SPE 160924

To develop the optimum Field development plan for condensate wells using
Integrated Production Modeling (IPM)
Shoaib Memon and Asif Zameer, Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department, King Saud University
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Saudi Arabia section Young Professionals Technical Symposium held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 1921 March 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.


Abstract

Now a days integrated production modeling is been regarded as a vital part of the oil industry and its very important to
manage our reservoir properly as many important decisions regarding the field development depend on it. It is an
approach for modeling an entire asset from reservoir to the final delivery point. It facilitates complete integration, and
hence full interaction, of different key components of an asset including reservoir, wellbore and surface facilities. It
gives the holistic understanding of the entire asset necessary to know how one end of the delivery chain affects the
other like separator pressure effect on reservoir pressure, etc. It defines design and operating criteria for a given field,
not just for today, but also for the future. In short, it provides the economic optimization of oil and gas recovery.

In this paper, the concept of IPM has been utilized for a newly developed condensate field to come up with the
optimum field development strategy using the real field data necessary to evaluate different economic ways of
producing the wells. This work presents a methodology which uses compositional modeling, nodal analysis, material
balance, reservoir modeling and pressure transient analysis to determine original fluid in place (OFIP), reservoir
deliverability and size, number of wells require for developing the field and the optimum producing strategy for the
wells. Petroleum Experts software Integrated production modeling (IPM) suite 7.5 has been used to carry out this
work.

PVT, well test, well logs and production history Data was fed as input to modeling software; PVTP, Prosper and MBAL.
A compositional model was prepared in PVTP and was regretted by using laboratory data to minimize error. The
results showed very limited production options due to the lower liquid drop-out (less than 12%) and lower volumes of
OGIP in the upper bed of the reservoir. Gas recycling option at assumed rate of 30% increases the life of the well upto
5 years and condensate recovery upto 57.5%. After going through all available options, the only option available
having economic priorities was to select an optimum wellhead pressure as suggested by the sensitivity analysis to
optimize the production was recommended.

1. Introduction

Integrated Asset Modeling is an approach for modelling an entire asset from reservoir to the final delivery point. It
facilitates complete integration, and hence full interaction, of different key components of an asset as shown in fig 1.
The components of an IPM model include fluid model, well model, reservoir model and facility model. An IPM model
gives the holistic understanding of the entire asset necessary to know how:

One end of the delivery chain affects the other: Psep v Pres.
2 SPE 160924
Constituting components design and operation interact with each other: facilities constraints, pipeline bottlenecks,
well potential, etc.
It defines design and operating criteria for a given field, not just for today, but also for the future.

In this study, three models have been generated, fluid model using compositional modeling, well model using Nodal
analysis and the reservoir model using material balance. The rest of the paper discusses the various steps of
generating the models in their respective software, validating the model, well initial and existing scenario, various
results obtained and finally concluding all results to come up with a better strategy to optimize the production of the
field.

2. Gas Condensate Reservoirs

At the time of discovery, a typical gas condensate reservoir pressure might be above or close to the critical pressure.
At this time there exists only single phase gas. However, as the production is carried out, there is isothermal pressure
decline and as the bottom hole pressure in a flowing well falls below the dew point of the fluid a liquid hydrocarbon
phase is formed. This retrograde condensate formation results in build up of a liquid phase around a well bore, leading
to a decrease in the effective permeability to gas into the well bore. The liquid drop out occurs near the well bore and
propagates radially away from the well along with pressure drop. Understanding the multiphase flow phenomena in
such reservoirs is the key in characterizing the condensate drop out in a subsequent blockage effect. Therefore,
keeping the above fact in mind a compositional model has been generated to fully characterize the compositional
change into the fluid during the production history of the well. Retrograde gas condensate reservoirs typically exhibit
gas oil ratios between 3000 to 150000 SCF/STB and liquid gravities between 40 and 60 API.

3. Fluid Characterization (Pvt Modeling)

To develop any model either reservoir, well or surface, the representative reservoir fluid data need to be feed into the
required software. Thats why before proceeding towards any type of modeling; PVT properties of the reservoir fluid
need to be generated. This process is known as PVT modeling. For this study, PVTP software is being used. PVTP
provides the basic of compositional model for reservoir fluids. As the concerned fluid composition was that of
condensate so it was better to go by detailed compositional model through PVTP involving each fractions
weightage/percentage.

First of all the composition of respective fluid was fed into software as an input which contained the name of each
fraction (e.g C1, C2, C3 N2 CO2) and there respective molar composition in percents. Till C7+, the composition was
entered as an input and then it was further splitted in the software to get the better results.

Thus, compositional model was prepared on the basis of the entered composition and properties like critical pressure,
critical temperature, eccentric factor, critical volume, etc for each component separately using the Peng-Robinson
equation of state. At initial every fluid model will not behave as the actual one and therefore there is the need of
matching. This is done by entering the lab data so that model should not divert away and behave as closely as it can
as a real reservoir fluid.

The test data from laboratory analysis was fed into PVTP software to observe physical changes of volume of fluid at
various conditions of pressure and temperature and to match the fluid model. Various parameters like liquid drop-out
during the CCE and CVD tests, Vapor Z-factor during both tests and relative volume during CCE test were fed as the
lab data into the software.

As expected, there was an error between the calculated compositional model and laboratory analysis. Regression was
then performed several times to compensate for errors and matching the compositional model. Some of the output
charts after the regression from the PVTP are shown in the figures from 2 to 5 respectively. The results after the
regression were quite satisfactory as shown in the figures and the overall error was found to be less than 10% which is
the basic requirement of a valid PVT model.


SPE 160924 3
4. Wellbore Modeling

After the PVT model, wellbore model was developed using prosper software which is a common tool used in oil
industry to model naturally flowing oil, gas, condensate and artificial wells. The basic task of this model is to find out
the best decision to be taken to enhance the production of a well when reservoir pressure will be declined.

At initial conditions using the well test data an IPR model was generated which is shown in the figure 6. All the three
test points fall on the IPR curve which indicates its validity. After IPR, Vertical lift performance (VLP) of the same well
needs to be generated. Correct VLP correlation need to be chosen for it and VLP/IPR matching section is used for it.
On the basis of VLP/IPR comparison, Petroleum Expert 5 correlation was selected. Once the initial well model was
developed, the same methodology was applied to develop the existing well model using the well production history and
the current PBU (pressure buildup test) as shown in the figure 6.

4.1. Required task

The main task of this model is to evaluate the performance of various parameters on the production of the well and to
come up with the best production strategy to optimize the production. To achieve the desired task, sensitivity analysis
were performed on the developed well model.

4.2. Results of well model

Summarizing the results of sensitivity analysis on various parameters shown in figures 7 to 9 it could be computed that
well is less productive and has very less effect of liquid drop out on its over all production. Therefore GOR and water
cut dont leave significant effect on production. And also because liquid drop out is less than 12%, so it is non
economical to alter reservoir pressure by injection well. The best option is to change well head pressure as clear from
sensitivity analysis.

The change of tubing may prove to be useful but as it will require more investment and work over jobs, so it is also
non-economical to change the tubing. Corrosion doesnt seem to be leaving much effect unless scaling is too high.

5. Reservoir Model

Reservoir modeling is done for greater understanding of the current reservoir behavior and performs predictions while
determining its depletion. Petroleum Experts MBAL is a tool belonging to the IPM suite and is the one being used for
this study. MBAL provides the dynamic behavior of reservoir assuming it as a tank. One of the main benefits of using
MBAL was plotting different reservoir and production parameters as a function of time which in return provides the long
vision of reservoir and hence the long terms plans can be set out on the basis of these results. The reliability and
accuracy of the developed model depends upon the pressure and the production points during the production history.

5.1. Methodology

A basic tank model was designed first on the basis of available PVT, SCAL and production history data. For the
validation of the model, it was matched with the production history data. If the model is properly history matched, there
should be no discrepancy between reservoir pressures predicted from simulation and historical measured reservoir
pressures. The comparison of the two is shown in the figure 10. The plot shows the pressure with respect to
cumulative gas production plotted both from simulation and production history data. In this case both are almost
identical and thus the match attained is good.

5.2. Forecasting with history matched model

The wellbore model was already been developed as discussed in section 4 was imported and thus was added to the
reservoir model to forecast the future production.

After specifying the well, well control parameters were defined in the production and constraint option from the
production prediction menu. In this section, the minimum wellhead pressure was specified to as low as 200 psia and
4 SPE 160924
gas rate was fixed to the required 14 MMSCFD to see the pressure response with time and how long it can support the
desired production.

Finally, the well was activated using the schedule section. In this section, the well opening and closing times were
defined; along with any possible downtime that this well could occur during the forecast period.

5.3. Results of reservoir model

The forecast plots generated by the history matched reservoir model as shown in figure 11 to 13 revealed that the
pressure can support the production for more three years recovering almost 13.4 Bscf of the gas and 597 MSTB of the
condensate which shows the recovery factors of 84.9 and 41.6 percent for gas and condensate respectively. The
recovery factor for gas is good as its the volumetric drive but the pressure is declining rapidly as there is no external
support. Figure 12 clearly shows that the gas production is increasing almost linearly as the gas rate has been fixed
but condensate recovery is been decreasing with decreasing pressure. The reason behind could be the condensate
banking near to the wellbore.

5.4. Gas recycling for production optimization

In order to increase the recovery of condensate, one option is to recycle the produced gas into the reservoir. That
study was also performed by recycling the 30% of the gas produced. Its results are shown in the figures 14 and 15.

Gas recycling has certainly increased the life of the well and specially the condensate production. The well can now
last one and a half more years with condensate recovery factor increased to 57.5 percent in comparison to 41.6 prior
to recycling. Gas recovery factor has come down a bit from 84.9 to 82.5 which is very obvious to lose some amount of
it during recycling. But this is not only the things to be considered, economics has a big role to play in gas recycling. To
recycle the gas for the entire period of 5 years increasing just 16% recovery of condensate with gas rate declining after
2 years of production is not really satisfactory. Proper economic analysis has to be made before commencing this
operation.

Also drilling of additional wells in the reservoir has also been considered which is not showing the satisfactory results
at all in comparison to the cost it invlolved. Hence continuing production with the single well is most appropriate.

6. Conclusions

Approach of field development plan was analyzed by taking a case study from a real field data.

Data was fed as input to modeling softwares; PVTP, Prosper and MBAL.

A compositional model was prepared in PVTP and was regretted by using laboratory data to minimize error.

The model was further fed into Prosper for most basic conclusions.

Composition modeling is quiet different from the black oil one. In compositional modeling, fluid faces do not need
to be define by the user. However, the number of fluid components present in the reservoir fluid has to be
mentioned. Usually in composition treatment of a reservoir, time taken by the modeling software to run a model
increases to a large extent therefore, it is important to control the iteration (convergence to solution) as per desire.

The C+fraction in the composition of reservoir fluid is an ideal component to be used in regression (matching
between the observed and calculated values) facility of PVTP. This is because the complete description of this
component is not available.

For a valid PVT model the over all error must be less than 10%.

The overall liquid drop-out reflected through lab data is less than 12% which make the available production options
very limited.
SPE 160924 5

Because there seem to be no any external aquifer support as clear from energy and analytical plots, hence the
reservoir pressure is rapidly decreasing.

Assuming a constant production of 14 MMSCFD, the reservoir can no longer sustain production after 3 years,
even if the wellhead pressure is decreased upto 200 psia.

The overall gas recovery factor is excellent, recovering almost 84.9% of the OGIP and 41.6% for the condensate.

The Excellency of the recovery factor can be attributed to the overall energy support provided by the gas
expansion.

Because of the lower volumes of OGIP in the upper bed of the reservoir, it doesnt show promising results for
additional wells.

Gas recycling option at assumed rate of 30% increases the life of the well upto 5 years and condensate recovery
upto 57.5%.

Proper economic analysis has to be made before commencing gas recycling as the reservoir is the small one and
results are not that much interesting.
Therefore the only option available having economic priorities is to select an optimum wellhead pressure as
suggested by the sensitivity analysis to optimize the production

References

1. L.K Harms Better results using integrated production models for gas wells

2. F. Gonzalez, L. Bertoldi, A.Lucas, G.Paterson, K.Shah, B.Garewal, C.Okafur and N.Rondriguez A fully
compositional integrated asset model for gas condensate field

3. C.Okafur. J .Asabga The role of an integrated asset model in implementing field management decisions for field
development plans

4. Wheaton, R. and Zhang, H. (2000). Condensate Banking Dynamics in Gas Condensate Fields: Compositional
Changes and Condensate Accumulation Around Production Wells. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, TX. SPE 62930.

5. Abdus Sattar, Ganesh Thakur, 1994 Integrated Reservoir Management, A Team Approach, Penn Well Books,
Tulsa, OK.

6. Fang Yisheng, Li Baozhu, Hu Yongle, Sun Zhidao, Zhu Yuxin, Condensate Gas Phase Behavior and
Development, SPE 50925.

7. Mukherjee, H well performance manual (schulumberger 1991)

8. Dale Beggs Production optimization using nodal analysis.

9. J ahn, F. et. Al. - Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production







6 SPE 160924
Reservoir Well Network
Facilities















Fig 1 Components of Integrated Production Modeling







Fig 2 showing the match of CVD vapor Z-factor after regression



SPE 160924 7

Fig 3 showing the match of CVD liquid dropout after regression


Fig 4 showing the match of CCE vapor Z-factor after regression


Fig 5 showing the match of CCE relative volume after regression
8 SPE 160924




Figure 6 showing Initial and existing well model





Figure 7 showing sensitivity analyses on Wellhead flowing pressure (WHFP)
SPE 160924 9
























Figure 8 showing sensitivity analyses on tubing size and water cut

























Figure 9 showing sensitivity analyses on GOR and tubing roughness



10 SPE 160924





Figure 10 showing match between history and simulation points





Figure 11 showing response of tank pressure and water cut w.r.t time







SPE 160924 11




Figure 12 showing cumulative gas and condensate production w.r.t tank pressure






Figure 13 showing producing CGR w.r.t tank pressure

12 SPE 160924




Figure 14 showing response of tank pressure after gas recycling





Figure 15 showing cumulative gas and condensate production w.r.t tank pressure after gas recycling