonn via 12’ pipelines. The produced tem r~”rements and identificatitm of deMtle-
fluids are subjeeted to a firstztage gazloilseparatkm necking op-”ties.
before being pumped onshore. All 1S wells are gas
lifted with limited pot~”al for natural flow. Xhe high INTRODUCTION
pressure gaz lift supply is limited by compressor
capacity and fieldpmdwtion o~”m”zation is achieved The analysis of multiphsse flow, from the
by proper gas lift alkeatian between wells. reservoir through the well conduit, flowline and
to the first gss/oil separator, is a major compo-
Z& paper describes the umstnuticm and use nent of field production optimization. Too
of a network and gas liftafkuation model simulating often: production svstem
–, --- performance is merely
the combined performancee of the mse~”r, prvduc- considered as a fixed input to a reservoir model.
tim wells,flowlines and gas lift system. A network In practice, in addition to its direct influence on
model analysis is performed by eafemlating the overall well completion design, flowlines, gas lift gas
. ..A — —---—.—- ,—––-–L
aymm pressure uwxcs Dy iterti”ng ftw pmsswres and suppiy pressure/ quantities and production
fiinv ratez at all pmduetion m?dea /wing x~”fied facilities, the analysis of pressure losses in a
two pints at the reaervuir and separator. l%e inte- production system often plays as essential a part
grated pmdwdion network is treated as a singk hter- as reservoir considerations in arriving at a final
active model thruwgh the applicatitm of mdtiphase development plan (production scheme).
ffow correlation(a) which best describe the perfor-
mance of each component within the system in a step In a conventional, continuous-flow, gas-
by ztep eppnmch which is zimple to follow and lift well completion, gas enters into the produc-
applicable to other fieldz. 71e conmncted model tion casing and is injected into the tubing string
predicts individual wells performancee from the perfo- via gas- lift valves normally designed to achieve

121
 2 Development of a Network and Gas LiftAflosation Model for Production Optimisation
the deepest possible point of injection with a given
gas supply. In normal operation, the depth of gas
injection rarely changes, assuming a reasonably
constant gas supply pressure and reservoir pressure.
The performance of the well (and indeed all other
wells connected to the same system) is primarily
governed by the rate of gas injection, Unless an
effectively unlimited source of high pressure gas is
available, it is usual to design the-gas-lift system for
a field to achieve the economically optimum pro-
duction rate, rather than the maximum possible, i.e.
such that any incremental production would not pay
for the cost of compressing the extra gas to lift it.
This leads to the commonly encountered situation
in which the efficient operation of die field requires
the limited amount of gas available to be optimally
allocated between the producing wells.
Given the usual uncertainties regarding
future well performances and future trends in
production ( e.g. reservoir pressure and water cut),
sensitivity analysis to such uncertaintities of any
production plan become key issues. Therefore,
there is a requirement for a methodology which
treats the overall production system as an inte -
grated system2.
RAS BUDRAN FIELD FACILITIES AND NET=
WQRK -MQDEL ---
l) FQf7RIPTIflN
b----- . .. ..
The Ras Budran field lies on the east side of
the Gulf of Suez 5 km offshore. The reservoir is
contained within a heavily faulted compact struc-
ture of sandstone and shale with its crest at 10000
feet and the oil- water contact at 12350 feet subsea.
The initial reservoir pressure was 5632 psia and the
reservoir is heavily under-saturated with a bubble
point pressure of 1198 psia. The current reservoir
pressure varies between 3200 and 3500 psia for
different layer$ and is 4500 psia for the lowest
layer.
The field commenced production in Jan.
1983 and gas lift was implemented in 1985. Three
gas lift compressors were commissioned providing
approximately 27 mmscf /d of gas at 82 Bar (1189
Psig). A fourth gas lift compressor was added in
May 1992 adding an additional 9 mmscfid of gas.
The gas from these units is transmitted via an 8“
122
gas pipeline to the production platform RB-PP
and then distributed to the 3 wellhead platforms
and from the wellhead platforms to the wells
through 2 “ flowlines.
The production system consists of 3 well
head platforms delivering production to a
central process platform via 12” pipelines. The
produced fluid is subjected to a first stage
gasloil separation before being pumped onsho-
re. Produced oil and gas is then piped onshore
via 12” and 20” pipelines respectively. Onshore,
the oil undergoes a second stage of separation
followed by stabilization, dehydration and
destilting before being routed to storage prior to
export by tanker. The separated gas is dried
and compressed at the compression plant. See
Figure (1) for the simplified production rduting.
All 15 wells are gas lifted using 4.5’ tubing with
limited potential for natural flow. The high
pressure gas lift supply is limited by the com-
pressors capacity and field optimization is
achieved by the proper gas lift allocation be-
tween wells.
All Ras Budran wells suffer from down-
hole scaling problems either of a carbonate or
sulphate type, the degree of scaling and its
e------
f feet nn
.-
w*11 nerf nrmnnm=
---- s--- -.. -—-.
mni+-llinu
-“w-—-e
hsc he-n
-_ “---
taken into account and specific observations
made during the work highlighting well and
flowline problems.
NETWORK MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The development of the network model
for an integrated production system is achieved
by describing accurately each component within
the production system to simulate and match
measured data across the field under study. Thr-
ough the selection and application of proper
correlations for each component in the produc-
tion network, the validity and hence all subse-
quent optimization work will be greatly im -
proved. To optimize the system effectively, each
component must be evaluated separately and
then in combination with other components to
evaluate the entire well production system.
 EL- Maaary,Y.and Priec, A. 3

The network model is constructed through
accurately modeling the following:
1) Reservoir fluid properties.
2) Well performance.
3) Pipeline performance.
RESERVOIR FLUID PROPERTIES
Reservoir Fluid properties play an important
role in calculating pressure drop in wellbores, flowl -
ines and transmitting pipelines in single and mu-
ltiphase flow. It is necessary to obtain numerical
values for fluid properties such as oil formation VOI-
ume factor J30,gas solubilit y Ra, Z-factor, as well as
POand Pg, oil and gas viscosities. These parameters
may be obtained from laboratory PVT analysis, but
often it is necessary to estimate them, especially at
temperatures different from reservoir temperature.
During the model setup, the PVT properties were
calculated based on a previous simulation study of
the Ras Budran field carried out in August 19873.
The different PVT properties at reservoir tempera-
ture were compared with the PVT data calculated
from four different PVT correlations namely:
Standing,4 Lasater,5 Glaso,6 and Vaaquez-Beggs7
correlations. Laaater’s correlation was found to be
the best correlation for the Total Absolute Error
percentage (TAE 9.) of the calculated property
deviation from the actual value calculated at differ-
ent pressures as shown in Table (1) , where :
............... (1)
TAE%
where : n = number of the measured property.
E . = error in measured PVT property at point i.
Fo; example for & property :
A calibration factor (~) was selected for
each PVT property to reduce the difference be-
tween calculated and measured PVT properties
to a minimum value.
Measured Propertyva
Kc= ............ (4)
Calculated Propertywa
A calibrated Lasater’s correlation was
then used to compute PVT’ properties at any
pressure and temperature in the current study.
Table (1) shows the final calculated PVT prop-
erties using Lasater’s correlation.
WELL PERFORMANCE AND HISTORY
MATCHING
The well profile of each of the 17 wells
was divided into a number of nodes. Each node
represents a change in tubing inner diameter
(I.D.), deviation angle, the presence of gas lift
mandrels or a change in flowing temperature.
The total depth for all wells was taken as the
middle of the perforations in each well, which
was assumed to represent the well flow entry
point. The reference point for all depth and
distance calculations was the mean sea level.
Pressure survey data were collected for
all wells. This data includes two consecutive
surveys for 10 wells (A4, AS, A6, A7, A8, B2,
B6, B7, B8, B9), 3 surveys for one well (RB-C4)
and one survey for 5 wells (B1,C2,B5,B3 and
B4) during the year 1993. Of the wells which
were matched using single survey data,. 3 of
them (B1,C2 and B5) were surveyed only once
in the last two years, therefore old survey data
matches would not be valid.

............... (2) The solution node was selected as the

TAE% =~~iEp i
n i.l Oi manifold on each platform, so that each well’s
flow line profile was included in the analysis.
where:
The reservoir performance was included
%, = ( P.+ - lJo_ ), ............... (3) as a straight line IPR, a valid assumption as the
Ras Budran field is a heavily under-saturated
reservoir (minimum current reservoir pressure
----
is 3Xi0 versus 1198 psia bubbie point pressure).
~~e ~fiie~ ---------
pscasusc fiw geiierating ‘&e we.ii

123
 .

4 Dcvdopment of a Network ●nd (h LttAlfocation Model for Production Optimization

performance model was the reservoir pressure and The failure of correlation(s) in predicting
the bottom hole pressure was calculated using a pressure losses at any station could be attribut-
straight line productivity index (P.I.)8. ed not only to the correlation performance but
also to error in measured pressures and/or
The multiphase flow simulator used con - missing parameters in describing well perfor-
tained a number of different multiphese flow mance. Thus, evaluating each station separately
correlations for calculating pressu~~ ~osses, holdup will eliminate the station calculated error de-
and flow- regimes in verticai fiow-’-. These correc- pendance on each other and wiii highfight the
tions are summarized in Table (2). Only 7 correla- shortcomings in measured pressures and well
tions were used for the performance history match - performance data.
ing part of the study.
Another” type of error measurement
Having specified the correlations to be used method will enhance evaluating pressure loss
in the well performance history matching, the calculation for each station separately and will
pressure losses from the mid point of perforation increase the confidence in the selected correla-
up to the well-head were calculated. Various tion. This error is assigned “delta pressure
correlations were evaluated by applying two error percentage error’ or “station error 90”.
measures, namely :
In addition to the above, two error mea-
{D -*V \
t
‘~”’ Xlcto-loo ....... (s) sures for evaluating the best correlation for
~Emr% = ;i;-Pw-) simulating well performance, the final governing
selection parameter is that the closer the given
(AP--AP~)
De&aReas.ihw% (SaxionEmu%)= (6) correlation is in predicting the well-head pres-
‘p+ sure the more preference is given to that corre -
lation whether it is the best or the 2nd best
where: correlation, provided that the cumulative error
P~ = bottom hole flowing pressure. is always kept less than 5 %. The accurate
Pwi = bottom hole pressure at station i. calculation of well-head pressures using the well
A P-= pressure losses between two consecutive performance model , will provide the inlet
pressure measurement stations. pressure for the pipeline, and will therefore
enhance pipeline manifold pressure calculations
The cumulative error is the difference assisting network model convergence. Fig. (2)
between the calculated and the measured pressures shows examples of some of the well perfor-
with respect to a reference point (e.g. middle perfo- mance history matches.
ration), used to evaluate the different correlations
in calculating pressure losses between the reference It was concluded that 11 wells were best
point and the solution node (well- head or produc- modelled using Orklsaewskt’s correlation, 4
tion manifold). wells were best modelled using Ifegedorn and
Brown’s correlation, and only ene well was best
In this type of error calculation the calculat- modelled using Mukherjee and Brill’a correla-
ed error at the first station or any other following tion.
station (depth station), if it is high, will shift the
error calculation in the following stations towards Choosing a single multiphase vertical
higher error values es they are all referenced to the flow correlation for Ras Budran was not possi-
same point and the calculated error in any station ble (as dictated by two consecutive measured
will include the previous station error. This type of bottom hole pressure surveys for each well) be-
error calculation was considered sufficient for cause of the requirement to change the wells
general selection of multiphase flow correlations. mechanical and/or flowing parameters to re-
duce the % error between measured and calcu-

124
 13L-Ma8cry,Y.and Prica, A.
lated pressures. The approach used in the model
was to eliminate these changes and let the change
in the correlation be the modifying parameter as
this was models the well performance better in the
predictive mode.
PIPELINE PERFORMANCE AND HISTORY
MATCHING
All pipeline profiles are divided into a
number of nodes in a similar way to that used for
the Ras Budran wells. The reference point for all
elevation and distance calculations was selected to
be the mean sea level point at the production
manifold. The pressure data used in history match-
ing was taken from field measurements at specific
pipel~ne !Q~a$iQ~~ c=rrie~ ~1~$ ~uri=g the pericd
91911993 to 15/12/1993.
The multiphase flow simulator provided a
number of correlations for calculating pressure loss,
imki -up and flow regimes in horizontal pipeiinesa’~.
These correlations are summarixcd in Table (3).
The various correlations were evaluated by calcu -
lating the percentage error defined by the following
equation :
(Pi. -P’*) ~ ~(to-100
%Error = ........0..... (7)
o“,. +’”-)
where:
P~c = inlet pressure, psia.
Pout. = outlet pressure, psia.
Calc. and Meas. = for calculated and measured
pressures.
Figure (3) in which examples of the best
correlation for each pipeline is indicated. The per-
formance of pipelines from Platforms RB-B and
RB-C to “RB-PP-B” were found to be best de-
scribed using Mukherjee and Brill’s correlation.
The ‘RB-A’ to “RB-PP-B” pipeline performance
was found to be best described using Oliemans
correlation.
It was noted that excessive pressure losses
appear to be taking place through the pipeline from
“B” and “C” platforms to “PP-B” platform as indicat-
ed by a global under estimation of pressure losses
by all correlations. Half of the pressure loss be-
125
5
tween “B” and bPP-B” is taking place within the
‘B” platform itself.
This may suggest a deposition (scale,
aapha!tene;etc i,.,) Q~ u ~rga Qf ~~~~r~$~~~g [@~-
tial closure of a control and/or isrdation valve).
This represents a production system bottleneck
(location of excessive pressure losses) affecting
other producers connected to the system.
NETWORK MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND
VERIFICATION
A good description of the individual
components of the Ras Budran production
system was achieved through the performance
L:=*----
U-busy -a--t”~:-- A-. --AL-A ~~ove for ~~e
buAu&steps UGDGKIUCU
wells and pipelines.
The approach of an integrated network
system analysis extends the NODAL ANALYS -
lS1O method, for calculating the overail system
pressure losses taking into consideration the
connection of all wells to the corresponding
manifolds and pipelines through to the separa-
tor. The overalk solution for pressure losses was
performed by iterating for pressures and flow
rates at all nodes having only two known values,
namely, the static reservoir pressure (as a
source pressure for the networked wells) and
the pressure at the network extremity (lst stage
separator)2. Thus, the integrated production net-
work was treated as a single interactive system
through a step-by-step approach which is simple
to follow and which is applicable to other fielda.
Network Modeling Architecture
The network was constructed using the
wells as “sources” which, in turn, feed the mani-
folds (which may be considered as “junctions”)
an each pktforrm The pipe!ines ccmne@ng *A:
different platforms and the process platform are
considered as “links” between different junc-
tions. The 1 w stage gaa/oil separator at the
process platform is considered as a “sink” for
the network models. The network model calcu-
lation algorithm is illustrated in Fig (4).
 6 Development of a Network and Gas LtitAffocation Model for Production Optimization
Network Model Verification
In order to verify the network model, all the
well input data files, including the well profile,
reservoir data and gas lift quantities, have been
updated along with weii test information to repre -
sent actual field data during the verification period.
The absence of bottom hole pressure survey
data (after the date of the pressure survey used in
the history matching part of the study) for all the
welis in addition to the noticeable decline in the
production performance of some of the weiis ( e.g.
increase in gas lift rate, increase in water cut 70,
loss in P. I. due to scale deposition) necessitated
the introduction of a number of assumptions to the
well input data files to reflect the observed changes
taking piace . These assumptions were limited to
changes of the gas lift entry point and the produc-
tivi~~ hidex (P.L) ef scme ive;h. These parameters
were assumed as different values until the measu -
red and calculated parameters were matched. The
assumed matched values were then kept unchanged
during the verification and prediction modes.
The static reservoir pressure for each well
and the (lst stage separation) production separator
pressures were the inputs to the network verifi -
cation case.
A data verification period was selected to
represent the field conditions during December
1993 with the network extremity defined at the
Process Platform “RB-PP-B” with known sink
(production separator) pressures.
This period was selected for the following
reasons :
(1) A campaign of 6 bottom hole pressure surveys
provided the source pressures (reservoir pressure)
for the surveyed wells and was extrapolated to
other weils having the same pressure trends with
the maximum accuracy of projectiord interpolation.
(2) The last survey campaign provided the latest
information on the well P.I’s. and gas iift entry
points.
126
(3) For this period of interest we have surface
network measured pressures from 09/09/93 to
15/12/93. Minor changes in flowing parameters
on piatform and/or a well basis have occurred,
(+/- 1,500 STBLPD variance in the total field
production). Therefore, matchtng the network
performance at different dates will not be of
much use.
Discussion
The comparison between the network
model performance and the measured liquid
rates, on a weil- by- well basis, showed that the
model performance matched the actual condi -
tions with the exception of 3 welis (B5, B8 and
C4) which are producing with Klgh water cuts .
The impact of these differences on net oil
production was evaluated.
A quantitative comparison between the
network model and the actual system perfor-
mance is presented in Table (4). In this Table,
two different error measures were used for
evaluating rate differences between the network
11, 12,13
model and actual net oil production rates .
These are defined ax
ei = ( c?em
- Q.= ),, j = 1,2,3,....Jl. ........... (8)
............................. (9)
AE=fle,l .......................... (lo)
i=l
where the simple mean error, CE (cumulative
._---\
error), is a measure of the over-aii centering or
accuracy of the simuiated net oil production
rates with respect to measured vaiues, since
positive and negative errors have a canceiing
ef feet.
The mean absolute error, AE (absolute error),
is an arithmetic average of the magnitude of the
errors and it measures the lack of precision of
the model. Therefore, AB is a better reflection
of the individual well inaccuracy as well as of
 EL-Massry,Y. and Price, A.
the overall model performance.
The comparison between the calculated and
the measured oil production rates (shown in Table
4) indicates that the network model is over-predict-
ing meaimred net oil production by 1980 BOPD
(cumulative error % = 4.4) during the validation
period (i.e. Dec. 1993). The major gross rate dif -
ference between actual and calculated flow rates in
the system come from wells B5, B8 and C4. Howev-
er, injecting the gas shallower in the last two wells
utilizing gas lift calculations improves the situation,
suggesting that scale deposition had been taken
place resulting in a loss in the well P.I.
All the previously identified changes were
based upon field observations and gas lift perfor-
mance calculations and the results of the network
model verification run are shown in Table (4). The
% error (variance between calculated and test
separator measured gross liquid and oil rates) are
490 and 4.790 respectively.
CONSTRUCTING THE NETWORK AND GAS
LIFT ALLOCATION MODEL AND MODEL
VERIFICATION
Historical gas lift optimization in Ras Budran
Gas lift allocation in the field has, in the
past been conducted in a semi-automated manner,
via single well modelling of the inflow performance
and verticai flow for each weii and then by combin -
ing these results for overall field allocation manual-
ly through a priority ranking14’ls. Quite often Opera-
tional experience on a well by well basis has influ-
enced decisions on changes made to the gas lift sys-
tem. The effect of the production system network
on the field performance is not possible using this
approach. Therefore, in order to automate the gas
lift optimization process, taking into account the
impact of the production system, a network model
was constructed with the capabilities for gas lift
optimization included.
Description of the model
A multiphase fluid flow simulator was used
to generate a system performance curve, i.e.:
127
7
artificial lift quhntity versus liquid flow rate, for
each well using the pre - defined multiphase
vertical flow, correlation. An example is plotted
in Figure (5). Examination of system perfor-
mance curve data points showed that although
the gross liquid is a function of many variables,
the underlying trend is dependant upon the total
quantity of gas injected. The gas lift allocation
model utilizes this set of system performance
curves as its data base.
From this data base the performance
curve for a well, j, is selected and a mathe-
matical function of the form16;
~(x) = $ b+,ix’ ....................... (11)
where x is the gas injection rate and the coef fi -
cients are determined by least squares. A func-
tion of the above form is provided for every
well in the system.
The next stage of optimization is to find
the unconstrained optimum assuming an ynlim -
ited supply of lift gas. The optimization can be
performed on either the gross or on stock-tank
barrels of oil. This is defined as the sum of the
individual wells producing at their local maxi-
mum. Mathematically this is where the gradient
of a performance curve is O. Thus for well j,
#if.(Y.)
~=(1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . (12)
where xj is the optimal gas lift quantity for well
j.
If the total quantity of available lift gas
is less than the unconstrained optimum, as
defined above, then the problem reduces to
allocating the available lift gas most efficiently
between wells. The definition of the con-
strained optimum is that the gradients of all
producing wells are equal, i.e. all wells would
increase their flow rate by the same quantity if
an extra incremental amount of gas was inject-
ed. Thu~
 8 Development of a Network and Gas LtitAlfocation Model for Production Optimization

curves. The solution node for the network was

— 4(%) . ........ =~df (X=) = G ................. (13)
dl(~l) . — set at the process platform “B”. (i.e. at the inlet
d% dx dx of the off-shore production separator) with a
specific sink (separator) pressure.
where G (bbl/d per mmscf injected) is the gradient
of all wells (m) in the system. This optimum ean be Fixing the amount of lift gas to each well
obtained for all wells providing that each well, j; as defined from field measurements, the actual
and model field production are matched with a
1) Can flow at the specified gas lift value, xj minimum %error between 1.170 and 1.5% (i.e.
and 485 and 674 BOPD respectively) under different
water cut and gas lift system volumes changes.
2) Is not bound by any other overriding con-
strains. For the optimization mode ( i:e. by
removing the fried input gas quantity constraint)
There are many numerical techniques using the pre - described iterative technique three
available for solving linear system of the form; runs were performed to re- allocate the gas lift
distribution ‘for the wells under various gas lift
Ma: fl(xl) +f~(q +......+f”(x”) compression capacities, they are :
..:=:,=
,,,,:::.::: (14)
,—.,
% * % *“”’”+ % s ~ (a) Optimizing the case during the second haif
of Dec. 1993 , using 36.16 MMSCFID, (4 com -
%,20 pressers) resulted in a 771 STBOPD gain com -
these range from sophisticated optimization meth- pared to the actual gas lift distribution.
ods to simple iteration procedures. However, the
introduction of more complicated non-linear con- (b) Optimizing the case dated 24101194, using
straints eg. maximum flow through specific pipe- 36 MMSCF/D, (4 compressors) resulted in a
iines, etc, makes the setting up of more constraints 538 STBOPD gain compared to the actwd gas
mathematically complex. Thus an iterative tech- lift dktribution.
nique is employed to provide greater flexibility and
speed of solution. These performance curves are (c) Optimizing the case dated 30/01/94 using
valid for the following parameters: 26.6 MMSCF/D,(3 compressors) resulted in
867 STBOPD gain compared to the actual gas
1) Reservoir Pressure, lift distribution.
2) P.I.,
3) Water Cut, and From these results, incremental optimiza-
4) Gas Lift Entry Point(s). tion gains are falling within the model accuracy
which is 485 and 622 STBOPD using 36 and
If for any reason one or more of these 26.6 MMSCF/D respectively. It ‘is expected,
parameters are changed a separate fiie to represent that marginai increases in fieid production” COuid
these changes is called upon request from within be realized with further gas lift optimization.
the multiphaae flow simulator. Figure (6) shows a
flow diagram describing the development and Purther Seneltivity Analysis and Practical
utilization of each of these models (modules) to Applications
meet our objectives.
The network and gas lift optimization
Using the Field -Wide Gas Lift Allocation model is designed to allocate lift gas resources
Model, the network model and pipeline profiles are amongst wells in order to maximize total field
described along with the appropriate connection to oil production while taking into account oper-
the wells which were described by the performance ational and reservoir constraints. The model

128
 EL-Massry,Y. and Price, A.
has the capability to calculate “what -if” scenarios by
introducing new and/or closing- in low priority wells
and also predicting future lift gas demand.
Having identified a production system
bottleneck taking place through the pipeline from
‘B” platform to the process platform “B”, a decision
was taken to twin this short pipeline (120 feet) by
utilizing the existing, unused, water- injection line
with appropriate pipe- work looping. The estimated
incremental production due to this modification
using the model was 800 STBOPD. An estimated
increase in production of 600 STBOPD was real-
ized after completing this modification.
The introduction of a newly proposed well
to the production system was investigated using the
model. The results indicate that the well would
produce more than 4000 STBOPD with a minimum
impact on the production rate of other producers
either in the amount of gas required to lift that
well or through induced back pressure effects on
other producers within the system.
Furthermore, to calculate the field produc-
tion performance under additional lift gas volumes
another two identical compressors to the existing
ones were added to the system (each with 9 MMsc -
f/d). The results indicated that, adding one com-
pressor unit would increase production by 860
STBOPD, and adding the second additional com-
pressor unit, an incremental 660 STBOPD would
be realized. Figure (7) shows the field future gas
lift requirements. Further investigation to the
incremental production in later field life requires
*&e l~~z ~f ~e~r~ei~ ~im.u~~~: -.--A: .+:----
paGwAbb#ulAe.
CONCLUSIONS
1- A network model for allocating gas lift quanti-
ties automatically amongst Ras Budran wells
was developed and validated against actual
field performance with 1.5 90 and 1 70 errors
in oil production per day under three and four
gas lift compressors availability respectively.
2- The gas lift volume distribution between WCIIS,
if optimized, using the validated model will
have a rnargina! gain of approximately 55!! and
129
9
850 STBOPD (1.3% and 1.5 Yo increase)
for three and four compressor availability.
3- Choosing one multiphase vertical flow
correlation to describe all Ras Budran wells
was not found possible based upon data
from bottom hole pressures surveys for
each well. It was concluded that 11 wells
are best modelled using Orldsaewskl’s
correlation, 4 wells using Hagedorn and
Brown’s correlation, and only one welI using
Mukh’jee and Br!!l’s Ccme!aticm.
4- The pipeline performance connecting “Bw
and “C” platforms to the process platform
“RB-PP” is best described using the Muk-
herjee and Brill’s correlation, whereas the
pipeline from “A” platform to “PP-B” is best
described using Oliemans correlation.
5- The removal of excessive pressure losses
taking place through the very short pipeline
from “B” to “PP-B” platforms (as indicated
by a g!~ba! ~der estirnatica Cf ~Z~SSiii$2
losses by all correlations), resulted in an
addition of 600 STBOPD to the field pro-
duction.
6- Productivity indices decline have been
identified in 4 wells during validation of the
network model (A6,B1,B2 and B9) and the
causes of these declines determined.
7- Gas lift injection points for 6 wells were not
at their designed depths (A8,B3,B6,B8,B9
aiid U;.
8- The paper highlighted that bottom hole
pressure surveys are required for the wells
exhibiting declining well performance either
due to P.I. reduction or to shallower gas
injection to confirm the course of remedial
action ( acid wash, gas lift valve change
outs? etc ..1).
9- Use of the network model as a field opti-
mization tool, with continuous updating as
and when more data becomes available is
e~enf~~.
 10 Dcvetopment of a Network and Gas LiftAffocation Model for Production Optimization
10- Further sensitivity runs were performed to
refllze the effect of introducing a new well
(RB-CIA) on field performance in parallel
with lower P.I. wells performance and in rela-
tion to changes in gas lift allocation between
them.
~~. ~~~u~~ gas lift volumes for the field under
various operating scenarios “with time can now
be easily assessed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would !ike to thank Suco Manage-
ment for their approval to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Bristow, P. G.and Thambynayagam, R. K. M,.-
.‘“Design Calculation for Three-Phase Flow Behav-
ior in Wells “and Flowlines for Naturally and Arti-
ficially Lifted Wells,” presented at the 6th EGPC
Seminar, Cairo,Egypt,24 November,1982 .
2. El- Maaary, Y. :“Construction of a Network Model
for an Integrated Production System and Appli-
cation to the Ziet Bay Field” MS thesis, Cairo
University, Giza, (1994).
3.”Ras Budran Reservoir Engineering
August 1987, BP Petroleum Development
4. Standing, M. B. :“A General Pressure Volume-
Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California
011 and Greases,”Drill. and Prod. Prac.,API (1947),
275.
5. Lasater, J. A. :“Bubble Point Pressure correlati-
on,”Trans. ,MME (19S8),379 .
6. Glaao, O. :“Generalized Pressure Volume Tern-
perature Correlation,”JPT @lay 1980),p. 785.
9I. X?. -m..a” ..u. .. arid Beggs, H. D.:”cQrre!lM@ts
v usquG&,
fluid Physical Property Prediction,” Paper SPE
6719, presented at the 52 nd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petro-
leum Engineers,of AIME,Denver, Colorado (1977).
8. Brown, K. E. :“The Technology of Artificial Lift
i$%’tlmds,” PeiifiWe!! l%biishkg Co., Tdsa,(1977-
),Volume (l).
9. Brill, J. P. :“Multiphase Flow in Wells,’ JPT
(Jm.1987) 15-21.
10. Brown, K. E. and Lea, J. F. :“Nodal Systems
Analysis of 011 and Gas WeIls,” JPT (October 1985-
)p. 1751-1763.
11. Mandhane, J. M., Gregory, G. A. md Aziz,
K.:”Critical Evaluation of Friction Pressure-
Drop Prediction Methods For Gas- Liquid Flow
in Horizontal Pipes,” JPT (Oct. 1977) .
12. Mnndhame, J, M., Gregory, G. A. and Aziz,
K.:”Critical Evaluation of Holdup Prediction
Methods For Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal
Pipes,’ JPT (Aug. 1975) .
13. Mandhane, J. M., Gregory, G. A. and Aziz,
. a.. T : ..:.4 Rlmw ~~
K .:-A Fiow ~att~fii Map f~i G-a- =.q~.” . .“..
Horizontal Pipes,” Int. J. of Multiphase Flow
(1974),537.
14. E1-Massry, Y. and Abo-El-Yazid, M.:”Op-
timizing Continuous Flow Gas- Lift Wells For
Ras Budran Field,” paper presented for EGPC,
ninth production and exploration conference,
Cairo, 22-24 November 1988.
15. E1-Massry, Y,, Housny A., and Abo-El-
Yazid, M.:”Application and Optimization of
Continuous- Flow Gas- Lift Wells for Zlet Bay
and Ras Budran Wells,” SPE 25624, presented
at Sl?E 8 ~ Mitidie EM Oil ~h.~iv ~iid ~ofif~i =
ence, Bahrain, 3-6 April 1993.
16. Marshall, D.L., Edwards, R.J.E., Wade, K.C.
:*A Gas Lift ‘Optimization and Allocation Model
For Manifolded Subsea wells’” SPE 20979 pre-
Study”, sented at the European Petroleum Conference,
LTD. The Hague, Netheriantis, Gctober 22-241990.
for
130
 lTdie2SunnwydValiiMicalfhnvCmkiinCunbktiofj
lTwqoIWMMMti-sj

k
Table 1 Measured Versus Calculated PVT for Ras Budran Fieldl
For B#nd GOR
I
ill
Pressure Loss HOLDUP Flow Me@ Pmswe Lose NOLDLIP F&M-
I I I
Cp (Iow.r
!M
Pr22mur9 Bo Ro9B/STB G~. KF12TB I Uo, Unit) OR OR DWTD OR OR DR/TO
p-h Mou. tic. .ss.1 Cak. M*SS ,.- 1

s 6s9 4 1S7 + $67 s’12 I S*2 I 9.20 t-k 3.20 1

Beo 1ss0 I BB/TD lmGGICKAGAITDl

S.000 l.let l.tee S*2 I 392 I 2.94 I 3.5* I BBR I BBR I BB/TD I

l=H--
4.000 t.leo 1.%79 9*2 3?2 2.se I 2.me I ORK I ORK I ORK I
e ,000 *.*79 1.*75 312 I, ---
-*- ,
I ----
9.*nl ----
c.sn
—
2,000 *lee l.*es ---
*42 1 342 I Z.*O I 2.*S 1

Ltoa l.loa 1.203 3 3*2 3*2 1 .2s 3.22

I HB I HE I BB/DR/BJA I
I
2
HBO HBO OBIQRIBJA
I SJA1 i WA1/SJA2/EATDN I
TD
J

H=]
BJA BJA1/BJA2 TD

MB MB MB

Any BRIMIN1 Any

Any BRIMIN2 Any rml SRIMIN1 I Atw I

Average Total Absolluto Error% (TAE%)

NOSLIP NOSLIP NOBLIP
1
Any I SRIMIN2 I
Acq

NOSUP NOSUP NOSUP

. . {
hciex of Abbrevlatlons
So TAE % = 0. 6s55!
Index Of Abbreviations
CkD.askRoa HBO.Ha@un&Mom L%@
M= h J2dr@ ! AS& TO= laidW Wi=ra.nlsih! MO:Hags!m
ih (k@
QOR TAE %- SO
Oxfaiaiim ~K. w-
Ml= ~ni MA Iid&p Bm=Bqga!w Reiid W. Ha@amkBmnhad
MM= M&d MA Hd@ kwdaim GA=GM, M& kqas BBC=@qa6MOijd w: Maa!mCaldikl
Uo TAE % - 2.87
BWN 102=M 6 hni H4JpCcWh W = M&@.4 Ml fUAIZhijrid
EMH~kmkM Io=lwolw
m= B4$qbM rxgmd .. 6 M Raw
m= kggs ~1~:~ ~ Hd@ WM w: Ma@t6hil
‘hble4Results
ofNetwork
Model
Verification OKm Ow (Aq w= (kit F@
WN M BII 6 ham Hd@ kuaMi W No$ Aaaurt@
DuringTheSecondHalfof Dec.1993
WELLHEAD
PLATFORM
W*N -’-vy- -’-,:.””’”’” --”%%-’ ‘-” =“-’:,%ou ‘-” ‘-RR-
M S* 1
RB-B k
M 4ss9 MS.7J
M Mu I.U..w 4,10 4J8S .2U

F
-PA
A6 3.076 139.7s LSO1 2.73S 66
A’1 1.910 1Ss.7s ‘um S.l U .142 G w ‘r 4,,
A9 1.U9 Mam SAW S.W .249 WELLIIEAD w P
Bl 2.720 1s9.42 1.* 2.119 294
PLATFORM T
n 2,s1 1S9.U 4.2S7 4AM .247
M.* 4.890 . l=
RR-C
m 2.Ss6 4.4Ss
St 1.W4 LW.42 MM 2>74 -2.S8
w
m 1.%0 L..* X4% I 3.9U .437
M SW lm.u S,44’J km! .1.6 LEGEND:
et Lcn M9.u ZSa 1s19 NJ
w Mm I.w.u lam 1.617 4S0 P= 1Z“ Prc.duc lion Line PROCESS
es 4.s20 1s.42 m 890 4 PLATFORM
C4 s.m9 141-W 4.1s 4.6t9 .S.4 T =S- Test Llnc RB. PP-B
TOTAL -- IU.1’J I 4s,0n 41>m -1.-
I
14C=S”
I#lah Prrss. Lltt Gas
Total Field Network Model Verification : WELLREAI)
LP =20” Low Press.Prod. Gas
PLATFORM
Cumulative Error % (CE%)= 4.4 W= 12” Waler InJccllon

Absolute! Error % (AE%) = 7.7

y$w
SIIORE PRODUCTION FACILITi E!S

FIG.(1) lUS BLJDRAN PRODUCTION ROUTING

 W[LL RU-96 rii SiOi!Y iAAitfi , ~fit~~ti?i Y:. ~~~!!!
W[lLtwo HISIORVMAICH, ?RwJn[ h. IJIPIIL(SUMV on 28/1}/1!!3)

tIIKJOOROIJ& BRWII RIVISIO CORR[l AIIM

?MIWJRIO PR[SSURC OURIHGSURVCV ON 20/6/9J.
fMtASURIO PRCSSURt OURISIG SURV[Y W 28/11/1993.

-4000 =
=
g -s000
g -5600-
s .-s -6060-
-s000 - ~
=
: - -70@o-
=
= -lobo -
-M60 -
-Boon-
-s000 -
-9000-
-Imoo -
- I 6boo-
-I IQOO -
-11000 -
500 1000 1500 Xmo Moo
100 400 600 ma 1000 1?00 1400 1600 1800 2000 2100
P,e,s,Ir (PSIA)
r,, (2-0) [.~le
P,,,,,, * (PSIA)
ot V*I1 Pe,l.,mmte Ilislw, match
f,q (1-b) etmole .1 .rll Pttlwmo.ce Ili.lety Melcb

12” PIPELINE fROU “O” 10 “PP-B” PLATfORU.

12” PIP ELIN[ fROIA “A” 10 PRODUCTION MAlb313:*”j;i, NM 4.11/9/ wfi111M6 11/61/s$IO:66:DA Pwcslum,,ti” 84411
Pwtol ,,1> 940s111ss1 II *1 1s 11, S:U
●

I M

~~w

if”<-

‘K
\
100
tHACfOORONt DROWN RIVISIO CORRIIAIION
95 XOUK1[R (AWF1A161CAM) COR XOUK1[R (ACA+fLANtCAM) CORRILAIION
0B8R
:Z;’’:::$lq (BR MAP) G OBER (BB MAP)
90-1 AOUSIS& ROSS CORRIIAIION
~wIIHIRJ[[”A R@ltL CORR[lAIION VAIUVIIfRJrta BBILL CORRILAIION

I “-
85 @OllKLIR ANO CA1ON IOUKLfR m cAlotI
4011 CORR[lAIION iOll CORR[lAilOK
m TAcA+f LkNIW (ERIHIIII noto-up) VhCAiFLAn16AN (8RIUI#l noso-up)
OUEASURIOOUILII PIUSSUR[ ON 09/09/93. EtAItASURtOOUILtI PRcssuRcosIo9/09/1993.
15- >

0; 50 106 I 50 ?08 2S0 300 350

0 $00 100a 1500 mob Moo 3000 3s00 4000
1,1,1 01,1,,,$ (11[1)
1.1,1 O,sl,.ee [1[[1) fi~. (J-b) [sqle .1 Pip*l in* Pe,lelmt.ce Ili$lotr U.tth
ri,. {h) [.sm+l* 01 p$**l
i”, P* Il*m8”t* Mi*l*ty U.lch

132
-,.

+
CALCULATE FLOW RATES IN
INPUT SRANCHES (WELLS)

+
WRLLS
MIX
ODTAIN
FUJI09
COMPOOITt
PROM

+
ON IN
TO
PIPELINR6
I
ITERATE FOR PRESSURE
CALCULATION AT THE SEPARATOR,
+

COMPARE PRESSURE CALCULATION

WITI+ THE ONE SPECIFIED AT THE
CJ AND IF IT IS WITHIN TOLERANCE

[,
——. .-- .. . 1 I
I ~Fig. 4 NETWORK iViODEL CALCUWI iwN A~~~~i~i+ivil
l—

WELL RB-A5 PIRFORMANC[ CURVE. (SURV[Y ON 1/12/1993)

,P~Ol 4, 32!MBJwJ5171S58 11/01/95 14:09:39 PIPISIM PlOllia~ Uli~

4500

. . .. ... ...

3500 i.. .J.

,. Ii ..!...

3000 ,. ... . . . .. . ... .....

ORK I SZ[WSK
t GORRILA1 ION Pwh=100
)( ORK I SZEWSK CORRELATION Pwh= 120
O ORK I SZ[WSK CORRELATION Pwh=140
A ORK ISZIW.K CORRELAI 10N Peth=l 60 , ~~~~
[“” V ORK I SZ[WSK CORRIL Al 10N Pwh=180
/ .M ORK I SZ[WSK CORREL Al ION Pwh=200
L lfST S[PAR OR RESULTS 0[( 1993 j Pwh=t68
, ,

5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Aflificiol Lill Ouontily

Fiq. (5) Cxornple Of Well Perlorrnonce Cutve

~ ~~
 —

r ~Se. ,~to —

erformanc
atch
Evaluation
Previouml y e:st epara or
P.L,w.c.,FGLR,
Selected r resalts,BHP SuWeY
IGLR,Pr,P.O.G.E.
Correhstion
Iv .3 . %’

~–
r wELL/PIPELINE
PERFORWNCE MODEL —

K&-l-
1 Flow Tables I
4
istor
PREDICTION Yes
~~ atch

ii

..-
1

-4

.2

[! 0
27 36 45 54

GAS LIFT QUANTI’W (MMSCF/D

Fig. (7) RAS BUDRAN FLJ’rLJRE GAS LIFT REQIJIREMENT