SPE-196248-MS

Dynamic Well Modeling, Where are We?: Mahakam Operation Experience for
Well Diagnostics & Optimization

Adnan Syarafi Ashfahani and Sulistiyo Sulistiyo, PERTAMINA Hulu Mahakam; Hairuni Safri Tri Hapsari,
Schlumberger

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Bali, Indonesia, 29-31 October 2019.

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
Since first time introduced in oil & gas well by Gilbert (1954) then popularized by Mach (1979) and
Brown (1984) as Nodal Analysis™, system analysis is commonly used to analyze the performance of
system composed of multiple interacting components. It is generally used for well diagnostic, performance
matching, and prediction for optimization. In this concept, multiphase flow modeling in steady-state
condition also introduced and widely used in industry to analyze flow performance inside wellbore with
empirical or mechanistic approach. However by its nature, flow performance always as transient flow
phenomenon and several cases could not be captured by steady-state model. Dynamic well modeling
is needed to verify some of the conclusions from steady-state simulation therefore uncertainty could be
reduced. Dynamic model features mechanistic & empirical approach with basic conservation equations
(mass, energy, momentum), constitutive correlations and flow pattern transition modeling (Benidiksen et al,
1991; Staff et al., 2015). It is a powerful approach to generate model where dynamic-transient phenomena
is become concern.
Dynamic well modeling has been demonstrated in latest 5 years of Mahakam operation for specific
purpose where steady-state well model which regularly used could not represent dynamic condition.
Several studies are presented in this paper with certain objectives for well diagnostic, optimization, risk
analysis or in general for petroleum engineering purpose: 1) Liquid loading prediction; 2) Well start-up
prediction & analysis; 3) Static condition requirement analysis for well revival campaign; 3) Velocity
String performance prediction; 4) Alternative water production estimation where direct measurement has
limitations; 5) Wellhead shut-in pressure prediction with buffer zone effect to support unlocking high
pressure reservoirs; 6) Blow-out modeling and dynamic well killing for blow-out contingency plan; 7)
Unstable gas lift injection phenomena that impact to liquid production; 8) Liquid accumulation inside
pipeline which impact to well back pressure, etc. The advantage and drawbacks from model implementation
also presented as a practical reference to consider this approach. In summary, dynamic well modeling is
beneficial in Mahakam operation, moreover in today's mature condition (operated more than 40 years) where
the problem becomes more complex and better decision making is needed to consider efficient method with
effective cost.
2 SPE-196248-MS

Keyword: Mahakam, multiphase flow, dynamic well modeling

Introduction
Since first time introduced in oil & gas well by Gilbert (1954) then popularized by Mach (1979) and Brown
(1984) as Nodal Analysis™, system analysis is commonly used to analyze the performance of system
composed of multiple interacting components. It is based on the concept of continuity and has objective
to combine the various components of the production system for an individual well to estimate production
rates and optimize the components of the production system (i.e. well & surface facilities) as seen in Figure
1. The flow rate and pressure at the node can be calculated since: 1) Flow into the node equals flow out the
node; 2) Only one pressure can exist at the node. Further, at any time, the pressure at the end point of the
system: separator (Psep) and reservoir (Pr) are both fixed. Thus:

Figure 1—Production system & associated pressure (Mach et al, 1979)

Typical result of such analysis is shown in Figure 2 where the pressure rate relationship has been plotted
for inflow equation (1) and outflow equation (2) at the node. The intersection of these two lines is the
normally unique operating point. Fluid flow inside or from the wellbore to the surface pipeline (Figure
3) and end to production equipment is generally multiphase flow. The characteristics of multiphase flow
regimes are shown in Figure 4 for horizontal and vertical pipe/conduit. This various flow regimes could be
expected in as a function of the superficial velocities of gas and liquid flow. The calculation of pressure
drop in two-phase flow is very complex and is based on empirical relationships to take into account the
phase changes that occur because of pressure and temperature changes along the flow, the relative velocities
of the phases, and complex effects of elevation changes. Table 1 lists several commercial programs that
are available to model pressure drop. Because most of these models are based to some extent on empirical
relations, they are limited in accuracy to the data sets from which the relations were designed.
SPE-196248-MS 3

Figure 2—Node flow rate & pressure (courtesy from Heriot Watt Univ., 2009)

Figure 3—Fluid flow system along pipelines (courtesy of AMEC Paragon)

Figure 4—Flow regime for horizontal and vertical conduit (courtesy from AMEC Paragon)

Table 1—Pressure drop model from commercial simulator (courtesy of AMEC Paragon)

By using this fundamental concept, steady-state well modeling with empirical or mechanistic approach is
generally used in Mahakam block. Its application for well diagnostic, performance matching, and prediction
4 SPE-196248-MS

for optimization are described by several reports such as 1) Field integrated model (Ashfahani & Tjiu,
2018; Ashfahani et al, 2018); 2) Auto-gas lift technique (Rakhmadhani et al., 2017); 3). Gas lift design for
conventional and unconventional gas lift (Krishna, et al., 2016; Ashfahani et al., 2018); 4) Routing allocation
for gas production optimization (Pradika & Ashfahani, 2016); 5) Worst case discharge study for blow-out
prediction (Ashfahani & Dewanta, 2018); 6) Wellhead shut-in pressure prediction method to minimize risk
in order to unlock potential from wells with reservoir pressure above surface equipment limit (Ashfahani
& Sulistiyo, 2018).
The limitation of the steady state Nodal AnalysisTM is that it does not capture the transition of flow regime
that occur in the well where its the important key to explain the flow behavior that causing example flow
instability in the system and/or liquid accumulation which lead to the liquid loading. The steady state model
also could not capture the intermittent operation such as start up, clean up, intermittent injection, etc. By
its nature as shown on Figure 5 (Dewanta & Ashfahani, 2017), wellbore flow performance also occurred
in dynamic-transient flow phenomenon. Therefore, time dependant-dynamic well modeling is needed to
verify some of the conclusions from steady-state simulation in order to reduce uncertainty. Dynamic model
features mechanistic & empirical approach with basic conservation equations (mass, energy, momentum),
constitutive correlations and flow pattern transition modeling (Bendiksen, et al, 1991; SPT, 2011; Staff
et al., 2015; Hapsari, 2018). It is a powerful approach to generate well model where dynamic-transient
phenomenon is become concern. Several simulators are available to demonstrate multiphase transient
simulation for wellbore or pipeline domain as shown in Table 1. During last 5 years, several reports
show wide application for dynamic well modeling that could give impact for production diagnostics, risk
prediction or production optimization: 1. Gas condensate well unloading critical rate (Alamu, 2013); 2)
Well flow dynamic modeling to optimize well operations (Konstantin, 2013); 3) Offshore dynamic kill
operations (Oskarsen et al., 2016); 4) Supporting successful start-up of challenging well (Wang et al., 2017);
5). Dynamic modeling for single well re-injection of non-condensable gases and water (Stacey et al., 2016);
6) Validation of ESP oil wells measured parameters (Ganat & Hrairi, 2016); 7) Wellbore - reservoir coupled
dynamic simulation to evaluate the cycling capability of liquid-loaded wells (Hu et al., 2006); 8) Self-restart
potential predicition of acid stimulated wells by bullhead treatment in deepwater environment (Ugoala et
al., 2015); 9) Reducing well ofloading risks with dynamic wellbore modeling (Codrington & Calvert, 2018).

Figure 5—Steady state (left) and dynamic condition (right) on well modelling

Dynamic well modeling has been demonstrated in latest 5 years of Mahakam operation for specific
purpose where steady-state well model which regularly used could not represent dynamic condition. Several
studies are presented in this paper with certain objectives for well diagnostic, optimization, risk analysis
or in general for petroleum engineering purpose: 1) Well start-up/clean-up prediction & analysis; 2) Static
SPE-196248-MS 5

condition requirement analysis for well revival campaign; 3) Velocity String performance prediction for
liquid loading well; 4) Alternative water production estimation; 5) Unstable gas lift injection phenomenon
that impact to liquid production; 6) Wellhead shut-in pressure prediction with buffer zone effect to
support unlocking high pressure reservoirs; 7) Blow-out modeling and dynamic well killing for blow-out
contingency plan; 8) Pipeline liquid accumulation analysis. The advantage and drawbacks from model
implementation also presented as a practical reference to consider this approach. The methodology may
be case-dependent and application to other cases may require adjustment or event change in methodology.
Dynamic well modeling is beneficial in Mahakam operation, moreover in today's mature condition. This
block has been in operation for over 40 years with 19 trillion cubic feet of gas along with 1.5 billion barrels
of oil. The complexity of the operations can be portrayed through the vast number of drilled and producing
wells of over 2,000 and 700 wells respectively (Herwin, et al, 2017). The problem becomes more complex
and better decision making is needed to consider efficient method with effective cost.

Basic Theory
Dynamic well modeling in this paper follows fundamental dynamic flow model OLGA for well application.
The physical model of OLGA was originally based on small diameter data for low-pressure air/water flow
(Benidiksen, 1991). This model features a transient and one-dimensional model with three-fluid model
implementation (gas, oil and water). It realized with a semi-implicit numerical scheme using staggered grid
in a finite volume system. For simplicity in basic theory, physical models are described in two-fluid model:
gas & liquid (Bendiksen et al., 1991; Staff et al., 2015). Continuity equations are applied for gas, liquid
bulk, and liquid droplets, which may be coupled through interphasial mass transfer. Only two momentum
equation are used, however a combined equation for the gas and possible liquid droplets and a separate one
for the liquid film. A mixture energy conservation equation is applied. Equations below are derived from
Benidiksen et al. (1991).

Conservation of Mass
For the gas phase,
(1)
For the liquid phase at the wall,

(2)

For liquid droplets,

(3)

Where VG, VL, VD = gas, liquid film, and liquid droplet volume fraction, ρ = demsity, v = velocity, p
= pressure, and A = pipe cross-sectional area. ψg = mass-transfer rate between the phase, ψL, ψd = the
entrainment and deposition rates, and Gf = possible mass source of Phase f. Subscripts g, L, I and D indicate
gas, liquid, interface and droplets respectively.

Conservation of Momentum
Conservation of momentum is expressed for three different fields, yielding the following separate 1D
momentum equation for gas, possible liquid droplets and liquid bulk or film. For the gas phase,

(4)
6 SPE-196248-MS

For liquid droplets,

(5)

Equation (4) & (5) are combined to yield a combined momentum equation, where the gas/droplet drag
terms Fd, cancel out:

(6)

For the liquid at the wall,

(7)

Where α = pipe inclination with the vertical and Sg, SL and Si = wetted perimeters of the gas, liquid
and interface. The internal source, Gf, is assumed to enter at a 90° angle to the pipe wall, carrying no net
momentum. The ebove conservation equations can be applied for all flow regimes. Observe, however, that
certain terms may drop out for certain flow regimes; e.g., in slug or dispersed bubble flow, all the droplets
are disappear. For slug flow, the frictional pressure drop termas are composite. They consists of three terms,
owing to the liquid slug, the slug bubble and the film under it, and the liquid film acceleration pressure
drop.the relative velocity vr, is defined by the following slip equation:
(8)
Where RD is a distribution slip ratio which caused by an uneven distribution of phases and velocities
aross the pipe cross section.

Pressure Equation
The conservation of mass equation may be expanded with respect to pressure, temperature and composition
assuming that the densities are given as
(9)
Where the mass fraction, Rs is
(10)
For the gas equation,

(11)

Dividing the expansion of equation (10) for each phase by the densities and adding the three equations
yields a volume-conservation equation by neglecting the last two terms because they normally are negligible
in pipeline transport problems owing to the slow temperature development.
SPE-196248-MS 7

(12)

Inserting the mass-conservation equations for each phase and applying Vg + VL + VD = 1 gives

(13)

Energy Equation
A mixture energy-conservation is applied:

(14)

where, E = internal energy per unit mass, h = elevation, HS = enthalpy from mass sources, and U = heat
transfer from pipe walls.

Thermal Calculation
Dynamic well model can simulate a pipeline with a totally insulated wall or with a wall composed of layers
of different thickness, heat capacities and conductivities. The wall description may change along the pipeline
to simulate, for instance, a well surrounded by rock of a certain vertical temperature profile, connected to
a flowline with insulating materials and concrete coating, and an uninsulated riser. Dynamic well model
computes heat-transfer coefficient from the flowing fluid to the internal pipe wall. Special phenomena,
such as Joule-Thompson effect, are included, provided that the PVT package applied to generate the fluid
property tables can describe such effects.

Fluid Properties and Phase Transfer

All fluid properties (densities, compressibilities, viscosities, surface tension, enthalpies, heat capacities and
thermal conductivities) are given as tables in pressure and temperature, and the actual values at a given
point in time and space are found by interpolating these tables. The tables are generated before dynamic
simulation is run by use of any fluid properties package based on Peng-Robinson, Soave-Redlich-Kwong,
or another equation of state, complying with the specified table format. The total mixture composition is
assumed to be constant in time along the pipeline, while the gas and liquid composition change with pressure
and temperature as a result of interfacial mass-transfer.

Interfacial Mass Transfer

The applied interfacial mass-transfer model can treat both normal condensation or evaporation and
retrograde condensation, in which a heavy phase condenses from the gas phase as the pressure drops.
Defining a gas mass fraction at equilibrium conditions on equation (9), we may compute the mass-transfer
rate as

(15)

The term ((∂R_s)/∂p)_T ∂p/∂t represents the phase transfer from a mass present in a section owing to
pressure change in that section. The term ((∂R_s)/∂p)_T ∂p/∂z ∂z/∂t represents the mass transfer caused by
8 SPE-196248-MS

mass flowing from one section to next section. Because only derivatives of Rs appear in equation (14), errors
resulting from the assumption of constant composition are minimized.

Flow Regime Description

The friction factor and wetted perimeters depend on flow regime. Two basic flow-regime classes are applied:
distributed, which contains bubble and slug flow, and separated, which contains stratified and annular-mist
flow. This dynamic model is a unified model which does not require separate user-specified correlations
for liquid holdup, etc. For each pipeline section, a dynamic flow regime prediction is required, yielding
the correct flow regime as a function of average flow parameters. Stratified and annular-mist flows are
characterized by the two phases moving separately (Figure 6). The phase distribution across the respective
phase areas are assumed constant. The distribution slip ratio (RD) in equation (8) then becomes 1.0. The
transition between stratified and annular flow is based on wetted perimeter of the liquid film; annular flow
results when this perimeter becomes equal to the film inner circumference. Stratified flow may be either
smooth or wavy. An expression for the average wave height (hw) may be obtained by assuming that the mass
flow forces in the gas balance the gravitational & surface tension forces, or
(16)
or

(17)

Figure 6—Schematic of stratified annular mist and slug flow (Bendiksen et al., 1991)

When the expression in the square root is negative, hw is zero and stratified smooth flow is obtained.
For droplet deposition/entrainment, the following equation for vertical flow may be obtained (Andreussi
& Persen, 1987):

(18)

As Malnes (1979) showed, in the general bubble or slug flow case, the average phase velocities satisfy
the following relation:
(19)
where vr and Rd are determined from continuity requirements. For VgS = 0, equation (18) reduces to the
general expression for pure slug flow:
SPE-196248-MS 9

(20)

For fully developed turbulent slug flow with sufficiently large slug lengths (≥10D), Bendiksen (1984)
showed that the velocity of slug (or Taylor) bubbles, vb, may be approximated for all inclinations. For bubble
flow equation (18) reduces to
(21)
where
(22)
And
(23)
is a distribution parameter. Malnes (1979) gives the average bubble-rise velocity as

(24)

with positive values upward. Using Gregory and Scott's data (1969), Malnes (1983) proposed the void
frcation in liquid slugs which applied for small scale systems. For hig pressure, large diameter pipes, another
set of empirical correlations based on the data from the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Laboratiey was used. The
total pressure drop in slug flow consists of there terms:

(25)

where Δps = frictional pressure drop in liquid slug, Δpb = frictional pressure drop across the slug bubble,
and Δps= acceleration pressure drop required to accelerate the liquid under the slug bubble, with velocity
vLb up to the liquid velocity in the slug, vLS (Δpac = 0 at present). L is the total length of the slug and bubble.
These terms are dependent on the slug fraction, the slug bubble void fraction, and the film velocity under the
slug bubble. The void fraction in the slug bubble, vgb, is obtained by treating the flow in the film under the
slug bubble as stratified or annular flow. This is further described by Malnes (1983), who gives additional
equations. For slug flow, the wall friction terms will be more complicated than shown in equation (6) and (7)
because liquid friction will be dependent on vg and the gas friction on vL. As stated, the friction factors and
wetted perimeters are dependent on flow regime. The transition between the distributed and separated flow
regime classes is based on the assumption of continuous average void fraction and is determined according
to minimum-slip concept. The flow regime yielding the minimum gas velocity is chosen. Wallis (1969)
empirically found a similar criterion to describe the transition from annular to slug flow very well. This
criterion covers the transitions from stratified to bubble flow, stratified to slug flow, annular to slug flow
and annular to bubble flow. In distributed flow, bubble flow is obtained continuously when all the gas is
carried by the liquid slugs, when the slug fraction Fs approaches unity. This occurs when the void fraction
in the liquid slug (VgS) becomes larger than the average void fraction (Vg). The stratified to annular flow
transition is obtained when the wave height (hw) reaches the top of the tube (or SL = πD). Figure 7 shows
flow pattern transition workflow for this dynamic well model that generated for OLGA simulator.
10 SPE-196248-MS

Figure 7—Flow pattern transition workflow (courtesy from SPT Group, 2011)

Well Dynamic Model Application in Mahakam

Well start-up/clean-up prediction & analysis
Well-95 is tubingless architecture for shallow zone development in Field-A. For initial production, it will
produce Res. 001 which has high sand production risk. Resin based chemical sand control is treated
to monetize Res. 001. At initial condition well was fulfilled with diesel SG 0.81 as shown by Figure
8, This diesel displaced completion fluid post drilling before chemical sand control main pumping
treatment. Reservoir properties shows lower permeability compare to common deltaic shallow zone
reservoir properties in Field-A. It is as an impact from low porosity measured from open hole log data. This
low permeability creates uncertainty of reservoir inflow productivity for well to start-up/clean up. Dynamic
model simulation to predict start-up/clean-up performance of Well-95 is initiated in order to evaluate the
possibility of natural start-up (well start flowing by itself) or need additional lifting support from coil
tubing nitrogen injection. Figure 9 shows initial condition of detail well model based on well trajectory,
architecture, reservoir inflow data and static fluid (diesel) inside wellbore.

Figure 8—Well-95 downhole pressure survey data before pumping treatment

SPE-196248-MS 11

Figure 9—Well-95 generated dynamic model at initial condition

Figure 10 shows dynamic model simulation to predict start-up/clean-up performance from Well-95.
Simulation result predicts good lifting performance to lift diesel inside wellbore and flowing with gas rate
(Qg) 3.6 MMscfd. Assumed no water production at initial production and no condensate/oil production
is observed based on production history in Field-A shallow zone. This simulation was run with flowline
pressure mode and downhole drawdown limit for sand control operation envelope as boundary conditions.
This result shows that well could start to flow by itself at transient condition and ready for production.

Figure 10—Well 95 start-up/clean-up prediction after dynamic model simulation

Actual start-up/clean-up data shows lower pressure at wellhead for same choke opening. Well could
started to flow by itself and do not need additional lifting support. Table 2 shows wellhead parameter
12 SPE-196248-MS

comparison between actual and dynamic model simulation for Well-95 start-up/clean-up case. This result
shows good performance from dynamic model prediction in order to support operation decision making
and to optimize operation cost and initial production timing.

Table 2—Well 95 dynamic model matching after inflow productivity adjustment

Static condition requirements analysis for well revival campaign

Field-A Shallow Zone (ASZ) development which initially identified as drilling hazards has been extensively
developed to produce gas from widespread and scattered gas bearing sand all over 1500 km2 of deltaic
area. It corresponds to Pliocone fluvio-deltaic series in the depth 600 – 1500 mTVDss where limited and
individual gas accumulations are identified on channel reservoirs with extremely good properties. ASZ gas
reservoir characteristics are mostly unconsolidated therefore sand control technique is widely implemented
for monetizing this potential. Other reservoir characteristic is strong aquifer support where pore pressure is
generally identified as hydrostatic. Due to these characteristics, production from ASZ wells is commonly
limited considering quick water breakthrough and sand control limitation from individual and limited
volume of reservoir. Idle well as an impact from reservoir characteristic & volume generates a big number of
un-productive wells. These unproductive wells also need to be monitored and preserve without production
gain. Idle well revival campaign is initiated to unlock remaining reserves by taking advantage from reservoir
equilibration. This phenomenon explains gas and water phase segregation to pseudo initial condition by
drainage mechanism after long duration of non-productive phase. It is observed in ASZ producer wells that
already shut in for long duration. This revival campaign is classified as: 1). Shut-in build up revival; 2)
Gravel pack zone change revival; 3) Dead Well Revival. One of supporting item that was prepared for this
revival campaign is dynamic well simulation study to determine static condition requirements for well to
be revived.
Well revival condition which related to minimum liquid column height and uncertainty from reservoir
inflow productivity need to be defined in order to be used as a reference for automatic monitoring tool of
well candidate selection. Minimum liquid column height could be estimated by wellhead shut-in pressure
(WHSIP) monitoring at surface with constant hydrostatic pressure at reservoir. This assumption comes from
formation pressure record and several well testing data from ASZ wells (Rushatmanto, 2015). Dynamic
well model is generated to capture this problem. By using this dynamic model, static initial condition which
related with liquid column height could be defined before well flowing. Sensitivity analysis related to liquid
column height and reservoir inflow productivity could be performed in order to define minimum static
condition requirement for well to be revived with uncertainty of reservoir inflow uncertainty. Well-62 was
used for matching reference (Figure 11) which revive after long duration of shut-in build up. Table 3 shows
matching result with actual data. Liquid column condition is defined based on WHSIP data and could be
confirmed by downhole pressure measurement if any.
SPE-196248-MS 13

Figure 11—Well-62 for matching model reference

Table 3—Dynamic simulation result for Well-62

Sensitivity analysis for matching model was shown by Figure 12 to determine minimum liquid column
height for well to be revived with uncertainty of reservoir inflow productivity. Based on matched model, well
requires 1/2h liquid column height from reservoir depth in order for well to be revived. Pressure gradient of
liquid column also becomes critical parameter for well to revive. Higher WHSIP, create possibility of lower
pressure gradient of liquid column since mixture between gas & water are presence.

Figure 12—Sensitivity analysis for static condition requirement

14 SPE-196248-MS

Additional gain and cumulative production is obtained in regular basis after campaign implementation
in order to optimize field production. This methodology could used for other gas field with typical
characteristics as an initiative to optimize each standard cubic feet of gas production from idle production
well.

Velocity String prediction for liquid loading well

Velocity String (VS) trial was initiated for installation possibility in Field-A Main Zone (AMZ) with
depletion drive reservoir mechanism. By applying this technique, smaller diameter of tubing string (i.e. coil
tubing or smaller conventional tubing) is installed inside the production tubing. The idea is to reduce cross-
sectional flow area and increase velocity at certain wellbore section. The higher gas velocity provides more
transport energy. Gas velocity is expected to rise above minimum critical velocity and able to lift up liquid
droplet in wellbore (Andrianata et al., 2017). Figure 13 shows the expected result from VS trial in Field-A.
This trial was initiated to improve lifting performance and extend well production duration from gas wells
in Field-A that have problem with reservoir pressure depletion and liquid loading.

Figure 13—VS expected result from Field-A

Three well candidates with liquid loading problem are proposed for trial with 1.75" coil tubing (CT)
inside 4.5" production tubing for annular flow method. Job sequence was generated to verified trial result
for example Tubular flow inside 4.5" production tubing to flowline pressure and annular flow 1.75" CT
inside 4.5" tuibing flow to flowline pressure. Field trial result showed fast decline for both sequence when
put on flowline pressure. Annular flow method by CT inside production tubing is not enough to improve
lifting performance by reducing flow section area. Due to economic and operation constraint, standard VS
installation by tubular flow inside 1.75" VS string could not be performed for field trial. Dynamic model
simulation was initiated to represent this condition. Figure 14 shows dynamic model simulation as a basis
for matched model for standard VS performance prediction. Figure 15 shows prediction result for tubular
flow 1.75" VS inside 4.5" production tubing. By implementing standard VS installation, lifting performance
could be constantly maintained at latest value of Pres and CGR/WGR condition. This result gives an idea
to re-do trial for standard VS installation on Field-A wells. Economic reason becomes challenging by
considering safety and operation delta environment condition.
SPE-196248-MS 15

Figure 14—Dynamic simulation result for Well 15 for tubular flow

4.5" tubing (a) and annular flow 1.75" CT inside 4.5" tubing (b)

Figure 15—Dynamic simulation result for standard tubular flow 1.75" VS Tubing

Alternative water production estimation

This study focuses on water production rate (Qw) estimation based on WH parameter for Field-A. Qg is
assumed to be known parameter in this study since it is a concerning parameter in daily monitoring which
also confirmed by actual monitoring record (i.e. flowline measurement in real time). Based on production
history, no condensate or oil production is observed from reservoir fluid in Field-A. Qw could be measured
regular production test by delta-environment testing barge and gathering separator. However, this production
test could not be implemented regularly due to several issue for example separator is out of service or shut-
in well for production test by testing barge has risk for well could not flow back and create potential loss (i.e.
due to severe water production). Figure 16 shows plot data between Qw and Wellhead Flowing Temperature
(WHFT) measurement during production test for several well samples. It shows no relation between Qw and
WHFT measurement for certain Qg. At same WHFT, Qw could be significantly different.
16 SPE-196248-MS

Figure 16—Actual data samples for Qw vs WHFT Field-A (Ashfahani & Grahadiningrat, 2019)

This uncertainty is coming from several parameters that affect WHFT (Allen & Roberts, 1993): 1)
Bottom-hole temperature; 2) Flow rate; 3) Pressure drop in the tubing; 4) Specific heat of the gas, etc. This
Qw measurement is critical for: 1) Perform well diagnosis for lifting performance; 2) Estimate the magnitude
of massive water production that will impact to gas production; 3) To confirm water breakthrough due
to coning effect; 4) Decision guidance for choking/unchoking performance by considering sand control
operation envelope or water breakthrough. Since wellhead parameter is manually recorded in daily basis
(Qg, WHFP, WHFT, choke opening) for qualitative Qw estimation, these data also could be used for
quantitative Qw estimation by proposed well model. Three methods of Qw estimation are initiated: 1)
Dynamic simulation by OLGA Well (basic conservation equation); 2) Steady-state simulation by IPM-
Prosper (flowing temperature prediction feature); 3) Analytical model of flowing temperature correlation
that widely used in industry, i.e Ramey (1962), Shiu & Beggs (1980), Hasan & Kabir (1996), Sagar
& Schmidt (1991). Geothermal gradient for estimation bottom-hole temperature becomes key factor to
estimate Qw based on WH parameter data. Figure 17 shows example of dynamic simulation result to match
Qw estimation based on actualwellhead (WH) parameter data for Well-79. Detail model (PVT fluid &
well architecture) should be generated that will impact to heat transfer distribution along wellbore during
simulation. Initial condition & boundary condition has to be defined before simulation run. It could be
taken from WH parameter data, reservoir data and shut-in condition data (i.e. water level, pressure and
temperature). Model validation was performed for Well-79 based on WH parameter data with different well
model method. Those 3 methods show good performance in estimating WHFT based on WH data (Qg, Qw
and WHFP) as shown in Table 4. U value (overall heat transfer coefficient) should be determined based on
WH parameter data for steady-state model. In analytical model, relaxing distance (A) coefficient should be
adjusted in order to represent flowing temperature. It is difficult to be estimated and become function of U
value. Shiu & Beggs (1980) developed an empirical method to estimate A based on measured temperature
profiles from 270 wells.
SPE-196248-MS 17

Figure 17—Qw estimation by dynamic model

Table 4—Qw estimation from different well model methods

Unstable gas lift injection phenomenon that impact to liquid production

Field-Z is the fluvio-deltaic (multi-layer) oil and gas field located in Delta Mahakam. This field was
discovered in 1974 and started to be produced in 1975. It has been produced 900 MMstb and 2 Tscf of
oil and gas respectively with today's contribution is 70% of Delta Mahakam oil production. More than
90% of Field-Z production wells are produced using gas lift method and it becomes a "backbone" for its
production recently. Various gas lift configuration type has been implemented to deal with objectives: 1).
Primary artificial lift; 2) Deepening purpose to improve production; 3) Reservoir management requirements;
4) Future technology for efficient completion cost (Ashfahani, et al., 2018).
Field-Z has well established gas lift system: compression system, distribution network and closed loop
gas lift injection supply. Gas lift injection rate (Qgi) is regulated manually by gas lift choke based on optimum
gas lift performance curve analysis. Qgi has variation from 0.3 to 1 MMscfd based on optimum gas lift rate
allocation. However, based on Barton chart reading close to gas lift choke, unstable flow of Qgi is observed
(Figure 18). Asril et al., (2017) reports impact of liquid production due to unstable flow of Qgi and automatic
Qgi injection system could solve this problem for Field-OF condition. Automated gas lift injection system for
Qgi becomes alternative solution to solve this liquid production impact concern in Field-Z. Dynamic model
simulation was initiated before going to field trial to capture this unstable Qgi phenomenon that impact to
liquid production.
18 SPE-196248-MS

Figure 18—Example of Barton chart reading for unstable Qgi

Synthetic dynamic model (based on Field-Z well condition) run 2 cases for unstable Qgi impact to liquid
production as shown in Figure 19 for certain gas lift injection pressure (Pinj) ∼84 Barg. Case 1 is high
Qgi impact (stable and unstable) for liquid production. The result shows no impact from liquid production
in average for unstable Qgi (0.8 – 1.2 MMscfd). For stable Qgi, it is completely no impact for liquid
production. Case 2 is low Qgi (< 0.1 MMscfd) impact for liquid production. The result shows severe slugging
phenomenon for stable and unstable Qgi. This result need to be verified with actual data of unstable Qgi
impact to liquid production.

Figure 19—Dynamic model simulation result for high Qgi (left) and low Qgi (right)

Figure 20 shows actual gas lift performance test from Well-55 that generated by testing barge production
test. This gas lift performance will be used for Gas Lift Performance Curve (GLPC) matching with steady-
state model. Unstable Qgi also performed to verify dynamic simulation result for liquid production impact.
There is no liquid production impact was observed in average due to unstable Qgi at high range (1 – 1.5
MMscfd) and low range (0.6 – 1 MMscfd). Dynamic model simulation also performed to re-matched this
phenomenon for Well-55 case. It shows stable liquid performance for unstable low Qgi 0.6 – 1.2 MMscfd.
Based on this result it was confirmed that unstable Qgi for Field-Z operation envelope (0.1 – 1 MMscfd)
SPE-196248-MS 19

does not give any significant impact to liquid production performance in average. Possible reason behind
this phenomenon is sufficient supply of Qgi and Pinj to lift liquid column inside wellbore considering Field-
Z reservoir contributor depth.

Figure 20—Field gas lift performance test for Well-55

Wellhead shut-in pressure prediction with buffer zone effect (Ashfahani & Sulistiyo, 2018)
Field-A is a mature giant gas field which located in Mahakam Delta. Recently, it contributes 35% of
Mahakam gas production and characterized with multi-layer reservoirs. Reservoirs with pressure above
6000 psia are observed at existing wells with depth deeper than 3800 mTVDss. These high pressure
reservoirs will need special safety mitigation before put the well to production (i.e. X-mass tree pressure
rating limit and flowline allowable pressure limit). A better methodology is presented in this paper to
estimate Wellhead Shut-In Pressure (WHSIP) by considering buffer effect from existing depleted multi-
layer reservoirs as shown by Figure 21. It will give a more accurate WHSIP prediction and allow a better
planning of perforation priority for operational purpose.
20 SPE-196248-MS

Figure 21—Buffer effect ilustration

Model matching was performed to test model prediction performance with actual WHSIP from HP
reservoirs perforation with buffer effect. In this dynamic model, choke equipment model could be set to
close position in order to represent shut-in condition. Initial condition is defined as wellbore condition where
HP reservoir perforation was conducted: liquid column height, temperature, pressure. WHSIP calculation
result example is presented on Figure 22 for Well #1. It shows dynamic condition of shut-in pressure build
up inside wellbore as a transient phenomenon, then followed by stabilization phase.

Figure 22—WHSIP calculation with dynamic model for Well #1

Dynamic simulation result comparison with actual data is presented in Table 5 & 6. For Well #1, dynamic
model gives good performance with error 1% (78 psia difference). It was obtained by detail estimation of
pressure and reservoir properties data from depleted reservoirs which act as buffer zones. The predicted and
actual WHSIP is close to X-mass tree pressure limit 6500 psi which means less buffer effect. HP reservoir
with pressure ∼8000 psi only decreases ∼2000 psia at wellhead. This WHSIP value still maintained until
next 1.5 years. Latest pressure-temperature downhole data showed no clear thieving zones (cross-flow)
between HP and depleted reservoirs (Nurwijayanti et al., 2018). From this available data, we could estimate
possible condition: 1) Poor productivity from depleted zones, therefore create less buffer effect; or 2)
SPE-196248-MS 21

Bottom hole pressure already in balance condition, no more cross-flow occurred. For Well #2, dynamic
model simulation result shows good performance for adjustment case with error 10% (218 psia difference).
This performance was obtained by adjustment initiative (higher pressure estimation) for depleted zones.
By implementing this sensitivity case, buffer zone effect is less compare to base case. It creates higher
WHSIP and close to actual data. By this case experience, it shows that sensitivity should be performed for
WHSIP prediction if no downhole data available for existing depleted zones (i.e. by production logging
data for reservoir contribution info). Therefore detail and precise reservoir synthesis should be performed to
determine robust reservoirs data input: pressure and properties. Steady-state with Nodal AnalysisTM based
model also generated for Well #2. By implementing steady-state model simulation, error performance is
15% (376 psia difference) compare to actual data (Table 7). With high uncertainty from buffer zone data,
both models create error performance 10 – 15% compare to actual data. However, the prediction result is
tolerable and still considered reliable to predict WHSIP.

Table 5—Dynamic simulation result for Well #1

Table 6—Dynamic simulation result for Well #2

Table 7—Dynamic vs steady-state simulation result for Well #2

Based on this case study, dynamic simulation gives better performance compare to steady-state model.
Sensitivity case and also advantages-drawbacks of these models are described in this study in order to create
robust and "easy to use" model to be implemented for regular operation purpose. By implementing this
method, risk can be predicted and prioritized to support production from reservoir potential with pressure
above surface equipment limit. It will be useful for decision maker to consider perforation job from high
pressure reservoirs with high potential possibility but still considering safety aspect.

Blow-out and dynamic well killing modeling (Ashfahani et al., 2018)

Blow-out Contingency Plan (BOCP) is a mandatory document in Mahakam for any drilling and well
activities including pre-drilling, production and post-production phase. All wells unless temporarily or
permanently abandoned should be covered by this BOCP document (Dewanta et al., 2017). Specific BOCP
is required for certain needs and it becomes the main reference for the company to define a quick, integrated
22 SPE-196248-MS

and robust action for blow-out situation. The preliminary studies of BOCP cover analysis for worst case
discharge (WCD) & dynamic well killing study. WCD & dynamic well killing study are the critical parts
of the BOCP document since the result will be used as main reference for other preliminary studies and
create big impact for blow-out magnitude situation which will be treated with certain emergency response
plan. In fundamental, WCD study create well model and predict hydrocarbon blow-out flow rate at defined
scenario of blow out condition (drilling or non-drilling activities). The prediction is performed in steady
state condition by using NODAL analysis (Brown et al, 1984). Based on this steady state model, dynamic
well killing study creates dynamic condition of well blow-out and performs well killing simulation based
on defined scenario in order to provide proper overbalance in front of blowing-out reservoir(s). It will
gives guideline to check the feasibility and requirements of a dynamic kill operation through a relief well.
Figure 23 shows general workflow of these WCD and dynamic killing study. WCD study for a reference
well consists in reviewing the different well life cycle phase: drilling or non-drilling activities to identify
greatest oil spill and highest gas flow rate. Its objective is to compute blow-out flow rate at the BOP outlet
or wellhead conditions. It will be performed with a defined scenario based on preliminary risk assessment.
This steady state matching model then transferred to dynamic condition model, by re-perform well model
matching for different simulator. It will be used for dynamic well killing purpose that should be deal with
dynamic transient condition. The principle of dynamic killing study is to create overbalance in front of
blowing-out reservoir(s) in order to stop the reservoir influx. It is performed by pumping a killing fluid (mud
with specific density) through a relief well with high pumping rate to create high bottom-hole pressure. This
killing job is performed without exceeding the formation fracture pressure. The outcome of the dynamic
well killing study is the minimum requirement of killing mud density and pumping rate sequence to kill the
blow-out well. OLGA software for well module is used for represent dynamic model of well reference blow
out condition. By this dynamic model, we could predict the duration of transient flow then steady state flow
of blow-out. The input of this dynamic model (reservoir and well deliverability) is coming from transferred-
matching WCD model study. Killing fluid properties input is put into the model by using drilling practice
of well killing (i.e. mud viscosity, density, SG) with initial estimation of available pumping unit reference
(pumping rate, pressure, capacity). Pumping rate sequence is designed for several killing job scenario in
order to predict the performance of killing job, such as: proper killing duration, pumping capacity, fracture
pressure limitation, gas pocket observation and blow out continuity (in this case oil spill is critical).
SPE-196248-MS 23

Figure 23—Best practice workflow of WCD study

Case 1: Pre-Drilling Phase of Initial Field Development (Kusuma et al., 2015). Offshore 1 gas field in
Mahakam was planned to be developed with 7 planned drilled wells. These proposal wells are requested to be
identified related to blow-out occurrence during drilling activities. Three well model architecture scenarios
were considered (Figure 24) and create 21 WCD cases combination. All the penetrated reservoirs which
predicted from subsurface team are considered open during blow-out scenario. Based on WCD simulation,
Model #1 creates highest blow out rate for all planned drilled wells. From this Model #1, Mahakam-04 well
was predicted as the highest blow-out rate contributor (Qg) at atmospheric condition (Figure 25). Based
on this WCD study, Mahakam-04 well was used as the dynamic well killing simulation reference. Well
model is generated based on planned completion diagram with certain fracture gradient at 9-5/8" casing
shoe. Oil base mud as the killing mud is used to be injected at planned interception point for relief well
with sensitivity parameter: 1) Killing mud density 1 – 1.8 SG. 2) Pumping rate (bpm) 1- 4 bpm. Figure 26
shows dynamic well killing simulation result example for killed well condition with fracture gradient limit
consideration. Recommendation from this study: 1) With killing mud density 1.2 – 1.5 SG, it is feasible
to kill the well where overbalance is created in front of reservoirs; 2) Killing well simulation provides
overbalance condition but still below fracture gradient limit.
24 SPE-196248-MS

Figure 24—Well model for WCD scenario

Figure 25—WCD result for Offshore-1 gas field

Figure 26—Mahakam-04 well dynamic well killing simulation result example

Case2: Integrity Issue of Post Production Well (Ashfahani et al., 2016 & 2017). S-1 is the offshore
well (formerly exploration well) that produced for 18 months (1991 – 1992) with cumulative production =
190 bbls and 0.35 Bscf for oil and gas respectively. It was equipped with subsea wellhead & produced by
connected to other operator facilities near that area. This well could not be produced anymore, suspected
due to water breakthrough that reduced outflow performance in 1992. Since then, it was kept shut in with
closed at Donwhole Safety Valve (DHSV) level. Preliminary risk assessment categorized as a well with
integrity issue for several reasons: 1) Location is near coastal line and marine traffic; 2) Not fulfill company
SPE-196248-MS 25

rules for temporary and/or permanent abandonment; 3) It was producing oil for almost one year: oil effluent
is high risk in term of environmental severity. WCD simulation was performed with preliminary assumption
that blow out will be occurred at atmospheric pressure as shown in Figure 27 with water cut sensitivity.

Figure 27—Well S-1 WCD result

Dynamic well killing result was performed for initial condition assumption: 1) Water cut average = 90%.
2) Additional volume from initial oil column inside wellbore. Figure 28 shows example of dynamic well
killing simulation result for failure and success killing job by certain killing mud parameter (SG 1.2 – 1.8
and pumping rate 1 – 4 bpm). Simulation results give recommendation for success killing job: 1) SG 1.2
– 1.6; 2) At SG 1.2, pumping rate recommendation > 2 bpm; 3) At SG 1.6, pumping rate recommendation
< 3 bpm. Additional assumption was considered, 45 m depth of sea water will directly fulfill 3.5" tubing
once DHSV is failed, create natural well killing. By using incompressible Bernoulli equation for exit spout
velocity, sea water creates ∼130 kg/s of mass flow rate flow into tubing 3.5". It equals with 47 bpm of
killing mud injection pump rate. By using worst assumption of WCD study result this well is stop flowing
with small gas/oil pocket observed based on simulation sensitivity (Figure 29).

Figure 28—Well S-1 dynamic well killing simulation: failure killing (left) and success killing (right)
26 SPE-196248-MS

Figure 29—Well S-1 natural well killing result (worst case)

Pipeline liquid accumulation analysis

Platform PN3 to platform PN subsea flowline has ∼7 km length with maximum elevation ∼74 m. These
platforms are located in Field-Y in Mahakam. Liquid accumulation inside subsea flowline was observed
(Figure 30) and removed by regular pigging as a solution to reduce departure pressure in platform PN3.
However, liquid inside flowline was re-accumulated regularly after several months. Another alternative
solution should be considered to remove liquid accumulation continuously.

Figure 30—Platform PN3 to PN in Field-Y

Simulation study to model liquid accumulation phenomenon inside flowline was initiated by steady-state
and dynamic model of platform PN3-PN subsea flowline. These matched models could be used as a base
SPE-196248-MS 27

for flowline performance prediction. Data on platform PN3: Gas Rate (Qg) = 10 – 14 MMscfd; Pdeparture =
37 Barg; Temperature (Tdeparture) = 64 degC; CGR/WGR = 61/262 stb/MMscf. Steady-state simulation result
is presented in Table 8 for backpressure estimation compared wih actual data. GAP & PIPESIM steady-
state simulator were used to estimate backpressure in platform PN3 at steady-state condition. Mukherje-
Brill flow correlation was selected for "apple-to-apple" comparison. Both simulators give good performance
for backpressure estimation on platform PN3, superficial velocity (Vsl & Vsg) and liquid hold up (HL) avg.
∼35% inside flowline as shown in Figure 31. However, PIPESIM gives more practical (HL) profile along
flowline, where it follows flowline elevation change on seabed. Dynamic model by OLGA was generated
to support this difference in liquid hold up estimation.

Table 8—Backpressure calculation result by steady-state simulator at PN3

Figure 31—Flow parameter comparison along flowline length and elevation

Dynamic simulation gives good matching performance for backpressure & temperature in PN3 compare
to actual data (Figure 32). Hydrodynamic & terrain slugging phenomena was observed at platform PN
(Figure 33). They are only in short duration of time and based on average Qg on platform PN3 and PN.
Dynamic HL obtained from simulation = 50 – 80 % which higher than steady-state simulation result. High HL
observed at inclined section of flowline. Higher inclination creates higher HL. Superficial velocity Vsl & Vsg
give same value with steady state simulation (in average). Terrain slugging due to geometry was observed
in riser before platform PN. Hydrodynamic slugging was observed along horizontal profile. This dynamic
simulation result gives an idea of occurred phenomenon that impact to backpressure in platform level and
then well level. This backpressure impact could reduce well production and in overall field gas production.
Recent pigging schedule to remove liquid accumulation inside flowline could reduce backpressure impact
for several months before re-accumulated back. Another alternative solution should be considered to remove
liquid accumulation continuously therefore gas production in field level could be improved. Sensitivity
28 SPE-196248-MS

analysis was performed for this dynamic model. Table 9 shows sensitivity analysis result for Liquid-Gas-
Ratio (LGR) variation with constant Qg = 10 MMscfd and Parrival on platform PN = 34.4 Barg.

Figure 32—Flow parameter comparison along flowline length and elevation

Figure 33—Flow parameter comparison along flowline length and elevation

Table 9—Sensitivity result for each model

Conclusion
Dynamic well modeling has been demonstrated in latest 5 years of Mahakam operation for specific purpose
where steady-state well model which regularly used could not represent dynamic condition. Several studies
are presented in this paper with certain objectives for well diagnostic, optimization, risk analysis or in
general for petroleum engineering purpose:) Well start-up/clean-up prediction & analysis; 2) Static condition
requirement analysis for well revival campaign; 3) Velocity String performance prediction for liquid loading
well; 4) Alternative water production estimation; 5) Unstable gas lift injection phenomenon that impact
to liquid production; 6) Wellhead shut-in pressure prediction with buffer zone effect to support unlocking
SPE-196248-MS 29

high pressure reservoirs; 7) Blow-out modeling and dynamic well killing for blow-out contingency plan;
8) Pipeline liquid accumulation analysis. The advantage and drawbacks from model implementation also
presented as a practical reference to consider this approach. The samples being discussed are description
of cases which already been evaluated. The methodology may be case-dependent and application to other
cases may require adjustment or event change in methodology.
In summary, dynamic well modeling is beneficial in Mahakam operation, moreover in today's mature
condition. This block has been in operation for over 40 years with 19 trillion cubic feet of gas along with
1.5 billion barrels of oil. The complexity of the operations can be portrayed through the vast number of
drilled and producing wells. The problem becomes more complex and better decision making is needed to
consider efficient method with effective cost.

Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank to Dirjen Migas, SKK Migas, PERTAMINA Hulu Indonesia and PERTAMINA
Hulu Mahakam for permission to publish this paper.

References
1. AMEC Paragon Courtesy, 2018. PetroWiki, SPE.
2. Andrianata, S; Allo, K.R.; Lukman, A.; Kramadibrata, A.T., "Extending Life of Liquid Loaded
Gas Wells using Velocity String Application: Case Study & Candidate Selection, SPE-186362,
SPE/IATMI Asia APcific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, October
2017.
3. Asril, N.; Andy, J.; EKA, A.W.; Lindra, S.; Rudy, C.K.; Rudi, W., "Meningkatkan Produksi
Minyak Sumur Gas Lift dnegan Teknologi "Sistem Pinta"r di Lapangan-OF, PERTAMINA
Internal Document, 2014.
4. Ashfahani, A.S.; Wijaya, G.L.; Sulistiyo; Krishna, A.; Wijaya, R.; Mahardhini, A.; Kusuma,
D.H., "Gas Lift Technology Guidance for Better Decision Making based on 40 Years Proven
Implementation for Handil Field, Delta Mahakam", IPA18-276-E, Indonesian Petroleum
Association (IPA) 42nd Annual Convention & Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 2018.
5. Ashfahani, A.S.; Sulistiyo; Oceaneawan, G.; Nurwijayanti, D., "Wellhead Shut-In pressure
Prediction Method to Minimize Risk: Unlocking Potential from Wells with Reservoir Pressure
above Surface Equipment Limit", IATMI 18-133, Simposium Ikatan Ahli Teknik Perminyakan
(IATMI), Padang, Indonesia October 2018.
6. Ashfahani, A.S.; Dewanta, D.A.; Kusuma, D.H.; Sulistiyo, "Worst Case Discharge & Dynamic
Well Killing Study for Supporting Blow-Out Contingency Plan: Pre-drilled & Post-Production
Case of OffshoreWells, Delta Mahakam", IPA18-277-E, Indonesian Petroleum Association (IPA)
42nd Annual Convention & Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, May 2018.
7. Ashfahani, A.S.; Tjiu, A.; Kusuma, D.H., "Field Integrated Model for Better Decision Making:
Mature Field Production Optimization for Bekapai Field", IATMI 18-075, Simposium Ikatan
Ahli Teknik Perminyakan (IATMI), Padang, Indonesia October 2018.
8. Ashfahani, A.S; Grahadiningrat, F.; "Alternative Methods to Estimate Water Production based on
Wellheead Parameter", PERTAMINA Hulu Mahakam Internal Document, 2019.
9. Alamu, M.B., "Gas Condensate Well Unloading Critical Rate", SPE-166350, SPE Annual
technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, October 2013.
10. Andreussi, P.; Persen, L.N., "Stratified Gas-Liquid Flow in Downwardly Inciled Pipes",
International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1987.
11. Brown, K.E., 1984. The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, 4. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell
Publishing Co.
30 SPE-196248-MS

12. Bendiksen, K.H.; Maines, D.; Moe, R.; Nuland, S., "The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA:
Theory & Application", SPE-19451, SPE production Engineering, May 1991.
13. Bendiksen, K.H., "An Experimental Investigation of the Motion of Long Bubbles in Inclinded
Tubes", International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1984.
14. Codrington, K.; Calvert, P., "Reducing Well Offloading Risks with Dynamic Wellbore
Modelling", SPE-180881-MS, SPE Trinidad & Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference,
Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago, June 2016.
15. Dewanta, D.A.; Ashfahani, A.S.; Wibowo, A.S., 2017, "Blow Out Contingency Plan Overview",
PHM Internal Document.
16. Gilbert, W.E., 1954. Flowing and Gas-Lift Well performance. Drill. & Prod. Prac., 126–57.
Dallas, Texas: API.
17. Ganat, T.A.; Hrairi, M.; Hawlader, M.N.A., "Validation of ESP Oil Wells Measured Parameters
using Simulation OLGA Software", International Conference on Mechanical, Automotive and
Aerospace Engineering 2016.
18. Gregory, G.A.; Scott, D.S., "Correlation of Liquid Slug Velocity and Frequency in Horizontal Co-
Current Gas-Liquid Slug Flow", AIChE Journal, 1969.
19. Hu, B.; Veeken, K.; Yusuf, R., "Use of Wellbore-Reservoir Coupled Dynamic simulation to
Evaluate the Cycling Capability of Liquid-Loaded Gas Wells", SPE-134948, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, September 2010.
20. Heriot Watt University, 2009. Production Technology II, Edinburgh.
21. Hapsari, H.S.T, 2018. OLGA for Wells, OLGA Technology Update at PERTAMINA Hulu
Mahakam.
22. Herwin, H.; Giriansyah, B.; Rau, I.T., "TOTAL's Experiences in Tackling Mature Field
Challenges in The Mahakam PSC", AAPG 2017, Adopted from extended abstract prepared
in conjunction with oral presentation given at AAPG 2017 Asia Pacific Region Technical
Symposium, Bandung, Indonesia, September 2017.
23. Hasan, A.R.; Kabir, C.S., "A Mechanistic Model for Computing Fluid Temperature Profiles in
Gas-Lift Wells", SPE Production & Facilities, August 1996.
24. Krishna, A.; Noverri, P.; Jamal, M.N.; Setiawan, I.G.P., "Retrievable Gas Lift (REGAL) System
to Unlock Oil Potential Well in Well Without Artificial Lift", IPA16-105-E, Indonesian Petroleum
Association (IPA) 40th Annual Convention & Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia May 2016.
25. Konstantin, P., "Well Flow Dynamic Modelling", SPE-168659, SPE Arctic and Extreme
Environments Conference, Moscow, Russia, October 2013.
26. Mach, J.; Proano, E.; Brown, K.E., 1979. A Nodal Approach for Applying Systems Analysis
to the Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas Well. SPE Paper SPE-8025 available from SPE,
Richardson, Texas.
27. Malnes, D., "Slip Relations and Momentum Equations in Two-Phase Flow", IFE Report EST-1,
Kjeller, 1979.
28. Malnes, D., "Slug Flow in vertical, Horizontal and Inclined Pipe"s, IFE/KR/E-83/002, 1983.
29. Nurwijayanti, D.; Indrajaya, D.; Oceaneawan, G. and Suwito, E., "HP Reservoir Evaluation Well
#1 & #2, Field-A", PERTAMINA Hulu Mahakam Internal Document, 2018.
30. Oskarsen, R.T.; Rygg, O.B.; Cargol, M.; Morry, B, "Challenging Offshore Dynamic Kill
Operations Made Possible with the Relief Well Injection Spoll, SPE-180279-MS, SPE Deepwater
Drilling & Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, September 2016.
31. Pradika, B.; Ashfahani, A.S., "Partial Routing Allocation for Gas Production Optimization
based on Genetic Integer/Rounting optimizer in the Tunu Field, Esat Kalimantan, Indonesia",
SPE-196248-MS 31

IPA17-320-SE, Indonesian Petroleum Association (IPA) 41st Annual Convention & Exhibition,
Jakarta, Indonesia May 2017.
32. Ramey, H.J., "Wellbore Heat Transmission", JPT, April 1962.
33. Sagar, R.; Doty, D.R.; Schmidt, Z.; "Predicting temperature Profiles in a Flowing Well", SPE
Production Engineering, Novemeber 1991.
34. Shiu, K.C.; Beggs, H.D., "Predicting Temperatures in Flowing Oil Wells", Trans. AIME, J.
Energy Res. Tech, March 1980.
35. Rushatmanto, "Well-x PBU Interpretations", PERTAMINA Hulu Mahakam Internal Document,
2018.
36. Rakhmadhani, N.F.; Oceaneawan, G.; Allagan, R.; Muhazir, Y.; and Ashari, U., "An Optimized
Reservoir Management Strategy and Outflow Improvement to Sustain the Production of a Mature
Field Bekapai and to Maximize Its Recovery", IPA17-286-E, Indonesian Petroleum Association
(IPA) 41st Annual Convention & Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia May 2017.
37. SPT Group, 2011, Introduction to OLGA, Training Material.
38. Staff, G.; Biberg, D.; Vanvik, T.; Nossen, J.; Holm, H.; Johansson, P.S., "Validation of OLGA
HD against Transient and Pseudo-Transient Experiments from the SINTEF large Diamter High
Pressure Flow-Loop, BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17, 2015.
39. Stacey, R.W.; Norris, L.; Lisi, S., "OLGA Modeling Results for Single Well Reinjection of Non-
Condensate Gases (NCGs) and Water, GRS Transactions, Vol. 40, 2016.
40. Ugoala, O.; Thakur, K.; Siddiqi, B.; Cristea, Z.; Gad, K.; Robson, P.; Pacho, D.; Hosny, A.,
"Dynamic Simulation to Predict Self-Restart Potential of Acid Stimulated Wells by Bullhead
Treatment in Deepwater Environment", SPE-174720-MS, SPE Annual technical Conference &
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, September 2015.
41. Wang, J.Y.; Troshko, A.A.; Gallo, F.G.; Mayer, C.S.; Rosenbaum, D.F.; Lopez, H.; Helgestad,
D.E.; Seitinger, P., "Dynamic Modeling to Support the Successful Start-Up of a Challenging
Well, SPE-187272-MS, SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, October 2017.
42. Wallis, G.B., 1969. One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York
City.