Comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP software

The Integrated Production Model (IPM) acts as a digital twin of the actual field, representing reservoir behavior, all wells and their equipment, as well as the entire surface infrastructure. This model allows for changes in parameters within the virtual environment, enabling the simulation of vario...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marković Jelena, Martinović Bojan, Zorić Nikola N., Ješić Milica, Crnogorac Miroslav, Danilović Dušan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Faculty of Mining and Geology, Belgrade 2025-01-01
Series:Podzemni Radovi
Subjects:
Online Access:https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0354-2904/2025/0354-29042501041M.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849408593512628224
author Marković Jelena
Martinović Bojan
Zorić Nikola N.
Ješić Milica
Crnogorac Miroslav
Danilović Dušan
author_facet Marković Jelena
Martinović Bojan
Zorić Nikola N.
Ješić Milica
Crnogorac Miroslav
Danilović Dušan
author_sort Marković Jelena
collection DOAJ
description The Integrated Production Model (IPM) acts as a digital twin of the actual field, representing reservoir behavior, all wells and their equipment, as well as the entire surface infrastructure. This model allows for changes in parameters within the virtual environment, enabling the simulation of various scenarios to determine how these changes affect the entire system. Consequently, it is possible to select the most optimal scenario and validate its impacts. The development of the surface infrastructure model represents the final step in integrated production modeling, and this study focuses on creating a surface infrastructure model of an oil field in the Pannonian Basin using two software tools: Aspen HYSYS and Petroleum Experts - GAP. The goal is to compare the results obtained and identify the advantages and limitations of these software solutions. This analysis offers valuable insights into the capabilities of each program in simulating and optimizing oil operations. Engineers use a range of computational strategies and mathematical models to design and operate processing facilities. Aspen HYSYS is a widely recognized tool in the oil and gas industry for process simulation, allowing engineers to model various operational scenarios in detail and assess their impact on system performance. Aspen HYSYS is used for modeling the entire production process, including oil and gas processing, refining, and chemical plants, while GAP specializes in integrated asset modeling (IAM), modeling wells, flowlines, risers, and surface facilities, optimizing the entire production system from the reservoir to the processing plant. This paper first provides the theoretical background relevant to the research topic, including the basic concepts of process simulation in Aspen HYSYS and GAP. Following that, the research methodology is presented, including the steps of simulation and analysis. Finally, the simulation results are discussed, and conclusions are drawn regarding the applicability of both software tools for modeling surface infrastructure in oil fields.
format Article
id doaj-art-e606b12923d046918b5a3b0a9c789270
institution Kabale University
issn 0354-2904
2560-3337
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Faculty of Mining and Geology, Belgrade
record_format Article
series Podzemni Radovi
spelling doaj-art-e606b12923d046918b5a3b0a9c7892702025-08-20T03:35:44ZengFaculty of Mining and Geology, BelgradePodzemni Radovi0354-29042560-33372025-01-01202546416610.5937/podrad2501041M0354-29042501041MComparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP softwareMarković Jelena0Martinović Bojan1Zorić Nikola N.2Ješić Milica3Crnogorac Miroslav4https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8078-2684Danilović Dušan5https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2969-040XSTC NIS Naftagas doo, Novi Sad, SerbiaSTC NIS Naftagas doo, Novi Sad, SerbiaSTC NIS Naftagas doo, Novi Sad, SerbiaSTC NIS Naftagas doo, Novi Sad, SerbiaUniversity of Belgrade - Faculty of Mining and Geology, SerbiaUniversity of Belgrade - Faculty of Mining and Geology, SerbiaThe Integrated Production Model (IPM) acts as a digital twin of the actual field, representing reservoir behavior, all wells and their equipment, as well as the entire surface infrastructure. This model allows for changes in parameters within the virtual environment, enabling the simulation of various scenarios to determine how these changes affect the entire system. Consequently, it is possible to select the most optimal scenario and validate its impacts. The development of the surface infrastructure model represents the final step in integrated production modeling, and this study focuses on creating a surface infrastructure model of an oil field in the Pannonian Basin using two software tools: Aspen HYSYS and Petroleum Experts - GAP. The goal is to compare the results obtained and identify the advantages and limitations of these software solutions. This analysis offers valuable insights into the capabilities of each program in simulating and optimizing oil operations. Engineers use a range of computational strategies and mathematical models to design and operate processing facilities. Aspen HYSYS is a widely recognized tool in the oil and gas industry for process simulation, allowing engineers to model various operational scenarios in detail and assess their impact on system performance. Aspen HYSYS is used for modeling the entire production process, including oil and gas processing, refining, and chemical plants, while GAP specializes in integrated asset modeling (IAM), modeling wells, flowlines, risers, and surface facilities, optimizing the entire production system from the reservoir to the processing plant. This paper first provides the theoretical background relevant to the research topic, including the basic concepts of process simulation in Aspen HYSYS and GAP. Following that, the research methodology is presented, including the steps of simulation and analysis. Finally, the simulation results are discussed, and conclusions are drawn regarding the applicability of both software tools for modeling surface infrastructure in oil fields.https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0354-2904/2025/0354-29042501041M.pdfintegration production modelingoil and gas gathering and stabilizationaspen hysysgap - petroleum expertssurface infrastructure
spellingShingle Marković Jelena
Martinović Bojan
Zorić Nikola N.
Ješić Milica
Crnogorac Miroslav
Danilović Dušan
Comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP software
Podzemni Radovi
integration production modeling
oil and gas gathering and stabilization
aspen hysys
gap - petroleum experts
surface infrastructure
title Comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP software
title_full Comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP software
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP software
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP software
title_short Comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the Pannonian Basin: Evaluation of Aspen HYSYS and GAP software
title_sort comparative analysis of surface infrastructure models for an oil field in the pannonian basin evaluation of aspen hysys and gap software
topic integration production modeling
oil and gas gathering and stabilization
aspen hysys
gap - petroleum experts
surface infrastructure
url https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0354-2904/2025/0354-29042501041M.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT markovicjelena comparativeanalysisofsurfaceinfrastructuremodelsforanoilfieldinthepannonianbasinevaluationofaspenhysysandgapsoftware
AT martinovicbojan comparativeanalysisofsurfaceinfrastructuremodelsforanoilfieldinthepannonianbasinevaluationofaspenhysysandgapsoftware
AT zoricnikolan comparativeanalysisofsurfaceinfrastructuremodelsforanoilfieldinthepannonianbasinevaluationofaspenhysysandgapsoftware
AT jesicmilica comparativeanalysisofsurfaceinfrastructuremodelsforanoilfieldinthepannonianbasinevaluationofaspenhysysandgapsoftware
AT crnogoracmiroslav comparativeanalysisofsurfaceinfrastructuremodelsforanoilfieldinthepannonianbasinevaluationofaspenhysysandgapsoftware
AT danilovicdusan comparativeanalysisofsurfaceinfrastructuremodelsforanoilfieldinthepannonianbasinevaluationofaspenhysysandgapsoftware