Pipesim 2006.1 Advanced

Advanced PIPESIM
Training and Exercise Guide

Version 2006
Schlumberger Information Solutions

19 December 2006
Copyright Notice
© 2006 Schlumberger. All rights reserved.
No part of this manual may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or translated in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and
recording, without the prior written permission of Schlumberger Information Solutions,
5599 San Felipe, Suite 1700, Houston, TX 77056-2722.
Disclaimer
Use of this product is governed by the License Agreement. Schlumberger makes no
warranties, express, implied, or statutory, with respect to the product described herein and
disclaims without limitation any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose. Schlumberger reserves the right to revise the information in this manual at any
time without notice.
Trademark Information
PIPESIM, GOAL, NODAL Analysis and HoSim are trademarks of Schlumberger. Certain
other products and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their
respective companies or organizations.
Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 i

Table of Contents
Module 1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1
Prerequisites ....................................................................................................................... 1
Learning Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1
What You Will Need............................................................................................................ 1
Summary............................................................................................................................. 2
Module 2 Well Completion Design................................................................... 3

Workshop ............................................................................................................................ 3
Well Performance ............................................................................................................... 3
Exercise 1 – Nodal Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3
Exercise 2 – Flow Correlation Matching .................................................................................... 5
Exercise 3 – Flow Properties Using Engine Keywords............................................................. 6
Module 3 Horizontal Well Design..................................................................... 9

Workshop ............................................................................................................................ 9
Well Performance ............................................................................................................... 9
Exercise 1 – Optimal Horizontal Well Length ..........................................................................11
Exercise 2 – Horizontal Well IPR / Sensitivity..........................................................................11
Exercise 3 – Multiple Horizontal Perforated Intervals..............................................................13
Module 4 Multilayer Well Performance.......................................................... 15

Workshop .......................................................................................................................... 15
Learning Objectives .......................................................................................................... 15
Well Performance ............................................................................................................. 15
Case 1 – Nodal Analysis for Well 1 and Well 2 .......................................................................17
Case 2 – Nodal Analysis for Commingled Well.......................................................................17
Case 3 – Alternate Completion Designs (Optional) ................................................................17
Module 5 Artificial Lift - ESP Design.............................................................. 19

Workshop .......................................................................................................................... 19
Learning Objectives .......................................................................................................... 19
ESP Design....................................................................................................................... 19
Exercise 1 – Well Model / Nodal Analysis................................................................................20
Exercise 2 – ESP Pump Selection and Design.......................................................................20
Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 iii

Exercise 3 – Pump Performance Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................ 22
Module 6 Artificial Lift – Gas Lift Design .......................................................23

Workshop.......................................................................................................................... 23
Learning Objectives.......................................................................................................... 23
Gas Lift Design ................................................................................................................. 23
Case 1 – Well Performance ..................................................................................................... 24
Case 2 – Deepest Injection Point............................................................................................. 25
Case 3 – Lift Gas Performance................................................................................................ 26
Case 4 – Bracketing Range for Future Production................................................................. 26
Case 5 – Optimum Mandrel Spacing ...................................................................................... 27
Module 7 Flow Assurance ...............................................................................29

Workshop.......................................................................................................................... 29
Completion Design ........................................................................................................... 30
Subsea Flowline and Riser Sizing ................................................................................... 33
Case 1 – Erosional Velocity Limitations .................................................................................. 35
Performance Forecasting................................................................................................. 37
Case 2 – Flow Regime Mapping.............................................................................................. 39
ESP Design and Performance Analysis .......................................................................... 40
Multiphase Booster Design and Performance Analysis.................................................. 42
Gas Lift Feasibility Evaluation .......................................................................................... 44
Module 8 Field Network Operations ...............................................................45

Workshop.......................................................................................................................... 45
Workflow Component 1 Crude Oil Transportation Network ........................................ 45
Physical Model.......................................................................................................................... 45
Workflow.................................................................................................................................... 46
Exercise 1 – Analyze the P/T response of the network.......................................................... 47
Exercise 2 – Flow rate sensitivity analysis .............................................................................. 48
Module 9 Answers............................................................................................49
Workflow Component 2 Completion Well Design........................................................ 49
Exercise 1a – P/T Profile .......................................................................................................... 49
Exercise 1b – Nodal Analysis................................................................................................... 49
Exercise 2 – Flow Correlation Matching.................................................................................. 49
Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 iv

Exercise 3.3 – Bottom Flowing Rate (Pwh = 300 psia)...........................................................49
Exercise 3.5 – Fluid Properties.................................................................................................49
Workflow Component 3 Horizontal Well Completion Design....................................... 50
Exercise 1 – Optimal Horizontal Well Length ..........................................................................50
Exercise 2a – Nodal Analysis ...................................................................................................50
Exercise 2b – Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................50
Exercise 2c – Nodal Analysis with Choke and SSSV .............................................................50
Exercise 3 – Multiple Perforated Horizontal Well ....................................................................51
Workflow Component 4 Multilayer Well Performance.................................................. 52
Exercise 1a – Nodal Analysis for Well 1 (at Top) ....................................................................52
Exercise 1b – Nodal Analysis for Well 2 (at Bottom)...............................................................52
Exercise 2 – Nodal Analysis for Commingled Wells 1+2........................................................52
Workflow Component 5 Artificial Lift – ESP Design ..................................................... 53
Nodal Analysis – Base Case ....................................................................................................53
Pump Selection / Design ..........................................................................................................53
Nodal Analysis with pump installed..........................................................................................53
Workflow Component 6 Artificial Lift – Gas Lift Design................................................ 54
Nodal Analysis – Base Case ....................................................................................................54
Deepest Injection Point .............................................................................................................54
Workflow Component 7 Flow Assurance ..................................................................... 55
Exercise 7a – Completion Design ............................................................................................55
Exercise 7b – Subsea Flowline and Riser Sizing....................................................................55
Exercise 7c – Performance Forecasting..................................................................................56
Exercise 7d – ESP Design and Performance Analysis...........................................................58
Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 v

Module 1 Introduction
This Advanced PIPSIM* training material highlights workflows used by production
engineers to evaluate and analyze Well Completion Design, Nodal Analysis, Horizontal
and Multilayer Well Design, Flow Assurance and ESP Lift applications.
Prerequisites
In the course, you must have knowledge of the following:

• PIPESIM fundamentals
• Production and Reservoir Engineering fundamentals
• Nodal Analysis (inflow and outflow performance)
• Artificial Lift concepts
Learning Objectives
In this training course, you will use PIPESIM software to analyze the following
production engineering objectives:
• Well Completion Design
• Horizontal Well Design
• Artificial Lift Design
• Flow Assurance
• Field Network Operations
What You Will Need
In this training, you will need the following hardware and application software:
• A personal computer with minimum 512 MB RAM.
• PIPESIM 2006.1 (v2006.07.0015) should be installed.
_____________________________________
* Mark of Schlumberger
Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 1

Introduction Schlumberger
Summary
At the end of this training you should be proficient with using PIPESIM software to perform
a wide variety of production engineering workflows to evaluate and predict well
performance and to study flow assurance.

Well Completion Design Schlumberger
Module 2 Well Completion Design

Workshop
In this workshop, you will use the generic PIPESIM workflow to perform well completion
performance analysis and design. The workflow includes building the physical model,
selecting the fluid model and fluid flow correlations, performing an operation, running the
model, and analyzing and plotting the results.
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will learn to design well completions using Nodal Analysis,
Flow Correlation Matching and Fluid Properties Modeling.
Well Performance
Exercise 1 – Nodal Analysis
One of the offshore wells on the Teak platform is producing from the Santa Flora reservoir.
Production tests, flowing gradient surveys (FGS) and well tests indicate reservoir
conditions of 3600 psia and 200 oF at the well bottom (9000 ft MD). Fluid analysis reports
a black oil of 36 oAPI with 500 scf/stb GOR, 10% water cut, 1.05 water specific gravity
(SG) and 0.8 gas SG.
The well produces through a 4 ½ “ (3.958” ID) tubing run to 8600 ft MD in a 7” (6.184” ID)
casing run to 9000 ft MD. The surface temperature at the wellhead is 50 °F, and the
overall heat transfer coefficient of the tubing is 5 btu/hr/ft2/F. The well deviation is as
follows:
Wellbore Deviation Survey
Measured Depth (ft) True Vertical Depth (ft)
0 0
1000 1000
2500 2450
5000 4850
7500 7200
9000 8550
Problem
For a wellhead (outlet) pressure of 300 psia, perform a Nodal Analysis operation to
determine the operating conditions (bottomhole pressure and flow rate) and the absolute
open flow potential (AOFP) of the well. Assume a liquid PI of 8 stb/d/psi and use the Vogel
bubblepoint option.

Workflow Steps
1. Build the Physical Model using the above data and include a Nodal point
at bottomhole.
N. A. Point
Figure 1. Illustration of the physical model of a well showing a Nodal point at

bottomhole.
2. Create the Fluid Model using the data provided above.

3. Select the Flow Correlations. Use the Beggs-Brill Revised multiphase
correlation for vertical fluid flow and the Baker Jardine (BJA) No Slip
Assumption model for horizontal fluid flow.
4. Select the Nodal Analysis operation and run the model.
5. View and analyze the results to determine the:
a. Absolute openhole potential: _____________________.
b. Operating point flow rate: _____________________.
c. Operating point BHP: _____________________.

Exercise 2 – Flow Correlation Matching

A well test and flowing gradient survey (FGS) also were performed on the well on July 1,
2005. Use the measured data to select the most appropriate vertical flow correlation and
determine the flowing bottomhole pressure.
Well Test and FGS Data
Property Value
Wellhead pressure 300 psia
Wellhead temperature 130 °F
Liquid Production Rate 6500 stb/d
Flowing Pressure Survey
Depth MD (ft) Pressure (psia)

0 300
1500 560
2500 690
4500 1200
6500 1760
7500 2070
8500 2360
Workflow
1. Use the Data > Load/Add Measured Data option to enter and save the
flowing pressure survey data.
2. Select the Flow Correlation Matching operation to find the multiphase
correlation that best matches the measured data.
Hint: Select the inlet pressure as the calculated variable. Then specify the
given outlet pressure (wellhead) and liquid rate. Also, select several
vertical flow correlations, for example, Duns & Ros, Beggs & Brill Revised,
or Hagedorn & Brown.
3. Run the model and inspect the results to determine:
a. Best multiphase vertical fluid flow correlation: ______________ .
b. Flowing bottomhole pressure: _______________.

Exercise 3 – Flow Properties Using Engine Keywords

The PVT fluid model in PIPESIM software is often used in the absence of actual
laboratory data. Use the following workflow to display calculated fluid properties.
Workflow
1. Insert an Engine Keyword Tool icon in the model, i.e., between the well
completion and tubing.
2. Double click on the Engine Keyword icon and type in the following:
Exercise PStart=20 PEnd=3000 Pin=20 TStart=118
TEnd=118 Tin=1 Inner=pressure
Notes:
Use a “space” when using keyword parameters.
Units: P (pressure) in psia, T (temperature) in °F
Pin and Tin mean increment for P and T values.
“Inner” means parameter for the X-axis.
3. Select the P/T Profile operation. Specify an outlet pressure of 300 psia
and inlet pressure of 3143 psia. What is the oil flow rate?
Flowing oil rate: ____________________.
4. Run the model and inspect the results (*.pex file).
5. Report additional PVT fluid properties, etc.
Although PIPESIM software only reports fifty variables to PsPlot, it
internally computes over 200 variables. You can list all the computed
variables using the Engine option.
Select the Setup > Engine Option. Add PLOT SYNTAX to the
additional engine keyword section and re-run the P/T Profile
operation.
View the Output file (*.out) and scroll down to the Plot Input Data
Syntax section. Note the mnemonics for the additional variables you
want to report, Flowing Gas Viscosity (T4), etc., using the PLOT
PROFILE and PRINT CUSTOM engine keywords.
Report the flowing liquid viscosity and bubblepoint pressure at the
wellhead:
a. Liquid viscosity: ____________________.
b. Bubblepoint pressure: ____________________.
Notes:
To report additional plot variables use the syntax:
PLOT PROFILE=+T4U4V4
To print additional fluid properties variables use the syntax:
PRINT CUSTOM=(T4U4V4)


Horizontal Well Design Schlumberger
Module 3 Horizontal Well Design

Workshop
In this workshop, you will learn how to use PIPESIM software to design and evaluate
horizontal well performance.
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will use PIPESIM software to:

• Optimize horizontal well length.
• Perform horizontal well IPR / sensitivity.
• Evaluate horizontal versus vertical well performance.
• Model a horizontal well with multiple perforated intervals.
Well Performance
A client wishes to evaluate the added value of completing a horizontal well in a 50 ft pay
zone with a potential drainage radius of 3200 ft. The pay zone has a permeability of 40
mD (anisotropy = 1) and porosity of 18%. The initial reservoir pressure is 6000 psia and
initial temperature is 250 °F. The model data displays below.
Fluid analysis indicates a black oil crude of 39 API and a GOR of 500 scf/stb. The water
properties show a 1.076 SG. Water coning is expected at about the 20th month of
production (0.85 coned gas SG). The gas specific gravity is 0.78, and laboratory tests
show that the Glaso correlation best matches the solution gas properties.
Model Data
Wellbore Deviation Survey Data
MD TVD Angle
(ft) (ft) (degrees)
0 0 0
10000 10000 90
10050 10000 90
14950 10000

Geothermal Survey
Ambient Temp. U Value

MD
(°F) (Btu/hr/ft2)
0 60 8
10000 250 8
10050 250 8
14850 250 8
Tubing Configuration
Bottom MD ID Pipe Roughness

(ft) (in) (in)
10000 4.778 0.006
10050 4.778 0.006
14850 2.041 0.006
25 ft eccentricity
Water Coning Table
Flow rate GOR Fraction

(STB/D) (scf/STB) (%)
500 1700 65
600 1600 65
700 1500 60
800 1400 44
900 1300 50
1000 1200 45
2000 1100 39
3000 1000 30
4000 900 25
5000 800 20
6000 700 15
7000 600 10
8000 500 5
9000 500 1
10000 450 0
Problem Outline
Evaluate the performance of the horizontal well using the Steady State (SS) Joshi Oil
correlation and the Beggs & Brill Original multiphase flow correlation.

The wellbore is 7 inches in ID. The leakoff test gave a near-wellbore damage length of
7.895 inches, with damaged zone permeability of 2.1275 mD. The steady-state Joshi
model with a distributed PI (finite conductivity) model has been recommended.
Physical Model
Figure 2. A physical model of a horizontal well
Exercise 1 – Optimal Horizontal Well Length

For an outlet pressure of 200 psia, evaluate the optimal length of a horizontal well up to
approximately 5000 ft and the pressure loss from the toe to the heel of the horizontal well.
Optimal horizontal well length: ____________________.
Exercise 2 – Horizontal Well IPR / Sensitivity

Initial geological information suggests that the net true vertical thickness (TVT) of the pay
zone varies with sand quality.
1. Perform a Nodal Analysis operation to evaluate the horizontal well
performance for a well length of 3000 ft and an outlet pressure of 200 psia.
Estimate the AOFP, operating point flow rate, and bottomhole pressure:
a. AOFP: ____________________.
b. Pressure at OP: ____________________.
c. Flow rate at OP: ____________________.
2. Perform sensitivity analyses to understand the effects of:
Anisotropy (Kv / Kh) ranging from 0.1 to 1.0.

Damage zone lengths ranging from 8 to 12 inches.

Formation thickness ranging from 10 to 50 ft.
3. Evaluate the effect of performance with the addition of a 4” ID subsea
safety valve at 1000 ft and a 1” ID choke located at 10,000 ft.
a. AOFP: ____________________.
b. Flowing Pressure: ____________________.
c. Flowing Rate: ____________________.
4. Examine the effect of choke sizes ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 inches.
Evaluate the advantages or disadvantages of drilling a vertical well versus
a horizontal well with similar formation damage during drilling.
5. Evaluate the advantages or disadvantages of drilling a vertical well versus
a horizontal well with similar formation damage during drilling.

Exercise 3 – Multiple Horizontal Perforated Intervals

Additional geological information suggests that the reservoir consists of four sand intervals
that are 500, 400, 400 and 500 ft in width, with equally spaced impermeable intervals of
400 ft in width.
Physical Model
Figure 3. Model of a reservoir with four sand intervals interspersed with equally spaced
impermeable intervals.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using a multiple perforated horizontal well.
Evaluate the performance of a horizontal well with multiple perforated intervals.
How will you present your findings and discuss this with the client?

Multilayer Well Performance Schlumberger
Module 4 Multilayer Well Performance

Workshop
In this workshop, you will learn to use PIPESIM software to model well performance in
multilayer reservoir systems.
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will learn how to:

• Model well performance in multilayer wells.
• Superimpose the individual gas well IPRs to the combined IPR.
Well Performance
A commingled well penetrates two zones in a layered reservoir (see Figure 4, below). The
reservoir pressure and temperature of the topmost layer is 3600 psia and 302 °F (150 °C).
The reservoir pressure and temperature of the bottom layer is 5400 psia and 325 °F
(162.78 °C).
At the surface, the well is flowing though a 14 1/64” choke at 95 °F (35 °C).
Fluid PVT Data: Gas Composition
Component Well 1 at top Well 2 at bottom

(Mole %) (Mole %)
Methane 93.00 94.87
Ethane 3.42 1.81
Propane 0.80 0.23
i-Butane 0.21 0.07
n-Butane 0.17 -
i-Pentane 0.07 -
Hexane 0.18 0.09
Nitrogen 0.44 0.39
Carbon Dioxide 1.71 2.54
Water — 8WGR bbl/mmscf

Tubing Data
Well 1 at top Well 2 at bottom

Tubing ID 3.826” 3.826”
Wall Thickness 0.337” 0.337”
Perforation MD 12464 ft 1115.5 ft
Reservoir Data
FPS - Well 1 at top FPS - Well 2 at bottom

Flow rate FBHP Flow rate FBHP
(mmscf/d) (psia) (mmscf/d) (psia)
2.182 2555 1.135 4059
2.122 2491 1.847 2276
1.35 3000 1.695 2660
1.292 3000 1.743 2465
Physical Model
Figure 4. Multi-layer well schematic

Problem
Evaluate the performance of the individual layers and the commingled well system
through a 14 1/64” choke operating at an ambient temperature of 95 °F (35 °C) sand
wellhead pressure of 900 psia. Use the modified Gray vertical multiphase fluid flow
correlation.
Case 1 – Nodal Analysis for Well 1 and Well 2

Evaluate the well performance using a Nodal Analysis operation for the top-most layer
(VertWell 1) and bottom layer (VertWell 2).
Note: You will need to set the default PVT properties to the uppermost layer (VertWell 1)
and assign the PVT properties for the bottom layer via the PVT file.
• Well 1 (Top Layer):
AOFP __________, Operating P __________, Operating Q ________.
• Well 2 (Bottom Layer):
Case 2 – Nodal Analysis for Commingled Well

Evaluate the well performance using a Nodal Analysis operation for a commingled well,
i.e., Well 1+2.
Use the System Plot, File > Append File option, to graphically compare the results of the
three Nodal Analysis runs.
Case 3 – Alternate Completion Designs (Optional)

Evaluate the benefits of recommending to the client a different tubing size for the lower
zone between wells 1 and 2, and an optimum choke size.

Artificial Lift - ESP Design Schlumberger
Module 5 Artificial Lift - ESP Design

Workshop
In this workshop, you will learn how the PIPESIM workflow is used to analyze and
evaluate artificial lift, ESP design.
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will learn to model an ESP design using:

• Estimated well performance using Nodal Analysis
• Pump selection and design
• Pump performance with varying well conditions
ESP Design
The client is evaluating the best production strategy for wells in an Alaskan Basin
reservoir. Production tests on a discovery show a reservoir pressure of 3626 psig and
reservoir temperature of 288 °F. Wells drilled in the reservoir are expected to show
significant bottomwater influx as reported by coning studies (0.765 coned gas SG) in a
number of wells that have been on production for some time. A typical well design is given
below.
Fluid analysis tests indicate the presence of a sour black oil crude with 28 oAPI oil gravity,
0.984 gas SG, 1.126 water SG, and a solution gas-oil ratio of 100 scf/stb. Gas impurities
at bubblepoint pressure and reservoir temperature are 2.22 mole % CO2, 1.10 mole %
H2S and 0.05 % N2. The recommendation is to apply a 50% Woelfin viscosity correction
to the fluid model.
A four point flowing gradient survey reported a productivity index of 12.36 stb/d/psi. The
recorded wellhead temperature was 39 °F.
Wellbore Data
Pipe Data to MD
Casing size 9 5/8 ins (8.681” ID) 10698 ft

Tubing Size 4 ½ ins (3.92”ID) 9500 ft
Perforation Top 9860 ft
Kickoff Point 1756 ft 19.5 degrees

Water Coning Table
Flow rate GOR Fraction

(STB/D) (scf/STB) (%)
500 1000 100

600 900 95
700 800 90
800 600 85
900 450 80
1000 375 75
2000 350 70
3000 325 65
4000 300 60
5000 275 55
6000 250 50
7000 225 45
8000 200 40
9000 150 35
10000 100 30
11000 75 25
Exercise 1 – Well Model / Nodal Analysis

Evaluate the performance of this well using Nodal Analysis to determine if this heavy oil
well will flow naturally at an outlet pressure of 150 psia.
Use the Hagedorn and Brown vertical lift fluid flow correlation.
• Will the well flow naturally (Y/N)? ____________________.
• Stock tank Oil AOFP: ____________________.
Exercise 2 – ESP Pump Selection and Design

The client wants to use a 10,000 stb/d ESP pump with a provision to boost production by
up to 5000 stb/d as the facility becomes available. The maximum available voltage from
the rig is 2280 volts, with 100 ft of cable allowable for maximum current passage.
Assume a viscosity correlation in the pump selection and a 90% free gas separation with
the pump efficiency over 65% and maximum horsepower tandem pump. Run the ESP
Design operation to select the best pump and motor.

ESP Design Operation
1. Pump Selection
Using the ESP Design operation to select the pump:
a. What pump would you recommend? _______________.
b. How many stages are required? _______________.
c. What is the required pump power (hp)? _______________.
2. Motor Selection
Using the Motor/Cable Selection of the ESP Design operation to select
the motor:
a. Which tandem motor satisfies the client recommendation?
____________________________________________.
b. What is the surface voltage? ________________.
3. Contaminants
Do the gas contaminants have any effect? If so, what?
4. Pump Installation – Remember to install the pump for next exercise.

Exercise 3 – Pump Performance Sensitivity Analysis

In an attempt to predict the artificial lift performance for the production boost to come on
stream, perform Nodal Analysis (NA) and System Analysis to investigate the effect of
pump speed on the number of stages to adopt.
1. Nodal Analysis
a. What are the well operating conditions (pressure and flow rate) and
absolute open hole potential (AOFP) with the pump installed?
b. Pressure at the NA point: ____________________.
c. Stock tank oil flow rate: ____________________.
2. System Analysis
Discuss how the ESP stages ranging from 50 to 80 affect the ESP speed
ranging from 50 to 80.
a. Suction pressure range for ESP speed of 70 Hz?
_____________ to ____________________.
b. Stock tank liquid flow rate at outlet?

_____________ to ____________________.

Artificial Lift – Gas Lift Design Schlumberger
Module 6 Artificial Lift – Gas Lift Design

Workshop
In this workshop, you will learn how the PIPESIM workflow is used to evaluate gas lift
design and performance.
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will learn to:

• Estimate the deepest injection point (DIP)
• Evaluate lift gas response
• Evaluate bracketing for changes in future production
• Optimize gas lift mandrel spacing
• Estimate, recommend and justify an artificial lift strategy
• Evaluate gas lift performance
Gas Lift Design

A new well has been drilled in a developed reservoir and is performing below expectation.
The client recommends gas lift design as a means of improving the well productivity. The
tables that follow show the reservoir fluid and wellbore data.
Black Oil PVT Data
Property Value
Water Cut 35 %
Gas Oil Ratio 115 scf/stb
Gas Specific Gravity 0.64
Water Specific Gravity 1.05
Oil Gravity 22 °API
Wellbore Data
MD (ft) TVD (ft)

0 0
9850 9350

Geothermal Survey
MD Ambient Temp U Value

(ft) (°F) (Btu/hr/ft2)
0 50 2
9850 185 2.159
Tubing Configuration
Pipe Data
Tubing Size 2 7/8” (2.442” ID) 8949 ft
Casing Size 7” (6.184” ID) 9850 ft
Reservoir Data
Parameter Value
Reservoir Pressure 4090 psia
Reservoir Temperature 185 °F
Productivity Index (PI) 2.75 stb/d/psi
Problem
Evaluate the well performance. Analyze how best to use gas lift as a means of improving
the productivity of the well for the case of an outlet pressure of 150 psia.
Case 1 – Well Performance

Perform Nodal Analysis to understand the well performance and determine if the well will
flow naturally. Evaluate the absolute openhole potential and the operating conditions of
the well.
• Is the well flowing (Y/N)? __________________.
• AOFP: __________________.
• Operating pressure (psi): __________________.
• Operating stock tank liquid flow rate: __________________.

Case 2 – Deepest Injection Point

A steady gas supply of 1.5 mmscf/d at 70 oF with gas specific gravity of 0.64 is available at
the wellhead with a maximum compressor capability of 1500 psia.
PIPESIM software provides the capability to model the optimum depth of injection or the
injection at a valve depth (the valve depth must be specified in the tubing module). Select
the gas lift, Deepest Injection Point operation option of the Artificial Lift operation.
Assuming the minimum allowable valve injection pressure drop is 140 psi, estimate the
true deepest injection point.
• Stock tank liquid rate at outlet (stb/d): __________________.
• DIP (measured at TVD): __________________.
Evaluate the improvement in the well performance using the DIP data.
• Operating pressure (psi): __________________.
• Operating stock tank liquid flow rate: __________________.

Case 3 – Lift Gas Performance

Conduct a Lift Gas Response to optimize the lift gas performance for the case of gas lift
valves with a minimum injection gas dP of 200 psi and 250 psi. Assume a range of gas
injection rates ranging from 0 to 5 mmscf/d. For each minimum gas dP case, calculate the
maximum lift gas flow rate, stock tank liquid flow rate at outlet, and gas injection depth.
Min injection Gas dP 200 psi 250 psi
Max. Qgas_lift (mmscf/d): ______________ ______________
Stock Tank Qliq (stb/d) : ______________ ______________
Gas Injection Depth (ft) : ______________ ______________
Case 4 – Bracketing Range for Future Production

The client predicts that the well production conditions will drop from 2500 stb/d and a
water cut of 35% to 1750 stb/d and a water cut of 75%.
If the initial gas injection rate increases from 1.5 mmscf/d to 2.0 mmscf/d, estimate the
bracketing range.
• Minimum DIP at TVD: __________________.

• Maximum DIP at TVD: __________________.

Case 5 – Optimum Mandrel Spacing

PIPESIM software provides the capability to design the optimum spacing of the mandrels
subject to the injection gas operating conditions, the target rate of gas injection and the
mandrel safety valve factors.
The readily available Camco “IPO Surface Close” mandrels in stock are rated to deliver
gas at rates from 1.0 to 2.0 mmscf/d at an injection temperature of 90 °F.
Perform a gas lift design. Estimate the minimum valve spacing, number of mandrel valves,
and optimum depths. Examine the impact of the gas injection rate due to cost and the
unloading production pressure.
• Number of mandrels: ___________________________.
• Optimum mandrel depths: ___________________________.
Install the gas lift design and evaluate the operating production with gas lift.

Flow Assurance Schlumberger
Module 7 Flow Assurance

Workshop
In this workshop, you will learn how the PIPESIM workflow is used to evaluate and
mitigate flow assurance problems in pipelines and production facilities.
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will use PIPESIM software to analyze the following production
engineering objectives:
• Completion design – perforated vs. Frac Pack
• Field Performance forecasting
• Subsea flowline/riser sizing (EVR)
• Arrival Temperature limits
• ESP design and performance analysis
• Multiphase booster design and performance analysis
• Evaluation of gas lift feasibility
A deepwater development is planned for an oil field producing from an HPHT reservoir.
The proposed design is to drill four wells that will be manifolded at the drill center. They will
be produced through a horizontal subsea tieback via an 8-mile pipeline to a host platform
in water of 7000 ft in depth.
At discovery, the reservoir pressure is 12,000 psi and the reservoir temperature is 350 °F
with weak aquifer support. Petrophysical log analysis shows a pay zone of 120 ft with 20%
irreducible water saturation (Swirr) and 10% irreducible oil saturation (Sor). Well test
analysis reports a 300 mD formation with a drainage area of about 250 acres. The
produced fluid is heavy crude, characterized with the following properties:
GOR 400 scf/STB

Pb 4100 psi @ 350 °F
Water cut 10 %
Oil API 22 degrees
Gas SG 0.77
Pressure drop calculations use the Duns & Ros correlation for vertical flow and the Beggs
& Brill Revised correlation with Taitel Dukler flow regime map for horizontal flow. In
addition, DBR laboratory analysis indicates the Khartaotmodjo correlations best represent
(calibrate) the dead oil, under-saturated and live oil viscosity properties. DBR results
recommend the Woeflin emulsion correlation with a cutoff point of 70%.

To forecast future performance, the reservoir team also generated performance tables
using a reservoir simulator to account for the affects of the weak aquifer. The reported
reservoir performance table is as follows:
Cum Liq Pres Water Cut GOR

(MMSTB) (psi) (%) (mmscf/STB)
0 12000 0 400
5 11000 0 400
10 10200 0 400
15 9500 0 400
20 8800 0 400
25 8200 0 400
30 7600 0 400
35 7100 0 400
40 6600 5 400
45 6200 10 400
50 5800 15 400
55 5450 25 400
60 5100 35 400
65 4800 45 400
70 4500 60 400
75 4250 70 400
80 4000 80 500
Project Objective
The main objective of this study, with all the data in hand, is to design a production system
that will sustain the maximum flow rate for the longest time.
Completion Design
First, the HPHT reservoir suggests that the economics of different completion designs
must be investigated to achieve an optimum recovery factor. The tubing parameters for
tubing in a 7.625” casing are as follows:
Tubing Data
ID 4.67 in
SSSV 4” @ 500 ft
KOP 5000 ft
TVD 12000 ft
MD 14000 ft
HTC 2 BTU/hr/ft2/F
Tamb @ wh 38 °F
Tamb @ bh 350 °F

Core experiments report the following relative permeability curves:
Relative Permeability Table

Sw (0-1) Kro (1-0) Krw(0-1)
0 0.9 0
0.1 0.9 0
0.2 0.9 0
0.3 0.6 0.02
0.4 0.45 0.06
0.5 0.36 0.13
0.6 0.22 0.2
0.7 0.15 0.3
0.8 0.08 0.45
0.9 0 0.5
1 0 0.5
In addition, the following perforated completion and fracture well design parameters have
been proposed:
Perforated Completion
Damaged Zone Diameter 9 in Deviation 39 degrees

Damage Zone Perm. 80 mD Skin Method McLeod
Compacted Zone Diameter 1 in Perforation Diameter 0.5 in
Compacted Zone Perm. 40 mD Shot Density 4 SPF
Vertical Permeability 200 mD Depth of Penetration 36 in
Perforated Interval 60 ft
Frac Pack Completion
Gravel permeability 90000 mD Fracture half length 20 ft

Screen Diameter 5.25 in Fracture width 0.6 in
Casing ID 7.625 in Proppant Perm 90000 mD
Perforated Diameter 0.5 in Frac face depth of damage 8 in
Shot Density 4 SPF Frac face damage perm. 250 mD
Vertical Perm. 200 mD Choke length 3 ft
Perforated Interval 60 ft Frac face choke perm. 90000 mD
Deviation 39 degrees

Physical Model
Figure 5. Model of the well used to evaluate completion design
Problem
Determine the well deliverability based on reservoir parameters and tubing configuration at
an outlet pressure of 200 psia. Estimate the mechanical skin factor and AOFP for both the
perforated completion and the frac pack completion. Perform Nodal Analysis at a wellhead
pressure of 2400 psia.
Completion Type Perforated Frac Pack

Mechanical skin factor
Flowing Pressure, psia
Flowing Liquid Rate, stb/d
AOFP (BPD)
Perform parametric studies with +/- 50% sensitivity on the completion parameters.
Determine which completion design parameters most influence the well performance.
• Perforated completion: ____________________________________.
• Frac Pack completion: ____________________________________.
Discussion
1. Is it valid to characterize the IPR with a liquid PI rather than the pseudo-
steady-state model?
2. Which parameters in the pseudo-steady-state model change over time?
How will this affect the PI over time?

3. How does water cut relate to water saturation?
Subsea Flowline and Riser Sizing

As the reservoir is in deep water, the drilled well manifold will be produced through a
horizontal subsea tieback via an 8-mile long pipeline to a host platform in water of 7000 ft.
The ambient temperature along the flowline is 38 °F, and the water current is 2 ft per
second. These are typical values for deepwater environments. The following figure shows
the ambient seawater temperature gradient:
Assume that the fluid is arriving at the manifold at a pressure of 2400 psia, a temperature
of 250 °F, and the heat transfer coefficient for both the flowline and riser is 2 BTU/hr/ft2/F.

Physical model
Figure 6. Model of flowline riser
Platform Constraints
As this is a field expansion project, the maximum production rates are constrained by the
capacity of the existing platform, such that:
• Total liquid is 60,000 BPD.
• Total water treating capacity is 40,000 BPD.
The minimum arrival pressure of fluids at the host platform is 200 psia to ensure adequate
separation. The oil is then pumped to shore through export pipelines.
Problem Definition
Perform a system analysis to ensure flowline integrity throughout the life of the system
using the maximum allowable production rate at the platform. Sensitivity analysis should
include water cut (X-axis) as reported on the performance tables (0 to 80%), subsea
tieback ID, and riser ID ranging from 6-12 inches in increments of 1 inch.

Case 1 – Erosional Velocity Limitations

Record the manifold pressure, maximum erosional velocity (EVR, i.e., actual velocity to
API 14E Erosional Velocity limit), and the minimum arrival temperature for a single and a
dual flowline.
Note: For a dual flowline, insert an adder/multiplier between the source and flowline and
multiply the flow rate by 0.5. Insert a second adder/multiplier at the top of the riser and
multiply the flow rate by 2.0.
Single flowline
Line size Manifold Pressure Max EVR Min Arrival Temp

(in) (psi) (oF)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Dual flowline
Line size Manifold Pressure Max EVR Min Arrival Temp

(in) (psi) (oF)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Discussion
Which line size would you select? Would you opt for the single or dual flowline?
Considerations and Constraints
• Manifold Pressure: The manifold pressure needs to be as low as possible to

minimize backpressure on the system. This is only critical later in the field life when
artificial lift is required to move fluids to the platform. The lower the manifold pressure,
the less boosting is required. The abandonment pressure is lower, and hence ultimate
recovery is higher.
• Erosional velocity: The flowing fluid velocity must be kept below the erosional
velocity limit to maintain the integrity of the pipe.
• Arrival Temperature: The crude has a high wax content with a cloud point of 82 °F.
Deepstar research, however, has shown that wax deposition can occur above the
dead oil cloud point in some systems. Therefore, to avoid wax deposition altogether,
the system temperature should remain at 20 °F above the cloud point (at least 102
°F). If wax is allowed to deposit and be removed though pigging operations, the
minimum system temperature needs to be above 82 °F to maintain a manageable
pigging schedule.
To maximize arrival temperature, the pipe and riser may be insulated with possibly a
pipe-in-pipe (PIP) configuration. Typical values for PIP insulation are 2.0 BTU/hr/ft2/F.
Adding synthetic foam insulation may lower the HTC to 0.25 BTU/hr/ft2/F. The larger
the pipe ID, the slower the fluids move and the more heat transfer occurs with the
ambient seawater.
• Cost of Pipe: Though the cost is not considered here, for an 8-mile long subsea
pipeline and a 7000 ft riser, the cost of pipe is very high. Increasing the pipe diameter
by one inch may result in an increased cost of several million dollars.
• Dual Flowlines: While more expensive, dual flowlines allow for several benefits
including:
Redundancy
Round-trip pigging
Ability to test wells independently

Ability to circulate fluids for remedial pipeline operations

Ability to reroute wells to optimize production rates
Better thermal management control
For a given line size (say 8”) explain how and why the following quantities vary as a
function of water cut:
• Manifold pressure
• Maximum erosional velocity ratio
• System outlet temperature
Performance Forecasting
After evaluating the well performance, sizing the flowline/riser, and evaluating the flow
assurance as separate groups of nodes, it is necessary to connect the entire system and
perform a total system analysis. First, setup the physical model as shown below with two
8” ID topside flowlines that are 50 ft in length. Set the choke bean size equal to pipe ID.
Note that there are two adder/multipliers immediately downstream of the wellhead choke.
The first adder/multiplier multiplies the flow rate by 4 to account for the 4 wells producing
to the subsea manifold. The second multiplier reduces the rate by half if a dual
flowline/riser pair is selected.
Figure 7 for Page 38
Figure 7. Model of a complete production system

Use a system analysis to forecast the production capacity of the wells by calculating the
liquid rate as a function of reservoir conditions. Setup the System Analysis operation as
follows based on the reservoir performance forecast table:
(Note: All rows do not appear in the screenshot above.)
Problem
Run the model and plot the stock tank liquid flow rate versus the "case number.” Use the
following discussion questions to evaluate the production forecast.
Discussion
1. How long will the wells be able to produce at the 60,000 BPD target if no
artificial lift is employed? (Use Excel to calculate.)
Time on plateau: _________________.
2. At what inlet pressure will the wells no longer able to sustain the target
rate? At what inlet pressure do the wells die?
Minimum Pinlet to produce 60,000 BPD: ______________.
Minimum Pinlet to produce at any rate: ______________.
3. During the initial production time, is it better to choke at the wellhead or
topsides? Perform a sensitivity analysis to determine optimum choke sizes
needed to maintain the target production rate. It is recommended that the
wellhead and topsides choke bean sizes range from 1 in to 4 in.

Compare the wellhead and topsides parameters shown below (choke dP, pressure drop
in the flowline, EVR and arrival temperature, etc.) at the optimum choke sizes.
Choke Location Wellhead Topsides
Choke Size, ins
Critical?
Choke dP, psi
Extra dP, psi
Total dP, psi
Flowline dP, psi
Tieback flow regime
Maximum EVR
Min. Arrival Temp.
Case 2 – Flow Regime Mapping

Problem
Flow regime mapping is vital to understanding the multiphase flow behavior along the
wellbore and across the surface facilities. To evaluate the different flow regimes along the
production flow path, perform a sensitivity analysis using the pressure-temperature
profile operation with the expected water cut as the sensitivity parameter.
Discussion
1. What is the predominant flow regime in the flowline and riser?
Pipe Condition Flowline Riser
Without insulation
With 1 in of insulation
Pipe buried 2 ft
2. Discuss what effect an increase in water cut has on the arrival

temperature, liquid holdup, viscosity and density.

ESP Design and Performance Analysis

Before you begin, make sure that the chokes installed in the previous exercise are
deactivated.
Now install an ESP to boost the production as the wells come off plateau. The current
maximum operating temperature for ESPs is 350 °F. From the previous system analysis
operation, look at the temperature profiles to determine the safest depth to install the
pump (approximately 12,740 MD).
The maximum power available to the pump is 1000 hp.
To install an ESP:
1. Based on this depth, perform an ESP design using the reservoir conditions
corresponding to the first point at which the system was unable to produce
any fluid (Pr = 6600; wc% =5; GOR = 400 scf/STB).
2. Check that the horsepower requirement does not exceed the limit. If it
does, recalculate the pump parameters using a lower rate specification to
the nearest 100 bpd without violating the power limit.
3. Click on the motor/cable selection tab, and select a motor and cable
appropriate for this case.
Pump model selected
Required no. stages
hp required
Design rate (bpd)

GVF at inlet
Gas separator
required?
Motor selection
Cable selection
4. Plot the performance curve:
5. Click on the install pump button to install the pump.

6. Rerun the performance forecast with a fourth sensitivity variable that sets
the ESP speed to zero during the production phase where the system is
choked (determined in step 2 above) and, thereafter, to 60 Hz.
Discussion
1. Based on the cumulative production table, how long will the wells be able
to produce at the 60,000 BPD target if an ESP is employed?
Time on plateau: _________________.
2. Change the X-axis to inlet pressure. At what inlet pressure are the wells no
longer able to sustain the target rate? At what inlet pressure do the wells
die?
Minimum Pinlet to produce 60,000 BPD: ______________.
Minimum Pinlet to produce any rate: ______________.

3. At any point in time, does the ESP inlet temperature exceed 350 °F, or
does the inlet gas volume fraction exceed 5%? If so, what can be done
about this?
4. Create a (rate vs. time) production forecast in Excel for cases with and
without the ESP lift. What is the cumulative recovery for each case?
a. Cumulative recovery with ESP ___________________ stb.
b. Cumulative recovery without ESP ___________________ stb.
5. Recheck the flowline/riser sizing with the ESP installed and the more
accurate prediction of the wellhead temperature.
a. Does the selected flowline/riser size violate the EVR? Y or N?

_____________.
b. Does the arrival temperature drop below 102 °F (to prevent wax
deposition)? Y or N? ______________.
c. Is the arrival temperature greater than 82 °F (the minimum system
temperature to allow pigging control of wax deposition)? Y or N?
_____________.
d. If wax is deposited, what can be done?
Hint: Rerun the system analysis and change the multiplier parameters for the cases in
question such that all production is fed through a single line.
Multiphase Booster Design and Performance Analysis

There are three types of multiphase pump models in PIPESIM software:
• Generic model
• Twin-screw model
• Helico-axial model
The simplest approach is to use the generic model. It treats the multiphase pump as a
single-phase liquid pump and gas compressor operating in parallel. Conventional pump
and compressor theory is used to calculate the shaft horsepower required. Efficiencies of
the pump and compressor can be adjusted based on typical values taken from field
conditions. Due to the limiting assumptions in this approach, use of the generic multiphase
pump model is recommended only as a preliminary analysis.
The twin-screw pump performance model is derived from empirical data covering a wide
range of volume fractions, suction pressures, and pump speeds. Pump performance at
specific inlet conditions is calculated by a rigorous interpolation routine that determines
differential pressure, flow rate, pump and power requirement. The test data is based on a
liquid viscosity of 6 cP with corrections applied to different actual viscosities. Seven pump
sizes are available and are characterized in terms of nominal capacity – that is, the
theoretical rate at 100% speed, 0% GVF, zero differential pressure and with internal
leakage. Available nominal rates range from 37,500 to 300,000 BPD (250-2000 m3/hr)
suction flow rate. Additional pumps can be modeled with data supplied by the vendor or
acquired from precommissioning tests.

The helico-axial pump model characterizes pump performance using three correlating
parameters. The flow parameter and head parameter characterize the size and the
number of stages of the multiphase booster pump. A speed parameter representing the
percentage of maximum speed is then adjusted based on the desired differential pressure
for a given rate (or vice versa). The total power requirement is calculated based on a
combination of pump performance and drive mechanism. Drive options include a hydraulic
turbine drive, electric air-cooled drive and an electric oil-cooled drive.
As a preliminary analysis, consider a generic multiphase booster model located just
downstream of the subsea manifold with a maximum pressure differential of 1000 psi. Set
the ESP speed to 0 to isolate the multiphase pump.
1. What liquid rate can be produced by the multiphase booster at the
reservoir conditions corresponding to the first point that the system was
unable to produce any fluid (Pr = 6600; wc% =5; GOR = 400 scf/STB)?
_____________.
2. What liquid rate can be achieved with the combination of a multiphase
pump and ESP? __________________ STBD
For the ESP/booster combination:

1. What is the gas volume fraction at the pump inlet (summary file)?
_____________________
2. Assuming a helicon-axial pump, determine roughly the horsepower
required by the pump (look in the help system for pump/compressor
efficiencies associated with the GVF): ____________ hp
Replace the generic multiphase pump with the Framo multiphase booster
that has an electric oil cooled drive and a pressure differential of 1000 psi.
What is the power requirement for the Framo pump?
_________________
3. What are the head and rate parameters (FQ and FZ) for the pump:
FQ: ______________ FZ: ______________
Open the multiphase pump dialog and enter these values to define the
size of the pump.
4. Based on the cumulative production table, how long will the wells be able
to produce at the 60,000 BPD target if the Framo multiphase booster and
ESP are used?
Time on plateau: _________________.
5. Change the X-axis to inlet pressure. At what inlet pressure are the wells no
longer able to sustain the target rate? At what inlet pressure do the wells
die?
6. What is the minimum Pinlet to produce 60,000 BPD? ______________.
7. What is the total maximum horsepower requirement for the ESPs and
booster?
______________________ hp

Gas Lift Feasibility Evaluation

New deepwater subsea high-pressure gas lift technology has recently been developed by
Schlumberger to minimize the risks associated with traditional, bellows-operated gas lift
valves. Subsea high-pressure gas lift valves can improve project economics through
increased production and enhanced reliability at higher pressures. Using unique bellows
technology, these valves can be set deeper in the well to provide additional drawdown and
increased production, depending on the application. The new high-pressure gas lift
technology rates reliable bellows operation for 5,000 psi at the valve depth, compared to
the previous 2,500 psi limit typically present with traditional gas lift valves.
Using 5,000 psi as an upper limit for the valve operating pressure, perform a gas lift design
using the reservoir conditions corresponding to the first point that the system was unable
to produce any fluid (Pr = 5800; wc% =20; GOR = 400 scf/STB).
Deactivate the multiphase booster and ESP from the previous exercise.
First, determine the optimum gas lift injection depth by going to Artificial Lift Design >
Gas Lift Design > Deepest Injection Point. Vary the gas lift injection rate and pressure
to determine the deepest possible injection point. Leave all other parameters to their
defaulted values.
Is gas lift feasible in this case?

Field Network Operations Schlumberger
Module 8 Field Network Operations

Workshop
In this workshop, you will learn how to use the PIPESIM Network workflow to model a
crude oil subsea pipeline network.
Learning Objectives
In this module, you will use PIPESIM software to analyze the following production
engineering objectives:
• Completion design – perforated vs. Frac Pack
• Field Performance forecasting
Crude Oil Transportation Network

In this exercise, you will use the PIPESIM Network model to model the subsea pipeline
system discussed in the previous flow assurance exercise with a dual flowline. One
flowline will connect two perforated completion wells in one section of the reservoir; the
other flowline will connect two frac pack completion wells with a 0.5 mile connecting
flowline for redundancy.
Physical Model
Figure 8. Model for a subsea crude oil pipeline

Workflow
The following workflow allows you to set up the physical model:
1. Launch a new PIPESIM Network model and save the file to the
…/Network directory.
2. Assign the fluid flow correlation data; that is, assign Duns & Ros for vertical
flow and Beggs & Brill Revised with Taitel Dukler Map for horizontal flow.
3. Set up the Black Oil fluid model (see the PVT Fluid data from the previous
exercise).
4. Create two single branch well models: one for a perforated completion well
(PerfCompWell.bps) and the other for a frac pack completion well
(FracPackWell.bps).
a. Copy and edit the well model (*.bps) file from the previous exercise.
b. Ensure that you connect the choke to a “boundary” node for
consistency.
c. Select the perforated completion or frac pack completion.
d. Save to the appropriate well name, that is, PerfCompWell.bps or
FracPackWell.bps.
Figure 9. Base model used to build the different completion wells
5. Create the physical model using the Network Toolbar: that is, the wells,
connection nodes, flowlines, and sink node.
6. Import the perforated completion well *.bps file to Well 1 and Well 2 and
the frac pack completion well *.bps file to Well 3 and Well 4.
7. Assign the flowline data for Pipeline A, Pipeline B, and Pipeline AB (0.5
miles) pipelines. Set the thermal flow coefficient to 2 BTU/hr/ft2/F.

8. Assign the riser and surface choke and flowlines for the Riser+Surface
node.
Figure 10. Model of the flowlines for the riser and surface choke
Exercise 1 – Analyze the P/T response of the network

Conduct a detailed P/T profiles operation on each pipeline and junction in the
transportation network with the wellhead and surface chokes inactive.
The P/T profile plot from Well 1 and Well 3 to the platform should be as follows:
You may want to plot the temperature profile along the flow line and the erosional velocity
ratio to check for potential flow-assurance issues.
Use the Report Tool to examine the pressure drop across the tubing (Well 1), the flowline
(Pipeline A) and through the riser and surface equipment (Riser+Surface).

Exercise 2 – Flow rate sensitivity analysis

Perform a sensitivity analysis to ensure that the crude oil subsea pipeline network is able
to maintain the desired operating condition over a range of flow-rates from the platform.
Report the optimum flowline ID and choke sizes. Discuss how this approach compares
with the previous exercise.

Answers Schlumberger
Module 9 Answers
In this module, you can find the answers to the exercises in the Well Completion Design,
Horizontal Well Completions Design, Multilayer Well Performance, Artificial Lift – ESP
Design, Artificial Lift – Gas Lift Design and Flow Assurance modules.
Completion Well Design

Exercise 1a – P/T Profile
• Flowing Oil Rate = 4962.5 stb/d
Exercise 1b – Nodal Analysis

(Outlet) Wellhead Pressure 300 psia
Operating Point Pressure 2669.2 psia
Operating Point Flow Rate 7446.5 stb/d
AOFP 21290 stb/d
Exercise 2 – Flow Correlation Matching

Wellhead Pressure 300 psia
Vertical Correlation Duns-Ros
Flowing BHP 2563.7 psia
Exercise 3.3 – Bottom Flowing Rate (Pwh = 300 psia)

Inlet Pressure 3143 psia
Flowing Oil Rate 4926.5 stb/d
Exercise 3.5 – Fluid Properties

Fluid Property Value
Flowing Liquid Viscosity 0.7397 cP
Bubble Point Pressure 2103 psia

Horizontal Well Completion Design

Exercise 1 – Optimal Horizontal Well Length
Well Length 3000 ft
Exercise 2a – Nodal Analysis

AOFP 190126 stb/d
Operating Point Flow rate 10328 stb/d
Operating Point Pressure 5760.7 psia
Exercise 2b – Sensitivity Analysis
Anisotropy (Kz/Kh) 0.1 1.0

Flowing Pressure (psia) 5731 5760
Flowing Rate (stb/d) 10286 10328
AOFP (stb/d) 172705 189913
Reservoir Thickness (h) 10 50

AOFP (stb/d) 47678 189913
Damage Diameter (ft) 7.895 12

AOFP (stb/d) 189785 179681
Exercise 2c – Nodal Analysis with Choke and SSSV

Operating Point Pressure 5860 psia
Operating Point Flow rate 6000 stb/d
AOFP 190126 stb/d
Choke Bean Size 0.5 1.0 1.5

Flowing Pressure (psia) 5861.2 5810.3 5805.9
Flowing Rate (stb/d) 6000.4 8196.6 8383.4

Exercise 3 – Multiple Perforated Horizontal Well

Horizontal Well Base case Multiple Perf.
Toe Drawdown, psia 234.9 448.75
Flowing Pressure, psia 5861.2 5614.2
Flowing Rate, stb/d 10328 8006.3
Flow contribution from different horizontal well, perforated segments are: HW1 (2.03%),
HW2 (2.62%), HW3 (5.54%) and HW4 (89.81%).

Multilayer Well Performance

Exercise 1a – Nodal Analysis for Well 1 (at Top)
Operating Point BHP 2629.3 psia
Operating Point Flow rate 1.981 mmscf/d
AOFP 4.1432 mmscf/d
Exercise 1b – Nodal Analysis for Well 2 (at Bottom)

Operating Point BHP 2730 psia
AOFP 2.25 mmscf/d
Exercise 2 – Nodal Analysis for Commingled Wells 1+2

Operating Point BHP 3310 psia
AOFP 6.4 mmscf/d

Artificial Lift – ESP Design

Nodal Analysis – Base Case
• The well will not flow without artificial lift mechanism.
• The stock tank Oil AOFP is 32,120 stb/d.
• Oil AOFP is 32,160 stb/d.
Pump Selection / Design

• The REDA J12000N pump meets all the operational constraints with extensive room
for boosting production
• The pump placement depth should be about 9680 feet for maximum clearance, i.e.,
halfway between the bottom of the tubing and the bottom of the casing
• Pump Selection, Pump - Reda – J12000N, Stages = 32, Ppower = 276 hp
• Pump motor: Reda – 540 Series M&P Tandem (NP = 450, NP Voltage = 2270, NP
=27)
• Selected Cable: #10 Cu or #8 A, Surface Voltage 3038 volts, Cable length 9880.
Nodal Analysis with pump installed

• Oil AOFP = 32120 stb/d, Pressure = 2820 psia, Flow rate = 7215 stb/d

Artificial Lift – Gas Lift Design

Nodal Analysis – Base Case
• AOFP = 10156 stb/d, Pressure = 3974.1 psia, Flow rate = 321.65 stb/d
Deepest Injection Point

• DIP = 5696 ft, Operating flow rate = 2675 stb/d
• Well operating conditions after inserting gas lift mandrel at deepest injection point.
• Operating Point Conditions: Pressure = 3151.7 psia, Flow rate = 2583.2 stb/d
Lift Gas Performance
Minimum Injection Gas dP 200 psi 250 psi

Max. Lift Qgas (mmscf/d) 3.0 3.0
Gas Injection Depth (ft) 5618.69 5438.70
Stock Tank Liquid Q (stb/d) 2746.43 2701.10
Bracketing for future production
Minimum DIP at TVD 5933.22 ft

Maximum DIP at TVD 8446.48 ft
Optimum Mandrel Spacing
Gas Injection Rate 1.0 1.5 2.0

mmscf/d mmscf/d mmscf/d
Production Rate, stb/d 2345 2496 2567
Valve Depth, ft 3105.8 3105.5 3105.4
Valve Depth, ft 4771.4 4809.3 4817
Valve Depth, ft 5497.1 5595.7 5634.5
• Nodal Analysis with optimum spaced mandrels installed

• Operating point: Pressure = 3194.9 psia, Liquid Flow rate = 2464.3 stb/d

Flow Assurance
Exercise 7a – Completion Design
Completion Type Perforated Frac Pack
Mechanical Skin Factor 3.883 0.7076
AOFP, stb 90882 134668
Operating Point Pressure, psia 8087.4 8743.5
Operating Point Flow Rate, stb/d 34533 40523
Exercise 7b – Subsea Flowline and Riser Sizing

Case 1 – Erosion Velocity Limitations
Single Flowline
Line Size Manifold Pressure Max Min Arrival Temp.

(in) (psia) EVR (oF)
6 8921.27 1.85 58.89

7 5469.39 1.36 58.55
8 3948.51 1.04 58.46
9 3187.73 0.82 58.41
10 2802.43 0.66 58.43
11 2593.52 0.55 58.45
12 2481.48 0.46 58.47
Dual Flowline
Line Size Manifold Pressure Max Min Arrival Temp.

(in) (psi) EVR (oF)
6 4110.36 0.89 28.78

7 3072.82 0.66 27.51
8 2598.46 0.50 27.35
9 2356.74 0.40 27.33
10 2208.50 0.32 27.47
11 2103.35 0.27 27.66
12 2036.13 0.22 27.93
• Subsea flowline size = 9 in

• Dual flowline

Exercise 7c – Performance Forecasting

Case 1 – Erosion Velocity Limitations
1. Time on plateau = 600 days
Choke
Boost
Figure 11 for Page 58
Figure 11: Stock Tank Liquid Flow rate at Outlet vs. Case Number
2. Inlet pressure:
a. Minimum Pinlet to produce at 60,000 STB/D = 8190 psia
b. Minimum Pinlet to produce at any rate = 7100 psia
3. Choke bean size:
a. Wellhead choke bean size = 4 in
b. Topsides choke bean size = 1.75 in

Choke comparison
Choke Location Wellhead Topsides

Choke size, in 4 in 1.75 in
Critical ? Subcritical Critical
Choke dP, psi 23.53 1231.72
Extra dP, psi - 1152.43
Total dP, psi 5995.30 2795.90
Flowline dP, psi 404.10 2394.60
Tieback flow regime Liquid Huge Liquid
Maximum EVR 0.38 0.49
Min. Arrival Temp., oF 308.28 41.90
Case 2 – Flow Regime Mapping

Flow Regime
Pipe Condition Flowline Riser

Without insulation Liquid Huge Liquid
With 1 in of insulation Liquid Huge Liquid
Pipe buried 2 ft Liquid Huge Liquid

Exercise 7d – ESP Design and Performance Analysis

Pump and Motor Specifications
Parameter Value
Pump model selection Reda HN15500
No. of stages 125
HP required 706 hp
Design rate 14000 bpd
GVF at inlet 0
Gas separator required? No
Motor selection 562_Series Tandem
Cable selection #1Cu or #2/0 A1
Cable length 12840 ft
Voltage drop 608.9 volts
1. Time on plateau = 800 days

2. Inlet pressure:
a. Minimum Pinlet to produce 60,000 STB/D = 7085 psia
b. Minimum Pinlet to produce at any rate = 5100 psia

Advanced PIPESIM Training Course Notes:

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Advanced PIPESIM Training Course Notes:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

Pipesim 2006.1 Advanced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pipesim 2006.1 Advanced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced PIPESIM

Training and Exercise Guide

Schlumberger Information Solutions

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 i

Module 2 Well Completion Design................................................................... 3

Module 3 Horizontal Well Design..................................................................... 9

Module 4 Multilayer Well Performance.......................................................... 15

Module 5 Artificial Lift - ESP Design.............................................................. 19

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 iii

Module 6 Artificial Lift – Gas Lift Design .......................................................23

Module 7 Flow Assurance ...............................................................................29

Module 8 Field Network Operations ...............................................................45

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 iv

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 v

In the course, you must have knowledge of the following:

What You Will Need

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 1

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 2

Module 2 Well Completion Design

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 3

Figure 1. Illustration of the physical model of a well showing a Nodal point at

2. Create the Fluid Model using the data provided above.

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 4

Exercise 2 – Flow Correlation Matching

Well Test and FGS Data

Flowing Pressure Survey

Depth MD (ft) Pressure (psia)

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 5

Exercise 3 – Flow Properties Using Engine Keywords

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 6

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 7

Module 3 Horizontal Well Design

In this module, you will use PIPESIM software to:

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 9

Ambient Temp. U Value

Bottom MD ID Pipe Roughness

Water Coning Table

Flow rate GOR Fraction

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 10

Figure 2. A physical model of a horizontal well

Exercise 1 – Optimal Horizontal Well Length

Optimal horizontal well length: ____________________.

Exercise 2 – Horizontal Well IPR / Sensitivity

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 11

Damage zone lengths ranging from 8 to 12 inches.

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 12

Exercise 3 – Multiple Horizontal Perforated Intervals

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 13

Module 4 Multilayer Well Performance

In this module, you will learn how to:

Component Well 1 at top Well 2 at bottom

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 15

Well 1 at top Well 2 at bottom

FPS - Well 1 at top FPS - Well 2 at bottom

Figure 4. Multi-layer well schematic

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 16

Case 1 – Nodal Analysis for Well 1 and Well 2

Case 2 – Nodal Analysis for Commingled Well

Case 3 – Alternate Completion Designs (Optional)

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 17

Module 5 Artificial Lift - ESP Design

In this module, you will learn to model an ESP design using:

Casing size 9 5/8 ins (8.681” ID) 10698 ft

Advanced PIPESIM 2006.1 19 December 2006 19