Examples Guide 1

3.1.1 Tutorial 00: Integrated Oil Well Model

File: ~/samples/PROSPER/T00_IntegratedOilWell.OUT

This integrated well modeling tutorial combines existing data with consistent
engineering assumptions to develop a solid well bore model using PROSPER. The
developed well bore model is then used to simulate the performance of the well
under possible future operating conditions with different GOR, water cut and
reservoir pressure. For this, sensitivity runs are performed with different GOR, water
cut and reservoir pressure. The approach can be easily extended to any other
possible sensitivity variable: tubing size, skin, permeability, thickness and so on.

3.1.1.1 Objectives
This tutorial demonstrates how to analyse the performance of an offshore oil
producing well in an integrated fashion. In the process, the following questions are
addressed:

- What are the baic data required to build a PROSPER model for a naturally flowing
oil well,
- How to match a black oil PVT against black oil correlations,
- How to tune the overall heat transfer coefficient in the surroundings of a well based
upon well test data
- How to quality-check raw well test data,
- Why and how to perform a correlation comparison,
- How to perform a Verrtical Lift Perfoamnce (VLP) matching,
- How to select a VLP correlation,
- How to model a highly deviated well,
- How to calibrate the well inflow with the well test data,
- How to validate a PROSPER well model against actual well test data,
- How to match multiple well tests,
- How to use the calibrated PROSPER model to predict the future performance of a
given well bore.
3.1.1.2 Statement of the Problem
A naturally flowing highly deviated oil producing well has been drilled and tested.
Extensive fluid and well test data are available.
It is required to develop a PROSPER model that is calibrated against PVT lab data
and well test data.
Once the model is built and calibrated, it will be used for sensitivity run.
3.1.1.3 General Approach
In this tutorial, the following road map will be followed:

a. Construct a PROSPER well model with a matched and validated PVT model
b. Analyse and match the well test data against the PROSPER model to obtain a
calibrated well bore model
c. Use the calibrated well bore model to simulate the performance of the well under
© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited
 Examples Guide 2

changing conditions: water cut, GOR and reservoir pressure.

3.1.1.4 Available Data & Information
The data required for a well test analysis are:

- PVT data
- Reservoir Data
- Well Data: deviation survey, tubing, casing, and temperature data
- Actual production test data: stabilized phase rates, flowing temperatures and
pressures.

About PVT data

When building a PROSPER well model, there are in general two possible
situations to consider with respect to the PVT data. There can be a situation
where enough PVT data are available. The second contrasting situation arise
when there is very little PVT data available.

If comprehensive black oil PVT data are available, then it is recommended to

match the PVT data to the black oil correlations.
The advantages of matching the black oil data to correlations are:
- The PVT matching process offers an opportunity to check the quality of the PVT
data themselves by analyzing the magnitude of the correction required to
reproduce the various PVT data: GOR, Oil FVF, Bubble point pressure and oil
viscosity.
- At the end of the PVT matching process, the most suitable black oil correlation
for the particular crude is selected and used for further calculations.
- Unlike PVT look-up tables, carefully matched black oil correlations may
generally be used for operating conditions beyond the values used for the
PVT matching.

In the event no extensive PVT data or no reliable PVT data are available, the
black oil correlation may generally be used directly without any matching to
start with. The selection of the appropriate black oil correlation is a matter of
engineering judgment that is at the discretion of the project engineer. For
details about the published validity range of each black oil correlation in
PROSPER, the relevant references listed in the appendix B of this manual may
be consulted.
It is strongly recommended to match the black oil correlations against lab
measurements as soon as a PVT report becomes available.

About Reservoir data

The purpose of each specific study determines the type of reservoir model to be
selected and consequently the parameters required.
In the absence of typical reservoir properties like permeability, net pay, skin and
so on, the simple Productivity Index (PI entry ) or its equivalent for gas (C & n)
may be used.
 Examples Guide 3

If extensive reservoir and skin parameters are available, then an alternative

inflow model that better fits the purpose of the study is to be considered.

About well equipment data

The well equipment data like deviation survey, surface equipment, down hole
equipment and geothermal gradient are generally available from well bore
schematic and temperature logs.
The overall heat transfer coefficient in the surroundings of the well bore can be
either computed with the enthalpy balance model or derived from well test data.

When the rough approximation method is being used, the following overall heat
transfer coefficients values may be considered as starting values:

For oil and water wells: 8 Btu/h/ft2/F.

For retrograde condensate wells: 5 Btu/h/ft2/F.
For gas wells: 3 Btu/h/ft2/F.

It is recommended to fine-tune the overall heat transfer coefficient with well test
data as soon as well test are available.
It is recommended to keep the default average heat capacities displayed in the
program under | System | Equipment | Average Heat Capacities unaltered.

About well test data

Well test data are generally used to:

- back-calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient in the surroundings of the
well when the rough approximation temperature method is selected.
- select the multiphase correlation most suitable for the particular well model
- fine-tune the inflow performance parameters like reservoir pressure, skin,
permeability and so on.

Note that it is perfectly possible to develop a PROSPER model in the absence of

well test data. In this case, reasonable assumptions are to be made based
upon the specific operating conditions of the well and based upon existing
relevant experiences.
Generally, the use of the Petroleum Experts 2 multiphase correlation may be
considered when no well test data are available for the simple reason that the
Petroleum Experts 2 multiphase correlation has so far consistently given
reasonable results in very diverse operating conditions.
However, since there is no universal multiphase correlation, it is recommended to
verify the suitability of the selected multiphase correlation (Petroleum Experts
2) as soon as well test data become available.
PROSPER offers a coherent and consistent VLP matching procedure that helps
the user to select the most suitable correlation for any particular well. This
consistent VLP matching procedure will be described and applied later in this
tutorial in the sub-section "Well Test Analysis: Step by Step Procedure".

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 4

3.1.1.4.1 PVT Data from the lab

The following fluid properties are available from the lab.

Surface Data

Solution GOR: 700 scf/stb

Oil Gravity: 35 API
Gas specific Gravity: 0.75 (Air =1)
Water Salinity: 120 000 ppm
Impurities (C02, N2, H2S): None

Down hole data

Reservoir temperature: 260 degF

Bubble Point Pressure at Reservoir 3400 psig
Temperature:

Black Oil Properties in tabular format at a reference temperature of 260 degF

Pressure in psig GOR in scf/stb Oil FVF in rb/stb Oil Viscosity in

centipoises
2000 367 1.232 0.434
2500 477 1.289 0.383
3000 597 1.352 0.337
3400 700 1.408 0.306
3500 700 1.405 0.308
4000 700 1.395 0.320
4500 700 1.386 0.331

Note that the fluid properties may originate from a thermodynamic simulation
(Constant Mass Expansion with separator correction) using a compositional fluid
calibration package like PVTp.
 Examples Guide 5

3.1.1.4.2 Well Equipment Data (Tubing etc)

Deviation survey

Measured Depth True Vertical Comment

in ft Depth in ft
0 0 This is the origin of the deviation survey.
1500 1500 sea floor
2516 2500
4112 4000
5845 5500
7800 7000
10135 8500
11135 9000 Top of perforation

The deviation survey is the reference for all subsequent depths inputs in the
equipment section.

Surface Equipment

This well model will not include pipelines downstream of the well head.

Down hole Equipment

Label Equipment Measured Inside Roughness in

Type Depth in ft Diameter in inches
inches
Well Head Xmas Tree 0 N/A 0.0006
Tubing Tubing 2000 3.92 0.0006
Safety Valve SSSV* N/A 3.5 0.0006
Tubing Tubing 10800 3.92 0.0006
Casing Casing 11135 6.4 0.0006

*A Sub Surface Safety Valve is treated as a restriction without length.

Note that the deepest entry of 11135 ft measured depth ( = 9000 ft TVD) in the down
hole equipment is the datum depth for the reservoir pressure when a single layer
inflow model is used in PROSPER.

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 6

Geothermal Gradient

Measured formation Static ambient Comment

depth in ft temperature
0 60 well head depth
1500 45 sea floor
11135 260 Reservoir depth

Starting value for the overall heat transfer coefficient: 8 Btu/h/ft2/F.

Average Heat Capacities

The default average heat capacity values will be used.

3.1.1.4.3 Inflow Performance Data

The well penetrates the reservoir at an angle of 60 degrees. This is therefore a
slanted / deviated well.
There are other options that can be used to model deviated wells in PROSPER:
Cinco-Ley and Multilateral IPR.
In this tutorial, the Wong-Clifford model will be used for the calculation of deviation
and partial penetration skin.

Reservoir model: Darcy

Mechanical Geometrical Skin model: Enter Skin By Hand
Deviation and Partial Penetration Skin model: Wong-Clifford*
Static Reservoir Pressure at datum (11135 ft MD): 4000 psig
Static Reservoir Temperature at datum: 260 degF
Water Cut: 25%
Total GOR: 700 scf/stb
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model: No
Relative Permeability: No
Reservoir Permeability: 100 mD
Reservoir Thickness: 100 ft
Drainage area: 350 acres
Dietz shape factor: 31.6
Well bore Radius: 0.354 ft
Mechanical skin: 0
 Examples Guide 7

Enable Wong-Clifford: ON
Formation Vertical Permeability Ratio: 0.1 (fraction)
Local Vertical Permeability Ratio: 0.1 (fraction)
Horizontal Distance from Well to Reservoir Edge: 2200 ft
Depth of Top Reservoir (TVD): 9000 ft
*Perforation start in measured depth: 11135 ft
*Perforation start in true vertical depth: 9000 ft
*Perforation end in measured depth: 11427
*Perforation end in true vertical depth: 9100 ft
*Using the Wong-Clifford skin model, the deviation angle of the well well bore
across the reservoir is calculated based upon the user-entered perforation intervals
in measured depth and true vertical depth.

3.1.1.4.4 Multi-Rate Well Test Data

The reported well test results are listed below:

Static Reservoir Pressure at Datum (9000 ft TVD): 4000 psig

Gauge depth: 10500 ft measured depth

Dates Comm WH WHFT Water Liquid Gauge Pressure at Gas Oil

ent FP Cut Rate gauge depth Ratio
dd/mm/ psig degF % stb/d psig scf/stb
yyyy
01/01/2 Low 1000 150 25 6100 3655 1500
000 Rate
02/01/2 Medium 800 180 25 9800 3505 500
000 Rate
03/01/2 High 500 200 25 13450 3365 475
000 Rate

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 8

3.1.1.5 Model Construction: Step by Step Procedure

Options

Launch PROSPER, select | Options | Options and make the following choices:

Select | Done to complete this.

PVT input Data

Select | PVT | Input Data and populate the PVT entry screen as follow:

Surface Data

Solution GOR: 700 scf/stb

Oil Gravity: 35 API
Gas specific Gravity: 0.75 (Air =1)
Water Salinity: 120 000 ppm
Impurities (C02, N2, H2S): None
 Examples Guide 9

In order to enter the lab data, select | Match Data and populate the screen as shown
below:

Reservoir temperature: 260 degF

Bubble Point Pressure at Reservoir 3400 psig
Temperature:

Black Oil Properties in tabular format @ a reference temperature of 260 degF

Pressure in psig GOR in scf/stb Oil FVF in rb/stb Oil Viscosity in

centipoises
2000 367 1.232 0.434
2500 477 1.289 0.383
3000 597 1.352 0.337
3400 700 1.408 0.306
3500 700 1.405 0.308

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 10

4000 700 1.395 0.320

4500 700 1.386 0.331

Select | Done to return to the previous menu

PVT matching

For the PVT matching, select | Regression | Match All | OK | Parameters and this is
what can be seen:
 Examples Guide 11

This screen shows the values of the Match Parameters (Parameter 1= multiplier and
Parameter 2 = shift) associated with each fluid property for all the correlations.

The Standard Deviation is also displayed which represents the overall goodness of
fit.
Select an appropriate correlation bearing in mind that the black oil correlations
whose parameters are adjusted the least (i.e. Parameter 1 close to 1.0 and
Parameter 2 close to 0.0) are the most suitable candidates as they represent
possibly similar fluids to the one being modelled.
The value of the Standard Deviation is also displayed. Generally, the lower the
Standard Deviation, the better the fit.
In the case at hand, the combination Glaso / Beal et al will be selected because they
require the least adjustment. For this, select | Done | Done and make sure that the
black oil correlations Glaso / Beal have been selected on the PVT- Input Data
screen:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 12

Select | Done and save the file to secure the data inputted into the PROSPER well
bore model.

Well Equipment Data

Select | System | Equipment (Tubing etc) | All | Edit to start the well bore description
with the deviation survey:
Deviation survey

Measured Depth True Vertical Comment

in ft Depth in ft
0 0 This is the origin of the deviation survey.
1500 1500 sea floor
2516 2500
 Examples Guide 13

4112 4000
5845 5500
7800 7000
10135 8500
11135 9000 Top of perforation

The deviation survey is the reference for all subsequent depths inputs in the equipment
section.

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 14
Select | Done to proceed with the surface equipment data

Surface Equipment

This well model will not include pipelines downstream of the well head.
Therefore select | Cancel to skip this screen:

Down hole Equipment

Label Equipment Measured Inside Roughness in

Type Depth in ft Diameter in inches
inches
Well Head Xmas Tree 0 N/A 0.0006
Tubing Tubing 2000 3.92 0.0006
 Examples Guide 15

Safety Valve SSSV* N/A 3.5 0.0006

Tubing Tubing 10800 3.92 0.0006
Casing Casing 11135 6.4 0.0006

*A Sub Surface Safety Valve is treated as restriction without length.

Simply point the cursor on the relevant cell within the column labeled "Type"
underneath the "Xmas Tree" to select the equipment type from a drop-down menu:
tubing, SSSV, Restriction or casing.

Labels are optional.

Select | Done to enter the geothermal gradient

Geothermal Gradient

Measured formation Static ambient Comment

depth in ft temperature

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 16

0 60 well head depth

1500 45 sea floor
11135 260 Reservoir depth

Starting value for the overall heat transfer coefficient: 8 Btu/h/ft2/F.

Select | Done to continue with the data inputs.

Average Heat Capacities

The default average heat capacity values will be used.
 Examples Guide 17

Select | Done to complete the description of the well bore schematic.

Visualizing the well bore sketch

To visualize the well bore sketch, select | Summary | Draw Down Hole and the next
sketch is generated:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

Examples Guide 18
 Examples Guide 19

Select | Main and | File | Save to secures all changes made.

Inflow Performance - Model selection

For the selection of the inflow performance model, select | System | Inflow
Performance and make the following choices:

Reservoir model: Darcy

Mechanical Geometrical Skin model: Enter Skin By Hand
Deviation and Partial Penetration Skin model: Wong-Clifford
Static Reservoir Pressure at datum (11135 ft MD): 4000 psig
Static Reservoir Temperature at datum: 260 degF
Water Cut: 25%
Total GOR: 700 scf/stb
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model: No
Relative Permeability: No

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 20

Select the Input Data Tab in the top right corner to continue with the reservoir data
inputs:
Reservoir Permeability: 100 mD
Reservoir Thickness: 100 ft
Drainage area: 350 acres
Dietz shape factor: 31.6
Well bore Radius: 0.354 ft
 Examples Guide 21

Select the | Mech / Geom Skin tab at the bottom of the screen to proceed with the
skin data entry:

Mechanical skin: 0
Enable Wong-Clifford: ON

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 22

Note that the option "Enable Wong-Clifford" model needs to be ticked!

Select the next tab "Dev / PP Skin" at the bottom of the screen to enter the
parameters required to computed the deviation and partial skin using the Wong-
Clifford method:

Formation Vertical Permeability Ratio: 0.1 (fraction)

Local Vertical Permeability Ratio: 0.1 (fraction)
Horizontal Distance from Well to Reservoir Edge: 2200 ft
Depth of Top Reservoir (TVD): 9000 ft
*Perforation start in measured depth: 11135 ft
*Perforation start in true vertical depth: 9000 ft
*Perforation end in measured depth: 11427
*Perforation end in true vertical depth: 9100 ft
 Examples Guide 23

In order to generate an Inflow curve, simply select | Calculate and the following IPR
curve is generated:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 24

Select | Main and save the PROSPER file.

This completes the construction of the model.

3.1.1.6 Well Test Analysis: Step by Step

In order to achieve a successful well test matching, it is important to follow a
consistent and reproducible path. In the following pages a consistent step-by-step
well test matching procedure is described and applied in order to construct a
validated and calibrated PROSPER well bore model. The procedure can be broken
down into the following steps:

- Critical review of the raw well test data

- Well test data entry in PROSPER
- Estimate the overall heat transfer coefficient in the well bore surroundings
- Perform a correlation comparison
- Select and Match VLP correlation
- Quality-check VLP matching by inspecting the matching parameters and re-
performing correlation comparison for validation
- Superimpose and match the well inflow performance relation curve.

Step 1: Critical review of the raw well test data

Well test matching is a process of reconciliation between a mathematical model (

 Examples Guide 25

PROSPER well bore model) and actual measurements. The reconciliation process
can only be successful if the mathematical model and the actual measurements are
both reliable.
The various sequences followed so far to construct the PROSPER model have been
specifically designed to lead to a reliable, sound PROSPER well bore model.
The main purpose of the critical review of the raw well test data is to assess the
validity of each well test data before entering them into PROSPER.
A few of the questions to be addressed in the critical data review process are:
- How reliable is each reported measurement?
- How do the test data compare with historical trends?
- How does the produced GOR compares with the PVT model?

Let us critically review the well test data to be analysed in this tutorial:

Dates Comm WHF WHF Water Liquid Gauge Gas Oil Ratio
ent P T Cut Rate Pressure at
gauge depth
dd/mm/ psig degF % stb/d psig scf/stb
yyyy
01/01/20 Low 1000 150 25 6100 3655 1500
00 Rate
02/01/20 Mediu 800 180 25 9800 3505 500
00 m Rate
03/01/20 High 500 200 25 13450 3365 475
00 Rate

On can notice that:

- The flow rate decreases as the well head pressure increases. This trend generally
makes sense.
- Equally, the gauge pressure increases as the flow rates decreases. This trend
generally makes sense.
- However, the reported GOR is not constant even though the reservoir is still under-
saturated. This does not make sense and needs to be taken into consideration
during the analysis.

Step 2: Well Test Data entry into PROSPER

In order to enter the well test data, select | Matching | Matching | VLP/IPR (Quality
Check).

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 26

Afterward populate the VLP/IPR matching screen as shown below:

Step 3: Estimate the overall heat transfer coefficient

When analyzing multiple well tests, it is good practice to estimate the U-value for
 Examples Guide 27

each test and see if there are severe deviations or not.

For, this select the task button "Estimate U Value" and the following sub-screen is
shown:

One shall keep in mind that:

- the model was built with a starting U-value of 8 Btu/h/ft2/F
- the estimated U value depends upon test mass flow rates and well head flowing
pressure. Therefore a GOR suspected to be inconsistent will affect the total mass
and consequently adversely impact the estimated U value. Therefore the estimated
U-values at this stage will not be transferred to the geothermal gradient screen as
input value.

Step 4: Perform correlation comparisons

The purposes of the correlation comparison are:

- to check if the well test is valid, e. g. if the gauge pressure lies between Fancher-
Brown and Duns & Ros modifed and
- to identify which correlation best reproduces the well test results.

Correlation Comparison for the "Low Rate" test:

For this, simply select the test by clicking on the corresponding row number.

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 28

Afterwards, select | Correlation Comparison | OK and then select the correlations

Duns and Ros Modified, Fancher-Brown, Petroleum Experts 2 and Petroleum
Experts 5 for instance:
 Examples Guide 29

Proceed with | Calculate | Calculate | OK | Plot and the following plot is shown:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 30

One can see that the test point is completely outside established physical
boundaries. The physical boundaries are defined by the Fancher-Brown correlation
that neglects slippage effects between the phases and consequently under-estimate
the pressure loss and the Duns and Ros Modified correlation that generally over-
estimates pressure drops in oil wells.

During the critical review of the well test data, it was suspected that the reported
GOR values were inconsistent.
Indeed, with a bubble point pressure of 3400 psig and a reservoir pressure of 4000
psig, the produced GOR must be equal to the solution GOR of 700 scf/stb.
Therefore we will go back and correct all GOR values to 700 scf/stb as show below:
 Examples Guide 31

After correcting the GOR, one can now re-estimate the U-value for each test. For
this simply select | Estimate U-value and the algorithm will estimate and display the
U value for each test. In the end, the average U-value is calculate and displayed:

We will select | Yes and | OK to transfer the averaged U-value for all 3 tests to the
geothermal gradient screen.
Based upon engineering judgment, one may very well not accept the averaged U-
value and use an alternative one.

Here are the correlation comparison plots obtained for each test:

Correlation Comparison for the Low Rate Test

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 32

Correlation Comparison for the Medium Rate Test

 Examples Guide 33

Correlation Comparison for the High Rate Test

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 34

It can be observed that the Petroleum Experts 2 correlation consistently reproduces

each well test with reasonable accuracy.

Step 5: Select and Match VLP correlation (s)

Because the Petroleum Experts 2 correlation consistently reproduces each well test
with reasonable accuracy, this particular correlation will be selected for further
analysis.

It is possible to match multiple well tests simultaneously in PROSPER. For this, one
simply need to keep all well tests enabled and the VLP matching algorithm will
attempt to match all enabled well tests simultaneously.
In the following, a better approach is applied: match one test and verify how the
match performs against non-matched well tests.
 Examples Guide 35

For this, return to the VLP/IPR matching screen, select the most reliable well test.
The choice of the most reliable well test is a matter of judgment that depends upon
all the circumstances surrounding the test. In this example, it will be assumed that
the well test with the highest flow rate is the more stable for the simple reason that it
is more likely to be stable, to be in the friction dominated region of the tubing
performance curve.

To perform the match, select the "High Rate" well test (here on row number 3) and
then select | Match VLP as highlighted in the screen-shot below:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 36

If no specific well test is selected, the VLP matching algorithm in PROSPER will
match all well tests simultaneously. A possible drawback of this approach is that
possibly invalid well tests may not be easily detected.

A generally better approach is to:

- select the most reliable well test
- match this single well test. An appropriately matched VLP correlation is selected
- verify if the remaining well tests can be reasonably reproduced with the selected
VLP correlation.
The advantages of this approach are:
- suspicious / inconsistent well test can be detected
- the selected VLP correlation is validated against historical well tests.

Now select | Match | OK

 Examples Guide 37

Note that the VLP correlation "Petroleum Experts 2" appears now appended with two
numbers: gravity multiplier and friction multiplier. Both numbers are equal to unity
suggesting that virtually no correction was required to match the well test.
Now select | Done to return to the previous screen.

Step 6: Quality-check VLP matching results

To benchmark the VLP matching against the two other well tests, simply enable
them and then perform correlation comparisons for each well test in turn.
For this, enable the well tests, select each well test and then select | Correlation
Comparison | Ok | Calculate | Calculate | Plot.
This is how the correlation comparison looks like for the "Low Rate Test":

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 38

And this is how the correlation comparison looks like for the "Medium Rate Test":
 Examples Guide 39

In both cases, one can see that the matched correlation reproduces very well the
other well tests.
This fact validates the suitability of the correlation for use in predictive mode.

Step 7: Super-impose and match well IPR

In order to superimpose the IPR, return back to the VLP/IPR matching screen and
then select the task button VLP/IPR.

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 40

To initiate the calculation, select | Calculate:

 Examples Guide 41

Please confirm the completion of the Calculation with | OK and the the screen is
populated with calculation results as shown below:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 42

For each well test, actual test rate and simulated (solution) test rate are calculated
and displayed in th bottom right corner of the screen.
A graphical plot is generated when the button Plot is selected:
 Examples Guide 43

The plot above shows for each well test, the IPR, the VLP the test point and the
simulated solution.
In the right corner of the screen, one can see the statistical comparison between
measured test rate and test bottom hole flowing pressure versus simulated rates and
pressures.
The largest error is less than 2% and can be considered as acceptable.
Now one can select | Main | File | Save to update the PROSPER model.

3.1.1.7 Sensitivity Runs

It is required to predict the performance of the well under different conditions for
water cut, GOR, reservoir pressure and reservoir pressure:

Parameters: Values
Well head flowing pressure (psig): 300

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 44

GOR (scf/stb): 700

Water Cut (%): 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60
Reservoir Pressure (psig): 4000, 3500

In order to perform the sensitivity runs, select | Calculation | System (Ipr + Vlp) | 3
Variables and make the following entries:

Select | Continue and choose the relevant sensitivity variables water cut and
reservoir pressure using the drop down menu:
 Examples Guide 45

Select | Continue | Calculate | OK | Plot | System Plot and the following graphical
representation is generated:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 46

The results can also be represented in an alternative graphical fashion: as sensitivity

plot. For this select | Finish | Sensitivity | Variables and here select for instance liquid
rate as function of water cut:
 Examples Guide 47

By selecting | done, the following plot is generated:

© 1990-2009 Petroleum Experts Limited

 Examples Guide 48

This plot shows the liquid rate as function of water cut for different reservoir
pressures.
This completes this tutorial.