Gas-Lift Pre-Workshop "Continuing Education" Course Evaluations Page 2
Spring 2004 Gas-Lift Workshop
Continuing Education Course Evaluations
Feb. 12 - 13, 2004
No. / Name (Optional) / Sections Attended / What did you like about the course? / What could have been improved? / Should this be offered again in the future? On what topics? / Other comments. /1 / Alf Teschler / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Experienced, knowledgeable presenters.
· Great discussion with top people from industry.
· Different approaches to ideas. / · Too much material for two days.
· Why every year same presentations since always same people attend?
· Give attendants a disk/CD with presentations (Adobe Acrobat of even better PowerPoint.) / · Yes.
· Troubleshooting and surveillance.
· Advanced design with computer models. / · Keep up the great work and gas-lift will survive since people will get a better understanding since it is changing from art to engineering.
2 / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · The troubleshooting discussions. / · Stick to the time frames.
· Cover more advanced design instead of the basic design.
· Too much redundancy. Every new speaker went over the basics of gas-lift every time. / · Yes, but schedule it as more advanced.
· Or have two courses – basic and advanced design. / · Need to have more breaks to help keep people’s attention.
3 / Mike Johnson / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Seeing an explanation of different design techniques, calculations, and tools. (Equilibrium curve).
· Excellent content. / · Unloading chart to illustrate pressure relationships between casing and tubing (during Clegg/Smith session). This would make it faster to explain and easier to understand.
· Good rule of PowerPoint thumb. Plan 3 minutes of talk time per slide.
· Either increase number of days or fine-tune the content to fit. I think this will increase effectiveness of the training. / · Yes. Topics covered were good. / · This is an advanced course, so continue to advertise and improve in that direction.
· Outstanding course.
· Thanks to all instructors’ efforts.
4 / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Very good information was covered. / · Too many slides for the given time. / · Yes. Same topics. / · No comment.
5 / · In general, good overview of gas-lift well and field operations. / · Design was a little rushed.
· I suggest either cutting it, or focusing on a few major points. / · Yes. All. / · No comment.
6 / Mark Ogier / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · The design session was a good refresher.
· The valve performance session was excellent.
· The optimization/allocation section was very useful in particular the allocation and automation slides. / · Less detail on well testing and pressure surveys.
· Some of the presentation was repetitive and could have been covered in less detail.
· An electronic copy of the notes should have been available as part of the cost of the school. CD’s are cheap. / · Yes.
· Cover some of the issues with deep-water wells and extended reach wells – some of the less common gas-lift operations. / · A lot of material squeezed into two days.
· It was well presented and what wasn’t covered is well documented in the notes.
· I enjoyed it.
· Thanks.
7 / Chris Norris / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · First time I truly understood step-by-step process of unloading.
· Waring’s (Shell’s) simulator excellent.
· Decker explained well how simplified design actually performs in complex real world (lost of SCADA potential here).
· Martinez’s presentation on troubleshooting and well testing was excellent. / · If presenters know their time limit, spend more time on important topics.
· Lose about half the slides.
· Rely more on graphs and diagrams, less on text slides. / · Yes.
· Maybe software vendors could demo their design and surveillance stuff? / · I was paying for this course personally and I thought it was a good value.
8 / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Part 1: Hands on interactive participation, exposure to different design methods.
· Part 2: New, cutting edge, dispelled mis-conceptions, new troubleshooting tools.
· Part 3: Good overview.
· Part 4: Good overview. / · Part 1: Make one day in length.
· Part 2: Make one day in length.
· Part 3: Basic course – not advanced. Too many slides.
· Part 4: Not interactive. Would like to have seen work examples; basic course, not advanced. / · Yes.
· Latest advances in design (continuous and intermittent).
· Valve performance.
· Slick line operations. / · Meeting room hot and cold.
· Food was good.
· Facility was good in general.
9 / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Good fast review of gas-lift design in Part 1.
· New information on valve performance in Part 2.
· Tips in troubleshooting, well testing, pressure surveys in Parts 3 and 4.
· Diagnostic curves in Part 4. / · Eliminate duplications between course sections.
· Less discussion of basics.
· Standardize terminology.
· More time on stabilization. / · Yes.
· Advanced topics are good, with state-of-the-art updates. / · Should advertise course with SPE.
· I found out about course only days ago and learned about it by chance conversation with eProduction Solutions.
10 / Rodney Bertrand / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Extensive experience of instructors.
· Model calibration. / · Show animated unloading like Jim Hall did.
· Less time on well test procedures.
· Quick intermittent lift design. / · Yes.
· Computer modeling to tune survey, IPR, permeability, skin. / · Excellent course.
· Gets better every year.
11 / Muela / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · All the best.
· Good experience. / · No comment. / · Yes.
· ESP’s.
· Sub-surface chokes. / · No comment.
12 / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Opened my eyes to other problems I would not usually consider. / · If the segment is set for one hour, then one hour is should be.
· We pay for the course and our time is valuable to us.
· If it needs to be a three-day course, then let it be three days.
· No body likes to leave late on Friday to travel back home. / · No comment. / · This is a gas-lift class – we spent hours on well testing.
13 / Slavoljub Stajonovic / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · All parts of the course were very, very good.
· I learned many things.
· I met many people from different areas. / · Maybe some case studies, and “nodal” analyses. / · For future conferences, maybe a part on the new technology in gas-lift. / · This course is a nice place where I learn many things, and I meet many good people.
· I hope that in the future I can again attend a similar course.
14 / Steve Horner / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · The first day’s activities were very useful – gas-lift design and vale performance were covered in depth and in an interesting manner. / · The second day’s material was covered too slowly. The material should have taken ½ day.
· A lot of the slides contained too much repeated material, too much general information, or seemed too much of a sales talk. / · Yes, but continue to concentrate on advanced topics.
· Might encourage participants to bring examples/data from their own fields for group discussion. / · Offer the entire package as a single course rather than allowing participants to take some of the sub-courses. This way you can avoid covering the same concepts several times. This will allow better use of everyone’s time.
15 / Kresimir Keglguc / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Brief and understandable course about main topics of gas-lift. Good basics for self-learning. / · Maybe more case studies and coached problem solving tasks. / · Yes.
· Specifics of offshore gas-lift. / · No comment.
16 / David Lee / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · The fact that it was combined in all of the facets. / · As always, timing can be an issue in covering subjects. / · Yes / · No comment.
17 / 1, 2, 3, 4 / · Graphic gas-lift design.
· Joe Clegg and Sid Smith did a very good job of presenting graphical design.
· John Martinez is a very good instructor. / · Have graphic gas-lift design last for one day.
· Not as much time spent on surveillance. / · Yes.
· Graphic design. / · No comment.
18 / · The material covered.
· Lot of material that I could take back with me. / · Have CD of material. / · Yes. / · No comment.
19 / Fortune Bikoro / · The course materials are thoroughly comprehensive.
· The topics covered or sequence (design – valves – surveillance - optimization) each presented as a separate topic is a very good idea. / · The timing – might place the course ahead of the workshop?
· Include a topic or module (+/- 3 hours) on “Gas-Lift System Modeling.” / · Absolutely.
· Continuing education should continue to be offered, and really be part of the future conferences.
· Keep the option of four separated modules or topics so one can chose part of the entire course. / · About the additional topic suggested above, I could help organize it, using a format of “virtual field” example. The content could be:
o Gas-lift well modeling (+/- 1 hr.)
o Production network modeling (+/- 2 hrs.)
o Field-wide gas-lift allocation/optimization (+/- 30 minutes)
o Use a commercial software such as Prosper, Gap, Wellflo, Fieldflo, PipesimNet.
20 / Jim Hall and Bongo / 1, 2, 3 / · Part 1:
o Clear, concise presentation.
o Not just an available person.
o Kept moving, kept interesting.
o Balanced and specific when required, but good general approach.
· Part 2:
o Did a good job of skipping over repeated material.
· Part 3:
o Typical gas-lift problem section is very good. / · Part 1:
o Not a good question for me. I could talk, discuss this stuff for days.
o I’d like mote time but we need to balance attendance and interest.
· Part 2:
o Could have gone slower but there were no complaints from participants. Time limitations are understood.
· Part 3:
o I think some “surveillance” items belong in the “optimization” section.
o Place more details in surveillance on production well testing, measurements, and BHP survey procedures. / · Part 1:
o Yes.
o It’s the economic lever that has expanded our audience.
o Would it be possible to ask registrants if they want ½ day or full day? Then adjust according to preferences.
· Part 2:
o Yes. / · The bananas at breakfast were really good! (Bongo)
· / · / · / ·