SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

SPE 18547

Applications of Nodal Analysis Technique for Appalachian Wells'

Production Problem
by T.E. Suhy and M.H. Hefner, CNG Transmission Corp., and J.P. Yu and A. Mustafa,
West Virginia U.
SPE Members

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting In Charleston, WV, November 1-4, 1988.

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 Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

A software package has been developed in whieh
a gas simulation model and Nodal analysis model are
used in conjunction with fracture simulation. The
software package is also tied to a microcomputer
database system to provide pertinent data for well
analyses. The gas simulation model generates inflow
performance for various production conditions while
Nodal analysis studies the inflow and outflow
conditions. Since speeific Appalaehian production
conditions are used for both models, the software
paekage will prove to be a useful tool for improving
production in the Appalachian area.
Artificnl lift "rabbit" production~ bailing/swabbing
operation, restimulation of the new zone and deeper
drilling are the eonventional methods to improve the
production in the Appalachian area. Nodal analysis
technique has been used with specific wells to
evaluate the potential results of using each recovery
enhaneement method.
Nodal analysis is an optimization technique to
analyze production problems and predict solutions.
This technique can predict the "critical" pressure for
artificial lift and can predict the inflow performance
of a well. The new bailing operation can then be
scheduled accordingly. In addition, this technique can
also estimate the skin damage within an existing well
and be used to justify restimulating the new zone or
drilling deeper. In the Appalachian area, tight
formations and relatively depleted reservoirs are
major problems. The current marginal economic
situation does not allow producers to improve
production by pressure enhancement and multiple
stimulation. A solution can be obtained by analyzing
the problem and predicting the outcome of using
various production enhancement methods. Then, the
operator ean select the proper method to use.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
In our last paperl (SPE 17057), we presented the
detailed procedure for evaluating and determining a
bailing operation. A decline curve analysis program
is being applied to fit the bailing cycle of each well
in order to determine the future bailing schedule.
The bailing cost and other economic parameters are
used to determine the economic limits for bailing
cycle investment. Lease contracts, current gas
prices, geographic location, weather conditions and
farming activities will be optimized into a wo.rking
list to establish a priority list as to the bailing
operation of each well. An artifical intelligence
program is being used for selecting and evaluating
the priority list of the bailed wells. In addition, a
database system is also being compiled to supply
pertinent data for the bailing evaluation. We are now
in the process of putting three programs together
for a bailing evaluation package.
The success of bailing relies solely on economics.
For example, if the production rate is low (5
MCF I day) and bailing freq: ency is excessive in a
year, then, bailing will not be an effective
production method. An alternative production method
or recovery technique will be applied to the well;
namely, mechanical plunger (rabbit), sucker-rod
(pump-jack), stimulation of upper zones or drilling
deeper into newer zones. We realize that evaluating
production problems is also an integral part of the
bailing evaluation package. Therfore, compiling
theoretical backgrounds and searching for new
design criteria from the field studies are the
objectives of this paper.
The most effective means to handle production
problems is to design a proper production method.
This method is the natural choice by which to
redesign a production well. Nodal analysis is an
optimization technique used to amily'ze production
problems and predict solutions. A better outflow
prediction will be used as the OQfupletion design.

265
2 Applications of Nodal Analysis Technique for Appalachian Wells' Production Problems
Fracture design and inflow analysis will also help to
produee the well at its optimum conditions. Sinee the
recent studies on well-testing and treatment design
have proved to be beneficial for the Appalachian
producers2,3 reservoir simulation models and type
curve analysis have been designed for this area. The
Nodal analysis technique is a complernentury part of
the studies to help the producers in this area.
The Appalachian production wells are
characterized by low pressure and low permeflbility.
Most of the wells have been producing as long as 20
to 40 years and many of them are nearly depleted.
Since the reservoir pressure is generally low due to
the long production time, wat.er invasion is u major
problem for this type of produetion well. In the last
paper ( SPE 17057), we discussed t.he effeetive means
of handling the fluid invasion problem which was
bailing the well several times a year. This method has
been shown to work very effectively for most of the
wells. However, some wells do not follow this trend
very closely, and produce a large amount of water
that the bailing proeess may not be able to hnndle
effectively; e.g., certain wells need more than 6
bailing operations per year. In this case, the cm~t of
bailing will be extravagant and well above our
eeonomic limit. Therefore, we would not eonsider
bailing as the most efficient method to produce the
well.
The present solution t.o this type of problem
would be to switch to other production methods. A
more effective method to remove the fluid would be
using the mechanical plunger (rabbit) or sucker-rod
(pump-jack) to produee the wells. The mechanical
plunger and sucker-rod pumping are artifical lift
methods; the former method is a type of ga~ lift
method. Both methods work very effectively to remove
the fluid from the well but the pertinent eriteria must
be evaluated properly to ensure a successful selection
and application.
Since the mechanical plunger will need the
gaseous column to lift the fluid, the reservoir
pressure will be the critical parameter for its
application. As the general rule-of-thumb, 2000 feet or
less in well depth will require at least 100 t.o 120 psi
above atmospheric or line pressure. If the wells are
2000 to 5000 feet deep, the reservoir pressure has to
be at least 150 to 200 psi above the atmospheric or
line pressure. The gas volume should be
approximately 10 MCFD per 100 ft per bbl fluid. The
mechanical plunger is usually installed in a 2-ineh ID
tubing and has proved t.o be effective for this
applicat.ion. After installation, the height of the fluid
column that can be lifted effectively must be
determined by trial and error adjustment of lift cycle
times, line pressure and casing annulus pressure.
This adjustment is usually performed by expweieneed
contract installers. This study will try to determine
the proper fluid column height so the line pressure
can be adjusted correctly and quickly.
The pump- jack operates on its own power und
does not need internal pressure to remove the fluid.
Therefore, the well produced with this method will not
be restricted by the reservoir pressure limitations.
Since fluid production is relatively low, the well
depth is the only major limiting criteria for this
application. In West Virginia, most of the wells are
SPE 18547
being produced at less t.hun 5000 feet and do not fall
under this restriction. The only disadvantage of
instnlling t.he pump-jt:t.ek iH overheud eost which is
higher than the mechanieal plunger. If a well is
producing at a high enough rate t.o eeonomieully
support the additional cost and the reservoir
pres~::~ure is low it. will usually be considered for the
pump- jack installation.
In another production situation where the
producing rate of the well is extremely low (less than
5 MCF/D) and fluid production is not a problem, it.
may be considered uneconomieal to produce by any of
the present produet.ion methods. These weBs would be
eonsidered for shut-in or abandonment treatment if
no alternative method could be applied. 1n t.hese
cases, if the reoerve estimate on new producing zones
show attractive recovery pos~::~iblit.ies from the well, tl
detailed geological study would be conducted in order
to c:onfirm fl poHit.ive rute-of-return on fl new
investment. If the study results can be justified; the
well would be either stimulated or drilled deoper.
Both reeovery techniques have also been proved
successful in the Appulachian Basin for continuing
production of some of older wells.
The current. eeonomie situt.ation does not. allow for
comprehensive well design for the stimulation and
drill deeper cases. Some of t.he more expensive
operations must be conducted at high r-isk. 'rherefore,
fracture design will be extremely helpful in ensuring
the economic success of stimulating the wells. If a
fraeture simulf1lion design ean be eondueted ahead of
the actual job, the well may have a higher production
in its future life.
In thiH new program paekage for bailing
evaluation, Nodal analysis and fracture simulation are
being integrated as the part of the package. The
bailing evaluation program is a complete management
paekuge on a microcomputer system. In this paekuge,
artifical intelligence will be included to optimize the
decision-making rules and t.he dut.n base provides
pertinent data for bailing evaluation. In some euses,
the well will not. meet the economic: requirements for
bailing operations. Therefore, a well performance
evalwttion needs t.o be conducted using Nodal anulysiH
and fracture simulation. The well will be evaluated for
inflow and outflow potential in order t.o determine the
recommended produetion methods and recovery
t.eehniques; such as meehanieul plunger, suc:ker-rod,
stimulation and drilling deeper. A flow cha'rt is used
as n guide to the program applieations (.Figure 1 ),
At the present time, a prototype model of this
rrmnagement program ha~::; been c:omplet.ed. If t.ho
prototype model meets all the design requirements
when t.est.ed for actual field c:ases, the p1u:kage will
be expanded into a full size microcomputer package.
During t.he protot.yping stnge, t.he System Analysis
Model4 is used as t.he Nodul analy~::~is progrtilll und
MFRAc-n5 fracture simulflt.ion model is used for t.he
fracture design analysis.
Nodal analysis is l:l system analysis approach
which can be used to optimize f.l produci.Jon system. It.
is a process of determining the effect of eHeh
component. in t.he production system on the t.ota]
266
SPE 18547 T.E. Suhy, M.H. Hefner, J.P. Yu, and A. Mustafa 3

system performance. The l:inalysis can improve the A very important consideration in this
completion design, well productivity and producing optimization technique is the use of appropriate
efficiency, all of which lead to increased profitability correlations and equations while analyzing the inflow
from oil and gr.1H investments. and outflow performance of a well. Improper
correlations may lead to erroneous IPR's. Many
The Nodal analysis technique is essentially a correlations have been published for the estimation of
simulator of the producing well system. The system pressure losses and flow rates when gas and liquid
includes all flow between the reservoir and the flow simultaneously in horizontal, vertical or inclined
separator. As the entire system is simulated, each of pipes. Most of these correlations have been found to
the components is modeled using various equations or be unreliable beyond the range of variables
correlH.tionR to determine the pressure los1::1 through considered in developing the correlation. The
that component as a function of flowrate. The Appalachian production wells are characterized by low
surnmution of these in dividul:i] losses make up the total permeability and low reservoir pressure. Many of the
pressure loss through the entire system for a given wells are producing at near depletion rates.
flowrate. The production rate or deliverability of a Fundamentu] flow equations for the ourflow
well can often be severely restricted by tho poor correlation and the Jones equation for the inflow
performance of just one c:omponent in the system. If correlation have been found to be the most
the effect of each component on the performance of appropriate equationR for analyzing the performance
the totnl system ean be isolated, the efficieney of the of these Appalachian Wells.
system can be optimized in the most economical way.

We established the following objeetives during the

application of Nodal analysis to gas wells in the Four categories of wells were studied to illustrate
Appalachian Basin6: the optimization technique of Nodal analysis for the
f.lolution of production problems.
1. To determine the flow rate at whieh an existin~
gas well will produce by considering well bore size 1. Mechanical plunger (rabbit).
and production limitations.
2. Sucker-rod (pump--jack).
2. To determine under what flow conditions a well
will load with fluid and estimate the time to 3. Stimulation.
clean-up the fluid.
4. Dri 11 deeper.
3. 'J'o select the most economicul time for the
installation of gas lift. Gas is the predominant fluid in the Appalachian
wellR, oil is produced incidentally. The diminishing
4. To optimize t.he system to produce the desirable production rates of these Appalachian wells are
flow rH.te most economically. mainly due to the low average reservoir pressure and
very low permeability. The purpose of any artificial
5. To design the well stimulation size and stimulation lift system is to create a predetermined tubing intake
methods to maximize production rateR. pressure such that the reservoir may respond and
produce the objective flow rate. The design and
6. To permit quiek reeognition by the opeator and analysis of any lifting system cfm be divided into two
engineer-ing staff of ways to increase production main components. The first is the reservoir component
rates. (inflow performance relationship) which represents
the wells ability to produce the fluids. The second
When performing a Nodu] analysis, we divide the component represents the entire piping and artificiaJ
production system into its components, i.e., reservoir, lift system. This includes the separator, flowline,
perforations, tubing, surfac:e choke, flowline and flowline restrictions sueh as chokes, tubing string,
separator. Then we pick a problem area in this tubing string restrictions such as the artificial lift
production system as a node. '.rhis node nets as the mec:hanism itself. Tubin~ intake {node outflow)
intersection point between the inflow and outflow pressures can then be determined by varying flow
perforrmmees. Different inflow and outflow rates. When this intuke curve is placed on the same
performan~e curves intersect on t.he same plot and plot as the IPR curve, the rate for a praticular lift
give the <~.esign eonsiderations for different method can be determined.
arrangements. We optimize the system by changing
various inflow and outflow parameters. The ability to A thorough sensitivity analysis was conducted on
change these variables that directly affect the 12 Appalaehian wells representing the above
produetion perfornmnce und well productivity mentioned four categories. This kind of sensitivity
provides the opportunity to achieve complete well analysis is very useful in order to detHrmine the
optimization. effect of each variable in the well system on the
inflow and the outflow performance of the we11. Thus,
A better and more profitable design is usually the system's performance can be optimized in the
eharaeterized by a maximized production rate. most economieal way. We used following parameters
However, if all the old instuJlations have to be for the optimization of inflow and the outflow
replaced with new installations, the company might performance of wells under our study:
have to spend an exorbitunt rnnount of money. There
must always be some compromise between new design
und expense for the old design. 'fhis is where the
enginHers experience and judgement come into play.
'fherefore, the Nodal analysis is an optimization
technique for the study of any production sysl..em.

267
4 Applications of Nodal Analysis Technique for Appalachian Wells Production Problems
INFLOW:
Shot per foot (SPF)
Reservoir pressure (Pr), psi
Skin factor (S)
Thickness of the perforated interval (Hp)
OUTFLOW:
Gas liquid ratio (GLR), MCF/bbl
Water cut (WC), %
Tubing diameter, in.
Line pressure (Pwh), psi
Gas gravity (SG)
The results of this sensitivity analysis were very
interesting.
- No effect of different values of GLR above 10,000
scf/bbl on the production rate.
- No effect of varying % of water cut and gas gravity
on the production rates.
- In the case of wells producing with 11 rabbit" and
11
pump-jack 11 , there is slight increase in the
production rate if 2.0-inch ID tubing is replaced
with 2.5-inch ID tubing, provided that the wells
were producing at a rate greater than 50 MCFD.
- Three shots per foot is the optimum value for
performation density. Previously 1 or 2 SPF has
been used in most of the wells. Nodal analysis
confirms a substantial increase in the production if
3 SPF is used.
- Perforated thickness internal (Hp) is found to be
very sensitive to the production of the well.
- The skin factor at (-5) is an optimum value for
hydraulically fractured wells.
- The line pressure is a extremely sensitive parameter
for setting up the production for the outflow
completion. The detail is explained in the field case
study.
- That a well may be capable of flowing naturally
does not mean that artificial lift should not be
considered. The application of Nodal analysis to
some Appalachian wells under our study predicts
that these wells are capable of producing at much
higher rates when placed on artificial lift.
Mechanical Plunger (Rabbit)
Typically, the plungers are used on gas wells
that have adequately high gas liquid ratio (GLR) to
operate solely with a plunger on gas formation. Using
Nodal analysis technique we have calculated minimum
GLR for three Appalachian wells under our study; it
is around 5000-7000 scf/bbl/day. The reservoir
pressure is a critical parameter for a well producing
under mechanical plunger. As a general
rule-of-thumb:
- A well having a depth of 2000 feet or less will need
the reservoir pressure of 100-120 psi or greater
above the atmospheric or line pressure.
- A well having a depth of 2000 to 5000 feet will need
the reservoir pressure of 150-200 psi or greater
above the atmospheric or line pressure.
268
SPE 18547
This general rule-of-thumb has proved well for most
of the installations. However, the height of the liquid
column that can be removed effectively has not been
determined. Similarly the adjustment of line pressure
also requires an experienced hand.
The Nodal analysis has provided us with an
effective solution to these problems. In a flowing well,
the bottomhole pressure must equal the pressure
drop in the tubing plus the line pressure. The
addition of liquid production to the gas stream
increases the tubing pressure gradient. At low rates,
the liquid holdup has a greater volume than the
liquid holdup in the case of wells having higher
production rates. By evaluating the tubing pressure
loss for wells producing some liquids, predictions can
be made regarding the adjustment of line pressure.
Tubing pressure drop = Bottom hole pressure - Line
pressure
Tubing pressure drop can be determined diredly
from Nodal analysis. Thus, we can also determine the
fluid column that can be removed effectively from the
well.
Height of the fluid column = Tubing pressurEt drop/
(0.433*SGgas) (1)
where: SGgas = Specific gravity of gas.
This optimizing technique also determines the minimum
reservoir pressure that would be needed to produce
the well. Table 1 gives the field case studies of three
Appalachian wells (RB) working with a "rabbit 11
system.
Results of study
- The water-cut is not a sensitive parameter (Figure
2). The producing capacity of the well RB 11 is the
same at different. values of water-cut.
- At low flowrates there is no impact of tubing
diameter. If the produetion rate is 50 MCFD or
greater, then 2.5-inch ID is recommended. The faet
is illustrated in Figure 3 for well RB # l versus
Figure 16 (DD 12).
- Thickness of the perforated interval (Hp) is
sensitive to the production rate. Inflow performance
is shown in Figure 4. The low production in this
plot is due to the low reservoir pressure. However,
the actual production of this well RB #1 is higher
as it is being produced with a "rabbi,t" (Figure 2).
- In the well RB ##2, improper shot density is used.
The increase in the production is apparent in
Figure 5. The optimum production (80 MCFD) is 4
SPF and at a line pressure of approximately 50 psi.
- 'Specific gravity is not a sensitive parameter to the
production rate. In Figure 6 (RB #3 well), we used
different values of gas specific gravity, but we got.
one outflow performance curve. Therefore, the
production rates at different Nodal points will not
change with various specific gravity values.
- Line pressure can be adjust.ed to have optimum
production as illustrated in the above equations. In
addition, fluid column can also be determined in
order to be removed effectively from the well.
SPE 18547 T.E. Suhy, M.H. Hefner, J.P. Yu, and A. Mustafa 5
We recommend that the Nodal analysis should be - A required percentage rate of return (ROR) must
used to adjust the line pressure and to predict the justify for stimulation.
fluid column in order to have optimum production
from these wells. Also, 2.5-inch ID tubing is Field ease st.udies of three Appalachian stimulated
recommended for the production rates of 50 MCFD or (RS) wells are summarized in Table 1.
greater. Thickness of the perforated interval is also
sensitive to the production rate.

- The thickness of perforated interval is sensitive to

the production rate in the case of RS 81 (Figure
The following criteria is being used to justify the 10). Changing the thickness from 8 feet (base case)
installation of pump-jack: to 16 feet will increase the production by 100%.
- Very low reservoir pressure.
- The perforation density should be increased to 3
- High fluid volume.
SPF in well RS IJ3 (Figure 13). At the same wellhead
- Bailing frequency is 5-6 times or more per year.
pressure, the production rate is directly
- Bailing eost may exceed $2000 per year.
proportional to the number of shots per foot.
Sensitivity analysis for well RS 81 confirms this
Since a pump-jack operates on it.s own power and
result (Figure 11).
does not need the reservoir pressure to remove the
fluid, the well produced with this method will not be
- The well RS #2 has a very low production rate
limited with reservoir pressure restrictions except to
(..!5MCFD). This production rate conforms with our
the depth of the well. Overhead cost is the most
Nodal amdysis results. Therefore, we sug~est this
significant parameter in this case. Field case studies
well should be shut-in (Figure 12).
of three Appalachian (P.J) wens are summnrized Table
1.
- Wellhead pressure should be in the range of 40-50
psi in order to have a optimum production. Figure
13 (RS #3) illustrates that, at high wellhead
pressure (above 100 psi), the production rate is
- Well PJ fl 1 should be abandoned tlccording t.o the
eonsiderably low. At the wellhead pressure of 40-50
production rate of this well, which is less than 5
psi, there is a significant increase in the
MCI<'D (Figure 7). However, this well is presently
produet.ion rate.
produced with a pump-jack with a production rate
of 6-7 MCFD. Therefore, the will has not been
- Skin factor of -5 has proved to be optimum, and it
abandoned.
must be given consideration when designing a
hydraulically fraetured wens.
- Well PJ #2 should be replaced with a "rabbit". The
reservoir pressure is sufficiently high ( 1640 psi) to
The production rates of the above t.hree wells
justify a rabbit on this well. Figure 8 illustrates
conform with our Nodal analysis; but, our sensitivity
economical production rate (10 MCFD) using the
analysis highly reeomrnends a perfon1tion density of 3
wellhefld pressure of 50 psi and skin of -5.
SPF for wells RS I 1, RS 12, and RS 13. The line
pressure of 40-50 psi is found to be optimum for
Wellhead pressures is not a sensitive parameter,
production.
beeause the wells are being produced with
pump-jacks. Refer to Figure 9 (PJ 1#3 well). The
slope of t.he inflow eurves become minimum below
the reservoir pressure of 300 psig.
Drilling to deeper zones is given consideration if
it is not feasible to produce the well economically
- The perforation density of well PJ 83 should be
with any of the present production methods. The
increased to 5 SPF, instead of 2 SPF. Figure 9
following criteria are used in this evaluation.
illustrates a significant increase in the production
(from 9 MCFD to 18 MCI<,D) if we use a shot density
- Abandon all current production!:! under 5 MCFD.
of 5.
- An aeceptable percentt1ge rate of return on the
The reservoir pressure of PJ 82 is relatively high
volumetric estimates must be justified for the
(1640 psi). Therefore, on the basis of our analysis, it drilling to deeper zones.
is suggested that a mechanical plunger should be
installed in this well. 'l'he shot density of PJ 13
'!'able 1 summarizes the actual field case studies of
should be changed t.o increase the produetion by
three Appalachian wells that have been drilled to
almost 100%.
deeper (DD) zones.

Nodal analysis has proved to be very successful

in this case. It was used to determine the
The criteria used for stimulation can be
quantitative effect and importance of eaeh variable
summarized as:
within the system on overall system performance.
The rate of production for a payzone is below 5 Although some variables are fixed and generally
MCFD. cannot be altered (reservoir thickness, watercut, total
depth, etc.) many variables are subject t.o change.
The above mentioned production methods, i.e., The ability to change these variables that directly
rabbit and pump-jack, (in case formation fluids are effect the systems performance and well productivity
hampering the production) fail t.o produce the we11 provides the opportunity to achieve a complete well
above the economical threshold. optimization. As a result of its applicfltion to the

269
6 Applications of Nodal Analysis Technique for Appalachian Wells' Production Problems
above three wells, the Nodal analysis technique
proved t.o be very effective. It helped jn:
- Selection of tubing sizes for new zones.
- Sizin~ surfaces chokes
- Designing the perforated completions.
- Evaluating the well stimulation effects.
- Analyzing the perforation density effects.
- I<'igure 14 for weB DD ff 1 gives us the outflow
performance of the well. In this plot, we observo
that the deerense in the gas production is not very
significant with the increase in the wellhead
pressure. Therefore, we can adjust our wellhead
pressure according to our requirements in the
range of 40-80 psi.
- In the case of well DD Hl, the wellheud pressure
should be maintained in the range of 60-80 psi.
I<'igure 1 5 illuHtrates thnt the ir1crea~e in production
is not significant if we use a wellhead pressure
which is less than 60 psi.
- The DD ##2 well's shot density should be increased
to 3 SPF in order to have optimum production.
Figure 16 clearly iJlustrates the increase in the
produetion rnte using 3 shot per foot.
- When the prod uct.ion rate of Well DD ##2 is greater
than 50 MCFD, a 2.5-ineh ID tubing increases the
production (Figure 16).
- WelJ DD ##2 presenUy has a produetion of R-10
MCFD; and, the rate is continuously decreasing. At
present, the reservoir pres1:mre of 1000 p~i is
sufficient to be produeed on a Rabbit syslom. It
ean be u good candidate for u Rabbit in the futuro
if the reservoir pressure remains relatively
unehunged.
Our Nodal fnmlysiH study of these three drill
deeper wells recommends an incl'(-}ase in the shot
density to 3 SPF and adjuHbnent of we1lhmtd
pressure. This analytical technique proves to be very
effec:tive in designing the well eompletion.
Sinee we stimulnte behind the pipe or drill into
the deeper zones as a part of our evaluation package,
fracture simulutior1 bec:omes a purt of del\:lign
requirements. Hydraulic fracturing is an everyday
pruetke to produee a well in the Appftluehinn Busin.
The fracture simulation and design have not been
used widely among the produeers exeept the fraeturc
service companies. Most of the producers use the
rule-of-thumb method to design a fraeture job as
long as it is economically feasible and the well
produees adequutely after stimulation. If the
stimulated well turns out to be a bad one, the
operator runH out of luck. Generally speaking, the
perforations are determined by zone thickness with a
minimum of 8 shots nnd a maximum of 16 shots per
foot with a shot diameter of approximately .41 inehes.
During the fraeturing proeess, the fraeture fluid
ranges from 500 to 800 bbls with the consideration of
formation thickness, porosity and perrnenbility. 'rhe
fluid used is usually a 15 lb/1.000 gallon geJ mixture.
'l'he gel builds viseosity and improves sand currying
270
SPE 18547
eharaeteristic:~. The sand volumfl is at:udgned at n rnte
of one sack/bbl; for example, a 750 bbl job would
require a totul Rfmd volume of 750 saeks. Generu)]y,
20-40 and/or 80-100 mesh Ottowa Sand is used since
it is an inexpensive material of adequate strength for
Appalachian wells. An optimum treatment rate of 3 to
4 b bl/min per perforation theoretically will ph:l(:e flfl
much sand into the format.ions as possible. With an
optimum rule of 40 bb]/min for 10 holes and average
treating pressures of 2500 psi, the hydraulic
horsepower requirements of 2500 HP is c:ulculat.ed
using the following formula:
H.H.P. = Rate x Pressure (Avg.)/40.8 (2)
The Appalachian producers and operators use a
pract.icnl approflC:h in designing and performing a
hydraulic fracture treatment. F'racture volumes and
sand rates are seleeted from past experience of
treating similar zones with the same predictl:lble
c:huracteristics. High pumping rates are used under
the assumption t.hat fractures rarely go into other
zones. It is expected that these high rules produce a
wider fracture that l:lccepts a large volume of sand.
However, the tot.a1 fructure volume and penetration
are unknown. Therefore, fracture design is needed to
determine these parameters in order to predic:t the
best effects of fracture simulation.
.E.r.~.s~t~Jn~-Q.~~~gr~ .E~~!9.... 9.!!~~--~-~~!<!i.~~
In order to set the guidelineH for fracture design
analyRis, several field C:l:lNe studies have been
condw..:r.ed on the actual stimulated wells and drilled
deeper wells. The MFRAC-IT fraeture simulator is
being used for the design analysiH since the
MFRAC-JJ fracture simu]utor conHists of :i different
types of mathematicl:ll models, Geerll:una-DeKlerk,
PerkinH-Kern/Nordgren, and Meyer's 3-dinlflnsiona.]
model. 'J'he well information does not have any upper
nnd lower streHH parameter~:~; and, the 3-dimtm~:~iorm]
model is not very applicable. For anl:llysis purposes,
Geertsnm-DeKlcrk frac~t.ure mat.hematk model iH
selected. We have also eondueted a sensitivity
armlysiH on all t.he reservoir and fraeture parameterfl
in order to find out the actual parameters for
eonduc:ting a fraeture job. 'l'he rel\:lult of this
sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 2. Among
Home of these purumet.ers, we realize the propped
fracture length and pay zone height are the most
sensitive ones. Hence, this study has confirmc.,d our
assumption of the importance in determining the
fraeture volume and penetration 1ength. The fraeture
skin factor indicates that the collapsing of the
fracture hus u suhst.antiftl negntive impact on the
production; e.g., +20 fracture skin effect indicates a
diminishing cumulative production. 1'he dimensionless
fracture conductivity or flow capacity does not
ehungo the produc:tion a~ long us it has reaehcd the
optimal value of 10 or more. Again, the wellbore skin
faetor of -5 indicates that the fraeture haH been
created sufficiently well. Having done the fracture
simulation, a production simulation on eaeh well iA
also conducted in order to history match the actual
produetion on the simultited frneture length and
conductivity. In this el:lso, we will be able to find out
how well the hydrtiulie frueture has worked.
Among those stimulated wells, two of the wells are
found to be relatively sueeessfu] in aetua] fraeture
jobs. The stimulated case does not deviate from the
actual produetion in history matehing ('l'able 3).
SPE 18547 T.E. Suhy, M.H. Hefner, J.P. Yu, and A. Mustafa
However, well RS 12 needs to reduce the fracture
length from 708 feet of 300 feet in order to have the
production matched. In other words, the fracture has
been conducted unsuccessfully and the fracture
length could have been 708 feet long or produced
17,440 Mcf instead of 10,620 Mcf in 600 days.
In the drilled deeper cases, 2 out of 3 wells are
found to be successfully fractured. WellR DD 12 and
13 have the actual production history matched with
the base case fracture length and fracture
conductivity (Table 4). The formation thicknesses are
enlarged slightly and formation permeability is also
considered to be 0.08 to .1 md around the fracture
area; but, only Well DD #1 shows a low production
rate due to the . unsuccessful job of fracturing. The
history match production can be obtained with a
greatly reduced fracture volume of 250 feet in length
and 9 feet in thickness which is 17% of its original
size. A general rule indicates the initial producing
rate will show extremely high at the initial stage and
the rate drops off fast in the first two years.
However, this well does not show this kind of
producing trend and the initial rate turns out to be
extremely low in the first two years.
With the analytical results of the case studies,
the fracture simulation analysis on the fractured well
help us to determine tho fracture volume and
penetration length. The same fracture design analysis
can be applied to the "new" wells before a fracture
job. Therefore, the types of fracture fluids, pumping
rate, sand schedule and other important parameters
can be determined by the operators themselves. The
screen-out and bridge-out problems can also be
prevented nhead of time. After the fracture job, a
well test analysis can be done on some of the wells if
some problems occur as suggested by the research
studies2. Then, the well will be a guaranteed success
in the future.
In this study, Nodal anulysis has proved to be an
efficient analytical method to help engineers design
the production well and select the production
methods. In addition to the experience gained through
years of working, the engineer can also use this
technique to enhance his/her judgement to produce a
well. Through this research work, we have reached
some conclusive remarks as follows:
Inflow design:
Thickness of the perforated interval (Hp) is a
sensitive parameter and an optimum value of Hp can
be obtained.
The increase in the shot density to 3 SPF would
substantially increase the production if the cost of
perforation is not the problem.
- Reservoir pressure is the most sensitive parameter
to production, but Appalaehian low permeability and
pressure do not show this effect very apparently.
- The skin effeet of -5 iR the optimum value whieh
can be used for the hydraulically fractured
reservoir.
271
7
Outflow design:
- Most of the Appalachian wells nre being produced
with a tubingless completion. In the case of wells
operated under artificial lift, two-inch TD tubing is
suitable for producing the well if the flowrates are
low. At high flowrates (above 50 MCF) 2.5-inch ID
tubing gives a bettor production.
- Wellhead pressure (30-40 psi) can be adjusted by
using this technique; and, we do not have to rely
on experienced hands. In addition, the fluid column
can also be determined in order to be removed
effectively from the well.
The plots are found to be most effective in
determining the optimum production by cross-plotting
the inflow and outflow designs. The cross-plots are
done by the following list.:
Shot density versus tubing diamf3ter
Shot density versus wellhead pressure
Perforation interval thickness versus wellhead
pressure
Reservoir perssure versus wellhead pressure
Reservoir perssure versus tubing diameter
Skin effect versus wellhead pressure
However, some of the parameters do not show any
effect on either inflow or outflow curves, such as ga.~:~
gravity, gas liquid ratio, water cut, etc. The low
pressure and permeability are the eauses of these
non-sensitive inflow and outflow plots. In actual
production, we have found that those pnrarneters
affect the inflow and outflow conditions. Therefore,
we suspect that. a new set of equations mfiY need to
be correlated in order to meet the Appalachian
production wells' conditions.
Fracture simulation is also found to be applicable
in pre-fracture design nnd post-fracture evaluation.
With the given amount of reservoir parameters and
conditions, Geerstma-DeKlerk fracture simulf1tion model
works well and produces the results elose to the
actual production. In addition, fracture volume nnd
penetration length are found to be useful parameters
to evaluate whether the well has been fraetured
successfully or not. In fact, if the fracture skin
effect indieates a collapsing of the fraeture, it would
mean an excessive decrease in production.
It is our intention to apply some of the results to
the future field development. We also under,stand that
some of the practical limitations and actuul field
problems will hinder or restrict some of the
applications. We will continue to explain our findings
in future publieations.
Acknowle<!g~!'!~t
The authors thank CNG Transmission Corporation
for permission to publish this paper. The authors also
thank Mr. .Jim Gwinn, Manager of the Clarksburg
Production Department, and Mr. Harry Fuller, Manager
of Division III Headqunrters, for their eooperation
during this research.
Dr. Yu also expresses his appreciation to
SoftSearch, Inc. and Meyer Associate for allowing him
to use their softwares for this reseurch work.
8 Applications of Nodal Analysis Technique for Appalachian Wells' Production Problems SPE 18547

1. Suhy, T.E., Yu, J.P., and Zhuang, Z, "Economic

Optimization of Bailing Operations in the
Appalachian Area", SPE 17057, paper was
presented at the 1987 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting and Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 1987.

2. Lancaster, D.E., Lee, W.J., and Gatens, J.M., III,

"Analysis of Eastern Devonian Gas Shales
Production Data", GRI Final Report, May 1987.

3. Murtha, J.A., Lee, W.J., et al., "Reservoir

Engineering and Treatment Design Technology",
GRI Annual Report, Dec. 1987.

4. SoftSearch, Inc., "System Analysis Model Program

and Manual", Denver, CO, 1988.

5. Meyer, B., "MFRAC-II Fracture Simulation Model

Manual", Pittsburgh, PA, 1988.

6. Frear, R.M., Jr., Yu, J.P., and Blair, J.R.,

"Application of Nodal Analysis in Appalachian Gas
Wells", SPE 17061, paper was presented at the
1987 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting and
Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 1987.

7. Earlougher, R.C., "Advances in Well Test

Analysis", SPE Monograph No. 5, pp. 5, Dallas, TX,
1977.

272
 TABLE - 1 Table 2

Well performance Studies with Nodal Analysis Sensitivity Analysis for Fracture Simulation

Well f Year Depth SPF Pres. Hp Total Gas Prod Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity (FD)
into line (ft) (shots/ft) (psi) (ft) To Date (MCFD) Cumulative Production (MCF) after 27 yrs
Base case: 271 21,220
RB # 1 1969 1861 1 402 16 167,744 470 21,240
RB # 2 1984 1940 1 780 21 7,200 27 20,870
RB # 3 1972 3370 2 1060 19 122,563 Propped Fracture Length (Ft.)
Base case: 708 21,220
PJ # 1 1976 4195 3 970 6 19,681 607 19,020
PJ # 2 1970 4238 3 1640 9 132,518 997 28,590
PJ # 3 1979 4427 2 770 14 14,617 Height of Pay Zone (Ft.)
Base case: 17 21,220
RS # 1 1985 1894 2 132 8 5,645 19 31,950
RS # 2 1985 3396 2 540 41 10,028 Wellbore Skin Factor
RS # 3 1985 1685 2 400 5 5,330 Base case: 0 21,220
-1 21,220
DD # 1 1986 4814 5 1000 164 13,883 -5 21,220
DD # 2 1985 1867 1 570 57 36,730 Fracture Skin Factor
DD # 3 1985 3192 3 570 12 36,813 Base case: 0 21,220
2 6,733
20 868

~
w Table 4
Table 3

Fracture Simulation on Stimulated Wells Fracture Simulations on Drilling Deeper Wells

Well No. Base Case Stimulated Case Actual Case Well No. Base Case Stimulated Case Actual Case
Rs # 1 Fracture length = 908 DD # 1 Fractu~e length = 893 Fracture length = 250 ft.
Frac. conductivity = 155 Frac. conductivity = 155
(B~fore fracture) (After fracture) (Before fracture) (After fracture)
Res. permeability (k) = 0.01 md Wellbore area k = 0.1 md Res. permeability (k) = 0.01 md Wellbore area k = 0.08 md
Payzone height (H) = 9 ft. H = 30 ft. Payzone height (Hl = 15 ft. H = 9 ft.
Reservoir press.(Pr) = 132 psi Pr =
163 psi Reservoir press.(Pr) = 1000 psi
Cumulative production after 880 days: Cumulative production after 2 years:
55 MCF 4,346 MCF 5,855 MCF 9,675 MCF 14,110 MCF 14,119 MCF

Rs # 2 Fracture length 708 = DD # 2 Fracture length = 836 ft.

Frac. conductivity = 271 Frac. conductivity= 175
(Before fracture) (After fracture) (Before fracture) (After fracture)
Res. permeability (k) = 0.01 md Wellbore area k = 0.1 md Res. permeability (k) = 0.01 md Wellbore area k = 0.1 md
Payzone height (H) = 30 ft. H = 30 ft. Payzone height (H) = 20 ft. H = 30 ft.
Reservoir press.(Pr) = 540 psi Reservoir press.(Prl = 570 psi
Cumulative production after 600 days: Cumulative production after 1030 days:
2,827 MCF 17,400 MCF 10,028 MCF 3,339 MCF 36,250 MCF 36,730 MCF

Rs # 3 Fracture length = 704 DD # 3 Fracture length = 812 ft. (/)

Frac. conductivity = 42 Frac. conductivity = 186 -o
(Before fracture) (After fracture) (Before fracture) (After fracture) rn
Res. permeability (k) = 0.01 md Wellbore area k = 0.075 md Res. permeability (k) = 0.01 md Wellbore area k = 0.1 md
Payzone height (H) = 14 ft. H = 18 ft. Payzone h8ight (H) = 18 ft. H = 25 ft. ,......
Reservoir press.(Pr) = 400 psi Reservoir press.(Pr) = 570 psi
Cumulative production after 940 days: Cumulative production after 1000 days: CX)
2,588 MCF 5,480 MCF 5,462 MCF 2,889 MCF 37,940 MCF 37,996 MCF
\Jl
~

"
 ltechancial Bailing Advisor
Plunger (AI Program)
'Rabbit'

Sucker-rod
Microcomputer
Database
'Pump-jack'
Bodal Analysis
System
Model

'SAM'
N
~ Restimulation

Fracture
Simulation Mode

'MFRAC-II'

Drilling

Deeper

(/)
Fig. 1-Fiow chart for new program package. -o
rn
.-
~
V'\
~

""
 500
'
l Hell: RB I 1

Desc: RESERVOIR PRESSURE Vs VATER-CUT

INPUT DATA:
we - 10 s
I
Hell: RB I 1
(SEBSITIVITY ARALYSIS)
Oesc: PERFORATED IRTERVAL TBICI:RESS
INPUT DATA:
NC - 10 :0:
' API - 59 API - 59
'' SGges - .65 SGgas; -
SGwtr -
.65
1
SGwtr - 1.07
' SLR - .40000 scf /B 6LR - 40000 sc:f/8
' TMD - 1861 ft. TMD - 1861 ft
'' TVO -.
IDtbg -
1861 f t
2 in
TVD -
IOtbg -
1861 f t
2 in
' Ed - oooss in Ed - .0006S in
375~ Twh - 70 deg F 0.8 Twh - 70 deg F

~
Tbh 100 deg F Tbh - 100 deg F
.
LENfl - 30 ft
' 0 tt
Pr - 402 p&lg
'' ' Hfl
IDfl - 2 in - Tre& -
Ae -
100 deg F
1320 tt
Tsep 70 deg F Rw - .17 tt
FL Ed - 00065 in
H - 22 ft
Pr - .402 p&1g Hp - 16 f t
0. Tres - 100 deg F "t:l
Kfm - .01 md
Ae - 1320 ft u Skin - -s
"'c. 250
\
Aw-
H -
.17 f t
22 ft
. 0.5- SPF- 1
Hp 16 f t Opert - .49 in
w \
Kfm - .oa md
w Lperf - 12 in
a: \ ..... Kc/Kf - .6
Skin - -s

~
\ <(
\ SPF - 1
a:
Operf - . 49 in UJ
[ Lperf - 12 in <(

\
\
Kc/Kf - .6
"'
I
0.3
I
'' I
I
'' I
Inflow Curve Qanax
1 .Jones . 5
2 Jones . 3 + Pwh 24
3 Jones.,, . 4 t.U
....: ..-'.111

0. 00
oI I >' i:!lI '.
5. 00
1 1
" I 15
10.00
r I
15.00
I
20.00
4 .Jones .. 6
5 .Jones B

Outflow Curve Psep

o+------+------~----~----~~----4-----~------+------4
15. 00 20.00 25.00 30. 00 35. 00
o Pwh
D Pwh 35
6. Pwh 20
eo

1 BASE PRODUCTION (mcfd) a BASE FndFlwAdj. 20 Sensitivity Variable: Hp

2 P~- 300.0 ~slg b ~-H;.. .0 X b FndFlwAdj. 20
3 Pr- 3!50.0 P111 o Max eros rate - c IIC 30.0 1: c FndFlwAdj . 20
.o1 Pr- .450 . o ps 1 g o t.Jnloaoing rate (Cndl d we- go. o % d FndFlwAdj , 20
;: 5 Pr- 500.0 pslg 6 l.lnloadlng rat IVtrl _ e we~ 100.0 :.: e FndFlwAd j 20

Rg. 2-Reservolr pressure vs. water cut, RB No. 1. Rg. 4-Perforated Interval thickness (sensitivity analysis), RB No. 1.

500
'
I
Hell: RB 11
Desc:RESERVOIR PRESSURE Vs TUBIBG DIA.

600~-----.------.-----.------,------~-----.------,-----,
l Hell: R!l I 2

Desc: VELLBEAD PRESSURE Vs SHOT DEBSITY

INPUT DATA:
NC- 0 :0:
''
'~~:~~.:-,......
API - 59
'' S6g8& .65
sswtr - 1
-,-' SUI 1000000 set
TMD - 19 rt
' ' TVD 191 f t
' t'
I I I
IOtbg - 2.5 in
Ed - oooss in
375~ ' I TNh -
Tbh -
70 deg F
100 deg F

'' LENfl - 30 f t
' ...
'
,' .. I'\ ''
'
\
\
Hfl -
IDfl -
Tsep -
0 ft
2 1n
70 dea F
FL Ed 00065 1n
'' \
''
'' '\
\
Cl
\
\ Pr - 780 psig
"' \ \
\ \ Tres - 100 deg F

"'I I . I\ r<\l::-. I I I' I

\
U)
c. 250
\ ' \
\ \ U)
c.
Re
Rw
1320 ft
.17 tt
\ \ \ H - 89 ft
I Hp - 21. f t
\ \ \
I Kfa - .08 md
\ \
\ I Skin - -5
I \
\ I
I \ \ \ SPF 1
Dperf - ...9 in (/)
\
I
\

''
I
I
I
I
Lperf -
Kc/Kf -
12 in
.6 -o
,, I I I \ I \. I \:::..1 I 1 1
I
I
I \ I_
I
I
I rn
125 '' I
I I

''
'
I I
I
I
~
.-
'
I
Inflow Curve O.ax
1 .Jane& 37
(X)
'' -,113---
I I
--\ .. \\-- ,. -- I -~
2 ..Jones 57
3 .Jones 83 \.Jl
\2 '~:!1 ~1
4 .Jones . 102
ol oI I 11 I'~ I \1 5 I I I
1 3 5 .Jones . 10-4
~
1 1.o1 I 15
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 0 36 75 113 150 Outflow curve P&ep

""
1 BASE PRODUCTION (mcfd) a BASE 1 BASE PRODUCTION (mcfd) _ a BASE FndFlwAd:l 30
d. 1-'r-
!I Pr-
300.0 p<:lg
:!1150.0 P111 0 Max eros rate
_
_
b Dla 1.500 in
c Dla e.soo 1n ~ ~~~= ~:gg 0 Mex eros rate _ ~ ~=~= ~: ~~i8 b FndFlwAdj . 50
c: FndFlwAd:l BD
.o1 Pr- .450 .0 psig D Unloa:.1ing rate (t:ncl 4 SPF 8.00 D Unloading r<:~tl! fr:ndl d Pwh 110. psig d FndFlwAd:l. 110
5 Pr- 500.0 ps1g A l.lnloadlng rat. IVtrl 5 SPF-10 .DO 1>. Unloading rate (Wtrl _ e Pwh- 150. p6lg e FndFlwAdj 150

Rg. 3-Reaervolr pressure vs. tubing dl11111eter, RB No. 1. Rg. S-Wellhead prnsure vs. shot density, RB No. 2.
 Hell: PJ I 2.

l I
llell: RB I 3

Desc: SUH EFFECT VS IIELLHEAD PRESSURE

Desc: l!ESERVOIR PRESSURE Vs GAS GRAVITY

1200~--~~------r------r-----,------,-----~------r-----~ IN'UT DATA: 1700~-----.------r-----.-----~------~-----.------r-----

IN'UT DATA:
IIC 10 X ICC 0 x
' API 59. API 60
'' SGgaa .65
SGwt:r 1
~
~~~~" ...
S&aa .65
SGwtr 1
' SLA ..0000 set/B GLR -40000 ocf/B

.,, I \~;1;~~~~~1. J I I I I I
TICI 3370 ft .. TICI -4238 ft
TVD 3370 ft TVD -4238 ft
IOtbg - 2.5 in IDtbg - 2 in
Ed - 00065 in Ed - 00065 1n
Tlllh 70 dag F Twh 70 deg F
Tbh - 100 deg F Tbh 100 dog F
LENfl 30 ft LENfl- 3D f t

, , I,, ,
Hfl Oft Hfl Oft
IDfl 2 in IDfl 2 in
Tsep 70 deg F Tsep - 70 deg F
\ \ ,,,, \
FL Ed 00065 1n
Pr 1060 Pig
\\
\\
\
\ '\ ''
FL Ed -
Pr
00065 in
16<10 pUg
~
.,
\
\
\
\ ,,,, \
\ Trea
Re -
100 deg F
132D ft .,"' \'
'\
\
\
\
\ ''
'\
Tres
Re -
100 deg F
1320 ft
c. 600
\ \ \
Rw .17 t t c. 850
\' \
\
\
Rw - .17 ft
H - 13!1 ft \ H 17 ft
\
\ Hp 19ft
\
\ \
\ '\ Hp - 9 ft
UJ UJ \
a: \ Kfa .OB d a: \ \ \ Kf - .01 d
\
Sk1n - -5 -5

~g:
Skin -

~g:
\ \ \ \
\
\ SPF
Oprf
2
.c9 1n
\
' SPF 3
Dperf - ...9 in
Lparf - 12 in \ \ ' \
\ l.perf - 12 in
Kc:/Kf - .6
I
\
\
' \
\
\
\
Kc:/Kf - .6
I \
300
I \
\
'.
425 \ \
I I l lI I \ \
I
I
II I I \
\ \
I \
It I
~ I
I II
......,
I Inflow curve
1 Janes 105
Dllax I \

\
\ Inflow curve
1 Jone 10
Galex

JI
I I I I
I I I I
2 Janes 66 I \ 2 Jones . A

- lr ., I
3 .Janes B2 3 .Jon 5

~ \z \ ~~j,.
T
0 I
0
8 6
~ ~
',s I 3
100
\

200
I I
300
I lu I
400
4 Janes . 112
5 Jones 127

Outflow CUrve Psep 0.00

II 3.75
I 7.50
s I '!
11.25
~ I 15.00
I~~-----~
-4 Jones .
s .Jon-
a
7

Outflow curve Psep

1 BASE PRODUCTION (mcfd) a BASE HagSSrn. 20 1 BASE PRODUCTION (mcfd) a BASE e FndFlNAdj . 22
2 Pr- 800.0 pS.i!1
o Max eras rete
~ SCOgas- . 6'SD b Hag &ern. 20 2 SKin . co
Max eros rate
- h J-~-ltl- so . P&';,9 b FndFlNAdj 50
3 Pr- 900. o psig c SGgas- . 720 c Ha&Brn. 20 3 Skin -1. DO o _ c Pwh 100. ps1g c FndFlwAd1. 100
.ol Pr UOD.D psig 0 Unloading r::~te iCmt) d SGgas- . 7BD d Hag&Srn. 20 .o1 Skin- -3.00 0 Unloading rote (Cnd) _ d Pwh 150. psi a d FndFlwAdj. 150
5 Pr 1200.0 psig A Unloading rate (Wtr) e SGgas- . 850 e Heg&Brn. 20 5 Skin --4.00 ~ Unloading rate (Wtr) _ e Pwh- 200. p;:ig e FndFlwAdj 200
!;! Fig. ~-.voir .,_re w. gas gravity, RB No. 3. Fig. 8-Skln affect w. wellhead p-re. PJ No. 2.

j Hell:

_ _Des~:_PEitFDllA~ED T~~~~ Vs VEl_,fllf!Bu

P.J 11

I Well:

Desc: SHOT DENSITY VS WELLHEAD PRESSURE

PJ I 3

=~==~~,---r---jl I I IN'UT DATA: DI'UT DATA:

f~~~"' I
800~-----.------r-----.-----~------.------.------r-----
soo 1 1 , I ICC 0 X IIC 0 X
'- --~~~\, API 60 API 60
SGges - .65
-~~~:------ SGga .65

\\,\\\',l,<~',:'
',,
SGwtr - j, SGwtr 1
Gl.R AOOOO set /B GLR - -40000 cf IB
'~,,
',,, TMD
TVD
-4195 ft
-4195 ft
TIC)-
TVD -
4427 tt
-4-427 ft
',,,
',,, IOtbg - 2.5 in mt.bg - 2.5 in

375
',,, Ed -
TWh -
00065 in
70 dea F
Ed
TWh
. oooss 1n
70 deg F
Tbh - 100 dog F
600 \ \ Tbh - 100 deg F
' ''
-i:~~~'
\ \ \
LENfl - 30 ft '' LENfl - 30 ft
\
Hfl Oft
\
'\ ' Htl 0 ft:
\ m t l - 2 in
\
I
\
\ \ '' ' IDfl 2 in
Tsep - 70 deg F
, ' '
\ \ Tep 70 deg F

\:~~~' '
\ FL Ed - 00065 in \ FL Ed - 00065 in
\
Pr - 97o Pia \ \ \
\ '' Pr - 770 paig
~ '\
\
\
'
., \ '~~~' "'
Tres - :100 dlilll F
\ Ae - 1320 t t I
\
' '' Tres -
Re
100 deg F
1320 ft
c. 250
\
,,, Aw
H
.i7 t t
2D ft
"'c. 400
\
\
Rw -
H
.17 t t
275 ft
',,,
1''\
I
UJ \ . ,,, Hp - 6 ft UJ I
\ Hp - 14 ft
a:
' ',,, Kfm-
Skin -
.Oj, ad a: I I
\
\
Kf .01 md
-s
~g:
0 Skin -
\
'~, ~ I \
\
\ \
,, SPF 3
Dperf - ~g in ~
I
\
' \ SPF 2
Operf - . .49 in
' \
\
',,,
,,,, l.perf - 12 in g:
I \
\
' Lperf - 12 in
\

'\
,,, \ ~I
Kc:/Kf - .6 \ \
\
Kc:/Kf - .6

125 200
\
\ ',\1',
\ (/)
\
\
\I'
"I' Inflow curve ~max
\
\
Inflow Curve amax -o
\\\
t ~- \
1 Jones 1
2 Jone 2 ,~ I ,\
l \ I ,\
. \
1 Jone11 7
2 ~ones .4
3 .Jones 10
rn
.-
3 Jonas 2
-4 Jones 2 -4 .Jones 1.4
oI I I I I '1 I I ;t:3i\ 4 1 I 5 .Jones 2
o I I '2 I 11
I 13
I '... I Is I 5 .Jonea 17
1. 300 1. 600 1. 900 2. 200 2. 500 OUtflow curve Psep 0.00 6.25 12.50 18.75 25.00 Outflow curve Paep
00
1 BASE
~ ~~: ~:8 ~i
.4 Hp 30.0 f t
o
0
PRODUCTION
Max eros rate
Unloading rdte
(mcfd)

(Cnol
_
=::
_
a BASE
~ ~~~::
d PNh
~g:
90.
~:~3
psig
a FndFlwAdj 24
b FndFlwAdj 2D
c FndFlWAdj 60
d FndFlWAdj 90
1 BASE
~ ~~~= ~: gg
.4 SPF- .4.00
o
D
PRODUCTION
Max eros rate
Unlood1ng rate
(mcfd)

(Cr.d)
==
_

_
a BASE
gCS Pwh-
~:~~
e Pwh
~gg:
200 .
~..-ig
psig
psig
e FndFlwAdj 25
b FndFlwAdj 100
c FndFlwAdj 150
d FndFlwAdj. 200
\J\
5 Hp 35.0 tt A Unloading rate !Wtrl _ e Pwh 120. psig 5 SPF 6.00 A Unloading rate (Wtrl _ 250. psig
~
e FndFlwAdj 12D e FndFlwAdj 250

Fig. 9-Shot density vs. wellhead pressure, PJ No. 3.

""'
Fig. 7-Perfarateclthlckness Interval vs. wellhead p-re, PJ No. 1.
 Well: liS I 2
Well: liS I 1

150~-----.------.------.-----.------~-----r------r-----,
I PEIIFOIIATED TRIC:I:BESS IBTERVAL Vs
Desc: 'IIELL HEAD PIIESSURE
INPUT DATA: 500~------~--~--~--~r---~------~-----.------.-----.
I PRESSURE
Dese: RESERVOIR PRESSURE Vs 'IIELLREAD
INPUT DATA:
we - 90 s we - l
API - 60 API - 60
' SGgas .61
SGges -
SGwt:r -
.61
1 '' \ '' ' SGwtr - 1.07
GLA ,. .40000 set /B GLR 40000 sc:f/B

~..
I\\ 'l \, I\\ I I I I
TMD- 18~ t t TMD - 4133 ft
I
',>to.
', -~p~ 1 I I
1 I I
TVD-
IDtbg -
Ed -
18~ ft
.4. 09 in
00065 1n
3751 t\
TVO

Ed -
4133 f t
XDtbg - 4.05 1n
.00065 1n

1131 ''
,l,""$""
Twh -
Tbh -
70 deg F
100 deg F
'' '
TNh
Tbh
70 deg F
100 deg F
'' LENfl 30 f t
',-:_~\"-:-,
LENfl - :30 t t
Htl -
IDfl -
0 tt
2 in
'' \
\

\
\
' \
\
\
\ ' \
Htl -
IDtl -
0 ft
2 1n
T&ep - 70 deg F Tsep 70 deg F
FL Ed - 00065 1n FL Ed 00065 in
'' ' ' '''''' \
\
\ '
\
Pr 540 psig
' ' ' ' ''' Pr - 1:32 p&1g
: \
~ '' \ \ \ \

'<<1,' , Tres - 100 deg F Tre& 100 deg F

.,
c. ' \
R -
Rw -
1320 f t
.17 ft "'c.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Re
Rw -
.1320 f t
.17 f t

I I I \, I\. \.I \, I\, I I I

75 250 H 15 f t
' , I' ' , H- 61 f t
liJ
a:
\
\
',:':',
'\
Hp -
KfiD -
Skin - -5
8 ft
.OS md
Hp -
Kfm -
Skin - -5
8 ft
.01 md

i '' 'j''\ '

SPF- 2
Dperf - . 49 in
Lperf - 12 in
SPF 4
Dperf - . 49 in
Lperf - :12 in

I I \I \ l\ \\I \._ I I I
Kc/Kf - .6 Kc/Kf - .6
1\ \
\
\
\\

I \ \'
38 \ .
1251
\ \
\ \
\ \\ InfloN Curve llmax
Inflow Curve Qmax .Jones ... 1

I I I \. I I\ \.'~~h I
1

I
1 .Jones o 2 .Jones 1
2 .Jones . 1 3 .Jones . 1
3 .Jones . 1 1 4 .Jones .. 1
0 1 2 5 4 .Jones 1
o-1 I I 1 11 '
2
1 ' 3 1 ~ t~ 5 .Jones 2

0.000 0. 750 1.500 2.250 3.000

5 ..rones 1
0.000 0. 750 1.500 2.250 3. uoo outflow Curve Psep
.PRODUCTION (mcfd) Out flow Curve Paep 1 BASE PRODUCTION (me fd) a BASE a FndFlwAdj. 60
1 BASE a BASE
U P~lt,..~. 20. psig a FndFlwAdj. 50 21-':' 600.0psig ll 1-'wla_. 2U. ps l~ b FndFlwAd~. 20
2 liP""' 20.0 ft o Max eros rate
:3 Hp- 25.0 ft o Max eros rate _ c Pwh- :30. ps1g b FndFlwAdj. 20 :3 Pr- 650.0 ps1g c Pwh 40. ps1g c FndFlwAdj. 40
D Unloading rate fCnd) - d Pwh- so. ps1g t: FndFlwAdj. 30 4 Pr- 700.0 ps1g D Unloading rate (Cnd} d Pwh- BO. ps1g d FndFlwAdj . 80
4 Hp- 30.0 f t
5 Hp- 35.0 f t l:l. Unloading rate (Wtr) d FndFlwAdj. 60 5 Pr- 750.0 ps1g LJ. Unloading rate (Wtr) e Pwh 100. ps1g o FndFlwAdj. 100

.,.... Rg. 10-Perforated thickness interval vs. wellhead pressure, RS No.1 Rg. 12-Reservolr pressure vs. wellhead pressure, RS No. 2.
...
Well: liS I 3 Well: RS I 3

50~-----.------.------.----~------~-----.------.-----.
(SHOT DESITY)
Desc: IHFLO'II SEHSITIVITY ABALYSIS
INPUT DATA:
I Dese: SHOT DEBSITY Vs UELLREAD PIIESSURE

INPUT DATA:
we- o s 400 :--~~ we- o x
API - 59 API - 59
SGg;u; .65 \ ......~~~ SGgas - .65
SGwtr - 1
'' SGwtr 1
GLR
TMD
TVD -
IDtbg - 2.5 in
410000 act /B
2476 ft
2476 ft
\

\\, ',f,",' ,
',',:~--:..' ...
GLR
TMD -
TVD -
IDtbg
.40000 scf/B
2476 f t
2476 f t
2.5 in

' -,f' '

Ed - .oooss in \ ' ... Ed - 00065 in
40 Twh - 70 deg F 300 Twh 70 deg F
Tbh - 100 deg F Tbh 100 dag F
LENtl - :30 ft ' \
' ',' ', LENtl - 30 f t
Htl -
Wtl
0 ft
2 in \ '' ' ' ' ' Hfl -
IDtl -
0 ft
2 1n
Tsep -
FL Ed -
70 deg F
00065 in
\
\ ' ... ' Tsep -
FL Ed
70 deg F
.00065 in
Pr .400 ps1g
: \ ',, -',l',, Pr 400 P&ig
~ Tre& -
Ra
100 deg F
1320 f t
\ Tres
Re -
100 deg F
1320 ft
"'c.
.
liJ
t-
30
Aw-
H
Hp
Kfm -
.17 tt
18 tt
5 ft
.B md
liJ
a:
200
, I,
I
I
I
I
AW
H
Hp -
Kfm
.17 ft
18 f t
5 ft
.8 md
Skin - -5 ::J I \ Skin - -5
<t
a: en SPF- 2
SPF- 2 en
en Dparf - . 32 in liJ Operf - . 32 in
<t Lparf - 12 in a:
0..
Lperf - 12 in (/)
"' Kc/Kf .6 Kc/Kf - .6
-o
20 100 fTl

I-'
I I , I ~ _j Inflow Curve Clmax
1
2
Janes ...
Jones
28
16
(X)
+ Pwh- 30
I 3 .Jones .. 36
>~ t-'hlll~ :~~.,; 4 Janes 41 Vl
10-l----l---1----l---1----l---l----1--~
o Pwh- 100
c Pwh- 150 o-~----~----~~2~-----+~--~~~~~----~~----~----~ 5 Jones 46

1.000 2. 250 3.500 4. 750 fl. 000 Ll Pwh 200

0
1 BASE
19
PRODUCTION
38
(mcfd)
56
BASE
75 outflow curve Psep
o FndFlwAdj. :30
.t:-
Sensitivity Variable: SPF

"'
2 SPF 1.00 Pwh SO. DSlg b FndFlwAdj . 50
3 SPF 3.00 o Max eros rate Pwh !OO. pa1o c FndFlwAdj 100
4 SPF- 4.00 D Unloacling rate (:nil) Pwh- 150. ps1g d FndFlwAdj . 150
5 SPF- 5.00 A l)tlod1ng rt IWtr) Pwh- 200. ps1g e FndFlwAdj . 200

Rg. 11-lnllow sensitivity analysis (shot density), RS No.3. Rg. 13-Shot density vs. wellhead pressure, RS No.3.
 Hell: DD I 1

I (WELLHEAD PRESSURE)
Desc: OUTFLOW SEBSITIVITY ABALYSIS

50~-----.------.-----.------.------,------,------,-----,
INPUT DATA:
IIC- 0 :r
API - 59
S6gaa .65
SGwtr 1
SLR 1000000 SCfl
Tl< - .481.4 ft
TVD - .48:1.4 ft
IDtbg - 2.5 in
Ed - 00065 :In
38 TNh 70 deg F
Tbh - 100 deg F
LENfl - 300 f t
Hfl 0 ft
IDfl - 2 in
Tsep - 70 deg F
FL Ed - oooss :In
Pr 1000 psig
~ Tres -
Rtr -
100 deg F
:1320 ft
E Rw - .:17 ft
25 H 369 t t
LU
t-
<
a:
Ul
~
Hp -
Kfm -
Sk:ln -
SPF-
Operf -
Lparf -
Kc/Kf -
:ISS ft
.01 d
o
3
. 32 1n
12 in
.6
600~-----r----~~----,-----~------~-----r------r-----~
J Hell:

Desc:SBOT DEBSITY Vs TUBIBG DIAMETER

DD I 2

INPUT DATA:
IIC- 0 :r
API - 59
13 ~\$"~~' SGgs - .65
SGwtr - 1
SLA - 40000 ac 1/8
' ' TND - .4387 tt
TVD - .4387 tt
IDtbg - 2 in
Ed - 00065 :In
450 Twh - 70 deg F
+ Hp- 166 Tbh - :100 deg F
X Hp~ 20
LENtl - 30 t t
0 Hp- 25 I 1 1 1 I I Hfl - 0 ft
o+------+------~----4------4------+------+------~----~ 0 Hp- 30 IDfl - 2 in
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ A Hp- 35 Tsep - 70 dea F
FL Ed - .00065 in
Sensitivity Variable: Pwh \ Pr - 570 psig
: \
.,a T,..ea -
Re -
100 deg F
1320 f t
300+-----~----~~----~----~------+------+------r-----~ Rw - .17 ft
H - 269 ft

~ Fig. 14-0utllow sensitivity analysis (-llhead pressure), DD No.1.

\ Hp -
Kfa -
57 tt
.OB 1nd
\
\
'' Skin - -s

Hell: DD I 1 \
' SPF- 3
Dperf - .32 in
PERFORATED TBICli:BESS IBTERVAL Vs
I
I \ ' \ Lperf - 12 in
Kc/Kf - .6
I Oesc: WELLHEAD PRESSURE

INPUT DATA:
150
I
I
I.
\
\

\
\
\
\

500 I
\
\ \
IIC - 0 :r I \ \
\
API - 59 I
\ \ \
SGg .65 I \ I
\
SGwtr 1 Inflow Curve amax
GLR -
TND
1000000 set
.48"14 f t
_.\---\--1 1 Janes .... 107
2 Janes . . . . . SO
TVD - .48:1.4 tt
IDtbg - 2.5 :In 3 .Janes . . . . . 83

375
Ed -
Tlllh
.00065 in
70 deg F
o- 12
'
3
'I ~ I 4 .Janes . . . . .
5 Janes . . . . .
107
129
Tbh - 100 deg F
0 38 75 113 150
1 BASE PRODUCTION (mcfd) a BASE Outflow Curve Psep
LENfl - 300 tt
Hfl - 0 ft 2 SPF- 1. ~o 1> D1a 1.500 in FndFlwAdi. 22
3 SPF- 2.00 0 Mex eras rete c Die- 2.500 in b FndFlwAdi. 22
IOfl - 2 in D Unlaadiog rate (Cnd)
Taep - 70 deg F .ol SPF- 3.00 d Die- .4.050 in c FndFlvAdj. 22
FL Ed - 00065 :In 5 SPF- 5.00 I1A Unloading rate (Wtr) d FndFlwAdj . 22
Pr - 1000 psia
: Tree - 100 deg F
Ul Re - 1320 f t
a Rw - .17 ft
H- 369ft Rg. 16-Shot density vs. tubing diameter, DD No.2.
LU Hp - :ISS tt
a: Kfm - .01 ad

~
Skin - 0
SPF- 3
Operf - . 32 in
[ Lperf - 12 in
Kc/Kt - .6
(/)
-o
rn
_,I __
-lA Inflow Curve Qmax
1 .Janes . . . . .
2 .Jane& ...
40
16
~
3 .Janes . . . . . 20
4 Jane& .... 21 0)
o-10 I '"I19 \~..s 115
I I 11
I 5 Janes . . . . . 24

:1 BASE
2 Hp- 20.0
3 Hp- 25.0
.ol Hp- 30.0
5 Hp- 35.0
1t
tt
tt
tt
o
D
.6
PRODUCTION
Max eros rate
Unloading rate
Unloading rate
38
(mcfd)

(CnU)
(Wtr)
:::>6
a BASE.
tJ P\111"'"
C Pwh
d Pwh-
e Pwh
so.
eo.
35.
20.
pstg
psig
psig
psig
75 Outflow Curve P&ep
FnCIFl"'Adj 22
b FndFlwAdj 60
c FndFlwACij eo
d FndFlwAdj. :35
e FndFlwAdj. 20
""
~
~

Fig. 15--Perforated thickness Interval vs. wellhead pressure, DD No. 1.