You are on page 1of 13

119 strings; 3.

5% increment; 1700 BOPD;


Offshore India

SPE 101089

Development of an Integrated Production Network Model for the Heera Field


M.S. Nadar, SPE, R. Kulkarni, SPE, and Z.R. Lemanczyk, SPE, Edinburgh Petroleum Services Ltd.,
and P. Aggarwal, Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd.

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers


3. Approximately 450 independent pipe/flowline objects
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference were included in the model to represent major
and Exhibition held in Adelaide, Australia, 1113 September 2006.
pipelines, risers and downcomers.
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
4. Three major processing platforms, comprising 5 HP
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any separators, MP and LP separators, and 5 gas lift
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 compressors operating in parallel were modelled.
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is 5. Production from neighbouring complexes (Neelam
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 and ICP) was included in the form of object
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. sources with overall delivery point at the Uran
terminal located onshore.
Abstract The network model was built, history matched and calibrated
to actual field data, within a tolerance of <1% for the
This paper describes the development of an integrated measured liquids production. The calibrated model was then
production network model for a major producing field located used to run a number of optimisation scenarios, in an effort to
in the Western Offshore Region of India, the second most find ways of improving production and operating efficiency.
prolific oil field in India.
Optimisation investigations conducted within the framework
The purpose is threefold: a) presentation of a case history of this project indicate potential oil uplift of between 6-8%
describing successful implementation of optimisation from a combination of well interventions (based on individual
methodology in a major gas lifted field, b) outlining the well modelling and gas lift diagnostics) and network
structure and methodology for constructing and calibrating a optimisation (lift gas reallocation), as well as a reduction in
large integrated production model, and c) illustrating the total lift gas requirement and compressor horsepower.
potential applications in running the completed model in
optimisation mode. Besides the scope for production gains and operational
improvements, the project also highlights a number of higher
The Heera Field, currently producing from 119 strings (all on level issues relevant to the development and employment of
gas lift except one) has been on production since 1984 and integrated production network models:
with recovery in the region of 20% considerable potential still
exists for improving production and recovery. One of the areas 1. The successful implementation of the Heera network
and challenges for improvement involves the optimisation of model is the first of its kind in ONGCs India operations.
the gas lift performance. The Heera network model described 2. The technology utilised in this project is capable of
in this paper includes the multi-phase well production, gas lift modelling large scale complex production networks in a
injection, production processing and gas lift compression robust and reliable manner. Complexity and size need no
facilities that comprise the asset. longer be barriers to successful implementation of
The development of the network model comprised the network modelling and optimisation.
following elements: 3. The technology is easily transferable for implementation
1. Well models were constructed for all the producing by production engineering and operations staff in the
strings using nodal analysis. Outflow performance field, provided standardised workflows are identified and
was calibrated to existing flowing gradient survey new work practices implemented to allow improved data
(FGS) data and recent production test data. management and model maintenance.

2. Fluid properties were characterized based on Black 4. The maintained integrated production network model
Oil correlations using four independent PVT datasets, provides a platform for analysing and diagnosing a wide
and tuned to a single correlation across the entire variety of production and equipment related issues in the
field. field.
2 SPE 101089

Recommendations from the model are currently being 1. Well model construction and calibration.
implemented in the field. Based on the modelling 2. Pipe and flowline modeling.
recommendations, well interventions and lift gas reallocation
3. Process modeling
have so far produced oil production increases in the region of
1700 BOPD. 4. Model integration
5. Fluid PVT
Introduction and Overview 6. History matching
7. Running optimisation scenarios
The Neelam and Heera Fields are situated about 70 km
southwest of Mumbai city in the Arabian Sea. They rest on the Each of these will be described in more detail in the following
continental shelf of Western India at a depth of ~56 metres. sections.
The Heera Field is a saturated oil reservoir with about 285
million tonnes of oil in place, and is the second most prolific
oil field in India. The field has been on production since 1984 Well Model Construction and Calibration
and on gas lift as an artificial lift method since 1990. There are
a total of 119 producers and also 59 water injector strings. The Individual well models were constructed for each producing
field infrastructure is illustrated in Figure 1. string using well established nodal analysis techniques.

While oil accumulations in these fields have been encountered In developing an integrated network model however, the well
in the Heera, Mukta, Bassein and Panna formations and even model construction is crucially important and requires
in the basement, Bassein is the major producing reservoir. Gas significant attention. This is because the well models should
has been encountered in the Bandra formation of Miocene age. reflect at any given time the actual performance of each well
The field has multi-layered reservoirs currently producing in the network, and they are used to generate the well
approx 50,000 BOPD with average water cut and formation performance surfaces at each wellhead which are then used to
GOR of 55% and 120 m3/m3 respectively. The Heera process drive the surface network model. In essence the well models
complex consists of five bridge-connected platforms, namely provide the foundation upon which the entire network model
HA (wellhead), HRA, HRG, WIH and HRC as well as 13 and optimisation procedure rests. Therefore the well modeling
remotely located wellhead platforms. Infill drilling with drain software should be rigorous and comprehensive, and be able to
hole/lateral/multilateral wells has been undertaken to enhance capture all the variances associated with well gas lift
the recovery. The process complexes have three stage operations, including gas lift valve performance.
separation, pumping and gas compression facilities. The The development of suitable and representative well models in
ultimate recovery from the field is to be maximized using a this project was a three phase process.
variety of techniques and inputs, of which gas lift optimisation
is a key element. The initial phase consisted of constructing a base well model
for each producing string using the most recent well and
Flowing pressure and temperature gradient surveys are carried reservoir data provided by ONGC. Each model was then
out in the gas lifted wells to assess the gas lift performance calibrated to the latest available flowing gradient survey (FGS)
and for performing suitable gas lift optimisation work. Even data. The calibration was used to identify the most appropriate
though continuous in-house efforts have been made for gas lift multiphase flow correlation and tuning factors.
optimisation to maximize production, by optimizing gas lift on
a well by well basis, in the absence of an integrated production In many cases the flowing gradient surveys were old (several
network model, optimisation of the total system was a months to years) and the production conditions had since then
challenge. This is a key issue in gas lifted fields, especially changed considerably; thus it became necessary to bring the
where the gas lift gas is returned along with the produced models up to date. The second phase therefore consisted of
fluids to the central production facilities, adding to the back recalibrating the original/initial models to the latest available
pressure on the wells. Any change made to the gas lift system well test data, using the initial values of multiphase flow
will impact the parameters on the production side of the correlation identified earlier. In most cases the lift depth (i.e.
network and vice versa, requiring a new set of optimal gas lift mandrel position) and flow correlation for the second
conditions for the field operation. Recognizing this, ONGC model were based on the first model, with the tuning factor
management decided to develop an integrated production adjusted to get a reasonable fit over the pressure profile in the
model of the Heera Field which would then be available as a production tubing.
resource for the investigation of production optimisation At this point an additional tuning step needed to be performed,
issues. one which is not routinely encountered in nodal analysis well
The development of an integrated production model comprises modelling. The lift gas flow rate passing through the operating
several distinct phases, all of which require appropriate gas lift valve (normally an orifice) is a function of the
software applications, good quality data and engineering orifice/port size and the upstream (casing) and downstream
expertise to provide a meaningful solution. The development (tubing) pressures. The lift gas injection pressure and rates are
of the model described in this paper comprised the following measured in the production well test, and hence it is possible
phases: to calibrate the individual well models gas injection by
adjusting an orifice parameter until the gas injection rate
SPE 101089 3

predicted by the model for the measured casing head pressure result is a more intimate familiarity with each wells
agrees with the actual measured gas injection rate. An example production behaviour.
of such tuning is illustrated in Figure 2. The plot is essentially
an inflow/outflow curve calculated at the operating gas lift It uncovers potential production gains through
valve, with gas injection rate plotted on the y-axis and improvements in the current gas lift performance, either
pressure plotted on the x-axis. The inflow portion consists of by improving mechanical performance of the completion
the family of valve performance curves, defined by the gas lift (i.e. avoid multipointing), optimising the lift gas injection
valve operating envelopes calculated for different orifice/port rate to the well, or by updating the gas lift design (e.g.
sizes. The outflow portion is the nearly perpendicular curve injection depth) to account for changes in reservoir
representing the resulting downstream tubing pressure performance since the gas lift completion was first
determined for each gas injection rate. The intersection of the installed.
tubing curve with each of the valve performance envelopes Among the Heera wells, a total of twenty two wells were
defines the actual gas rate through the valve at the given identified as possible production uplift opportunities (> 50
operating conditions. Therefore the one closest to the actual BOPD), and of these, twelve wells were identified as having
measured gas lift rate defines the effective port size to be used potential increases of more than 100 BOPD. The anticipated
in the model. This analysis assumes single point gas lift increase in production resulting from implementation of well
injection, as confirmed by FGS run on the well. by well gas lift optimisation and intervention was estimated to
This tuning of the casing side of a gas lifted well model is be in the region of 1500 BOPD.
crucial since the operating valve behaviour represents the
interface between the gas injection side and the fluid
production side of each well in the overall gas lifted Pipe and Flowline Modelling
production network optimisation process. The individual objects (wells and process equipment) in the
The third phase of the well modelling consisted of generating network are connected by pipelines, flowlines, risers, etc. Pipe
a wellhead performance surface (WPS) for each well, which elements (including risers and downcomers) provide the main
would then be transferred into each wellhead object in the sources of pressure drop in the network and are often the cause
network model. For a naturally flowing well, a WPS consists of bottlenecks which lead to suboptimal production. Whereas
essentially of a WHP vs. Qoil plot. In the case of a gas lifted in some network models the pipeline modeling is relatively
well, this becomes more complicated as one has to consider straightforward, the relative complexity of the Heera pipeline
lift gas injection rate (Qgi) as well as casing head injection network meant that the pipeline modeling component was
pressure (CHP). The result is a four dimensional surface which significant. Clearly it would have been impractical to include
can be more simply represented by superimposing two sets of all existing pipe elements in the network model.
data on a two dimensional plot as illustrated in Figure 3. In this model a total of 452 pipe elements were eventually
The plot consists of two families of curves. The first is the included in the model, with the following breakdown:
classical well performance diagram of Qoil vs. Qgi for Multiphase flow lines 227
different values of WHP. Readers should note that there is a Gas flow lines 165
lower limit or threshold value of Qgi which is dependent either
on valve performance or the minimum Qgi required to kick off Risers & downcomers 60
a gas lifted well. Discussion of these thresholds is outwith the In both the well modelling as well as the riser downcomer
scope of this paper. The second family of curves represents modelling, care was taken to ensure that riser components
CHP vs. Qgi, and hence defines the actual injection pressures were configured such that thermal conductivity of the relevant
required to achieve the gas lift flow rate for each of the back surrounding medium (i.e. air, water) was taken into account.
pressures (i.e. WHP). All subsea pipelines were modelled with a 1 concrete
The task of constructing and calibrating the well models (on insulation coating.
both the production and injection sides of the well), as well as Finally in the model the Panhandle A flow correlation was
the generation of the well performance surfaces is used for gas pipelines and gas injection lines, while the
considerable and should not be underestimated. The work Modified Beggs & Brill correlation was used for the
required goes far beyond the quick what if sensitivity multiphase/liquid lines.
analysis and diagnostics for which nodal analysis is commonly
used.
Process Modelling
Besides providing the foundation for the network optimisation
described later, constructing and tuning the well models has The role of the process side in the integrated model was to
two other important features often overlooked by production accurately represent the flow paths, phase behaviour and
engineers. mixing behaviour of the production fluids. To this end only
the parts of the process included in the model were those
It forces the production engineer to critically evaluate the directly affecting the pressure, temperature and flow
quality of the data used in the modelling, particularly the distribution of the production fluids. The major equipment
production test data such as water cut and GOR. The items which were included in the network process model were
4 SPE 101089

the chokes, PCVs/FCVs, compressors, heat exchangers, reflect the fuel gas consumption required to drive the lift gas
separators, flares and pumps. compressors on the HRG platform.
A typical wellhead platform is illustrated in Figure 4. The gas It was also necessary to represent the oil and gas export from
lifted well objects are each connected to a production manifold the neighbouring Neelam Field, since this production is
as well as the gas injection manifold, and each of these is commingled with that from Heera prior to onward transport
connected to the downstream production system and upstream via the trunk lines to Uran. Production from Neelam was
injection system respectively. As stated already in the section represented in the model as a source object whose total flow
on well modelling above, the gas lifted well object forms the rate contribution was imposed as a constant in the history
interface between the gas injection and fluid production matching and optimisation runs. Another external fluid source
networks, linking them into the same network model, allowing in the model was ICP, a neighbouring satellite field.
for simultaneous optimisation of the entire network, a unique The inclusion of the nearby assets in the Heera integrated
feature of this approach which has been described elsewhere 1- network model would allow the operator to study the impact
3
. of the other fields in the export pipeline pressure drop for
different operating conditions.
Besides the production and injection manifolds on the
wellhead platforms, the network model included the following
major process elements:
Fluid PVT
4 high pressure (HP) production separators
It was also necessary to define the PVT properties at the
Medium and low pressure vessels for LP and LLP network level. The various PVT datasets were grouped into
separation four major categories and used to define PVT behaviour in
5 gas lift compressors both the well modeling as well as the network modeling
stages. These were:
One recycle loop for LP gas recovery
A schematic illustration of the HRG process platform is 1. Heera Main: 77 wells, primarily on HA. HB, HD,
provided in Figure 5. Note the inlet manifold connecting the HE, HQ, HR, HS and HT well platforms.
various incoming fluid streams from the well head platforms, 2. North Heera (Basal Sand): 6 wells primarily on HB
the export production fluids line (bottom) and the lift gas platform.
compression and distribution (right). Also note that the 3. Phase 3 (Mukta): 18 wells on HX and HY platforms.
production fluid network and lift gas network are integrated in
4. South Heera: 18 wells on HSA and HSB platforms.
the same optimisation model.
Black Oil modeling was used as the basis of fluid modelling,
The separator models employ rigorous flash calculations to
principally because only black oil data PVT analysis data were
determine the phase split at the operational temperature and
available. A compositional fluid model would also not add any
pressure and separated fluids leave the separator object
particular value to the gas lift and other optimisation issues
through different exits. Entrainment of gas in oil or water, oil
arising in Heera.
in gas or water and water in gas or oil can be modelled. The
operational temperature and pressure could be fixed (as Since a Black Oil fluid description was used throughout it was
constraints) in the optimisation runs or placed under optimiser necessary to describe the PVT behaviour of the four major
control. fluid types in terms of a single PVT correlation so as to allow
correct mixing of fluid streams in the network. This is a non
Compressor behaviour was modeled using a thermodynamic
trivial issue, since the choice of a unique PVT correlation
relationship between throughput, compression ratio,
might be suitable for one of the datasets while wholly
horsepower and efficiency. Heat exchangers in the process
unsuitable to the others. To address this challenge, a novel
network were modeled as simple heater/cooler type with
tuning method was implemented, wherein two tuning
specified target temperature.
parameters were introduced into each of the available PVT
correlation equations (e.g. Standing, Vasquez-Beggs, Glaso,
etc.). Each correlation was then tuned over the entire four
Model Integration
PVT lab datasets, adjusting the two tuning parameters to get
The title of this section is somewhat misleading, since the the best agreement. The correlation with the best overall fit
network model, from wellheads through pipelines and process to the PVT lab data, i.e. having the least RMS error in the fit,
facilities right through to the delivery point, was constructed was selected for the network model.
as a single model from the outset, without the need for any
physical integration or linking to other models. A top level
view of the entire network model is provided in Figure 6. History Matching
A number of external elements had to be introduced to Once the integrated network model had been constructed, it
complete the model. The first of these were the fluid delivery was necessary to tune/calibrate/history match it to actual field
points for export gas and oil, which were placed at the onshore production data. The history match process requires
Uran terminal. A number of water disposal sinks were constraining the network model in such a way as to reproduce
included at the process platforms, along with another sink to the well and field behaviour for a particular day of production.
SPE 101089 5

The primary purpose of the history match is to establish Base Case Lift Gas Reallocation
confidence that the model is representative of the actual
The constraints imposed at the wells in the history match
producing network by mapping and comparing the predicted
phase (i.e. Qgi constraints at each gas lifted wellhead and gas
pressure/rate/temperature profile across various points in the
lift header pressure) were removed, allowing the optimiser the
network with measured field data.
freedom to determine the optimum solution, i.e. in this case
For a gas lifted system, the history match additionally involves maximizing oil production at Uran.
fixing the production separator pressures and lift gas rates to
The only constraints retained in the model for the Heera
the wells, and running the model in optimisation mode.
production process were the HP production separator
This phase was a critical part of the study and required careful pressures. The compressor had enough extra horsepower at its
analysis of the different aspects of behaviour of each object in disposal for gas compression as required. The recycle loop rate
the model (e.g. well performance, pressure drop across pipes (power gas for the ejector, for recovering the LP separator gas
and flowlines, heat loss along major pipelines, compressor and boosting to gas lift compressor suction pressure) and the
performance, etc.). internal gas consumption rates for fuel gas in the field were
maintained the same as in the history match.
In order to match the measurements provided for Heera, field
data from one days production in October, 2005 was used as a Table 2 provides a comparison between the base case
baseline. Constraints and objectives were defined in the model optimisation model results and the history match model
as follows: results. The results suggest that it may possible to obtain an
For each well, the lift gas injection rate was constrained to increase of about 3000 BOPD from Heera by reallocating lift
the measured value, fixing the lift gas injection into the gas to the wells.
well. The results summary in this table should be interpreted with
A gas injection header pressure constraint was applied (80 caution. Firstly the oil rate increase estimate is based on the
kg/cm2g). well performance models underlying the network model.
Pressures at each separator were constrained to the Some of these are uncertain due to the data used to calibrate
measured values. them, and in some instances relatively old data had been
Delivery pressure constraints were set at the Uran export used. However even a conservative 1500 BOPD would still
sink for the oil and HP gas lines. represent a potential uplift of ~3.4% (in addition to that
Source constraints (fixed rate, water cut and GOR, already identified from the well modelling). Figure 7 shows
variable pressure) were set for the ICP and Neelam source the expected production gains from gas lift reallocation on a
objects. platform by platform basis.
The network model was then run with all of the above Even though the results tend to indicate a possible reduction of
constraints in place. Flow rates and pressures at various nodes about 10% in lift gas requirement for the gas lifted well
of the model were compared with the measured data. The L network (leading to a horsepower saving of about 14%, based
(length tuning) and D (diameter tuning) factors for various on the current efficiency factors used in the compressor
pipeline segments were adjusted so that the model was able to model), in reality the gas savings might not be as high as
reproduce the pressures and flow rates measured in the field. predicted. This is because the formation gas to oil ratio
This process required a significant number of model runs. (FGOR) value provided for some of the Heera wells from the
well test data was so high that well modelling analysis
The highlights of the history match are summarized below in indicated that those wells may not require any gas lift for
Table 1, which indicates a reasonable match between the production in the first place. Consequently the optimisation
actual data and the history match model results. Note that algorithm has either allocated no gas or made significant
while the total liquid rate matched very well, the actual oil reduction in the lift gas rate to those wells. Nevertheless, it is
production rate from the field was slightly lower than the important to note there still exists a potential to reduce lift gas
model result due to an increase of field average water cut by to these wells based on network optimisation. This, combined
about 2% during the period the model was being constructed. with the proper allocation of optimum gas to the wells will
There is also a discrepancy between the total gas produced as yield the increase in production rate.
a sum of the well tests and the calculated total from field mass
Separator Pressure
balance calculations. This is a direct result of some
excessively high GORs reported in many production tests and This optimisation scenario was investigated by running the
used in the well modelling. model with only the separator pressure being fixed with a
bound constraint. The model was left free to decide the
optimum Qgi for the wells, and the gas lift header pressure
Optimisation Scenarios required for the field for each run. The recycle loop rate
Once the model had been successfully history matched it was (ejector gas supply) and the internal gas consumption rate
then possible to use it to run optimisation scenarios. A (fuel gas) were maintained the same as in the history match.
number of these were run and are discussed in more detail The model was run for five different separator pressures over
below. the range 6 8 Kg/cm2g, with increments of 0.5 Kg/cm2. The
6 SPE 101089

results (see Figure 8) predict that the production might changing point of injection. Unfortunately, due to
increase by about 350 BOPD for every 0.5 Kg/cm2 reduction mechanical reasons, not all the candidate wells could be
in separator pressure. Note that the design limitations re-entered and require additional workover. Despite this
associated with gas lift compressor operations will be the gains of ~900 BOPD have been realised so far.
limiting factor for determining the lower limit of the separator
2. Adjustment of lift gas injection rates in line with the base
pressure.
case gas lift optimisation results. This is an ongoing
Gas Lift Header Pressure process, however to date a gains of ~800 BOPD have
been realised, along with a 5% reduction in the lift gas
Another scenario investigated was to run the model for various
requirement.
gas lift header pressure settings, keeping the separator
pressures unchanged at their history match values. The recycle In order to obtain continuous benefit from the Heera integrated
loop rate (ejector gas supply) and the internal gas consumption production network model, it will be required to keep the
rate (fuel gas) were maintained the same as in the history model up-to-date. This can be done by retuning the well
match. Results of this investigation are illustrated in Figure 9. models with the latest production test data and replacing the
existing well performance surfaces with new ones. Any
It can be concluded that the current gas lift header pressure of
change of flow line-up or well status should also be captured
80 Kg/cm2g is optimum for the Heera gas lift network, hence
in the network model.
no change in gas lift header pressure is suggested for the time
being. Any increase in gas lift header pressure is not likely to
result in any additional production from the wells.
Conclusions
Pipeline Debottlenecking
1. An integrated production model of the Heera Field has
The HC-HA well fluids pipeline was selected as a potential been successfully constructed, history matched and used
candidate for a pipeline de-bottlenecking scenario. to optimize lift gas allocation for increasing oil
production. This is the first model on this scale which has
The size of the pipeline carrying well fluids from HC to HA
been successfully implemented in India.
was increased from 10 to 14 in. and the model was run at the
same history match separator pressure. The recycle loop rate 2. Optimisation results predict a potential uplift of 6-8% in
(ejector gas supply) and the internal gas consumption rate oil production. Early implementation in the field through
(fuel gas) were maintained the same as in the history match. well interventions and lift gas reallocation have so far
raised oil production by 1700 BOPD.
The results indicate that this increased pipeline size will
decrease the back pressure on the HC production manifold by 3. Decreasing the separator pressure by 1 Kg/cm2g, if
about 4 Kg/cm2 and will increase the production from HC feasible, is predicted to gain in the region of an additional
wells by about 450 BOPD. The manifold pressure is expected 700 BOPD.
to come down to 9 Kg/cm2g. However, the decision to upsize
4. No significant change in oil production is predicted as a
this pipeline can be made only after studying the economic
result of changing the lift gas header pressures.
recovery of this investment, and after ascertaining the
improvement in the recovery of reserves and the magnitude of 5. Potential gains may be realized by increasing the diameter
the production acceleration component. of some of the trunk fluid pipelines, however
implementation of such recommendations requires
It may be worthwhile to consider other options such as using
economic analysis of the investment required.
redundant lines available on the platforms to reduce the back
pressure on some of these production manifolds. Where
possible, production from a few wells could be diverted Acknowledgments
through an alternate pipeline and this would reduce the
production manifold pressure on the platform. The current The authors wish to thank the management of the Neelam &
optimisation model could be used to evaluate the benefits Heera Asset, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. for their
(possible oil production uplift and/or lift gas reduction) of vision in commissioning the development of an integrated
model, their encouragement and support during the project
such alternative modes of operation before field
implementation. execution, and their permission to publish this paper.
Thanks are also due to Mr. Andri Yogaswara and En. Abdul
Razi Hasumi, for their contributions during the well modeling
Field Implementation
phase of the project.
After the model had been constructed and optimisation
scenarios completed, the operator commenced a programme to
implement a number of the recommendations. These were in Nomenclature
essence twofold: ONGC: Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
1. Well interventions on the most promising candidates GOR: Gas Oil Ratio (scf/stb)
BOPD: barrels of oil per day (stock tank conditions)
identified in the well modelling segment of the project.
These consisted primarily of valve change-outs and PCV/FCV: pressure control valve/flow control valve
SPE 101089 7

References
1
Handley-Schachler, S., McKie, C.J.N., et al., New Mathematical
Techniques for the Optimisation of Oil & Gas Production Systems,
paper SPE 65161, presented at the SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Paris (2000).

2
Stewart, G., Clark, A.C., and McBride, S.A., Field Wide
Production Optimisation, paper SPE 59459, presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset
Management, Yokohama (2000).

3
McKie, C.J.N., Rojas, E.A., et al., Economic Benefits From
Automated Production Optimisation of High Pressure Gas Usage in
an Oil Production System, paper SPE67187, presented at the SPE
Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City (2001).
8 SPE 101089

Tables

Table 1: Heera Model History Match Results - Fluid Rates Summary

Description Field data Model Results

Total fluid production rate (STB/Day) 98,168 98,171

Oil production rate, STB/Day 44,264 46,531

Water production rate, STB/Day 53,904 51,640


HP Gas Export, MMSCM/D 0.538 1.093
Gas Internal consumption, MMSCM/D 0.269 0.269
1.369 (well test)
Produced Gas MMSCM/D 1.362
0.807 (calcd*)
Gas to Ejector (re-circulation), MMSCM/D 0.670 0.670
Gas lift gas to wells, MMSCM/D 2.943 2.686
Compressor discharge flow, MMSCM/D 4.766 4.719

* calculated from field mass balance

Table 2: Base Case Optimisation Results

Base
History match Optimisation
Description Units Network Model with history
Results match
separator
pressures
Total Fluid production rate STB/Day 98171 105007
Heera Oil Production rate STB/Day 46531 49679

Heera Water Production rate STB/Day 51640 55328


2
GL Header pressure Kg/cm g 80 74.239
2
Compressor Suction pressure Kg/cm g 6.235 6.394
2
Compressor Discharge pressure Kg/cm g 80.701 74.885
3
Compressor flow rate MMsm /Day 4.719 4.253
Compressor Horsepower Used HP 45376 38944
3
HP gas to Internal Consumption MMsm /Day 0.269 0.269
3
HP gas to Ejector MMsm /Day 0.67 0.67
3
HP gas to Export MMsm /Day 1.093 1.019
3
HP gas for Gas Lifting wells MMsm /Day 2.687 2.295
SPE 101089 9

Figures

Figure 1: Neelam & Heera Asset Infrastructure

Figure 2: Tuning Injection Gas rate Through an Orifice Valve


10 SPE 101089

Figure 3: Wellhead Performance Surface for One Heera Well

Figure 4: Typical Heera Well Head Platform Architecture Showing Lift Gas (left) and Fluid Production (right) Manifolds
(Well Objects in the Centre)
SPE 101089 11

Figure 5: Schematic of HRG Process Platform Showing Separation and Fluids Export (Centre) and Lift Gas Compression (Right)

Figure 6: Top View Schematic of Heera Field Production Infrastructure


12 SPE 101089

8000
History Match_Oil
7000 Optimization_Oil

6000
Oil Production (Stb/d)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
HA HB HC HD HE HF HQ HR HS HSA HSB HT HV HX HY

Platform
Figure 7: Effect of Lift Gas Reallocation on Platform Oil Production

60000 3
Qoil Produced
58000 2.9
Qgi Injected
56000 2.8
Oil Production (STB/d)

54000 2.7

52000 Optimum 2.6 Qgi (MMscm/d)

50000 2.5

48000 2.4

46000 2.3

44000 2.2

42000 2.1

40000 2
6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Separator Pressure (Kg/cm2g)

Figure 8: Effect of Separator Pressure on Oil Production and Lift Gas


SPE 101089 13

60000 95
Oil Production Rate
58000
Compressor Discharge Pressure 90

Comp. Disch. Pressure, Kg/cm2g


Oil Production Rate, STB/Day

56000

54000 85

52000
80
50000
75
48000

46000 70

44000
65
42000

40000 60
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
GL Header Pressure, Kg/cm2g

Figure 9: Effect of Lift Gas Header Pressure on Oil Production and Compressor Horsepower

You might also like