SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 21419

Application of Production System Analysis to an Offshore Oil Field

Y. Ueda, * N. Samizo, * and S. Shirakawa, Arabian Oil Co. Ltd. (F.O.)
*SPE Members

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain, 16-19 November 1991.

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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT production facilities which at present time, acts

as a serious restraint on oil production. The
Total production analysis is currently in use problems encountered in carrying out this
in oil field operations assisting the optimization investigation are outlined and, specifically, the
of production to ensure the maximum solution for the bottleneck problem to optimize
profitability. production within the limits of existing facilities
The Khafji Field, being an oil field situated in are discussed at length. Finally guidelines are
the offshore Saudi Arabia, has been producing proposed for future facility design and
oil from more than 100 wells for the past 30 modification.
years. Oil flows from the wellhead jacket to the
two-phase separator on the offshore flow station
(gas oil separation platform). After flowing to the INTRODUCTION
pump station oil is transmitted through the
transmission line to the onshore facilities. Some The Khafji field is situated in the offshore
wells are gas lifted and the production water cut Saudi Arabia, about 40 km east from AI-Khafji,
is on the increase. Water cut will definitely Saudi Arabia (Figure-1).
intensify with the increase in gas lift operation. The field was originally discovered in 1960
The review and evaluation of the offshore and started production in 1961 as Khafji crude.
facilities, from the individual wellhead to the The main producing zone among the five
inlet of offshore separator, is essential so as to developed zones is the sandstone reservoir at
optimize oil production. depths between 4800 and 5500 feet, and having
This paper outlines the field application of a strong water drive. The cumulative oil
production system analysis. The flow through production for Khafji crude as of end of 1990 is
the wellhead choke and the flow through the around 2.6 billion bbls.
pipeline have been investigated using actual Most of the permanent production facilities
field data and the technical correlation for these for Khafji crude were constructed in 1961 and
flows have been established. A review were designed for conditions as they existed at
discussion is offered concerning the that time.
identification of the bottleneck in the existing As the field was developed, the numbers of
wells and flowlines were increased. The present
Fbferences and 1abIes and figures at end of paper offshore oil gathering system is schematically

699
2 APPLICATION OF PRODUCTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TO AN OFFSHORE OIL FIELD
shown in Figure-2. There are 63 fixed well
jackets, on which around 120 production wells
have been drilled. A typical wellhead
connection on a fixed well jacket is shown in
Figure-3. As shown in Figure-3, each well has a
wellhead choke connected to the flowline to
control the production rate. According to the
initial well ability, the size and the number of
flowlines were decided upon and laid to the
assigned flow station (gas oil separation
platform). In order to optimize the number of
flowlines, some flowlines are used as
commingle flow from low ability wells. Gas lift
has been in operation since 1988. A typical
wellhead connection for gas lift well is also
shown in Figure-3.
The oil produced flows through the flowline
to the offshore two-phase separator on one of
the four flow stations. After first stage
separation, oil is transmitted to the pump station
by booster pump and some of the gas is
recycled for gas lift operation and the remainder
is flared. From the pump station, oil is
transmitted to the onshore Khafji production
facilities by transmission pump. The handling
capacity of production facilities was increased
based on the field development plan and the
current nominal handling capacity of all flow
stations is around 450 MBPD.
However, during the past 30 years. each well
production ability has been changed along with
its production history, such as natural depletion,
high water cut, and the application of gas lift.
Current total well ability exceeds the handling
capacity of some of the flow stations to which
the wells are connected. Given the findings of
reservoir simulation studies, it is expected that
the current flowline network system cannot
handle the total well production ability. Bearing
in mind the limits of exisiting system and the
economic restraints imposed by the need to
minimize new investment, the best approach to
obtaining maximum production may well be to
modify the flowline network by laying new
flowlines and/or rerouting existing flowlines.
In order to optimize total field oil production,
production system analysis has been made by
utilizing flowline network model combined with
well choke performance and well inflow
performance.
700
SPE 21419
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
Considering well deliverability from inflow
and outflow performance, pressure drop is
classified into the following categories:
(1) Pressure drop in the reservoir,
(2) Pressure drop in the production string,
(3) Pressure drop across the choke,
(4) Pressure drop in the pipeline.
Pressure drop in the surface facilities can be
simulated more easily compared with inflow
performance because it is easy to collect field
data to verify the model. However, the actual
production system is complicated and to
construct a surface flowline network model is
not straightforward. If more than two wells are
connected at once to the same production
flowline, interferance between these wells will
occur, when increasing choke size or initiating
gas lift operation, etc... These operations will
cause the increase in the back pressure of other
wells.
In order to check the sensitivity of the back
pressure, the flowline network models are to be
constructed including choke performance and
pressure drop calculation at each nodal point.
The calculation ,procedures are briefly
described in the following sections.
(1) CHOKE PERFORMANCE
Wellhead chokes are installed on wells to
control flow rates so as to ensure
(1 )controlling the drawdown in the
reservoir to prevent sand production,
(2)prevention water/gas coning,
(3)protection surface equipment,
(4)production reservoir fluids at most
efficient rate.
Through the appropriate choke performance
correlations, the effects on flow rates and
SPE 21419
wellhead pressures need to be evaluated due to
choke size changes and choke size needs to be
specified to achieve a given wellhead pressure
for a given flow rate.
Generally flow through the choke can be
described as either critical or sub-critical flow.
In the critical flow region, the mass flow rate
reaches a maximum value that is independent of
the pressure drop applied across the choke.
Therefore, once critical flow rate is reached, any
disturbance introduced downstream of the choke
has no effect on the upstream conditions.
Therefore, chokes are commonly operated under
critical flow conditions to isolate the reservoir
from pressure fluctuations introduced by surface
production facilities.
Several attempts have been carried out to
establish the correlation of the critical
flow(1)(2)(3)(4)(5). Correlations were derived based
on analytical models, applying mathematical
analysis or empirical correlations using actual
field or laboratory data.
Ashford(5)presented a critical multiphase flow
equation based on the orifice flow theory.
Ashford used average values of polytropic
constant k and critical pressure ratio to be
approximately 1.04 and 0.544, respectively.
Using field data from 14 flowing well tests, the
discharge coefficient was calculated for choke
sizes ranging from 16/64 to 40/64 inches.
Regarding sub-critical flow, the prediction of
sub-critical flow behavior is far more difficult
than for critical flow. Single phase sub-critical
flow can be expressed as:
Q=C.A.
c h p
choke
Y
Generally the sub-critical multi-phase flow
rate is calculated using some correction factor
to critical flow rates(6).
(2) MULTI·PHASE FLOW IN PIPELINE
The pressure drop in the surface pipeline is
the sum of the frictional loss in the flowline and
hydrostatic loss in the riser pipe, described as:
~P tolal = ~P horizontal + ~P riser
At present, various programs are available to
Y. UEDA, N. SAMIZO, S. SHIRAKAWA 3
calculate horizontal pressure drop. The program
used in this study was the Dukler-Eaton method,
which is a hybrid model of the Eaton liquid
holdup(7)in combination with friction factor
defined by the Dukler Case 11(8). This method
has proved to be most applicable to our field
after several experimental studies.
The pressure drops at the riser part was
calculated by the Beggs and Brill method(9).
Figure-4 shows the comparison between the
measured and calculated pressure drops
through the surface pipeline. Fairly good
matchings were obtained.
(3) FLOWLINE NETWORK
Nodal analysis is conducted using a field
scale flowline network model. This model
includes choke performance so that the flowline
backpressure change can be taken into
consideration as mentioned above. The flow
station separator, header and wellhead are
regarded as one separated node respectively
and individual pressure loss is calculated
separately. This is to ensure the flexibility of the
model so that the well number or the route of the
flowline can be varied to check the sensitivity of
the production pattern.
The calculation routines are as follows:
(1 )PVT data are input.
(2)Network configuration is input
including choke size, pipeline length
.....(1 ) and size, etc... The production system
illustrated in Figure-SA can be
classified according to a depth-first
ordering as shown in Figure-5B.
(3)Production rate is given at each node.
(4)Flow rates for each node are
calculated by summing flow rates
according to a decreasing depth order.
This process will be continued up to
the separator node (Backtracking).
Fluid mixing is also considered due to
.....(2) the commingle flow from several wells .
(5)Pressure loss calculation is performed
701
4 APPLICATION OF PRODUCTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TO AN OFFSHORE OIL FIELD SPE 21419

and wellhead downstream choke The field correction factor C 1 and C 2 were
pressure for each node is calculated evaluated using actual well prodution data with
forward through an increasing depth critical flow as follows:
order starting from the separator
pressure (Forwardtracking). C 1 = 0.76 and ..... (5)

(6)Using each wellhead pressure The flow through a choke size of 72/64" or
(upstream choke) by well inflow larger size usually becomes a sub-critical flow
performance and the calculated in our field. As mentioned in the previous
downstream choke pressure, choke section, sub-critical flow rate expressed in
performance calculation is carried out Equation (1) is a function of square root of the
to obtain the production rate. pressure drop across the restriction (P 1 - P2 ).
Therefore the correction to Equation (4) was
(7)lf the calculated production rate by made by a function of (PiPl)' In this study, the
choke performance calculation in step correction factor is introduced as follows:
(6) is different from the input
production rate, go back to step (3)
and network calculation is to be for
repeated until the difference between ..... (6)
calculated and input production rate is
within the allowable tolerance. f (P 2 /P 1 ) is a function of choke size and the
experimental coefficients, which were derived
as shown in Figure-6. The critical pressure ratio
FIELD APPLICATION was assumed to be 0.60 from the producing fluid
properties. The comparison with the calculated
(1) CHOKE PERFORMANCE CORRELATION production rate using the choke performance
program and the actual production rate was
In this study, Ashford formula(5)was applied
plotted as shown in Figure-7. Reasonable
to predict producing rate. The correction factor
agreement was obtained between two values.
of the formula was determined using the actual
field data. Reliable calculation results were
obtained.
(2) FLOWLINE NETWORK MODEL
The Ashford formula for critical flow regions
(QAshfard) is defined as follows:
The present A and 8 flow station flowline
networks are schematically drawn in Figure-8
D2.P.~ and 9, respectively. 8y using the actual flowline
Q =1.53. -C-.-D-.-',
c 1 ..... (3)
Ashford , E=+=F=='" sizes, lengths, and elevations, both the A and 8
V8a wo
flowline network models were constructed as
where,
shown in Figure-10 and 11, respectively. In the
Figures-10 and 11, the number in the circle
A=T.Z.(R p -R s)+151· P 1 ..... (3.a) shows the node number. For example, Node #1
is fixed to the flow station separator and Node
8 = 'Yo + 0.000217· 'Yg ' R s + F wa' 'Yw ••••• (3.b) #2 shows the flow station header.
Actual operational data were input into both
C=T·Z· (R p -R s )+111. P 1 ..... (3.c) the A and 8 flowline network models. In order to
match with the measured data, pipe roughness
0= 'Yo + O. 000217 ''Y g.R p + F wo' 'Yw ..... (3.d) of each flowline, header, and riser was used as
a correction factor. Table-1 shows the
And the final form for the critical flow rate is comparison of the measured wellhead pressure
given as: (after choke) and the pressure calculated by the
model. It is noted that Well Nos. 82, 84, and 88
QCritical = C1 • Q Ashford + C2 ..... (4 ) have no wellhead choke. Good matching was

702
SPE 21419 Y. UEDA, N. SAMIZO, S. SHIRAKAWA
obtained in both the A and 8 flowline network
models.
Fl:SULlS AND DISCUSS!CH) OF QP11IAlZAllON EFFORT
As mentioned in the previous section,
according to the gas lift conversion schedule,
the current total well production ability of 8 flow
station wells exceeds the handling capacity of
the 8 flow station. The current total well
production ability of A flow station wells,
however, is quite less than the handling
capacity of the A flow station. The above
situation will deteriorate in the near future when
the 8 flow station is operated at maximum
production level (maximum production case).
This is listed in Table-2.
In the 8 flow station maximum production
case, back pressures are calculated based on
expected each well ability by using the 8
flowline network model. The results of 8 flow
station maximum production case are listed in
Table-3. It is observed that the pressure loss
from the flow station header to the separator is
18 psi, which is more than double compared
with the present operating condition, used in the
case of model matching. Also it is observed that
the back pressures of all the wells are
increased. As seen in Table-3, there are 8 wells
whose back pressure is increased more than 30
psi. Such back pressure increase affects well
production ability because of the change in the
flow region from critical to sub-critical. Given the
economic restraint of minimizing new
investment, the laying of new flowlines to
transfer excess oil from 8 flow station wells to A
flow station will be the best means of handling
the available oil in the 8 flow station maximum
production case due to the fact that the handling
capacity of A flow station allows the oil rate
increase to be handled in A flow station.
Several case runs have been made to obtain
field optimum production by using the flowline
network models. Selection of new flowline
routes for the optimized condition are carefully
investigated by nodal analysis in the runs of
several flowline network models. in order to
check the sensitivity of the production patterns.
Special care was taken to the selection of the
wells to be transferred to A flow station. Any
significant reduction in expected well production
703
5
ability should be avoided due to the increase
back pressure resulting from transferring oil to
the A flow station. Selection of wells to be
transferred to A station were decided upon
combining well inflow and outflow performance
analysis with flowline network model. As a
typical example, in the Appendix, detail
discussions of inflow and outflow performance
analysis with flowline network model are
described for the Jacket No. A1, which has Well
Nos. 812, 813, 814, and 815, where new
flowline is proposed.
It is proposed that 3 new flowlines be laid to
transfer 8 station wells to A flow station (These
are shown by dotted lines in Figures-8 and 10.).
Also, it is proposed that the size of one flowline
to 8 station be enlarged (This is shown by bold
line in Figures-9 and 11.). 8y laying 3 new
flowlines, oil from 10 wells (Well Nos. 812 - 18,
824 - 26) can flow either to the A or to the 8 flow
station, thereby making the operation more
flexible. In the 8 flowline network, enlarging a
flowline size from 6" to 8" (Flowline from Well
Nos. 819, 20, and 21 to 8 station shown in
Figure-11) solves the problem of back pressure
increase which causes the restriction of well
production ability. About 40 psi reduction of
back pressure of this line by changing the
flowline size from 6" to 8" is to be achieved in 8
flowstation maximum production case.
8y applying the above flowline network
modification, the most optimum production
pattern in both the A and 8 flow stations can be
obtained. Total flow rate, assigned well
numbers, and calculated back pressures in this
case are listed in Table-4. 8y this modification,
30 M80PD of production increase is to be
expected.
CONCLUSIONS
(1)A well choke performance model for Khafji
crude was developed. The model is based
on the Ashford formula with field
correction factors. It covers both critical
and sub-critical regions.
(2)Flowline network models were constructed
for all flow stations in Khafji field. The
model can simulate from each wellhead
through the flowlines to the flow station
6 APPLICATION OF PRODUCTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS TO AN OFFSHORE OIL FIELD SPE 21419

separator in any operating conditions, Pinllow = Wellhead pressure (after choke)

such as a multi-well flowing condition and calculated by inflow, (psia)
changing separator pressure. POUIfIOW = Wellhead pressure (after choke)
calculated by outflow, (psi a)
(3)A field scale optimization study was Psep = Separator pressure, (psia)
carried out by utilizing the developed Pl = Upstream choke pressure, (psi a)
flowline network models combined with P2 = Downstream choke pressure,
well inflow and outflow performance (psia)
analysis. PR = Reservoir static pressure, (psi a)
The following facility modifications for the o = Flow rate, (STBD for oil, SCFD for
optimized field scale production are gas)
proposed: 0Ashlord = Oil flow rate by the Ashford
formula, (STBD)
1.Laying 3 new (8") flowlines to the A flow 0Critical = Oil flow rate at critical condition,
station to transfer excess oil from the B (STBD)
to the A flow station. 00 = Oil flow rate through choke,
(STBD)
2.Re-laying the bigger size (from 6" to 8") Rp = Producing GOR, (SCF/STB)
of one flowline to B station to reduce Rs = Solution GOR, (SCF/STB)
back pressure of the flowline. T = Choke temperature, (OF)
Z = Gas deviation factor, (frac.)
(4)By applying the proposed modification in
the above, 30 MBOPD of production
increase is to be achieved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their

NOMENCLATURE
= Cross sectional area of the choke,
(ft2)
= Oil formation volume factor,
(bbl/STB)
C = Flow coefficient
Dc = Choke size, (/64 inch)
APchoke = Pressure drop across choke
(P l - P2 ), (psi)
APdrawdown= Pressure drawdown in the
reservoir, (ps!i)
APllowline = Pressure drop in the flowline,
(psi)
APhorizontal= Pressure drop in horizontal pipe,
(psi)
APrlser = Pressure drop in riser, (psi)
APtotal = Total Pressure drop in pipe, (psi)
APyertical = Pressure drop in the production
string, (psi)
= Water oil ratio, (frac.)
= Fluid density, (Ibm/fe)
= Oil gravity, (water = 1)
= Gas gravity, (air = 1)
= Water gravity, (water = 1)
appreciation to the followings:
-The management of Arabian Oil Company,
and the Ministry of Petroleum & Mineral
Resources, Saudi Arabia for permission to
publish this paper,
-Mr. A.R. Hazim, Superintendent of
Production Department, and other
colleagues in Arabian Oil Company for their
valuable suggestions and comments.
REFERENCES
1.Gilbert, W.E.,: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well
Performance", API D. and P.P., 1954, P126
2.Ros, N.C.J.,: "An Analysis of Critical
Simultaneous Gas/Liquid Flow Through a
Restriction and its Application to Flow
Metering", Appli. Sci. Res., 1960,9, Section
A, P374
3.Poettmann, F.,H., and Beck, R.L.,: "New
Charts Developed to Predict Gas-liquid

704
SPE 21419 Y. UEDA, N. SAMIZO, S. SHIRAKAWA
Flow through Chokes", World Oil, Mar.
1963, P95
4.0mana, R., et al.,: "Multiphase Flow through
Chokes", SPE 2682, presented at 44th
Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colo., Sept.,
1969
5.Ashford, F.E,: "An Evaluation of Critical
Multiphase Flow Performance through
Wellhead Chokes", JPT Aug., 1974
6.Fortunati, F.,: "Two-Phase Flow Through
Wellhead Chokes", SPE 3742, Presented at
SPE European Spring Meeting, May, 1972
7.Eaton, 8.A., Andrews, D.E., Knowles, C.E.,
Silberberg, I.H., and 8rown, K.E.,: "The
Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup
and Pressure Losses Occurring During
Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal
Pipelines", Trans. AIME, 1966
8.Dukler,· A.E.,: "Gas-liquid Flow in
Pipelines", American Gas Association,
American Petroleum Institute, Vol.1,
"Research Results", May, 1969
9.8eggs, H.D., and 8rill, J.P.,: "A Study of
Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes", Trans.
AIME, 1973, P607
APPENDIX: VIIELL NFLON AND OUTFLON PEFF<Hv1ANCE
ANALYSLS FrnWELLNOO. 814AND 815
It is proposed that a new (8") flowline be laid
from Jacket J to A station. This is schematically
drawn in Figure-A1. There are 4 wells (812,
813, 814 and 815) on this jacket. 8y laying a
new flowline to A station, oil from 4 wells has a
flexibility to flow either to A or to 8 station. The
selections are to be at optimum condition. In the
near future (maximum production case), Well
No. 812 will be converted to the gas lift well at
the designed rate of 5000 80PD, and Well No.
813 will be no flow, and Well No. 814 and No.
815 will keep flowing .naturally at the rate of
7500 80PD (by 72/64" choke) and 4500 80PD
(by 64/64" choke), respectively. It was decided
in the analysis that Well No. 812 (a gas lift well)
be transferred to A station because the
705
7
designed rate can be achieved by increasing
the injection gas volume. Then, for the purpose
of selecting the flow station for Well Nos. 814
and 815, inflow and outflow performance curves
are plotted in Figure-A2 for Well No. 814 and in
Figure-A3 for Well No. 815, respectively. 80th
inflow and outflow node pressures are
calculated as below:
Pin! low =PR - ~P d r a _ - ~ vertical - ~P choke
.... (A.1 )
Poutflow = Psep + ~P flowline ..... (A.2)
In order to check with the serverest cases,
the outflow performance curve from A station
was calculated in the maximum transfer case on
the assumption that all 10 wells are to be
transfered. The outflow performance curve from
8 station was calculated in the case of 8 station
maximum production. From Figures-A2 and A3,
the well production ability in such cases are
summarized as. in Table-A1. As seen in
Table-A1, in the maximum A station transfer
case, Well No. 814 shows less production loss
(600 80PD) than that of Well No. 815 (1400
80PD). Therefore, it has been decided to
transfer Well No. 814 to A station and Well No.
815 to 8 station to minimize production loss due
to back pressure increase.
As a result, in the proposed optimum case,
production loss of Well No. 814 is found to be
negligible by proper well allocation (See
Table-4 and Figure-A2).
 $PE 21 41 <j
Table-I Matching Results of Flowline Network Model Table-3 Back Pressure Estimation in Case of Y4 Max. Production
A & B Flow Station

A Flow Station B Flow Station

Qo=72,7oo(B/D) Qo=74,OOO(B/D)
Actual
(nsia)
ICalc. PT.6P
(usia) (nsi)
Actual
(psia)
ICalc. PI.6P
(psia) (psi)
Actual
Qo=74,OOO(B/D)
Max. Case
Qo=l06,OOO(B/D)
Ll.P
(psi)
Pressure(nsia) Pressure(psia)
Separator 144.7 144.7 - Separator 124.7 124.7 -
Header 154.7 154.7 0 Header 132.4 132.4 0 124.7 0
Separator 124.7
Well No. AI - - - Well No.BI - - Header 132.4 143,1 10.7
Well No. A2 215 214 I Well No. B2(0) 390 387 3 WellNo. Bl - - -
WellNo. A3 - - - Well No.B3 170 170 0 Well No. B2(0) 390 392 2
Well No. A4 - - - Well No. B4(0) 240 241 -I Well No. B3 170 205 (G) 35
Well No. A5 245 245 0 Well No.B5 - - - Well No.
Well No.
B4(0)
B5
240
-
360
195
(G)
(G)
120
-
WellNo. A6 - Well No.B6 - - -
Well No. A7 230 229 I Well No.B7 - - - Well No. B6 - 187 (G) -
Well No. A8 205 206 -I Well No. B8(0) 215 215 0
WellNo. B7 - 183 -
Well No. B8(0) 215 224 9
WellNo. A9 205 204 I Well No.B9 155 154 I (G)
Well No. B9 155 175 20
Well No. AIO 270 272 -2 Well No.BIO - - Well No. BIO - 174 (G) -
WellNo. All 270 270 0 Well No.BII - - Well No. BII - - -
Well No. AI2 - - - Well No.BI2 165 166 -I Well No. B12 165 181 16
Well No. AI3 - - - Well No.B13 175 175 0 Well No. BI3 175 - -
Well No. AI4 - - - Well No. BI4 170 175 -5 Well No. BI4 170 185 -
Well No. AI5 215 215 0 Well No.BI5 170 170 0 Well No. B15 170 180 10
Well No.BI6 165 162 3 Well No. B16 165 198 33
Well No. AI6 265 263 2
WellNo. B17 165 206 41
WellNo. AI7 - - - Well No.BI7 165 168 -3
Well No. BI8 165 200 35
Well No. AI8 - - Well No.BI8 165 161 4
Well No. B19 175 215 (G) 40
Well No. AI9 255 254 I Well No.BI9 175 174 I Well No. B20 175 218 (G) 43
Well No. A20 - - - Well No.B20 175 177 -2 Well No. B21 175 215 40
Well No. A21 265 264 I Well No.B21 175 176 -I Well No. B22 - 292 (G) -
Well No. A22 265 264 I Well No.B22 - - - Well No. B23 - 337 (G) -
Well No. A23 265 265 0 Well No.B23 - - - Well No.
Well No.
B24
B25
170
170
201
180
(G) 31
10
WellNo. A24 265 267 -2 Well No.B24 170 170 0
-21 Well No.B25 170 164 6 Well No. B26 170 196 26
Well No. A25 295 316
Well No. B27 215 227 12
Well No. A26 - - - Well No.B26 170 164 6
Well No. B28 - - -
Well No. A27 290 307 -17 Well No.B27 215 215 0
Well No. A28 290 294 -4 Well No.B28 - - -
(0) : Choke is not installed at Wellhead.
(0) : Choke is not installed at Wellhead. (G) : Converted to Gas Lift Well

Table-4 Optimum Case Runs

A Flow Stat~~r ~~timum Case B Flow ~ti?n ~Ptimum Case

00z122,400 BID 00=76,400 BID
Pr~,;;:~~e
Sla
I"'ressure
(Dsial
separator 144.7 Separa or
Header 167.3 Header ~~::~
Well No. A1 249 Well No. B1
Well No. A2(G) 229 Well No. B2(0) 388
Well No. A3
Well No. A4(G) 245
- Well No. B3 (G)
Well No. B4(0)(G)
197
356
Well No. A5(G) 265 Well No. B5 (G) 187
Well No. A6 230 Well No. B6 (G) 178
Table-2 Well Ability vs. Flow Station Handling Capacity Well No. A7(G) 249 Well No. B7 172
Well No. A8(G) 300 Well No. B8(0) 217
Well No. A9
Well No. A10 302
- Well No. B9 (G)
Well No. B10 (G)
167
166
Well No. A11 299 Well No. B11 -
Flow FS Nominal Well Ability Well Ability Well No. A12 230 Well No. B12 A Station
Well No. A13 - Well No. B13 -
Station Handling Capacity Present stage Near Future Well No. A14 267 Well No. B14 A Station
Well No. A15 265 Well No. B15 155
(liQuid) (Oill (Oil) Well No. A16 309 Well No. B16 145
Well No. A17 Well No. B17 A Station
A 150,000 88,000 93,000 Well No. A18 Well No. B18 A Station
Well No. A19 308 well No. B19 (G) 171
B 75,000 77,000 106,000 Well No. A20 303 Well No. B20 (G) 174
Well No. A21 315 Well No. B21 171
Well No. A22 313 Well No. B22 (G) -
(Unit BID) Well No. A23 337 Well No. B23 (G) -
Well No. A24 338 Well No. B24 (G) 172
Well No. A25 362 Well No. B25 A Station
Well No. A26 354 Well No. B26 A Station
Well No. A27 378 Well No. B27 218
Well No. A28 367 Well No. B28
Well No. B12(G) 277
Well No. B13
Well No. B14 279
- (0) : Choke is not installed
Well No. B15 B Station at Wellhead.
Well No. B16 B Station (G) : Converted to Gas Lift Well
Well No. B17(G) 298
Well No. B18(G) 294
Well No. B24 B Station

706
 SPE 2 1 41 Cl

Khafji Field

Khafji

Kuwait

Figure - 1 Location of Khafji Field

,/'p 0-••••••••.•
--- ---
"", ---
9 ,/ :B Flow Station
A Flow Station i../ :"••0 ............ ,

i/)~;;; {~~~~:.~=;;::.
0

.-•• -••••••.0

o well

Figure - 2 Offshore Oil Gathering System

I

707
 SPE 2 1 41 i

Well No.B26

Figure - 3 Typical Wellhead Connection

80 .-----....,.---..,....---~--....,.---...,....---,...----i/--~::>I

1······················: ····· ··+·············· ..······i·····························+· ·······+············ '/......ri···························· .

'i60
S: /
Co
e o

~
o
o
0 Vo
=40 1------t----+-----+-----iJII"'-----+----t--------;----j
i :.e;;tL ! I " O cl O;;;.....•. , ..............••..............•..: ··11·····························+··················· .

~20 ~.o
.......... / °

0/o 20 40 60 80
Measured Pressure Drop (psi)

Figure-4 Pressure Drop in the Pipe

Comparison of Actual & Calculated Pressure Drop

708
 SP£ 2 1 41 9,

Separator

Figure-SA Illustration of a Production System

Separator

Depth 0

Depth 1

Depth 2

Depth 3

Figure-58 Depth-first Ordering

0.9 I-······t·······
0.8 I-..... j

i:: ::F-
~ I-··r
i
0.5

0.4 1-.... ,
0.3 1-·····1
0.2 1- "1"" .

0.1 1- , j

OL__'_---L_..l._~_L_-'-___L_..l._~_L__'____L_..l._~_L__'____L_..l._~______l

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0:9

Ratio of P2 and P1

Figure-6 Sub-Critical Flow Correction

709
 $PE 21 41 9,

10000
o~

8000 ~
~
--i5'
lD
I-
6000 V 0

!!!.
~
0
Gl
'Iii
a:
~
:; 4000
AV< €I
0

32/64" f-

%
u 0
iii
0 40,48/64"
(;

o : 56, 64/64" l-
2000

V
0

72,96/64"

o V
o 2000 4000 6000 8000
*

10000
Measured Rate (STB/D)

Figure-7 Measured Rate VS. Calculated Rate

A
o
Flow o
oo
Station r-------"1o
o to B Flow Station

o ., o
o
'-T-T""T""T""T"""
•.................................
:

o Well Jacket J

o
..... o
to B Flow Station

o
to B Flow Station
•
o
o o Well

o D Well Jacket

Existing Flowlines

I I •• Proposed Flowlines

Figure-8 A Flow Station Flowline Network

710
 01 10 o ------+1 0
Jr -
0 o o
~ r--
0
0
0
o
---, 1- B o
0 Flow
Station o
0
0
o
0
L-
.....
....
.... Well Jacl<et J
o
o
o o
o o
o
o o o
o Well

o o
o o D Well Jacket

Existing Flowlines

Figure- 9 B Flow Station Flowline Network

- Proposed Flowline
to Enlarge Size

(J)
""'0
(TI

--
l\J

.&:-

.~
DeptH AFlow Sta tion
....................... Proposed Line
DeptH AFlow Station Header

~
DeptH

DeptH c£"CS"CS"Cb
B12 B13 B14 BIS

~
DeptH

~ ..... ~ ......~
Depth-5
~ B17 B18

Figure - 10 A Flow Station Network Model

DeptH BFlow Station

Enlarging Flowline
DeptH BFlow Station Header

Deth-2

DeptH
B2S B24 B26

DeptH

Figure - 11 B Flow Station Network Model

712
 Table-A1 Well Ability by Inflow & Outflow Performance Analysis

Well Present A Flow Station 8 Flow Station

No. Ability Transfer Case Max. Prod. Case
814 7,500 6,900 7,500
815 4,500 3,100 4,500

(Unit STB/D)

EXisting Flowlines
B Flow Station

Gas Line

Well Jacket J

A Flow station

Proposed New Flowline

0 1

Figure-A1 Proposed New Flowline from Well Jacket J

713
 SPE 2 1 41 <J

600

400

'iii
.s:
l!! 300
:::l
III
III
l!!
D.
"C
=200
==
~
100

1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Oil Rate (STB/D)

Figure-A2 Well No, 814 Inflow & Outflow Performance

Choke Size 48/64',72/64',96/64'

400

"iii
.s:
l!! 300
:::l
::l!!
D.
"C
=200
== l'IHHTiflillJJJ.ill
~
100

1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Oil Rate (STB/D)

Figure-A3 Well No, 815 Inflow & Outflow Performance

Choke Size 48/64',64/64',96/64'

714