PROSPER WELL MODELLING

FUNDAMENTALS
PREPARED BY
 Ahmed mohamed Abdullah
 Refaat Galal Abol Fotoh

 Nader Ali Fahim

 Hesham Ahmed Abo-zaid

 Yahia Ali Shawky

CONTENTS
 Introduction
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 PVT Modelling
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
PETEX (PETROLEUM EXPERTS)

 Started business @ 1990 in the UK

 Developing a set of petroleum engineering

software tools.

 model oil reservoirs, production and injection

wells and surface pipeline networks as an
integrated production system.
SOFTWARE PACKAGES
IPM PACKAGE

The engineer is able to design complex field models.

The Reservoir, Wells and Complete Surface

Systems model, having been matched for
production history, will accurately optimize the
entire network and run predictions.
IPM PACKAGE

GAP

PVTP PROSPER

IPM

REVEAL MBAL
IPM PACKAGE
 GAP enables the engineer to build representative
field models, that include the reservoirs, wells
and surface pipeline production and injection
system.

 MBAL package contains the classical reservoir

engineering tool, using analytical techniques to
analyze the fluid dynamics in the reservoir.
IPM PACKAGE
 PVTP allows tuning of Equations of State (EoS)
to match laboratory data. The tuned EoS can
then be used to simulate a range of reservoir and
production processes, which impact equipment
sizing and reservoir recovery.

 REVEAL is a specialized reservoir simulator

modeling near well bore effects including mobility
and infectivity issues. Thermal and chemical
effects are modeled rigorously.
PROSPER

 PROSPER is designed to allow the building of

reliable and consistent well models

 Design and optimize well completion

 Tubing size
 Artificial lift method
 IPR model
CONTENTS
 Introduction
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
 WELL MODELLING FUNDAMENTALS
 Well modelling defines the pressure/rate
relationship to facilitate:
 Well design
 Predicting well performance
 Identify well performance sensitivity to changes
in operating parameters or design
 Involves:
 PVT
 Wellbore
 IPR
 Nodal Analysis
 Well Modelling Fundamentals

Nodal Analysis
 It is the methodology used in well modelling to analyse the
performance of a multi-component system
 Objectives are to:
 Quantify total pressure loss as a function of rate
 Quantify components within total pressure loss
 Identify bottlenecks to flow
 Optimise system design and operation given constraint
 Address specific well issues such as Artificial lift, well load up,
completion design optimisation and productivity improvement
opportunities.
 Important: Nodal analysis assumes a steady state and does
not allow transient flow behaviour.
 Well Modelling Fundamentals

Common Nodes used in Nodal Analysis

 Well Modelling Fundamentals
Fundamental Concept

INFLOW P? OUTFLOW

P Qin Qout P

Solution node

• Pressure defined at start and end nodes

• Solution node can be any intermediate position where pressure must be
calculated
• Components upstream of solution node determine INFLOW performance
• Components downstream of solution node determine OUTFLOW performance
• For system continuity Qin = Qout and pressures must be equal
• From above, system can be solved to determine solution node pressure at a
given rate
 Well Modelling Fundamentals

Top Node Bottom Node Solution Node Comments

Wellhead Reservoir Mid-perf Separates IPR from VLP
Wellhead Reservoir ESP, GL, etc To establish artifical lift reqirements
WH Choke Gauge Depth Wellhead To match given test data
Separator Reservoir Wellhead Separates well-reservoir from surface
Separator Reservoir Choke Combines choke effect with well-reservoir
Concentrating on Network modelling with
Separator Wellhead Manifold
known contribution from well(s)
CONTENTS
 Introduction
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 PVT modelling
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
 What information do you need?
 Completion diagram / tally and directional survey
data, together with any recent work-over info/data
 Fluid data (PVT reports or existing PVT model)
 Complete production test data (recent as well
historical sets) comprising of rates, phase ratios, end
pressures, etc.
 Reservoir and available near-wellbore data (reservoir
pressure & temperature, FBHP/downhole gage
pressure, PI, skin, permeability and rel perm, etc).
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
Sources of pressure loss in a production system
P8 = (Pwh - Psep)
Pwh Sales Line
P6 = (PDSC - Psep) Gas
Separator
PDSC
Liquid
Surface choke Psep Stock To Sales
P5 = (Pwh - PDSC) Tank
PDSV

P4 = (PUSV - PDSV)

PUSV
P1 = Pr - Pwfs
P2 = Pwfs - Pwf
P3 = PUR - PDR
P7 = (Pwf - Pwh) P4 = PUSV - PDSV
Bottom hole P5 = Pwh - PDSV
restriction
P3 =
PDR P6 = PDSC - Psep
(PUR - PDR) P7 = Pwf - Pwh
P8 = Pwh - Psep
PUR
P9 = Pr - Pwf
= Loss in porous medium
= Loss across completion
= Loss across restriction
= Loss across safety valve
= Loss across surface choke
= Loss in flowline
= Total loss in tubing
= Total loss in flowline
= Total loss in reservoir / completion

Pwf Pwfs Pr Pe

P2 = (Pwfs - Pwf) P1 = (Pr - Pwfs)

P9 = (Pr - Pwf)
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL

 Pre-processing data
 Completion data consistent with directional survey
and other work-over info.
 Fluid data/PVT model consistent with other wells and
formation info.
 Production test data complete and consistent with
current well performance.
 Reservoir data dates consistent with the production
test dates.
 SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
System Summary Screen
Define fluid type and PVT
method (i.e. black oil or
equation of state model)
Can model up to
5 stages for
comp
modelling Specify type of
temperature
modelling

Reservoir connection
Select options – influence
1. tubing or later inflow options
2. annular or
3. tubing AND
annular

Specify whether a
single well or
Information only multilateral

Useful
repository for
well test and
model
information
 Setting up a well model
Black Oil Correlations can be selected based on the applicability of the test range of
the data in question:

PVT Property Standing Lasater Vazquez- GlasØ Petrosky- Macary

Beggs Farshad

(Pb) Bubble-point 130 – 7000 48 – 5780 15 – 6055 165 – 7142 1574 – 6523 1200 – 4600
Pressure (psia)

(Bo) Bubble-Point 1.024 – 2.15 N/A 1.028 – 2.226 1.087 – 2.588 1.1178 – 1.622 1.2 – 2.0
Oil FVF (rb/stb)

(GOR or Rs) Gas/Oil 20 – 1425 3 – 2905 0.0 – 2199 90 – 2637 217 – 1406 200 – 1200
Ratio (scf/stb)

Reservoir 100 – 258 82 – 272 75 – 294 80 – 280 114 – 288 180 – 290
Temperature (ºF)

Stock Tank Oil 16.5 – 63.8 17.9 – 51.1 15.3 – 59.5 22.3 – 48.1 16.3 – 45.0 25 – 40
Gravity (ºAPI)

Gas Specific Gravity 0.59 – 0.95 0.574 – 1.22 0.511 – 1.351 0.65 – 1.276 0.5781 – 0.85 0.7 – 1.0
(air = 1)

Separator Pressure 265 – 465 15 – 605 60 – 565 415 N/A N/A

(psia)

Separator 100 36 - 106 76 – 150 125 N/A N/A

Temperature (ºF)
CONTENTS
 Introduction
 PVT Fundamentals
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 PVT Modelling
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
PVT Model Tuning

 Select PVT correlations relevant to the given fluids.

 If PVT matching data absent or sparse use
correlation which has proved appropriate in offset
wells / fields
 Use corrected PVT data to tune the selected PVT
correlations
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
PVT Summary
• PVT modelling involves:
– Gathering quality test data
– Convert Diff Lib data to flash conditions if required (correction)
– Selecting appropriate correlation/EoS.
– Tuning selected correlation/EoS.
– Generating PVT properties at all pressure-temperature combinations
encountered in flow stream.
• There is no substitute for quality test data.
• Incorrect PVT model has detrimental effect on IAM modelling, which is
quite often incorrectly accounted for by adjusting flow correlations.
• Note that in gas condensate wells, inaccurate temperature
modelling can have a profound effect on PVT – often neglected
Setting up a well model
STEP 1: BASIC PVT DATA INPUT
Basic Data Input from PVT report, DST testing
(may sometimes be all that is available)
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
Step 2: PVT Match Data Input
Match Data input from PVT report – use only flash corrected data. Normally enter as
much data as possible to optimise correlation matching
 Setting up a well model
STEP 3: MATCHING PVT CORRELATIONS TO REAL PVT
DATA
 PVT correlations are empirically derived mathematical fits of real
experimental data
 Correlations approximate real fluid behaviour – some more suitable than
other for certain fluid systems
 Matching is a regression process which reduces the error between
correlation and PVT data
 User can specify which gas properties it is critical to match (to reflect
possible uncertainty in input data accuracy
 Parameter 1 and 2 statistics provide match quality and correlation
predictive reliability –
 Parameter 1 is the “multiplier” which has to be applied to correlation (should be
within 10% of unity)
 Parameter 2 is the shift
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
Entering a physical description of the well and its
subsurface environment

Enter up to 18 depth pairs (measured & TVD)

Include effect of any pipework from wellhead to manifold

(incl choke)

ID / OD and roughness of all tubing and casing, restrictions

etc down to the reservoir. Mid-perf depth is bottom depth
entered.
Input formation temperatures versus depth, and overall
Heat Transfer coefficient (“U” value)

Enter specific heats for oil, water and gas – use default
Values In this example
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
Entering Deviation Survey Data

Only enter minimum number

of points required to describe
basic shape of wellpath

Tip: normally use survey

points giving >5% change in
inclination
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
Entering the Surface Equipment Description

NB:

• Enter UPSTREAM end

TVDs for each section of pipe
(i.e. nearest the tree for
producers)

• Use “Plot” to visualise

pipework layout and check
for errors

• Can use an “X-Y”

coordinate system if required
to enter more detailed
pipework desciption
(applicable to subsea)

Manifold (or other constant

pressure
node in system)

Surface equipment
 SETTING UP A WELL MODEL Roughness Guidelines
Downhole Equipment Description Plastic .0002 in
Cr Steel .0006 in
SS .0006 in
C Steel
New .0018 in
to
Old .0060 in

Notes:

• Typically use drilling depth references i.e. relative to rotary table - e.g. in a subsea well Xmas tree
depth may be +400 ft
• Enter bottom depth of each section of same diameter tubing, associated ID and roughness
• Enter SSSV’s and restrictions
• Casing depth where you wish pressure loss calculations to begin (typically mid perf).
• In a long perforated interval may be better to use more complex inflow model
SETTING UP A WELL MODEL
Geothermal Gradient
Geothermal Gradient calculations enable Prosper to predict flowing wellbore temperatures
from reservoir to wellhead under various scenarios, based upon an Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient or U value.

Typical Values are: Oil wells 8 BTU/h/ft2/F

Gas wells 3 BTU/h/ft2/F
Gas Cond wells 3.7 BTU/h/ft2/F

Notes:

• Enter a temperatures survey obtained from STATIC logging, or best offset

data
• Ensure a survey point for the bottom node in the equipment data is included.
CONTENTS
 Introduction
 PVT Fundamentals
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
IPR MODELLING
 Fundamental Input information:
 Reservoir Pressure & temperature
 At least one stable flowing BHP and rate (ensure
reservoir pressure consistent in time with FBHP if
varying)
 GOR (oil well) / CGR (gas well)
 Watercut (oil well) / WGR (gas well)
 Theoretical vs empirical IPR models
 Reservoir / Completion parameters:
 Rock permeability & anisotropy
 Producing interval, perforations, deviation & drainage
area
 Gravel Pack properties & dimensions
 IPR MODELLING
IPR Fundamentals
The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) defines the pressure drawdown in a well as a
function of production rate
Drawdown is a complex function of PVT, permeability (absolute & relative), effective overburder
etc
Several IPR model available – optimum choice depends on data available and calculations
required including:-
Gas Well PI Models
• Jones ~ includes a linear (Darcy) pressure drop and a rate-squared (non-Darcy) term.
Uses pseudopressure, better for high reservoir pressures (>2000 psi)
• Backpressure,
• Forcheimer,
• C and N ~ use various “backpressure” equations to describe the Darcy and non-Darcy
inflow behaviour
• Petroleum Experts ~ uses a multi-phase pseudo pressure function to allow for changing
gas and condensate saturations with pressure – applicable to gas condensate modelling or
dry gas
IPR MODELLING

Oil Well PI Models

• PI entry ~ simplest, useful where no where no reservoir perm

or skin data available, and where the PI is already known

• Vogel ~ uses an empirical correlation to account for deviation

from straight line PI below bubble point

• Composite ~ interpolates a Vogel IPR for oil and straight line

IPR for oil as a function of watercut – useful for sensitivities on
increasing watercut

• Darcy ~ classic radial flow equation useful for estimating

productivity from petrophysical data

• Fetkovich ~ adapted from isochronal theory – gives similar

results to Vogel
 IPR MODELLING
Defining IPR model to be used:

Skin model
definition

Options will
depend
on fluid type
selected
in System
Summary

Select the “Jones” model (modified form of Darcy Equation)

IPR MODELLING
Entering IPR data

Enter data in all sheets with highlighted tabs (working left to right)
IPR MODELLING
Entering IPR data

When data entry complete, click on “Calculate” button to generate IPR plot
IPR MODELLING
IPR curve – gas well

Static reservoir pressure

Flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP)

AOF: Absolute Open Hole Flow Potential

(theoretical flow potential assuming zero
Backpressure)
CONTENTS
 Introduction
 PVT Fundamentals
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
VLP MODELLING
Flow Patterns/Regimes in Vertical Upward Flow

BUBBLY SLUG CHURN ANNULAR

FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW

COMMON FLOW REGIME IN GAS /

GAS CONDENSATE WELLS
VLP Modelling
ROLE OF MULTI-PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS

• VLP correlations predict the pressure loss in pipe, allowing for the
gravity, friction and acceleration effects

• Correlations handle Slip, holdup and multiphase flow pattern in

different ways e.g. slip, flow regime accounted for / not accounted
for

• Correlations using flow maps may give discontinuous results –

modern mechanistic correlations overcome this.

• No single correlation is “best”, and comparison of the correlations

is recommended to select the the optimum one for a given
application
 VLP MODELLING
Multiphase Flow Correlations available in Prosper
Author Year Data Source Nominal ID Fluids & Rates Comment
Duns & Ros Original 1961 185' high experimental loop+field 1.26" to 5.6" with Air, water & liquid Good over a wide range, more so for mist
data 2 annulus config. hydrocarbon flows, tend to overpredict VLP in oil wells
Duns & Ros Modified

Francher & Brown 1963 Field data from plastic coated tubing 1.995 ID Gas and water at < Being no-slip always predicts lowest pressure
400stb/d & GOR drops therefore good for data QC
>5000
Hagedorn & Brown 1965 475 test data sets from 1500' deep 1" to 2.5" Air, water & crude oils Most widely used VLP correlation - good over
vertical experimental well of 10, 30 & 110cp a wider range particularly for slug flows
Petroleum Experts ? Uses the Gould et al flow map, Generally obsolete
Hagedorn & Brown for slug, Duns
and Ros for mist
Petroleum Experts 2 ? Improved version of PE1, better for
preditcing low rate VLP
Petroleum Experts 3 ? Include PE2 featues with additional Preferred for gassy, foamy heavy oils
features for viscous, volatile and
foamy oils
Petroleum Experts 4 ? Advanced mechanistic model Good all round correlation, avoids
suitable for any fluid (including discontinuities which apply to empirical
condensates) correlations, runs slower than empirical
Orkiszewiski 1967 Huge set of field data various! various! 'Hybrid' model of different 'best' correlations.
Hence found discontinuous! Use not
encouraged!
Beggs & Brill 1973 90' long acrylic pipe with ±90 1" to 1.5" Air & water Better for all angles. Mukherjee & Brill
inclination changes. 584 measure attempted to improve it in 1985
tests with flow pattern observations.
GRE BP Mechanistic Correlation Developed to model slug flow in pipelines but
also found to be applicable to tubing
Gray 1978 108 well test data with 88 producing 3.5" Condensate up to Excellent for gas and gas-condensate wells
free liquids 50b/MM & water up to but should be used with caution for higher
5b/MM with velocities WGR/CGR
up to 50ft/s

Correlations suitable for gas wells

CONTENTS

 Introduction
 PVT Fundamentals
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
CONTENTS

 Introduction
 PVT Fundamentals
 Well Modelling Fundamentals
 Setting up a well model
 IPR modelling
 VLP modelling
 VLP / IPR matching and model validation
 Conclusions
THANK YOU