Perf Tech

2013 IHS. All Rights Reserved.
All trademarks belong to IHS

or its affiliated and subsidiary companies, all rights reserved.
www.ihs.com
IHS

PERFORM v8.0
Technical Reference Manual

July 2013

PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
July 2013

2013, IHS and its affiliated and subsidiary companies, all rights reserved. All other trademarks
are the property of IHS and its affiliated and subsidiary companies.
This product, including software, data and documentation are licensed to the user for its internal
business purposes only and may not be disclosed, disseminated, sold, licensed, copied,
reproduced, translated or transferred to any third party.
IHS
15 Inverness Way East
Englewood, Colorado 80112
303-736-3000

July 2013 i
Contents
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................i
System Analysis Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Using System Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 5
General Analysis Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 5
Applying System Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 7
Modeling Worst-Case Discharge Scenarios ............................................................................................. 9
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Setup .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Fluid Properties .................................................................................................................................... 9
Reservoir Data ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Completion Data ................................................................................................................................... 9
Pressure/Temperature Calculation Control Process .......................................................................... 10
Wellbore Data ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Flowline .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 10
Final Steps .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Reservoir Skin......................................................................................................................................... 11
Completion Effects .................................................................................................................................. 12
Differential Graph ............................................................................................................................... 13
Perforation Shot Density .................................................................................................................... 14
Perforation Interval ............................................................................................................................. 15
Tubing Size ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Surface Pressure .................................................................................................................................... 18
Fluid Property Calculations ..................................................................................................................... 19
Reservoir Component ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Vertical IPR Types .................................................................................................................................. 22
User Enters PI .................................................................................................................................... 22
Vogel/Harrison (1968) ........................................................................................................................ 23
Vogel corrected for water cut ............................................................................................................. 26
Darcy .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Jones et al. (1976) .............................................................................................................................. 32
Jones4-Point Test and JonesEnter a and b ................................................................................ 34
Back Pressure Eq (1930) and Back Pressure4-Point Test ............................................................ 35
Backpressure Four-Point Test (gas wells only) .................................................................................. 36
Contents PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
ii July 2013
Transient Flow Equation ..................................................................................................................... 36
Fractured Well .................................................................................................................................... 38
Fractured Well Rueda et al (2005) .................................................................................................. 43
Fractured Well Chase et al (1993) .................................................................................................. 45
Datafile2 Col ASCII ......................................................................................................................... 48
Guo-Schechter (1997) ........................................................................................................................ 48
Darcy Frack Pack (1996) ................................................................................................................. 49
Guo (2001) - Wellhead Test ............................................................................................................... 51
Chase et al. (1993) - 1pt test .............................................................................................................. 53
Future IPR curves............................................................................................................................... 54
Horizontally Completed Wells ................................................................................................................. 56
Horizontal IPR Types .............................................................................................................................. 60
Giger et al. (1984)............................................................................................................................... 61
Economides et al. (1991) ................................................................................................................... 64
Joshi (1988) ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Renard and Dupuy (1991) .................................................................................................................. 69
Kuchuk (1988) .................................................................................................................................... 71
Babu and Odeh (1989) ....................................................................................................................... 74
Goode and Thambynaya (1987) ........................................................................................................ 78
Guo & Evans (1993) - Horizontal well with multiple fractures ............................................................ 81
Coalbed Methane (CBM) - Thungsuntonkhun and Engler (2001) .......................................................... 84
Coning/Cresting ...................................................................................................................................... 87
Total Skin Factor ..................................................................................................................................... 93
Partial Penetration Skin Factor ........................................................................................................... 94
Geometrical Skin Factor ..................................................................................................................... 94
Acid Treatment........................................................................................................................................ 95
Completion Stimulation Performance Evaluation After Acid Treatment ............................................. 95
Correlations ........................................................................................................................................ 96
Correlations To Calculate Bottomhole Pressure (When Not Given) ............................................................................... 96
Correlations To Calculate Simulated Pressure (From Reference 3) ................................................................................ 97
Correlations To Calculate Skin Factor (From Reference 1) ............................................................................................ 98
Completion Component .......................................................................................................................................... 101
Open Hole Completion ......................................................................................................................... 101
Open Perforation Completion ............................................................................................................... 102
Stable Perforation Completion .............................................................................................................. 104
Collapsed Perforation Completion ........................................................................................................ 108
Gravel Pack Completion ....................................................................................................................... 110
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Contents
July 2013 iii
Gravel Pack Beta Turbulence Factor ............................................................................................... 113
Gravel Pack Open Hole Completion ..................................................................................................... 114
Gravel Pack Open Perforation Completion .......................................................................................... 115
Gravel Pack Stable Perforation Completion ......................................................................................... 115
Flux Calculation .................................................................................................................................... 115
Gravel Pack Collapsed Perforation Completion ................................................................................... 117
Perforation Gun Database .................................................................................................................... 117
Sand Production Prediction .................................................................................................................. 120
Wellbore and Flowline ............................................................................................................................................ 122
Oil Well Vertical Flow ............................................................................................................................ 123
Category A ........................................................................................................................................ 124
Category B ........................................................................................................................................ 124
Category C ....................................................................................................................................... 124
Gas Well Vertical Flow .......................................................................................................................... 127
Oil Well Horizontal Flow ........................................................................................................................ 128
Gas Well Horizontal Flow ..................................................................................................................... 130
Pressure changes in Compressors and Pumps ................................................................................... 132
Downhole Pumps .................................................................................................................................. 133
Performance Curve Method ............................................................................................................. 133
Electrical Submersible Pumps ESP ............................................................................................................................ 133
Progressing Cavity Pumps PCP ................................................................................................................................. 134
Horsepower Conversion Method ...................................................................................................... 136
Electrical Submersible Pumps ESP ............................................................................................................................ 136
Progressing Cavity Pumps PCP ................................................................................................................................. 136
User Added Pumps ..................................................................................................................................................... 137
How Gas Separation Works for Downhole Pumps in PERFORM? ................................................. 137
Flow Through Restrictions .................................................................................................................... 138
Critical Flow ...................................................................................................................................... 138
Subcritical Flow ................................................................................................................................ 139
API 14B ........................................................................................................................................................................ 139
Critical and/or Subcritical Flow ......................................................................................................... 141
Perkins .......................................................................................................................................................................... 141
Ashford and Pierce ........................................................................................................................................................ 144
Sachdeva et al. .............................................................................................................................................................. 146
Maximum Erosional and Minimum Unloading Velocity......................................................................... 148
Maximum Erosional Rate ................................................................................................................. 148
Minimum Unloading Rate ................................................................................................................. 149
Contents PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
iv July 2013
Guo et. al. (2005).............................................................................................................................. 149
Calculation Control and Heat Transfer ................................................................................................. 152
Quick and Detailed Pressure Traverse Calculation ......................................................................... 152
Linear Temperature Gradient ........................................................................................................... 153
Temperature Survey ......................................................................................................................... 153
Heat Transfer Correlation ................................................................................................................. 154
User-Entered Heat Transfer Coefficients ......................................................................................... 154
Model Calibration Using Production Data ............................................................................................. 154
Step 1: Production Data Selection ................................................................................................... 155
Step 2: Calibration Of Fluid, Temperature And Wellbore Models .................................................... 155
Step 3: Inflow Parameter Adjustment (Well Deliverability Adjustment) ............................................ 155
Step 4: Update Calculation And Comparison Chart ......................................................................... 156
Step 5: Update Base Model With Adjusted Parameters .................................................................. 156
Flow Assurance .................................................................................................................................... 156
Inhibitor ............................................................................................................................................. 157
Wellbore Deviation ................................................................................................................................ 158
Gas Lift Designs and Optimization ........................................................................................................................ 161
The Process of Gas Lift ........................................................................................................................ 161
Valve Mechanics .............................................................................................................................. 162
Gas Lift Valves ............................................................................................................................................................. 162
Valve Opening and Closing Forces ............................................................................................................................... 163
Unbalanced Pressure Operated Valves: ........................................................................................................................ 164
Production Pressure Operated Valves ........................................................................................................................... 167
Continuous Flow Unloading Sequence ......................................................................................................................... 171
Properties of Injection Gas and Applications ................................................................................................................ 172
Continuous Flow Gas Lift ................................................................................................................. 175
Pressure Gradients ........................................................................................................................................................ 175
Gas Lift Feasibility Studies ........................................................................................................................................... 175
Computer Design Procedure (Pressure Operated Method) ............................................................. 177
Bracketing Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 180
Bracket Spacing ............................................................................................................................... 181
Gas lift optimization .......................................................................................................................... 182
Downhole Network .................................................................................................................................................. 184
Maximization ........................................................................................................................................................... 187
References ................................................................................................................................................................ 189
Index ......................................................................................................................................................................... 195

July 2013 i
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Producing System ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 1.2: Nodal Plot ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1: System Analysis Plot with Multiple Conditions ......................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.2: Gradient Curves .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.3: Effect of Formation Skin ........................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.4: Inflow Sensitivity on Skin ......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.5: Differential Graph ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.6: Effect of Perforation Shot Density (SPF) .................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.7: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Shot Density (SPF) .............................................................................. 14
Figure 2.8: Effect of Perforation Interval .................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.9: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Interval ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.10: Effect of Tubing Size .............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.11: Outflow Sensitivity on Tubing Size ........................................................................................................ 17
Figure 2.12: Effect of Wellhead Pressure .................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.13: Outflow Sensitivity on Wellhead Pressure .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.1: Reservoir Component ................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 3.2: User Enters PI ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3.3: Vogel Solution Gas Drive with Flow Efficiency ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.4: Square Reservoir ....................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.5: Horizontally Completed Well ................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.6: Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations ............................................... 61
Figure 3.7: Schema for Kuchuk and Babu & Odeh correlations ................................................................................. 71
Figure 3.8: Schema for Goode & Thambynaya correlation ......................................................................................... 78
Figure 4.1: Open Hole Completion ........................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 4.2: Open Perforation Completion ................................................................................................................. 102
Figure 4.3: Open Perforation ..................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 4.4: Collapsed Perforation (Spherical Flow Model) ....................................................................................... 108
Figure 4.5: Gravel Pack Schematic............................................................................................................................ 111
Figure 4.6: Example concrete target (API 19B) ........................................................................................................ 118
Figure 4.7: Full view of the concrete target ............................................................................................................... 118
Figure 4.8: Effective stress induced penetration changes. ....................................................................................... 120
Figure 5.1: Cross section of a Progressing Cavity Pump ........................................................................................... 137
Figure 6.1: Reduction in fluid column weight by formation and injected gas .......................................................... 161
Figure 6.2: A typical gas lift system ......................................................................................................................... 162
System Analysis Overview PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
ii July 2013
Figure 6.3: Bellows Type Gas Lift Valve .................................................................................................................. 163
Figure 6.4: Injection pressure operated valves .......................................................................................................... 164
Figure 6.5: Production Pressure Operated Valves ..................................................................................................... 168
Figure 6.6: Production Pressure Operated Valve with a Spring providing the closing force .................................... 168
Figure 6.7: Continuous Gas Lift Unloading Sequence .............................................................................................. 171
Figure 6.8: Gas throughput chart ............................................................................................................................... 174
Figure 6.9: Pressure Versus Depth Plot Illustrating Continuous Flow Operations .................................................... 176
Figure 6.10: Flowing Gradient Traverse Below the Point of Injection ...................................................................... 177
Figure 6.11: Point of Injection Determination ........................................................................................................... 177
Figure 6.12: Correlation for Bracket Spacing ............................................................................................................ 181
Figure 6.13: Pressure Operated Design Method ........................................................................................................ 182
Figure 7.1: Multilayer ................................................................................................................................................ 184
Figure 7.2: Multilateral .............................................................................................................................................. 185
Figure 8.1 : Sensitivity has vertical mixing of variables ......................................................................................... 187
Figure 8.2: Maximization has both vertical and diagonal mixing of variables .......................................................... 188

July 2013 1
System Analysis Overview
The primary objective of the system analysis technique is to maximize well productivity by
analyzing and optimizing the complete producing well system. The analysis can lead to increased
profitability from oil and gas investments by improving completion design, increasing well
productivity, and increasing producing efficiency.
System analysis is essentially a simulator of the producing well system. The system, illustrated in
Figure 1.1, includes flow between the reservoir and the wellhead (separator if a flowline is
included), and contains the following components:
- Flow through the reservoir to the sandface
- Flow through the completion
- Flow through the bottomhole restrictions
- Flow through the tubing
- Flow through the surface flowline restrictions
- Flow through the flowline into the separator

Figure 1.1: Producing System
System Analysis Overview PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
2 July 2013
As system analysis simulates the entire system, it models each component within the system
using equations or correlations to determine the pressure loss through the component as a
function of flow rate. The total pressure loss through the system for a given flow rate is the
summation of the pressure losses through all components. Minimizing pressure loss in individual
components within the system results in less overall pressure loss and increased flow rate from a
well.
The total pressure loss is ultimately realized as the overall difference between average reservoir
pressure, Pr, and the outlet pressure (wellhead/top of tubing or flowline outlet). The average
reservoir pressure and outlet surface pressure constitute the endpoints of the system (inlet and
outlet), and are the only pressures in the system, which do not vary with flow rate.
System analysis analyzes the entire system by focusing on one point within the series of
components. This point generally is referred to as a node, hence the term Nodal Analysis. The
final solution is independent of the location of the node.
For manual calculations, the primary interest of the application generally dictates the location of
the node. For example, if the main interest is an investigation of the effects of the components
near the surface (such as flowline or surface choke), then, the node is chosen at the wellhead or
flowline outlet. If the effects of the downhole components are the primary interest (such as the
bottomhole flowing pressure), then the node is chosen at downhole.
In PERFORM, you can use a sensitization technique that allows you to see the effects of
changing parameters. In this way, you can usually choose the node at a point inside the wellbore
directly adjacent to the perforations. This point is designated as wellbore flowing bottomhole
pressure, P
wf
.
The producing system is divided into two segments at the node. The upstream, or inflow,
segment is comprised of all components between the node and the reservoir boundary. The
downstream, or outflow, segment consists of the components between the node and the
separator.
After isolating the node in the system, both of the following fundamental requirements at the
node must be met:
- Only one pressure exists at the node at any given flow rate (P
inflow
= P
outflow
)
- Only one flow rate exists through the node (Q
inflow
= Q
outflow
)
Because the producing system consists of interacting components that each contributes pressure
loss independently as a function of flow rate, the procedure necessary to find the unique flow
rate that satisfies the two requirements at the node is iterative. To simplify the procedure, the
system analysis approach uses a graphical solution in which the pressure at the node is shown as
a function of the producing rate for both the inflow and outflow segments.
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual System Analysis Overview
July 2013 3
The system analysis plot, or nodal plot, illustrated in Figure 1.2 contains both the inflow and
outflow relationships.

Figure 1.2: Nodal Plot
The inflow curve bends downward. This illustrates that as flow rate increases through the inflow
segment, pressure loss increases so that there is less pressure available at the node (or the
downstream side of the inflow segment).
The outflow curve bends upward. This illustrates that for a fixed separator pressure, the pressure
required at the node (inlet to the outflow segment) increases as flow rate increases.
Although each segment is exclusive of the other at varying flow rates, the two requirements
listed previously (only one pressure and flow rate exist at the node) dictate that only one solution
exists for the system at a particular set of conditions. On the nodal plot, this solution is the
intersection of the inflow and outflow curves. This intersection indicates the producing capacity
of the system and provides both the flow rate, Q, and the corresponding bottomhole pressure,
P
wf
.

July 2013 5
Using System Analysis
General Analysis Procedure
A general procedure for solving most cases involves the following steps:
1. Make a specific objective for the case, such as determining the size of tubing to use in a
well.
2. Determine the type of analysis needed to solve the problem, such as a Systems Analysis.
3. Determine the components needed (reservoir, wellbore, completion, and flowline) and
the correlations desired.
4. Find all required data, make educated guesses for unknown values, and enter the data for
each component.
5. Calculate the case and check the output graphically.
6. Interpret the output based on the type of case. Test the results for confidence by
comparing the results with the data you have found.
7. Adjust the input and calculate again to improve the output results as needed.
8. Repeat from step 1 for the next objective of the case.
You can use a general analysis procedure to determine the producing capacity of a well system
for a set of well conditions. More importantly, you can use the procedure to determine the
quantitative effect and importance of each variable within the system on the overall system
performance. The system components use the variables in either equations or correlations.
Although some values generally do not change during the well's life (for example, reservoir
thickness, permeability, and total depth), many values are variable. The ability to change the
values that directly affect system performance and well productivity allows you to achieve
complete well optimization.

Using System Analysis PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
6 July 2013
One of the underlying advantages of system analysis is its ability to predict the result caused by
changes in the design variables. The alteration in well performance is seen directly on the
systems plot through multiple inflow or outflow curves (each at a different set of conditions) and
multiple intersection points. The Q and P
wf
values at each intersection represent the producing
status at that particular condition. The simplified systems plot in Figure 2.1 illustrates a typical
scenario with multiple inflow curves at different reservoir pressures and multiple outflow curves
at various tubing diameters.

Figure 2.1: System Analysis Plot with Multiple Conditions
As mentioned, the primary node used in most system analysis applications is the node at the
bottom of the wellbore. Furthermore, although the system is comprised of many interacting
components, it usually is simplified to four primary components:
- Flow through the reservoir
- Flow through the completion
- Flow up the tubing and any restrictions (vertical flow)
- Flow through the flowline and any restrictions (horizontal flow)

PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Using System Analysis
July 2013 7
Applying System Analysis
System analysis can be applied in both new and existing wells. In new wells, the technique can
be used to simulate anticipated conditions and plan the optimum completion and well design. In
existing wells, the technique is used first to model existing conditions, then to evaluate areas of
potential improvement.
To use system analysis on new wells, you must estimate data from offset wells, regional
experience, and common sense. Because you do not have measured test data for comparison, the
system analysis solution should cover the entire range of input variables. For example, you can
select a preliminary tubing size for a new well by calculating a system analysis solution for a
well using a broad range of inflow curves generated with "most pessimistic," "most likely," and
"most optimistic" values of formation permeability. Although this type of solution is not meant
to be entirely accurate, it provides a general idea of anticipated conditions.
Although using system analysis for existing wells can be slightly more complex than for
proposed wells, the results obtained are more complete and accurate. The primary difference
between the two cases is the ability in existing wells to model current conditions using actual
data so that you can adjust input variables accordingly to better predict system performance.
After reliably matching existing conditions, the effect of varied well conditions can be predicted
with a higher degree of confidence.
In both cases, you must completely understand each component in the system to fully use the
system analysis technique. In order to understand a particular component, you must have a
quantitative description of each of the variables used to model the component. The pressure loss
through the component is a direct function of the magnitude of these variables. In the design and
implementation of an efficient producing well system, you can alter many of the variables that
directly affect the producing capacity of the well. This flexibility is the basis of well optimization
through system analysis.
Existing producing conditions in a well can be modeled by matching either a producing rate or
pressure. If no producing bottomhole pressure is known, the well system could be modeled by
simply calculating both a rate and a pressure, and comparing the rate to the known conditions. In
the event that a producing bottomhole pressure is known, either through a single pressure or a
flowing gradient survey, the tubing performance can be modeled directly. This procedure is
especially beneficial in an oil well case, where there are many different correlations available but
only one provides the best solution for the well. The use of an improper correlation in a system
analysis solution can cause serious error.

8 July 2013
In addition to correlation selection, the gradient match is also helpful in confirming input data
that may not be exact. Figure 2.2 is an example illustrating the use of the gradient curve to match
actual well data for an oil well by varying wellhead pressure.

Figure 2.2: Gradient Curves
As mentioned earlier, the system analysis approach can be understood as simulation of the
producing system. Once the data is entered to create a base case of the well system (and
confirmed through matching, if possible), the technique can be used to simulate varied
conditions and solve a "what if" scenario. The effect of design and completion variables on total
system performance can be predicted. Many variables can be simulated and optimized. The
importance of each depends on specific well conditions. The items used most often in system
analysis to optimize oil and gas wells include the following:
- Reservoir Skin
- Completion Effects
- Tubing Size
- Wellhead or Separator Pressure

July 2013 9
Modeling Worst-Case Discharge Scenarios
I ntroduction
With recent events in the Gulf of Mexico, the US BOEMRE has tightened regulations regarding
the issuing of offshore drilling permits. The BOEMRE now requires a worst-case discharge
report outlining how an operator will respond to a worst-case discharge (WCD) scenario,
including estimates of the maximum flowrate. PERFORM can be used to generate these
estimates with some slight modifications to a standard nodal analysis case.
Setup
Generally, the setup for a WCD scenario should be similar to a regular nodal analysis for an
offshore producing well. Select System analysis for a Producing well and set the Node Position
to bottomhole. The fluid type should be set according to the target fluid of the well. If you have a
multilayered or multilateral well, check the Downhole Network box to indicate this. Examples of
multilayered and multilateral well setups can be found in the EXAMPLES folder in the
PERFORM install directory.
You will also need to set the maximum Flow Rate under the Calculation Limit. This is the
maximum flowrate that PERFORM will calculate inflow and outflow curves for. In some WCD
scenarios, the flowrate of the well will be higher than the maximum limit allowed by
PERFORM. If this is the case, you can override the minimum and maximum input values by
turning off Range Checking in Expert Mode (Options > Expert Mode. Check Expert Mode,
uncheck Perform Range Checking). After turning off range checking, you will be able to enter a
much larger calculation limit.
Fluid Properties
Here, you must enter oil and gas gravities, a gas-oil or gas-liquid ratio, and a water cut. These
will be used to calculate the various fluid parameters PERFORM needs to run a nodal analysis,
such as viscosity and density. After you enter the parameter, click on the PVT correlations tab to
select which industry correlations will be used to calculate each of these fluid properties. For
offshore use in the Gulf of Mexico, select the Petrosky (GOM) correlation wherever available.
Reservoir Data
The Reservoir Data dialog should be completed exactly the same for a WCD scenario as any
other. In general, it is better to stick to simpler Inflow models as the data inputs for the more
complex models (such as detailed wellbore geometry and reservoir information) are not known
for wells being drilled.
Completion Data
Usually, the Completion type is left as Open Hole/Not Calculated for WCD scenarios. This is
because a WCD scenario typically occurs while the well is being drilled, before any completion
technique is used. If you would like to model a WCD scenario that occurs during a completion or
workover process, you can select a different completion type.
10 July 2013
Pressure/Temperature Calculation Control Process
This dialog should be filled out exactly the same as for a regular nodal analysis. Enter a wellhead
and reservoir temperature and select the temperature calculation option. For offshore gas wells,
the temperature calculation controls are more important, as the temperature represents a large
portion of the total energy of the system, and the frequent temperature changes that can occur in
an offshore environment can affect calculated results.
Wellbore Data
The Wellbore Data dialog is the key to properly setting up a WCD scenario. First, you must
choose a wellbore correlation. Generally, IHS recommends well established industry correlation
for WCD scenarios, such as Hagedorn and Brown, although mechanistic models will sometimes
be appropriate as well. You can click on the Smiley Face icon next to the drop-down to view
Industry Best Practices for each correlation.
Typically, we assume that no tubing is present in the wellbore during a WCD, and only enter
casing strings. Casing strings should be representative of the status of the wellbore during the
WCD scenario. To simulate the open hole portion of a wellbore, you can use a casing string with
a diameter equal to the drill bit and a higher roughness factor. Open wellbore roughness vary
widely, but are typically much higher than a casing or tubing roughness. If the known data about
the well is insufficient to determine the roughness, a search on SPE.org or another professional
website may be helpful. Typically, the effect on the total system from the open hole portion of
the well is quite small compared to the rest of the casing. If the well is deviated, a directional
survey must be entered.
Finally, you will assign the wellhead pressure, top of perfs, and water depth. The wellhead
pressure is typically set to one of two values, the first being atmospheric pressure, and the second
being equal to the hydrostatic pressure from the water column at that depth. Assuming that the
WCD scenario occurs on the sea floor, the well will be producing with a back pressure equal to
the hydrostatic column of water. This pressure will serve to stifle the flow of the well to a degree.
The other value often used is 0 psig, or atmospheric pressure. This generates a true worst-case
model, as the flowrates generated are as pessimistic as possible. Only good engineering
judgment can determine which of these two values should be used for the wellhead pressure. The
top of perfs should be set as the upper limit of the topmost perforation interval, and the water
depth at well location should be entered.
Flowline
Typically, flowlines are not included in WCD scenarios. However, you can optionally include
risers or other flowline components in your model, and they will be represented by an additional
pressure loss in the outflow curve.
Sensitivity Analysis
This screen allows you to answer what if questions about your well by entering sensitivities.
When you do a sensitivity analysis, you are running multiple PERFORM cases simultaneously,
often with one small change between each case. Calculated case results can be viewed from the
graphs and reports of PERFORM.
July 2013 11
Final Steps
After the sensitivity analysis screen, you are finished setting up your WCD scenario. At this
point, you will need to run the calculation by clicking the Calculate button on the top toolbar.
Then, you will want to view the various reports and graphs available in PERFORM. Specifically
of interest will be the new Worst Case Discharge Report. This report was specifically developed
to be in compliance with the requirements of the BOEMRE for WCD modeling and contains all
of the information available in PERFORM that the BOEMRE will want. You can include this
report with other materials to be submitted to the BOEMRE. Please note that additional data
items are required related to volumetric and geologic analysis (see www.boemre.gov for more
information.)
Reservoir Skin
The reservoir skin is a deviation from Darcy flow, which assumes laminar, radial flow in a
homogenous formation. The skin is typically caused by damage near the wellbore from drilling
and completion fluids or from enhancement through stimulation, but is caused also by other
sources such as partial penetration and restricted flow through perforations. Thus, the effect of
altering skin is generally associated with the effect of removing damage through stimulation. In
system analysis, you can do this by reviewing several inflow cases, each at an improved skin
value. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate this case, where a highly damaged formation with a skin of
32 is analyzed after stimulation with skins of 20, 5, 0, -3, and -6.

Figure 2.3: Effect of Formation Skin
12 July 2013

Figure 2.4: Inflow Sensitivity on Skin
Please be aware, that the total skin is made up of several terms, including mechanical (damage)
effect, so the well may still have a positive skin after a stimulation treatment.
Completion Effects
The following items induce a similar response in the system performance and are variables in the
completion design that are generally subject to change and optimize:
- Perforation shot density
- Perforation size
- Perforation diameter
- Perforation length
- Perforation interval
- Gravel pack size
- Gravel pack permeability
- Damaged zone radius and permeability
- Perforation crushed zone effects
- Perforated interval
July 2013 13
Differential Graph
The differential graph, Figure 2.5, is especially helpful in emphasizing the completion effects of
a well. The differential graph has two main curve types. The first type, shown bending
downward to the left, represents the difference between the pressure remaining after flowing
through the reservoir (P
ws
) and the pressure needed to flow through the outflow segment. The
difference is the pressure available to produce through the completion. The curves shown
bending upward to the left are the actual pressure losses through the completion as a function of
rate.

Figure 2.5: Differential Graph
Similar to the standard system analysis graph, the intersection of these two curves dictates the
producing capacity of a well for a given set of conditions. Although both example plots in this
section illustrate the effect of varied perforation shot density, you can vary and display any of the
completion variables listed in the same manner.
14 July 2013
Perforation Shot Density
A typical analysis applied to completion design is shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7, which illustrate
the effect of perforation shot density.

Figure 2.6: Effect of Perforation Shot Density (SPF)

Figure 2.7: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Shot Density (SPF)
July 2013 15
Perforation I nterval
The perforation interval is the measured length of formation interval that is actually perforated.
In many completions, the perforation interval is somewhat less than the formation thickness.
This can be the result of:
- Well problems that result in the inability to completely penetrate the producing formation
- Reduced perforation interval aimed at lowering completion cost
- Altered perforation intervals to accommodate subsequent stimulation treatments
A reduced perforation interval affects the inflow segment in two ways. First, if reservoir
turbulence is taken into account (i.e., Jones equation), the reduced interval increases the pressure
loss encountered as the flow converges in the reservoir into the perforation interval. Second, the
reduced perforation interval reduces the number of actual perforations available for flow into the
wellbore, thereby increasing pressure loss through the completion. Both of these effects result in
less productivity from a well, as illustrated in Figures 2.8 and 2.9.

Figure 2.8: Effect of Perforation Interval
Perform can be used to estimate the pseudo skin factor corresponding to the partial penetration
with the Skin factor option available for System analysis cases.
16 July 2013

Figure 2.9: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Interval
Tubing Size
Properly sized tubing is very important in an efficiently designed well system. In an oil well,
pressure loss through the tubing can constitute the majority of the pressure loss through the entire
system. If the tubing size is too small, friction loss will become excessive. If the tubing size is
too large, additional pressure loss will be encountered due to liquid loading. In some cases, this
loading can prevent the well from flowing at all. Incorrectly sized tubing can result in less
available production from a well and possibly reduced flowing periods.
Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show the effect of tubing size in an oil well. The reversal effect in the
largest diameter as it actually crosses the next smaller diameter indicates less available
production due to liquid loading. The tubing sizes sensitized are 2 3/8", 2 7/8", 3 1/2", 4", and 4
1/2" respectively.
July 2013 17

Figure 2.10: Effect of Tubing Size

Figure 2.11: Outflow Sensitivity on Tubing Size
18 July 2013
Surface Pressure
As explained previously, a fixed surface pressure is required to complete a System or Nodal
analysis in a well. The wellhead or top of tubing pressure (if no flowline is used), or Flowline
outlet pressure (if a flowline is included) is the outlet pressure of the total system. If you
consider, total production as a function of the overall pressure differential, between inlet and
outlet, lowering of this outlet pressure results in increased well capacity. Figures 2.12 and 2.13
illustrate the reduction of wellhead pressure on the system performance for a typical oil well.
Increasing well performance can be accomplished by installing larger chokes in the wellhead, or
by installing a compressor to reduce the wellhead pressure.

Figure 2.12: Effect of Wellhead Pressure
July 2013 19

Figure 2.13: Outflow Sensitivity on Wellhead Pressure
Fluid Property Calculations
Petrosky and Ghetto & Villa methods are added in version 6.0. Both methods provide
calculations for viscosity (including saturated, under saturated and dead oil), bubble point
pressure, solution gas oil ratio, and oil compressibility. In addition, Petrosky method provides a
correlation to calculate formation volume factor.
Petrosky is based on 90 data points from the Gulf of Mexico oil samples. They have also
considered standing correlation as the basis for their correlations. The ranges of variables used to
develop this correlation are:
Pb, psia 1574 to 6523
T, deg F 114 to 288
o
API 16.3 to 45
g
(air=1) 0.58 to 0.85
R
s
(scf/STB) 217 to 1406
Ghetto & Villa method maybe used as a general method for heavy oil. The correlations have
been evaluated against a set of 195 crude oil samples collected from the Mediterranean Basin,
Africa, the Persian Gulf and the North Sea. About 3700 measured data points have been
collected and investigated. For all the correlations, the following statistical parameters have been
calculated a) relative deviation between estimated and experimental values, b) average absolute
20 July 2013
percent error c) standard deviation. Oil samples have been divided into the following four
different API gravity classes:
Extra-heavy oils for
o
API< 10
Heavy oils for 10<
o
API<22.3
Medium oils for 22.3<
o
API< 31.1
Light oils for
o
API> 31.1
This correlation is recommended as a general choice for extra heavy oils (up to 6 API). The
ranges of variables used to develop the correlations are given in the following table:
TABLE 2: AGIP'S RANGE FOR PVT PROPERTIES SAMPLE
Tank-oil gravity (API) 6 to 56.8
Reservoir pressure (psia) 242.22 to 15304.62
Reservoir temperature (F) 80.6 to 341.6
Solution GOR (scf/STB) 8.61 to 3298.66
Bubblepoint pressure (psia) 107.33 to 6613.82
Separator pressure (psia) 14.5 to 868.79
Separator temperature (F) 59 to 194
Separator GOR (scf/STB) 8.33 to 2985.87
Stock-tank GOR (scf/STB) 4.39 to 527.43
Total surface m gravity (air=1) 0.624 to 1.789
Separator gas gravity (air=1) 0.605 to 1.530
Mole fraction of CO
2
in total gases (% mol.) 0 to 98.8
Mole fraction of N
2
in total gases (% mol.) 0 to 63.32
Mole fraction of H
2
S in total gases (% mol.) 0 to 5.65
Oil formation volume factor (bbl/STB) 1.034 to 2.887
Isothermal compressibility (psia
-1
x 10
6
) 3.02 to 43
Dead-oil viscosity (cp) 0.46 to 1386.9
Gas-saturated oil viscosity (cp) 0.07 to 295.9
Under saturated oil viscosity (cp) 0.13 to 354.6

July 2013 21
Reservoir Component
The reservoir component, illustrated in Figure 3.1, of the system is composed of the flow
between the reservoir boundary and the sandface. This component is always upstream of the
node and, in this discussion, is combined with the completion component to form the entire
inflow segment.

Figure 3.1: Reservoir Component
The flow through the reservoir is often referred to as the inflow performance relationship (IPR)
of a well. It is a measure of the reservoir's ability to produce fluid as a result of a pressure
differential. This ability depends on many factors, including reservoir type, producing drive
mechanism, reservoir pressure, formation permeability, and fluid properties.

Reservoir Component PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
22 July 2013
Vertical IPR Types
User Enters PI
The inflow performance relationship for an oil well is often simplified as a constant inflow or
productivity index (PI), where inflow is directly proportional to drawdown, in the form of:
Constant Productivity Index

wf r
P P
Q
= PI

where:
PI = Productivity index (stb/d/psi)
Q = Total liquid flow rate (stb/d)
P
r
= Average reservoir pressure (psi)
P
wf
= Bottomhole flowing pressure (psi)

Figure 3.2: User Enters PI
The constant productivity index is expressed on the system analysis plot as a straight line
between P
r
and Q
max
(at P
wf
= 0) with a slope of 1/PI. The Vogel equation can be used to correct
the flow below the bubblepoint pressure with the user-entered PI to calculate the IPR above the
bubblepoint pressure.

PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Reservoir Component
July 2013 23
Vogel/Harrison (1968)
The productivity index concept relies on the assumptions that reservoir and fluid properties
remain constant and are not a function of pressure. Although these assumptions are true in some
cases, especially in single-phase liquid flow, wells that produce both oil and gas will be
overestimated below the bubblepoint if you use the user-entered PI relationship.
In 1968, Vogel presented an IPR solution for wells producing both oil and gas from saturated
reservoirs.
5
Using the reservoir model proposed by Weller
35
, Vogel used a computer to calculate
IPR curves for several fictitious solution gas drive reservoirs that covered a wide range of oil
PVT properties and reservoir permeability characteristics. He plotted these IPR curves as
dimensionless IPR curves with each pressure value divided by the maximum shut-in pressure,
and each flow rate divided by the maximum rate (Q
max
at P
wf
= 0). He combined these
dimensionless curves into a general reference curve in the following form:
Vogel Equation

2
r
wf
r
wf
max
P
P
8 . 0
P
P
2 . 0 0 . 1
Q
Q
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
where:
Q
max
= Maximum flow rate at P
wf
= 0 (stb/d)
P
wf
P
r
The Vogel relationship can be regarded as a general equation for solution gas drive reservoirs
producing below the bubblepoint. Above the bubblepoint, the standard Darcy equation or user-
entered straight line PI is considered adequate. In cases of undersaturated reservoirs where
wellbore pressure may be above or below the bubblepoint, the Vogel equation can be used as a
correction below the bubblepoint pressure in combination with the user-entered PI, Darcy,
transient, and fractured well correlations. In this case, the selected correlation is used between
reservoir pressure (P
r
) and bubblepoint pressure (P
b
), followed by the Vogel relationship below
the bubblepoint pressure.
The Vogel equation is differentiated with respect to P
wf
to give a secondary equation for Q
max
.
Secondary Vogel Equation for Q
max
1.8
P PI
+ Q = Q
b
b max

24 July 2013
where:
Q
max
wf
= 0 (stb/d)
Q
b
= Flow rate at bubblepoint (stb/d)
P
b
= Bubblepoint pressure (psi)
The final form of the Vogel equation for wells producing above the bubblepoint is:
Combination Vogel equation P
wf
>P
b
( )
wf r
P P PI = Q
where:
PI = Productivity index (stb/d)
P
r
P
wf
The final form of the Vogel equation for wells producing below the bubblepoint is:
Combination Vogel equation P
wf
<P
b

( )
wf r max b
P' P PI Q + Q = Q = '
where:
Q' = Flow rate below bubblepoint (stb/d)
Q
b
= Flow rate at bubblepoint (stb/d)
Q
max
wf
= 0 (stb/d)
P
b
= Bubblepoint pressure (psi)
P'
wf
= Bottomhole flowing pressure below bubblepoint (psi)
The Vogel equation was developed with the assumption that there is no skin effect or that flow
efficiency (FE) equals one. Standing
6,7
proposed a method to correct the Vogel relationship to
account for non-unity flow efficiencies.

July 2013 25
In this correction, test pressures used in the Vogel equation are first modified as follows:
( )( )
wf r wf wf
P P FE 1 + P = ' P
where:
P'
wf
= Equivalent undamaged flowing pressure
FE = Flow efficiency, 0.5 to 1.5
This correction alters the bottomhole flowing pressure due to additional pressure loss through the
damaged area around the wellbore. For damaged wells, FE value is less than 1.0. For stimulated
wells, FE is greater than 1.0.

Figure 3.3: Vogel Solution Gas Drive with Flow Efficiency
The previous equation presents a problem with high flow efficiencies and low flowing
bottomhole pressures. The value of P'
wf
can calculate as a negative value, which cannot be used
in the Vogel equation. A correction to the Vogel solution is to account for either positive or
negative values of P'
wf
in the following equation.
) /P (1.792P'
) 0 . 1 FE max(
r wf
e 2 . 0 2 . 1 Q / Q =
=

This equation is only used if the P'
wf
is negative, otherwise the normal Vogel equation is used.
Estimation of FE
If two stabilized tests are available and reservoir pressure is accurately known, FE can be
estimated with the following equation:
) A A 2 1 ( C ) A A 2 1 (
) A 1 ( C ) A 1 (
25 . 2 FE
2
2 2
2
1 1
1 2
+ + +

=

26 July 2013
where:
A
1
= Pwf
1
/P
R

A
2
= Pwf
2
/P
R

C = Q
1
/Q
2

Q
1
= Test rate 1, STB/day
Q
2
= Test rate 2, STB/day
Pwf
1
= Test BHP 1, psia
Pwf
2
= Test BHP2, psia
P
R
= Reservoir pressure, psia
Vogel corrected for water cut
The Vogel corrected for water cut (composite) IPR method calculates an IPR for any water cut.
If the water cut (fraction of water phase of the total oil plus water phase) is zero, the composite
method matches exactly to the Vogel method. If the water cut is 100%, the composite method
matches the PI method. When the Vogel method is selected, PERFORM uses the composite
method equations with the water cut set to 0%. If you want the water cut considered in the IPR
and it is not 0%, you must use the composite method; otherwise the water cut is ignored.
A complete discussion and derivation of the equations used in calculating the PI, Vogel, and
Vogel correct for water cut IPR methods is detailed in "The Technology of Artificial Lift
Methods," Volume 4, pages 30-35 by Kermit E. Brown 1984 PennWell Publishing.
Darcy
The basic equation used to describe the flow of fluid through a reservoir is the radial form of the
Darcy equation. Henry Darcy originally developed the equation in 1856 to describe the flow
through sand filter beds used in water purification. The basic Darcy concept describes flow
through porous media as a function of pressure differential, cross-sectional area, fluid viscosity,
flow distance, and permeability (the measure of the media's ability to transmit fluid). He
developed the equation under the assumptions that only single-phase, laminar flow existed, and
the fluid was essentially incompressible.
Although the original Darcy equation was developed for linear flow in the vertical direction, the
equation has been modified to predict radial flow. The general Darcy equation for an oil well is:
Darcy equation: Oil Well
(
DQ + S +
4
3
(x) ln B
) P (P kh (0.00708)
= Q
ws r

July 2013 27
where:
k = Effective permeability (md)
h = Net formation thickness (ft)
P
r
P
ws
= Flowing sandface pressure (psi)
= Average liquid viscosity (cp)
B = Average formation factor (rb/stb)
x = Drainage area factor r
e
/r
w
or from area and shape factor
S = Skin effect
D = Non-Darcy turbulence factor (1/stb/d)
r
e
= Reservoir radius (ft)
r
w
= Wellbore radius (ft)
The Darcy equation for a gas well is slightly different because of the dynamic behavior of gas
properties as a function of rate and pressure, where pseudopressure, +, is used and is:
Darcy equation: Gas Well
( ) ( )
( )
(

DQ + S +
4
3
x ln T
h
k
0.000703
= Q
g
ws r g
g

where:
Q
g
= Gas flow rate (Mscf/d)
k
g
= Effective gas permeability (md)
r
= Avg. reservoir pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
+
ws
= Flowing sandface pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
T = Average reservoir temp (R)
e
/r
w
S = Skin effect
D = Non-Darcy turbulence factor (1/Mscf/d)
28 July 2013
r
e
r
w
The Vogel equation can be used to correct the Darcy equation below the bubblepoint pressure. PI
is calculated from the following equation and is used in the Vogel equation described earlier.
Productivity IndexDarcy
( )
( )
(
S +
4
3
x ln B
h k 0.00708
= PI
where:
PI = Productivity Index (stb/d/psi)
e
/r
w
S = Skin effect
r
e
r
w
Non-Darcy Turbulent Term
The non-Darcy turbulent term, D, in the Darcy equation is used to account for inflow turbulence.
This term is sometimes referred to as the Ramey Turbulence, or Ramey D, term. The non-Darcy
term is applied as an effective rate-dependent skin, shown as the DQ or DQ
g
term in the
denominator of the Darcy equation. The term is usually obtained through multi-rate testing of
wells where skin is calculated as a function of rate.

July 2013 29
Skin Effect
Skin can be defined as a correction to account for non-Darcy or non-homogeneous flow
behavior. In many discussions, skin is defined as a total skin that is comprised of several
individual components.
DQ ) t , q ( S S ' S + + =
where:
S' = Total skin
S = Physical skin caused by damage near the wellbore or enhancement
through stimulation
S(q,t) = Rate- and time- dependent skin, generally caused by permeability
alteration due to changing gas saturation near the wellbore
DQ = Rate-dependent skin, described as the non-Darcy flow term
The physical skin, S, is understood to be caused by a physical alteration to the reservoir,
generally near the wellbore. This can be in the form of damage from the penetration of drilling
and/or completion fluids, causing a positive skin. Conversely, this skin can be represented as a
negative value, caused by stimulation of the well through fracturing or acidizing.
The rate- and time-dependent skin, S(q,t), is induced by two-phase fluid behavior at or near the
wellbore. This skin can give the appearance of non-Darcy flow behavior. In general, this skin is a
permanent condition (unless fluid conditions change), and cannot be altered with stimulation.
The non-Darcy term, DQ, is simply a representation of the energy loss due to turbulent behavior
in the reservoir. The value can be determined by isochronal testing.
System analysis accounts for the total skin effect in several ways. Most inflow equations allow
for a skin entry, which generally is the physical skin, S. If the skin entry is positive, it indicates
damage. If the skin entry is negative, it indicates stimulation. The rate-dependent non-Darcy term
is available for use in the Darcy equation. Because system analysis is an isochronal procedure,
the rate- and time-dependent skin, S(q,t), becomes a function of rate only and logically can be
included with the non-Darcy skin.
Note: In a system analysis solution, be sure not to include turbulent or physical skin more than
once. If the skin effect is measured including the completion by transient testing within the
wellbore, this skin takes into account completion effects. If this skin is used subsequently
in the reservoir segment as a physical skin, S, or as a rate-dependent skin, DQ, or as both,
additional pressure loss through the completion segment will cause an underestimated
inflow curve. This situation exists for the four-point test (Jones and back pressure) for oil
wells and gas wells and Vogel for oil wells.

30 July 2013
Drainage Area and Shape Factor
The previous Darcy equations are actually slight modifications of the original equation. The ln(x)
term is a modification of the standard ln(r
e
/r
w
), which is a representation of the area of flow in
the radial form of the equation. The ln(r
e
/r
w
) value is applicable only for a well producing in the
center of a circular drainage area. In the cases where the well is located in an irregularly shaped
drainage area, ln(r
e
/r
w
) is replaced by ln(x), where x is a reservoir size and shape factor that
describes the actual drainage shape and well position.
22

w
0.5
area factor
r
S S
= x

where:
X = Reservoir drainage factor
S
factor
= Reservoir shape factor from table
S
area
= Reservoir area (ft
2
)
r
w
The following shape factors are available for use in the Darcy and Jones equations.
Reservoir Shape Factors
The reservoir shape factor is available with the Darcy and Jones IPR correlations to describe a
well that is not necessarily in the center of a circular reservoir as assumed by the Darcy and
Jones equations. The shape factor is the constant given in the following table. For example, the
shape factor of a well in the center of a square is 0.571. The well in the center of a circle can
either use the shape factor listed or directly use the reservoir radius and wellbore radius.

July 2013 31
Shape Shape Factor Shape Shape Factor

0.564

0.966

0.571

1.444

0.565

2.206

0.605

1.925

0.610

6.590

0.678

9.360

0.668

1.724

1.368

1.794
32 July 2013
J ones et al. (1976)
Turbulent flow in the reservoir, generally occurring near the area of wellbore convergence, can
cause significant additional pressure loss. This is especially prevalent in high rate gas wells.
The basic Darcy equation was generated with the assumptions that only laminar flow existed
through the porous media. As wells produce at relatively high rates, this assumption becomes
invalid as turbulent flow begins to develop. The overall effect of this turbulence is added energy
loss, which results in a lower flow rate for a given pressure differential. This turbulent flow is
often referred to as non-Darcy flow behavior.
An equation suggested by Jones, Blount, and Glaze
8
in 1976 accounts for turbulence in a
producing oil or gas well. The equation, referred to as the Jones equation, is written in the
following forms:
J ones Equation: Oil Well
bQ + aQ = P P
2
ws r

where:
( )
r h
B 10
2.30
= a
w
2
p
2 -14
|
; turbulent term
( ) | |
( )kh 0.00708
S + 0.472x ln B
= b

; laminar term
and where:
P
r
P
ws
|
= Turbulence coefficient (1/ft)

= Fluid density (lb/ft
3
)
h
p
= Perforated thickness (ft)
r
w

e
/r
w
S = Skin effect
July 2013 33
r
e
J ones Equation: Gas Well
g
2
g ws r
bQ + aQ =
where:
( )
g w
2
p
g
2 -1

r h
T
10
3.16
= a
|
; turbulent term
( ) ( ) | |
h k
S + 0.472x ln T 1424
= b
g
; laminar term
and where:
+
r
= Average reservoir pressure (psi
2
/cp)
+
ws
= Flowing sandface pressure (psi
2
/cp)
Q
g
|
g
= Gas specific gravity
T = Average reservoir temperature (R)
h
p
r
w
g
= Gas viscosity (cp)
e
/r
w
S = Skin effect
k
g
= Effective permeability (md)
r
e
For oil wells, you can also obtain the turbulent term, a, and the laminar term, b, by plotting (P
r
-
P
wf
)/Q versus Q. For gas wells, plot (P
r
2
- P
wf
2
) / Q
g
versus Q
g
. The resulting slope will be the
turbulent term and the intercept will be the laminar term.
The laminar term is simply the Darcy equation. The turbulent term is the turbulent portion of the
Jones equation and is shown as a function of rate. The contribution of this turbulent term tends to
reduce the available flow rate from a well as rate increases. The term accounts for additional
wellbore convergence effects caused by partial penetration or a limited perforated interval. This
34 July 2013
is accomplished with the use of the perforated interval, h
p
, instead of the gross formation
interval, h, in the denominator of the turbulent term.
The turbulence coefficient, |, is a function of reservoir permeability.
J ones equation: turbulence coefficient
k
10
2.33
=
1.201
10
|
where:
|
The Jones equation is recommended in wells in which turbulence is assumed to be a factor. In
gas wells, turbulence is almost always prevalent and the Jones equation is suggested. In oil wells,
turbulence generally does not become significant unless rates are in excess of several thousand
barrels per day. For oil wells, the Darcy equation is usually adequate. The Vogel equation can be
used to adjust the Jones equation below the bubblepoint pressure for solution gas drive oil wells.
J ones4-Point Test and J onesEnter a and b
The Jones Four-Point Test IPR method calculates the Jones a and b terms from a given set of rate
and flowing bottomhole pressure data points according to the equations discussed previously for
the Jones equation for oil and gas wells.
Along with the four-point test, one IPR option is to use your own Jones a and b term. The a and b
terms are based on different equations for gas wells and oil wells. The oil well equation was
given previously. The gas well equation given previously is based on the equation involving
pseudopressure. For gas wells, the Jones a and b terms are based on a difference in pressure
squared and not pseudopressure as follows:
J ones 'a' and 'b' user-entered (gas wells only)
bQ + aQ =
P P
g
2
g
2
ws
2
r

Note: For gas wells, do not use the resulting a and b terms from the four-point test IPR method in
the Jones user-entered a and b IPR method because the Jones user-entered a and b terms
are based on pressure squared and the Jones four-point test is based on pseudopressure.
For oil wells, you can use the calculated Jones coefficients in the Jones a and b user-
entered IPR because both IPR methods use the same equation.
July 2013 35
Back Pressure Eq (1930) and Back Pressure4-Point Test
The effects of reservoir turbulence can also be modeled using the backpressure equation:
( )
n
2
ws
2
r P P
C = Q
where:
Q = Flow rate (stb/d or Mscf/d)
C = Backpressure coefficient
P
r
= Reservoir pressure (psi)
P
ws
= Sandface pressure (psi)
n = Turbulence coefficient
The turbulence coefficient, n, can be obtained from stabilized test data where (P
r
2
- P
ws
2
) is
plotted versus Q on a log-log scale. This method requires at least three and usually four flowing
bottomhole pressure and flow rate data pairs (thus called a four-point test). The turbulence
coefficient is determined from the inverse slope of the line, and is a measurement of the turbulent
condition of the well.
Turbulent flow yields values of n between 0.5 (completely turbulent flow) and 1.0 (completely
laminar flow). In some solution gas drive reservoirs, the 'n' value can be larger than 1.0.
45
The
backpressure equation is considered a valid inflow representation if turbulence is a factor and test
data are available and suitable for confident prediction of n. Solve for the backpressure
coefficient, C, using a point on the backpressure line. The Backpressure Four-Point Test method
calculates the best fit of the four-point test data points to arrive at the n and C values.
The Backpressure equation is used to calculate the IPR from a known n and C value based on the
results of a plot of (P
r
2
- P
ws
2
) versus Q for both oil and gas wells. The Backpressure 4-Pt Test
IPR method involves the computer calculation of the backpressure n and C values based on user-
entered test data. The results for oil wells and gas wells will be very different because
pseudopressure is used in the gas well cases so that the equation becomes:

36 July 2013
Backpressure Four-Point Test (gas wells only)
( )
n
ws r
C Q =
where:
C = Backpressure coefficient
r
= Reservoir pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
ws
= Sandface pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
N = Turbulence coefficient
Note: For gas wells, do not use the resulting n and C values from this equation in the user-
entered Backpressure equation. This restriction does not apply to oil wells because both
methods use the difference in the pressure squared and not pseudopressure.
Transient Flow Equation
In many cases, an inflow is desired for a new well that has not reached pseudosteady state and is
still producing in a transient condition. Both the Darcy equation and its derivative, the Jones
equation, were developed under the assumption that the producing well has reached
pseudosteady state. During the transient period, use the transient equation to predict the inflow
performance for a well. Use the Vogel equation below the bubblepoint pressure to correct the
transient equation for oil wells with a solution gas drive.
Transient equation: oil well
( )
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
0.87S + 3.2275
r c
k t
log B 162.6
P P kh
= Q
2
w t
ws r

where:
K = Effective permeability (md)
H = Net formation thickness (ft)
P
r
P
ws
T = Producing time (hrs)
July 2013 37
= Porosity
c
t
= Total system compressibility (1/psi)
r
w
S = Skin effect
Transient equation: gas well
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|

0.87S + 3.2275
r c
t k
log T 1638
) h( k
= Q
2
w t g
g
ws r g
g
where:
Q
g
k
g
= Gas effective permeability (md)
r
= Average reservoir pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
+
ws
= Flowing sandface pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
T =
t = Producing time (hrs)
= Porosity
g
= Average gas viscosity (cp)
c
t
r
w
S = Skin effect
The pressure behavior of a reservoir during the transient period is essentially the same as that of
an infinite acting reservoir. Use the following equation to estimate the length of time required to
surpass this transient period and reach pseudosteady state:
Time to pseudosteady state
( )k 0.001005
r c
= (hrs) Time
2
e t
|

where:
= Porosity
38 July 2013
= Viscosity (cp)
c
t
= Total compressibility (1/psi)
r
e
= Drainage radius (ft)
Fractured Well
PERFORM uses a digitized, constant rate, finite-conductivity, closed square, fractured well type-
curve to calculate the effect of a vertically drilled well that has been hydraulically fractured. The
type curve requires a dimensionless time, dimensionless fracture conductivity, and fracture
penetration ratio to calculate a dimensionless pressure drop for a known wellbore pressure and
time. The well is assumed to be in the center of a square reservoir with an aspect ratio 1:1.

Figure 3.4: Square Reservoir
Reservoir conductivity is calculated as:
Oil well
B
h k 0.00708
= R
ct

Gas well
460 T
h k 0.000703
= R
ct
+

July 2013 39
where:
R
ct
= Reservoir conductivity
K = Reservoir permeability (md)
H = Reservoir thickness (ft)

= Fluid viscosity (cp)
B = Formation volume factor (rb/stb)
T = Reservoir temperature (F)
The fracture penetration ratio is determined by the following formula and must evaluate to
between 0.0 and 1.0 or an error message appears. Note that r
e
is normally evaluated as a reservoir
radius but in this case, it is the length of one side of a square reservoir divided by 2.
Fracture penetration ratio
e
f
pr
r
x
= F
where:
F
pr
= Fracture penetration ratio
x
f
= Fracture half length (ft)
r
e
= Length of one side of square reservoir divided by 2 (ft)
The dimensionless fracture conductivity is calculated as follows and must evaluate between 0.01
and 500.0 or PERFORM displays an error message:
Dimensionless fracture conductivity
f
f
cd
k x
w k
= F
where:
F
cd
= Dimensionless fracture conductivity
k
f
= Fracture permeability (md)
W = Fracture width (ft)
x
f
= Fracture half width (ft)
The dimensionless time is calculated as follows and must be between 0.00001 and 1000.0 or
PERFORM displays an error message:
40 July 2013
Dimensionless time
2
f
t
Dxf
x c
k t 0.000264
= t
|

where:
t
Dxf
= Dimensionless time
T = Production time (hr)
|
= Porosity (pore volume/ bulk volume)

c
t
x
f
The type curve function interpolates the type curve to arrive at the dimensionless pressure drop
in the fracture and reservoir as:
( )
pr cd f Dx D
F , F , t f = p
The flow rate is calculated as follows:
Flow rate: oil well
( )
D
wf r ct
p
P P R
= Q

Flow rate: gas well
( )
D
wf r ct
g
p
R
= Q
+ +

where:
Q = Flow rate at P
wf
(stb/d or Mscf/d)
R
ct
= Oil or gas reservoir conductivity
P
r
= Reservoir pressure (psia)
P
wf
= Wellbore pressure (psia)
p
D
= Dimensionless pressure
+
r
= Reservoir pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
+
w
= Wellbore pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
July 2013 41
f

The flow rate above assumes that the well is in non-turbulent flow. To account for turbulence in
the fracture that may occur, a non-Darcy flow rate adjustment is made to the flow rate according
to the size of the proppant in the fracture itself as follows:
Non-Darcy flow factors
Proppant size A-term B-term
8 - 12 mesh 1.24 17423.61
10 - 20 mesh 1.34 27539.48
20 - 40 mesh 1.54 110470.39
40 - 60 mesh 1.60 69405.31
A turbulence beta factor is calculated as:
a
f
7
k
b 10 3.088386
=
|
where:
|
= Turbulence factor
b = b term from the previous Non-Darcy Flow Factors table
k
f
a = a term from the previous Non-Darcy Flow Factors table
A flow velocity and Reynold's number is determined to calculate a revised fracture conductivity
as follows:
Oil well velocity
w h
B Q 10 x 249 . 3
V
o o
5
=
Gas well velocity
w h
B Q 10 x .787 5
V
g g
3
=

42 July 2013
Reynold's number
o |
f
-11
RE
k V 10 1.5808
= N
Non-Darcy dimensionless fracture conductivity
( )
RE f
f
cd
N 1 k x
w k
F
+
=
where:
V = Fracture flow velocity
Q = Liquid flow rate (stb/d)
B
o
= Liquid volume factor (rb/stb)
h = Formation thickness (ft)
w = Fracture width (ft)
Q
g
B
g
= Gas volume factor (scf/stb)
N
RE
= Reynold's number
|
= Fracture turbulence factor
o
= Fluid density (lbm/ft
3
)

k
f

k = Formation permeability (md)
An iteration technique is used to converge on a dimensionless pressure and flow rate using the
type curve to arrive at a final non-Darcy flow rate at a given wellbore pressure. The same
equations used above to calculate Q and R
ct
are used in the iteration until a convergence with the
flow rate, Q, used in the above velocity equations gives the same flow rate from the type curve
calculation. PERFORM allows a maximum of 20 iterations and displays an error message if
unable to converge.
Oil well cases can also be adjusted for the Vogel relationship below the bubblepoint pressure
using the Vogel equations. An instantaneous productivity index is calculated for the Vogel
equation as:
Productivity Index
wf r
o
P P
Q
= PI

July 2013 43
where:
Q
o
= Liquid flow rate (stb/d)
P
r
= Reservoir pressure (psi)
P
wf
= Wellbore pressure (psi)
Fractured Well Rueda et al (2005)
This IPR is valid for oil wells and is based on the paper SPE 94252 that presents a correlation to
build IPR curves below the bubble point pressure for fractured wells at steady state conditions.
About 1000 simulations runs were performed using well-refined size grid for several sets of
relative permeability curves and PVT data to investigate the performance of fractured well
producing below bubble point.
These runs considered the following:
Steady state conditions
Reservoir is below bubble point pressure
Fracture penetration range 0.1 to 1.0 and
Dimensionless fracture conductivities from 0.5 to 50.
A commercial black-oil numerical model was the one used for study a square reservoir of
constant height with a fractured well producing in the center. The simulation run is performed
with the fractured well producing at constant rate until steady-state is reached. Once the steady-
state is reached, the bottom flowing pressure is recorded. This would give a point (q, P
wf
) of the
IPR curve. Many simulation runs are then conducted for a number of rates with the same well
conditions to obtain the IPR curve for the specific fracture conditions and for the specific PVT
and relative permeability data. IPR curves are generated for different combinations of fracture
penetration and fracture conductivity to evaluate the effect of C
fd
, and fracture penetration on the
IPR curves. The same procedure is followed for the different set of rock and fluid properties,
Siberians data and Vogel's.
Results of the simulation of 5 PVT/relative permeability data sets have been combined in order
to build a correlation which is suitable for fractured wells in the range of conductivities 0.5...50
and fracture half-lengths xf= 100...500 meters. The correlation is presented in eqn. (1).
( ) ( ) ( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
2
max .
041 . 0 27 . 0 041 . 0 73 . 0 1
r
wf
fd
r
wf
fd
b o
b o
p
p
C Log
p
p
C Log
q q
q q

( )
fd
b o
b noskin o
C Log
q q
q q
0347 . 0 285 . 1
max .
,
+ =

(1)
The above equation suggests that the lower fracture conductivities are, the straighter the curves
are.
44 July 2013
Another average correlation was also determined following the same form as Vogel's correlation
without considering the dimensionless fracture conductivity, C
fd
as a parameter. Eqn (2) gives
the final form of the correlation providing an error no greater than 5 % for the same range of
fracture conductivities.
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
2
35 . 0 65 . 0 1
31 . 1
b
wf
b
wf
r D
b o
p
p
p
p
p J
q q

(2)
31 . 1
35 . 0 65 . 0 1
2
,
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
b
wf
b
wf
b noskin o
b o
p
p
p
p
q q
q q

(3)
( ) | | s r r
kh
J
w e
D
+
=
4 / 3 ln 2 . 141

(4)
r D b noskin o
p J q q =
,

(5)
) (
b r D b
p p J q =

(6)
where:
o
q

= oil flow rate
b
q

=
oil flow rate at
b wf
p p =
max . o
q

= Absolute open flow (AOF), bbl/d
fd
C
= dimensionless fracture conductivity
fd
C
=

f
k
w = Fracture width (ft)
f
x
wf
p
= wellbore flowing pressure
r
p
= average reservoir pressure
e
r

= drainage radius, ft
w
r

= wellbore radius, ft
h
= formation thickness, ft
k
= reservoir permeability
July 2013 45
From equations (2), (3) and (4), obtain equation (5). Then substitute equations (5) and (6) in to
the second part of equation (1) to calculate q
max
. After that, use the first part of equation (1) to
calculate q
o
at a certain p
wf
. Rate and pressure pair is used to generate the IPR.
Authors
1
has drawn the following conclusions
Vogel's correlation underestimates fractured well performance below bubble point. Vogel
suggests a correction of AOF by 45% meanwhile the simulation results and new correlation
show that the correction should be only 22%.
Multiphase effect is dependent on fracture conductivity and almost independent on fracture
penetration. Higher conductivity fractures have bigger gas banks therefore they are affected by
multiphase effect to greater extent than lower conductivity fractures.
Vogel-Standing correlation over-estimates the IPR curve for fractured well if equivalent flow
efficiency, FE is calculated from a fracture conductivity and penetration.
Reference:
1. J.I. Rueda, A. Zakharov and J. Mach, "Investigating Applicability of Vogel's IPR for
Fractured Wells", SPE 94252, presented at the 2005 SPE Production Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 17-19 April 2005.
Fractured Well Chase et al (1993)
This IPR is valid for gas wells and is based on the papers SPE 26915 and 15936.
A new dimensionless IPR curve was developed for predicting the performance of fractured gas
wells using only pressure build up and draw down test data. The equation relates dimensionless
pseudo pressure to dimensionless flow rates as a function of X
e
/X
f
assuming a uniform flux
fracture. The curves may also be applied to unfractured wells by converting the apparent skin
factor obtained from a pressure transient test to an equivalent ratio of external drainage radius to
fracture half length (X
e
/X
f
) using the apparent wellbore radius concept.
The ultimate goal of this study was to develop a method for predicting the deliverability of a gas
well using just the average reservoir pressure, the flowing bottomhole pressure, Pwf, associated
with the stabilized flow rate, q, and either the ratio of X
e
/X
f
or the skin factor, S, obtained from
the analysis of a pressure build-up or draw-down test as opposed to using conventional four-
point testing methods.
This method is applicable for gas well producing under pseudo steady state conditions if the
radius of the external boundary is known. If this radius is not available, then radius of
investigation can also be approximated provided that producing time is available. The absolute
open flow rate, q
max
, corresponding to a zero sandface pressure is developed as follows:
| |
B
P m B A A
q
R
2
) ( 4
2
max
+ +
=

(1)
where:
( ) | | S e x re
kh
T
A
S
f
+ = 75 . 0 37 . 0 ln
703 . 0

46 July 2013
D
kh
T
B
703 . 0
=

2
8
10 75 . 3
p w g
g
h r
h
D
=

Following equations constitute the dimensionless IPR:
| | ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3
2
log 00039 . 0
log 00989 . 0 log 14312 . 0 004865 . 0 log
f e
f e f e
x x
x x x x M
+ + =

(2)
| | ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3
2
log 0004278 . 0
log 00874 . 0 log 0618 . 0 296498 . 0 log
f e
f e f e
x x
x x x x N
+ =

(3)
Statistical analysis (done by the authors
1
) showed that curves developed by the general form of
the equation (4) best fit the data used in the study. Substituting equations (2) and (3) in Eq. (4)
yields the general dimensionless IPR relationship that can be used to predict the inflow
performance of fractured gas wells.
N
X M Y =1

(4)
N
M
Y
X
1
1
(

=

(5)
( ) ( )
R wf
P m P m Y / =

(6)
1 @
max
= =
f e
x x q q X

(7)
where:
h

= reservoir thickness, ft
p
h

= perforation interval, ft
k

= permeability, md
( ) P m

= real gas pseudo pressure evaluated at pressure P, psia2/cp
R
P

= average reservoir pressure, psia
q

= stabilized gas flow rate, Mscf/D
e
r

= radius of external boundary, ft
July 2013 47
w
r

= radius of wellbore, ft
S

= skin factor
T

= reservoir temperature, oR
g

= gas viscosity, cp
e
x

f
x

= radius of uniform flux fracture, ft
z

= gas deviation factor
|

= porosity, fraction
g

= gas specific gravity
Procedure for the calculation:
M and N are solved first from equations (2) and (3) respectively, for the given
e
x and
f
x . Then
Y is solved from the equation (6) at given reservoir pressure and the target bottomhole pressure.
After that, X is solved from equation (5). The AOF rate, q
max
is solved from equation (1) at
1 =
f e
x x . Finally, target rate is solved from equation (7).
Utilizing the above procedure, sufficient pressure and rate pairs are obtained to construct the IPR
curve for fractured gas wells.
If true stabilized flowing conditions are not reached, the radius of external boundary can be
approximated by the radius of investigation using the following equation:

where:
t = producing time during testing period, hr
ct = total system compressibility, psi-1
However, Authors
1
recommended that if true pseudo steady state flow conditions are reached
during a test, the real value of radius of external boundary should be used.
References:
1. "Prediction of Gas Well Deliverability from Just a Pressure Buildup or Drawdown Test,"
R.W. Chase and H. Alkandari, SPE 26915, November 1993.
2. "Dimensionless IPR Curves for Predicting the Performance of Fractured Gas wells,"
R.W. Chase and M.A.T. Williams, SPE 15936, November 1986
48 July 2013
Datafile2 Col ASCI I
The Datafile2 Col ASCII IPR type requires a data file of pressure and flow rate stored in a text
file. The file cannot have header or column labels but must contain two columns of numerical
ASCII text separated by a comma and/or spaces between the two column entries. The first
column must contain pressure in decreasing order for production wells and increasing order for
injection wells. The second column must be the flow rate in increasing order of flow rate.
If the file does not contain a point at a zero flow rate, PERFORM calculates the zero flow rate
pressure by extrapolating a line through the first two data points back to a zero flow rate. This is
assumed to be the static reservoir pressure. If the file does not contain an Absolute Open Flow
(AOF) rate at the standard pressure, then the AOF point is extrapolated from a straight line
passed through the last two data points.
The data points for calculation of the final inflow curve can include the completion component if
the file contains at least 15 data points. The file must contain at least four points to make a fitted
inflow curve and at least two points for an unfitted inflow curve. The file can contain no more
than 23 points. The points can also be fitted to make a smoother inflow curve if desired. If the
points cannot be adequately smoothed with a second order polynomial fit, PERFORM displays a
warning message and attempts a first order fit. If the first order fit is not possible, PERFORM
uses the raw data and displays a warning message.
Guo-Schechter (1997)
This IPR model is applicable to reservoirs with natural or hydraulic fractures fully penetrating
reservoir sections. The model was derived by coupling of flow in the matrix and flow through
fractures for both vertical and horizontal wells. For horizontal wells, the reservoir may have a
few fractures intercepting the horizontal tunnel.
The model is also derived for wells intersecting long fractures where linear flow to the fracture
face dominates in the matrix. For the case of wells intersecting short, highly conductive fractures
where 2-D flow may exist in the matrix, the method should be used with caution. The authors
suggest that the method is still valid in naturally-fractured wells with both long and relatively
short fractures where the long fracture is the dominating oil production path.
80
Inflow Performance Relationship
The oil production rate from a fracture wing is given by the following equation in field units:
) P P (
) S c Ze ( B
) e 1 ( h k 00254 . 0
Qo w
o
cxf
m

f e
m
wk Z
k 2
c =

July 2013 49
where:
Q
o
= Oil production rate from the fracture wing, STBO/day
k
m
= Permeability of the rock, md
h = Pay zone thickness, ft
x
f
= Fracture half length, ft
Bo = Formation volume factor, RB/STB

= Oil viscosity, cp
Ze = Distance from the fracture face to the drainage boundary, ft
S = Skin factor
p = Reservoir pressure, psia
p
w
= Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
k
f
= Fracture permeability, md
w = Average fracture width (aperture), in
Darcy Frack Pack (1996)
This IPR model combines the Darcy method with the Frack Pack completion technique, which
can significantly increase production. In this case, a small fracturing treatment is combined with
a cased-hole gravel pack. The fracture is intended for increasing productivity by eliminating
near-wellbore damage and minimizing radial convergence effects. The sized gravel pack is used
to prevent entry of formation sand into the wellbore.
In his work, Burton et al developed a finite difference model to simulate flow behavior and
pressure losses and skin effects due to damage, fracturing and wellbore geometry in the
well/reservoir system.
81
Skin Factor Calculation
The following equations are the result of combining paper SPE 31102 and personal
communication with the author.
The total skin factor for FracPack is given by:
Sp Sf Sann Spt Sgfp Sfp + + + + =

Sgft is the pseudo skin difference between the open/stable perforation and the gravel-filled
perforation:
Sp
r
r r
Ln
C
r
arcTan
C
r
arcTan
C
1
N
h
S
w
L w p L
gfp
|
.
|
\
| +
)
`
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

50 July 2013
2
r
1
k
k
C
2
p p
|
.
|
\
|
=

N
h r 24
rL
w
=

where:
h = Net vertical pay thickness, ft
N = Total shots
k
p
= Permeability of material filling the perforation, md
k = Formation permeability, md
r
p
= Perforation radius, in.
r
w
= Wellbore radius, in.
Spt is the pseudo skin due to flow through gravel-filled perforation tunnel,
2
p
pt
p
pt
r
L 2
N
H 12
k
k
S |
.
|
\
|
=

where:
L
pt
= Length of perforation tunnel, rw rci, in.
r
ci
= Inner radius of casing, in.
Sann is the pseudo skin due to flow across gravel-filled casing/screen annulus,
si
ci
ann
ann
r
r
Ln
k
k
S =

where:
k
ann
= Permeability of material filling the casing/screen annulus, md
r
si
= Inner radius of pre packed screen, in.
Finally, Sf represents the pseudo skin due to the fracture,
w
f
cd f
r
x 12
Ln F S =

f
f f
cd
x 12
w
k
k
F =

July 2013 51
where:
k
f
= Fracture permeability, md
w
f
= Fracture width, in.
x
f
= Fracture half length, ft
Guo (2001) - Wellhead Test
This IPR is valid for oil wells. It is based on a mechanistic model originally developed for
modeling gas, water, oil, and solid flow
95
. The well IPR is established from wellhead pressure,
temperature and total liquid production rate measurements. Several restrictions apply while using
it as indicated below:
- Cannot be used in Downhole networks
- Cannot be used in Injection wells
- Cannot be used when Flow type at surface is Annular
( ) H a
P
P
P P b
wh
hy
wh hy
" "
ln 144 =
|
|
.
|
\
|
+

L e d c a P P b
fr fr
" " " "
1
2
1
"
72 5184 = +

L e c a P P b
fr fr
"
2
" " 2
2
3
2
"
10368 995328 = +

2 1 fr fr fr
P P P + =

fr hy wf
P P P + =

where:
( )
gs
gs g o o w w s s
TQ
Q S Q S Q S Q S
a
019 . 0 1 . 85 33 . 15
"
+ + +
=
( )
gs
o w s
TQ
Q Q Q
b
+ +
=
38 . 1 247 . 0
"

A
TQ
c
gs
3
"
10 77 . 6

=
( )
A
Q Q
d
o w
+
=
3
"
10 4 . 9

H
gd
f
e
2
"
=
( ) ( )
2
2 log 2 74 . 1
1
(
=
H
d
f
c

52 July 2013
g
S
= specific gravity of gas, air = 1
gs
Q
= gas production rate at standard condition (14.7 psia, 60
o
F), scf/day
s
S
= specific gravity of solid, fresh water = 1
s
Q
= volumetric flow rate of solid, ft
3
/day
w
S
= specific gravity of produced water, fresh water = 1
w
Q
= water production rate, bbl/day
o
S
= specific gravity of produced oil, fresh water = 1
o
Q
= oil production rate, stb/day
H
d
= hydraulic diameter, ft
T = average temperature,
o
R
A = cross-sectional area of flow path, in
2

hy
P
= hydraulic pressure at depth, psia
wh
P
= wellhead pressure, psia
fr
P
= frictional pressure loss, psia
wf
P
= flowing bottom hole pressure, psia
L = measured depth, ft
H = vertical depth, ft
f = Moody friction factor, dimensionless
c = wall roughness, ft
Equations are solved numerically using Newtons method.
With reservoir pressure, production rate and calculated flowing bottom hole pressure, the
productivity index can be calculated and then IPR curves can be constructed.
Based on studies of two cases where bottom hole pressure measurements were available, the
author made the following conclusions:
Guos mechanistic model for gas-oil-water-solid flow predicts flowing bottom hole pressure with
acceptable error (less than 2%).
The calculated bottom pressure can be used for establishing inflow performance relationships of
oil wells with low uncertainties. The error in productivity index is less than 10%.
July 2013 53
Chase et al. (1993) - 1pt test
A dimensionless IPR curve developed for predicting the performance of hydraulically fractured
gas wells using a single stabilized point obtained from pressure build-up or draw-down test
96
.
The equation relates dimensionless pseudopressure to dimensionless flow rates as a function of
f e
x x assuming a uniform flux fracture. It may also be applied to unfractured wells by
converting the apparent skin factor obtained from a pressure transient test to an equivalent ratio
of external drainage radius to fracture half length (
f e
x x ) using the apparent wellbore radius
concept (eq. 1).
w
S
e f e
r e x x x / 37 . 0 =

(1)
| | ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3
2
log 00039 . 0
log 00989 . 0 log 14312 . 0 004865 . 0 log
f e
f e f e
x x
x x x x M
+ + =

(2)
| | ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
3
2
log 0004278 . 0
log 00874 . 0 log 0618 . 0 296498 . 0 log
f e
f e f e
x x
x x x x N
+ =

(3)
The relationship of X and Y
N
X M Y =1

(4)
N
M
Y
X
1
1
|
.
|
\
|
=

(5)
where:
( ) ( )
R wf
P m P m Y / =

(6)
1 @
max
= =
f e
x x q q X

(7)
where:
( ) P m
= real gas pseudopressure evaluated at pressure P, psia
2
/cp
R
P
= average reservoir pressure, psia
wf
P
= flowing bottom hole pressure, psia
q
= stabilized gas flow rate, Mscf/D
w
r
= radius of wellbore, ft
S
= skin factor
54 July 2013
e
x
f
x
= radius of uniform flux fracture, ft
M and N are solved from eq. 2 and eq. 3 respectively from given
e
x and
f
x . Y is solved from
eq. 6 at a given reservoir pressure and test pressure, and then X is solved from eq. 5.
1 @
max
=
f e
x x q is solved from eq. 7 with a given test rate. For a target pressure, Y is solved
from eq. 6 and X is obtained from eq. 5. Then the target rate is solved from eq. 7.
When enough pressure and rate pairs are obtained from the above procedure, an IPR curve can
be constructed.
This method is not applicable when the value of
f e
x x exceeds 10
8
.
Future I PR curves
The prediction of the well deliverability in the future is a very important task for engineers in
order to optimize the well design, evaluate artificial lift needs and abandonment conditions and
maximize future financial return.
PERFORM presents 3 methods to construct future IPR curves as a function of reservoir pressure.
These options are available when the user selects Declining Reservoir Pressure in Inflow
Sensitivity parameters.
Fetkovich
Fetkovich presented the following equation to estimate IPR at future reservoir pressure pr
2
using
actual pressure (pr
1
) data:
( )
1 n
2
2
2
2
1
2
1 2 Pwf Pr
Pr
Pr
Jo Qo |
.
|
\
|
=

where:
Qo
2
= Flow rate at reservoir pressure 2, STB/D
Jo
1
= Productivity Index at reservoir pressure 1, STB/psia
Pr
1
= Actual reservoir pressure, psia
Pr
2
= Future reservoir pressure, psia
Pwf
2
= Flowing bottomhole pressure at reservoir pressure 2, psia
n
1
= Flow exponent at reservoir pressure 1, psia

July 2013 55
Fetkovich-Vogel
The equations for this method are shown below. First, the absolute open flow Qomax for future
reservoir pressure is computed as:
3
2
1
2
1
Pr
Pr
max Qo
max Qo
|
.
|
\
|
=

where:
Qomax
1
= Oil flow rate at pwf =0 (absolute open flow ) for Pr1, STB/D
Qomax
2
= Oil flow rate at pwf =0 (absolute open flow ) for Pr1, STB/D
Pr
1
= Actual reservoir pressure, psia
Pr
2
= Future reservoir pressure, psia
Then, the future flow rate can be calculated using the Vogels equation.
Klins-Clark
Klins and Clark, using Muskat and Weller methods and 21 theoretical solution-gas drive
reservoirs, generated over 19,000 pressure-production data points. Using this data, they created
Fetkovich-type deliverability plots with their corresponding C and n values tabulated, and then
developed simple correlations among C, n and declining reservoir pressure. They concluded that
C and n are not constant and vary directly with pressure decline.
82
The main equations developed are:
3 2
b Pb
Pr
1 5030 . 0
Pb
Pr
1 2459 . 0
Pb
Pr
1 0577 . 0 1
np
n
|
.
|
\
|
+ |
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =

3 2
b Pb
Pr
1 3066 . 2
Pb
Pr
1 7981 . 4
Pb
Pr
1 5718 . 3 1
Cp
C
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ |
.
|
\
|
=

where:
n = Fetkovichs flow exponent
np
b
= Fetkovichs flow exponent at bubble-point pressure
Pb = Bubble-point pressure, psia
Pr = Reservoir pressure, psia
C = Fetkovichs productivity index coefficient, STB/D/psia
2

C p
b
= Fetkovichs productivity index coefficient at Pb, STB/D/psia
2

56 July 2013
The methodology is summarized below:
1 Obtain a single-point flow test at current reservoir pressure
2 Obtain Qomax from Vogel at current reservoir pressure
3 Using Qomax and the test point, solve for n and C using Fetkovich,
( )
n
2 2
Pwf Pr C Qo =

4 Solve for (n/npb) and (C/Cpb) using equations (A) and (B)
5 Solve for npb and Cpb using results from steps (3) and (4)
6 Solve for future (n/npb) and (C/Cpb) using equations (A) and (B) with Pr as
future pressure
7 Solve for n and C with results from steps (5) and (6)
8 Solve for Qomax future with Fetkovich equation (using pwf=0)
9 Use Vogel equation to predict future IPR
The authors claim that the proposed methodology may reduce the average error when predicting
future oil deliverability to about 9%.
Horizontally Completed Wells
Most wells drilled are configured as a vertical or semi-vertical wellbore that intercepts the
reservoir interval either perpendicular to the formation or at an angle less than 90 degrees from
horizontal. Horizontal wellbores are considered a special type of well whereby the well strikes
the reservoir at 90 degrees from vertical and extends a tunnel through the reservoir for
production.
Not all reservoirs are good candidates for horizontal technology. Reservoirs that typically are
good candidates for horizontal wells are thin reservoirs (less than 500 ft thick), have lower
productivity than vertical wells, have tight formations with horizontal as well as vertical
permeability, may have fractures, and may have water-coning or gas-coning problems.
Horizontal wells drilled in these types of reservoirs have shown to produce from 2 to 20 times
the rates exhibited by vertical wells.
Drilling costs are typically two to four times higher than conventional vertical wells. Reservoirs
with multiple pay zones that are separated by impermeable barriers may require drilling a
horizontal well for each zone. Additional techniques are needed for workovers, logging, and
tools because normal wireline operations are inadequate.
Pressure and flow rate calculations in horizontally completed wells are done in much the same
ways as vertically drilled wells, with the added reservoir and wellbore geometry of the horizontal
completion. Several IPR options are available for modeling the horizontal reservoir. The effects
of the horizontal tunnel are determined by pressure drop calculations by Dikken.
47

The basic assumptions for the reservoir IPR are a horizontal well with single phase (or a single
mixed phase) and the well is in turbulent flow in the horizontal tunnel. The models are used for
July 2013 57
open hole or cased hole conditions depending on the completion type. Vertical and horizontal
reservoir permeability and horizontal tunnel length play an important role in the IPR estimate.
Figure 3.5 shows a typical horizontal well configuration including the vertical and horizontal
wellbore and reservoir. The kickoff point (KOP) is designated at any depth above the end of the
tubing where an angle will be calculated. It is assumed that KOP-TMD/TVD value calculates an
angle of the well from the surface to the KOP depth, therefore, KOP-TMD is entered the same as
KOP-TVD to calculate a vertical well (angle of 0 degrees) from the surface to the KOP depth.
All angles and TMD/TVD pairs are entered in the Directional Survey dialog box. TBG-
TMD/TVD is the depth of the end of the tubing string. This is used to calculate the well angle
and determine the total length of the tubing for pressure profile and gradient calculations.

Figure 3.5: Horizontally Completed Well
If the completion type is open hole, then CS-TMD/TVD designates the depth of the casing shoe
and is the total length of the casing segment and the location of the bottomhole node. This depth
must be between the well total depth including the tunnel length and tubing end. The horizontal
tunnel length will be the distance from the casing shoe to the end of the horizontal tunnel.
If the completion is a cased hole type, then TOP-TMD/TVD is the depth of the topmost
perforation and is the location of the bottomhole node. The horizontal tunnel length is the
distance from the top perforation to the last perforation.
You must match the values you enter between the reservoir and completion. For example, if you
have a cased hole completion in a horizontal well, then you should enter the same value for the
horizontal tunnel length in the Reservoir dialog box as the perforated interval in the Completion
dialog box. The perforated interval actually determines the horizontal tunnel length in cased
holes but the two values are not linked together in the calculations. If you want to sensitize the
horizontal tunnel length, you should also sensitize the perforated interval at the same values as
the horizontal tunnel length.
58 July 2013
The special reservoir IPR types for horizontal wells include the User Enters PI and Vogel for oil
wells, and Backpressure Equation and Datafile for oil and gas wells. The three correlations and
the datafile option operate the same as discussed earlier for the vertical well type. However, an
extra pressure loss is included for losses in the horizontal tunnel according to the value specified
by the alpha term. This term is casing alpha for cased hole completions and open hole alpha for
open hole completions.
The alpha term is used to judge the amount of turbulence induced in the horizontal tunnel. Alpha
ranges from a value of zero (completely turbulent flow) to 0.25 (completely laminar flow). For
most open hole completions, the roughness of the wellbore wall suggests that the alpha term be
close to zero.
Cased hole completions require the casing ID and casing alpha term. In addition to the roughness
of the casing surface, the effect of perpendicular inflow through the perforations in the cased
hole suggests that turbulence will be dominant even in this situation so an alpha value close to
zero is also suggested.
Dikken discusses the effect of total well rate as a function of horizontal tunnel length and shows
that the total well rate increases with increasing well length for various values of well diameter.
Regardless of diameter, all wells must produce at the same critical rate per foot and converge on
a single rate versus length profile at low horizontal tunnel lengths. With increasing well length,
the total rate levels off earlier for smaller diameter wellbores. By sensitizing on various values of
horizontal length at different wellbore diameters, you can judge the optimum tunnel length for
well completions during their design. The production performance is also sensitive to the alpha
value.
Dikken also suggests using 80 percent of the infinite well length as an engineering criterion for
the optimal length of the horizontal tunnel. By sensitizing on horizontal tunnel length and
looking at the inflow sensitivity graph, you can estimate the optimum tunnel length from the
graph at 80 percent of the maximum rate obtainable. This should ensure a sufficient flow rate to
minimize the horizontal completion loss and help control the expense of the well.
For open hole completions, the outflow results are calculated from the surface to the node as in a
deviated vertical well using the tubing ID and roughness down to the tubing end depth, Tbg-
TMD/TVD, and then through the casing segment using the casing ID, roughness, and casing
shoe depth. The casing segment length is the distance from the tubing end depth to the casing
shoe depth. The open hole ID designates the diameter of the horizontal tunnel below the casing
shoe.
In cased hole completions, the casing ID is used for the ID of the casing segment above the node
position and for the ID of the horizontal tunnel. The casing roughness is only used in the casing
segment above the node. Casing roughness is accounted for with the casing alpha term in the
horizontal tunnel.
The special horizontal IPR types require vertical and horizontal reservoir permeability. Many
reservoirs have a vertical permeability that is 10 percent of the horizontal permeability. You can
sensitize the horizontal permeability and/or vertical permeability. To keep the same permeability
ratio, sensitize both permeabilities using multiple sensitivity lines.
If a completion is included, then the pressure loss in the completion is calculated at the flow rate
of the IPR and subtracted from the sandface pressure to arrive at a nominal wellbore pressure.
July 2013 59
This result is then modified by the pressure loss calculation for the horizontal tunnel to arrive at a
flow rate and pressure value at the node. In the output, the horizontal tunnel effects and
completion pressure loss are combined into a total completion pressure loss. The horizontal
tunnel effect is calculated from the equations given by Dikken as:
o

|
|
.
|
\
|

=
d 10 495 . 1
d
10 259 . 2
R
5
5
8
w

where:
R
w
= Flow resistance of wellbore (psi-day/ft
4
)

= Fluid density (lbm/ft
3
)
d = Tunnel or casing diameter (in.)

o
= Wellbore turbulence factor
Integration constant is calculated:
Integration constant: oil well
o
o
(
(
o
=
3
1
w
so
ws r
7 5
R
J ) 3 (
) P P ( 10 491 . 5 10 434 . 5 K

Integration constant: gas well
o
o
(
(
o
=
3
1
w
sg
ws r
6 3
R
J ) 3 (
) P P ( 10 329 . 7 10 051 . 3 K

where:
J
so
= Productivity index per ft of tunnel (bbl/d/psi/ft)
J
sg
= Productivity index per ft of tunnel (Mcf/d/psi/ft)
The dimensionless wellbore tunnel length is calculated:
Dimensionless wellbore tunnel length: oil well
o
o
=
3
R J
K
1
L 10 105 . 9 x
w so 5
D

Dimensionless wellbore tunnel length: gas well
o
o
=
3
R J
K
1
L 10 823 . 6 x
w sg
4
D

60 July 2013
The dimensionless tunnel length, x
D
, and the alpha term are used in a digitized type curve to
calculate a dimensionless total flow rate, q
D
. The final flow rate, Q, is calculated as:
Flow rate: oil well
o
=
1
2
6
D 5
) K 10 840 . 1 (
q
10 434 . 5 Q

Flow rate: gas well
o
=
1
2
4
D 3
g
) K 10 277 . 3 (
q
10 051 . 3 Q

Two additional well parameters are necessary to calculate the horizontal tunnel effects depending
on the type of completion. For open hole completions, you must enter an open hole ID that is an
average drilled ID from the bit records or a caliper survey. Also required is the open hole alpha
term.
Horizontal IPR Types
Horizontal reservoirs are modeled using a rectangular reservoir with a horizontal wellbore. Some
of the IPR types require that the wellbore be in the center of the reservoir. Other types specify
the location of the wellbore. Both vertical and horizontal permeability is needed for calculations.
Most of the correlations require the same input data with the additional wellbore position data for
the Kuchuk and Goode & Thambynaya methods.
The following lists categorize the horizontal IPR types available in PERFORM.
Steady-State Flow
- Giger et al. (1984)
- Economides et al. (1991)
- Joshi (1988)
- Renard and Dupuy (1991)
Pseudosteady-State Flow
- Kuchuk (1988)
- Babu and Odeh (1989)
- Guo & Evans (1993)
Transient Flow
- Goode and Thambynaya (1987)

July 2013 61
Other
- Back Pressure Eq (1930)
- Datafile2 Col ASCII
- No Inflow Calculated
- User Enters PI
- Vogel/Harrison (1968)

Figure 3.6: Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations
Giger et al. (1984)
Giger
55
et al. developed a steady-state reservoir model for calculating the sandface pressure and
flow rate pairs for isotropic and anisotropic reservoirs. For anisotropic reservoirs, the Muskat
method is used to calculate equivalent reservoir permeability and adjusted the rest of the
parameters.
Isotropic equivalent parameters
vert horz avg
k k k =

horz
avg
horz
k
k
N =

vert
avg
vert
k
k
N =

horz eq
N L L =

vert eq
N h h =

horz e eq
N r r =

62 July 2013
Note: PERFORM displays an error message if the reservoir radius entered is less than
half the horizontal tunnel length. This prevents the horizontal tunnel from
extending past the reservoir boundary.
Horizontal drainage componenthorizontal plane
eq
eq
eq
eq
2
eq
eq
horz
h
L
r 2
L
r 2
L
1 1
ln D
(
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=

Horizontal drainage componentvertical plane
(
t
=
w
eq
vert
r 2
h
ln D

Reservoir storage term
S D D W
vert horz s
+ + =

Reservoir rate calculation without Ramey D turbulent flow included
Oil well
s l o
wf r eq avg
W B
) P P ( L k 00708 . 0
Q

=
Gas well
s
wf r eq avg
g
W ) 460 T (
) ( L k 000703 . 0
Q
+

=

Reservoir rate calculation with Ramey D turbulent flow included
Oil well
) DQ W ( B
) P P ( L k 00708 . 0
Q
s l o
wf r eq avg
+

=

Gas well
) DQ W )( 460 T (
) ( L k 000703 . 0
Q
g s
wf r eq avg
g
+ +

=

July 2013 63
where:
k
avg
= Equivalent horizontal/vertical permeability (md)
k
horz
= Horizontal reservoir permeability (md)
k
vert
= Vertical reservoir permeability (md)
N
horz
= Horizontal permeability coefficient
N
vert
= Vertical permeability coefficient
L
eq
= Equivalent horizontal tunnel length (ft)
L = Horizontal tunnel length (ft)
h
eq
= Equivalent reservoir thickness (ft)
h = Reservoir thickness (ft)
r
eq
= Equivalent reservoir radius (ft)
r
e
D
horz
= Horizontal drainage term
D
vert
= Vertical drainage term
r
w
= Wellbore radius (in)
W
s
= Reservoir storage term
S = Reservoir skin factor
B
o
= Formation volume factor (rb/stb)
l
= Liquid viscosity (cp)
Q
g
= Gas rate (Mscf/d)
r
= Reservoir static pseudopressure (psi
2
/cp)
rwf
2
/cp)
P
r
= Reservoir static pressure (psi)
P
wf
D = Ramey D turbulence term (1/bpd or 1/Mscf/d)
Q = Total liquid rate (bbls/d)
64 July 2013
Economides et al. (1991)
Economides
51,52
used an augmented version of Joshi's equation for modeling the horizontal well
performance as steady state considering anisotropic wells and a drainage ellipsoid. This IPR type
is not suggested if half the tunnel length is greater than 0.9 times the effective drainage radius.
The tunnel length must be greater than (k
h
/k
v
)
1/2
times formation thickness.
Half of major axis of ellipse
4
e
2
L
r
25 . 0 5 . 0
2
L
a
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =

Anisotropic factor
v
h
ani
k
k
I =

Drainage factorhorizontal plane
(
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
2
L
2
L
a a
ln D
2
2
horz

Drainage factorvertical plane
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
=
12
r
) 1 I (
h I
ln
L
h
I D
w
ani
ani
ani vert

S D D W
vert horz s
+ + =

July 2013 65
Oil well
s l o
wf r h
W B
) P P ( h k 00708 . 0
Q

=

Gas well
s
wf r h
g
W ) 460 T (
) ( h k 000703 . 0
Q
+

=

Oil well
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
DQ
L
h
I W B
) P P ( h k 00708 . 0
Q
ani s l o
wf r h

Gas well
|
.
|
\
|
+ +

=
g ani s
wf r h
g
DQ
L
h
I W ) 460 T (
) ( h k 000703 . 0
Q

where:
a = Ellipse major axis factor
r
e
I
ani
= Anisotropic factor
k
h
k
v
D
horz
D
vert
r
w
W
s
66 July 2013
P
r
P
wf
B
o
= Formation volume factor, (rb/stb)
l
Q
g
= Gas rate (Mscf/d)
r
2
/cp)
wf
2
/cp)
D = Ramey D turbulence term (1/bpd or 1/Mscf/d)
J oshi (1988)
The Joshi
53,54
method is very similar to Economides with a different form of the D
vert
equation for
steady-state flow. The gas well reservoir storage term calculation considers an effective wellbore
radius for skin effect. This IPR type is not suggested if half the tunnel length is greater than 0.9
times the effective drainage radius.
4
e
2
L
r
25 . 0 5 . 0
2
L
a
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =

Anisotropic factor
v
h
k
k
= |

(
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
2
L
2
L
a a
ln D
2
2
horz

July 2013 67
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
| =
12
r
2
h
ln
L
h
D
w
vert

Oil well
S
L
h
D D W
vert horz s
|
.
|
\
|
| + + =

Gas well
L / h
w
2
e
we
12 / r 2
h
a 2
L
1 1 a
2
L
r
r
|
(
|
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
=
S
r
r
ln W
we
e
s
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
Oil well
s l o
wf r h
W B
) P P ( h k 00708 . 0
Q

=

Gas well
s
wf r h
g
W ) 460 T (
) ( h k 000703 . 0
Q
+

=

Oil well
|
.
|
\
|
| +
=
DQ
L
h
W B
) P P ( h k 00708 . 0
Q
s l o
wf r h

68 July 2013
Gas well
|
.
|
\
|
| + +

=
g s
wf r h
g
DQ
L
h
W ) 460 T (
) ( h k 000703 . 0
Q

where:
r
e
= Reservoir drainage radius (ft)
|
k
h
k
v
D
horz
D
vert
r
w
W
s
r
we
= Effective wellbore radius (ft)
P
r
P
wf
B
o
l
Q
g
= Gas rate (Mscf/d)
r
2
/cp)
wf
2
/cp)
D = Ramey D turbulence term (1/bpd or
1/Mscf/d)
July 2013 69
Renard and Dupuy (1991)
The Renard and Dupuy
56
IPR type considers a drainage shape factor for steady-state flow. This
IPR type is not suggested if half the tunnel length is greater than 0.9 times the effective drainage
radius.
4
e
2
L
r
25 . 0 5 . 0
2
L
a
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =

Calculate a drainage shape factor
L
a 2
= c

Calculate anisotropic factor
v
h
k
k
= |

) ( cosh D
1
horz
c =

(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
| t
+ |
|
|
.
|
\
|
| =
12
r 2
) 1 (
h 2
ln
L
h
D
w
vert

S
L
h
D D W
vert horz s
| + + =

Oil well
s l o
wf r h
W B
) P P ( h k 00708 . 0
Q

=

70 July 2013
Gas well
s
wf r h
g
W ) 460 T (
) ( h k 000703 . 0
Q
+

=

Oil well
|
.
|
\
|
| +
=
DQ
L
h
W B
) P P ( h k 00708 . 0
Q
s l o
wf r h

Gas well
|
.
|
\
|
| + +

=
g s
wf r h
g
DQ
L
h
W ) 460 T (
) ( h k 000703 . 0
Q

where:
r
e
= Reservoir drainage radius (ft)
|
k
h
k
v
D
horz
D
vert
r
w
W
s
P
r
P
wf
B
o
July 2013 71
l
Q
g
= Gas rate (Mscf/d)
r
2
/cp)
wf
2
/cp)
D = Ramey D turbulence term (1/bpd or I
/Mscf/d)

Figure 3.7: Schema for Kuchuk and Babu & Odeh correlations
Kuchuk (1988)
Kuchuk
57
makes an evaluation of a horizontal well performance where the position of the
wellbore in the reservoir can be designated for pseudosteady-state flow. The Kuchuk IPR type
assumes that the distance from the well to any lateral boundary must be large relative to the
distance from the well to the top and bottom of the reservoir.
Distance and permeability ratios
par
L
d 2
L
d =

y
x
par
per
r
k
k
d
d
K =

The above ratios are used in a dimensionless drainage calculation routine of tables to calculate a
dimensionless f
d
term.
) K , d , d , d ( f f
r L y x d
=

Effective horizontal permeability
y x h
k k k =

72 July 2013
Anisotropic factor
v
h
k
k
= |

(
|
.
|
\
| t
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
+
t
=
h
d
sin
1
1
h 12
r
ln D
bot w
horz

(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
=
2
bot bot
vert
h
d
h
d
3
1
L
h 2
D

| | S ) D D (
L
h 2
f W
vert horz d s
+ | + =

July 2013 73
Oil well
s l o
wf r h
W B 6 . 70
) P P ( h k
Q
=

Gas well
s
wf r h
g
W ) 460 T ( 711
) ( h k
Q
+

=

where:
d
L
= Distance ratio
d
par
= Drainage distance parallel to wellbore (ft )
K
r
= Horizontal permeability ratio
d
per
= Drainage distance perpendicular to wellbore (ft)
k
x
= Horizontal permeability in X direction (md)
k
y
= Horizontal permeability in Y direction (md)
f
d
= Dimensionless drainage factor
d
x
= Distance ratio to X
d
y
= Distance ratio to Y
k
h
= Effective horizontal permeability (md)
|
k
v
D
horz
r
w
d
bot
= Distance to reservoir bottom (ft)
W
s
D
vert
74 July 2013
P
r
P
wf
B
o
l
r
2
/cp)
wf
2
/cp)
Babu and Odeh (1989)
The Babu and Odeh
59
horizontal reservoir correlation uses a pseudosteady-state model with the
horizontal tunnel position considered. For Babu and Odeh, one of the following conditions must
be satisfied:
a)
v x
x
y
y
k
h 75 . 0
k
L 75 . 0
k
L
>> >

b)
z y
y
x
x
k
h
k
L 33 . 1
k
L
>> >

Calculate permeability ratios
hy
per
per
k
d
' k =

hx
par
par
k
d
' k =

v
ver
k
h
' k =

Two cases are possible:
Case 1: If k'per > 0.75>>0.75 k'ver
Pxyz term
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
| t
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 84 . 1
h
d
sin ln
k
k
ln 25 . 0
r
h 12
ln 1
L
d
P
bot
v
hx
w
par
xyz

July 2013 75
Calculate P'xy
hx
v
par
2
o
k
k
hL
d 2
F =

par
1
d
L
5 . 0 F =

par
x 2
d
L
5 . 0 v 2 F + =

par
x 3
d
L
5 . 0 v 2 F =

Evaluate F
i
. If F
i
is less than or equal to 1.0
( ) ( )
2
i i i i
F 137 . 0 F 2 ln 145 . 0 F ' F + =

Otherwise
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
i i i i
F 2 137 . 0 F 2 ln 145 . 0 F 2 ' F + =

This results in three values of F'
1
, F'
2
, F'
3
. Then
( ) ( )
3 2 1 0 xy
' F ' F 5 . 0 ' F F ' P + =

Case 2: If k'
par
> 0.75 k'
par
>> k'
ver
then
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
par
par
2
par
x
par
x
x per
par
2
v hy y
d 24
3
d
L
L
d
v
d
v
3
1
k hd
d 28 . 6
k k P

|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
= y
2
y
hy
v
per
par
xy
v v
3
1
h
k
k
d 28 . 6
1
L
d
P

xy y xy
P P ' P + =

S ' P P S
xy xyz r
+ + =

Shape factor, CH
h
d
CH
per
ml
=

76 July 2013
hy
v
r
k
k
k =

y
2
y 1
v v
3
1
CH + =

|
.
|
\
| t
=
h
d
sin ln CH
bot
2

( )
r ml 3
k CH ln 5 . 0 CH =

088 . 1 CH CH CH k CH 28 . 6 CH
3 2 1 r ml
=

Effective horizontal permeability
v hy he
k k k =

Drainage areavertical plane
par vert
d h D =

Calculate rate
Oil well
(
(
(
(
+ +
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
r
w
l l
wf r par hr
S 75 . 0 CH
12
r
A
ln B
) P P ( r k 00708 . 0
Q
Gas well
(
(
(
(
+ +
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+

=
r
w
wf r par hr
g
S 75 . 0 CH
12
r
A
ln ) 460 T ( 1422
) ( r k
Q

July 2013 77
where:
k
v
d
per
= Perpendicular drainage distance (ft)
k
hy
d
par
= Parallel drainage distance (ft)
k
hx
r
w
d
bot
v
x
= Distance ratio in X direction
v
y
= Distance ratio in Y direction
P
r
P
wf
l
B
l
= Liquid formation volume factor (rb/stb)
A = Drainage area (ft
2
)
Q
g
= Gas rate (Mscf/d)
r
2
/cp)
wf
2
/cp)
78 July 2013
Goode and Thambynaya (1987)

Figure 3.8: Schema for Goode & Thambynaya correlation
The Goode and Thambynaya
58
IPR type uses a transient model for use in horizontal wells and
takes into account the position of the wellbore.
Calculate anisotropy and position effect
4 / 1
hy
v w
w
k
k
12
r
' r
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

hy
hx
par
w
x
k
k
d
' r
v =

hy
v w
z
k
k
h
' r
v =

( )
h
' r 47 . 1 d
z
w bot
s
+
=

Dimensionless time calculated
Oil well
2
w t l
hy
d
' r c
t k 000264 . 0
t
|
=

Gas well
2
w t g
hy
d
' r c
24 t k 000264 . 0
t
|

=

Position factors
( )
par
sd
nl
d
d L
X
+ t
=

July 2013 79
par
sd
2 n
d
d
X
t
=

( )
h
' r 2 d
X
w bot
ml
+ t
=

( )
h
' r 2 d
X
w bot
2 m
t
=

Error function terms
d x 1
t v E t =

d z 2
t v E t =

Summation terms
( ) in
2
1 i
1 1
x E erf
i
1
S

=
=

( ) ( )
x im
1 i
2 2
z i cos x E erf
i
1
S t =
=

where:
( ) ( )
L i
X i sin X i sin
x
2 n nl
in

=

( ) ( )
w
2 m ml
im
' r 4 i
X i sin X i sin
x

=

Summation multipliers
x
2
par
2
1 m
v
d
S
t
=

t
=
z
par
2 m
Lv
h d
S

Skin term
S
L ' r 2
k
k
hd
S
w
v
hy
par
h
=

80 July 2013
Rate
Oil well
( )
( )
h 2 m 2 1 m 1 d w l o
wf r hy par
S S S S S t ' r B 4 . 282
P P hk d
Q
+ + + t

=

Gas well
( )
( )
h 2 m 2 1 m 1 d w
wf r hy par
g
S S S S S t ) 460 T ( ' r 2844
hk d
Q
+ + + t +

=

where:
r
w
k
v
k
hy
v
x
= X position factor
d
par
= Parallel drainage distance (ft)
k
hx
v
z
= Z position factor
z
s
= Vertical position factor
d
bot
r'
w
= Adjusted wellbore radius (in)
t = Producing time (hr)
|
= Reservoir porosity
l
c
t
g
d
sd
= Distance to reservoir side (ft)
S = Formation skin
P
r
July 2013 81
P
wf
Q
g
= Gas rate (Mscf/d)
r
2
/cp)
wf
2
/cp)
Guo & Evans (1993) - Horizontal well with multiple fractures
This IPR can be used in pseudo-steady horizontal gas wells intersecting multiple natural or
hydraulic fractures 97. It is valid for rectangular reservoir and for both fully and partially
penetrated horizontal wells. It can be used in either open hole horizontal wells or cased
horizontal wells. The number of fractures when entered must be greater than two (2).
For a fully penetrating horizontal well intersecting natural fractures, following equation is used.
It is eq. 23 in the Guo and Evans paper for gas with simplifications.
( ) ( ) | |
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2
2
2 2
1
1
4
ln
2
2
sin
2
cosh
arccos
3
1
1
4 4
ln
2
1422
w A
f
f
h
f
w A
wf h
g
r C
hL
c k
h k
a
L
aN
b
h
NC
r C
ah
h
bC
T
P m P m h k
q
t
t
|
|
|

For a non fully penetrating horizontal well intersecting natural fractures, following equation is
used. This equation is a simplified version of eq. 28 in the Guo and Evans paper.
82 July 2013
( ) ( ) | |
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2
2
2
1
'
'
2
1
4
ln
2
2
sin
2
cosh
arccos
3
1
2
4
ln
2
ln
2
1
2
2
ln
2
sin
2
cosh
arccos
3
1
1422
w A
f
f
h
f
w A
f
f
h
CA
w
e
w
wf h
g
r C
hL
c k
h k
a
L
aN
L
h
C N
r C
hL
c k
h k
S S A
r
r
C
r
h
L
h
b
L
b
a
h
C
T
P m P m h k
q
t
t
|
|
t
|
t
t

where:
+
=
1
1
1
C

+
=
1
2
C
.
For open hole horizontal well intersecting natural fractures
L r
NhL
w
f
t
=

Considering effect of permeability anisotropy
( ) | | L r
hL N
w
f
| | t
|
+
=
1 5 . 1
2

where:
v h
k k = |
.
For cased horizontal well intersecting multiple hydraulic fractures
0
1
= C

0 . 1
2
= C
.
July 2013 83
( )
t
(
=
N
L N
b
a
r
e
2
2
'

AF
CA
C
S
8828 . 30
ln =

(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
512 . 0 141 . 0 196 . 0
log 38 . 1
e
e
f
e
f
AF
y
x
A
x
x
x
C

where:
2 / b x
e
=

2 / a y
e
=

2 /
f f
L x =

The equation for calculating
AF
C is only valid for cases where 20 / 1 s <
e e
y x .
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
w
f
r
L
S
4
ln

738 . 0
'
= A

1 A
C and
2 A
C can be obtained from Table 1 in the Guo and Evans paper.
where:
a
= reservoir width, ft
A
= drainage area, ft
2

'
A
= constant
b
= reservoir length, parallel to horizontal well, ft
c
= fracture aperture, ft
2 1
, C C
= weighing functions, dimensionless
1 A
C
= shape factor corresponding to the location of horizontal well in vertical plane,
dimensionless
2 A
C
= shape factor corresponding to the location of horizontal well in vertical fracture,
dimensionless
AF
C
= vertical fracture shape factor, dimensionless
h
= reservoir thickness, ft
f
k
= fracture permeability, md
84 July 2013
h
k
= horizontal permeability in matrix, md
v
k
= vertical permeability in matrix, md
L
= horizontal well length, ft
f
L
= fracture length, ft
( ) P m
= real gas pseudo pressure, psi
2
/cp
N
= number of fractures intersected by a horizontal well
P
= average reservoir pressure, psi
wf
P
= flowing bottom hole pressure, psi
g
q
= gas rate, Mscf/d
S
= skin factor, dimensionless
CA
S
= shape dependent pseudo-skin factor, dimensionless
T
= reservoir temperature,
o
R
|
= permeability anisotropic ratio, dimensionless

= 1.781, exponential of Eulers constant, dimensionless
Coalbed Methane (CBM) - Thungsuntonkhun and Engler
(2001)
The Thungsuntonkhun and Engler paper (SPE 71068) presents a method to calculate the inflow
performance relationship curve for undersaturated coal gas system based on a Fetkovich type
approach. The single phase gas production is different from a conventional dry gas reservoir
because of the effect of matrix shrinkage. Previous work, considered single-phase gas production
from coal bed like a conventional gas reservoir; however, this work demonstrates that
permeability increases at lower reservoir pressure resulting in an increasing production rate for
given well bore flowing pressure (Pwf).
Various CBM literatures presented that shrinkage of the coal matrix can cause the cleat
permeability to increase especially when pressure drops below the desorption pressure.
According to these works, at pressure higher than the desorption pressure the cleat permeability
is influenced by the pore volume compressibility and tends to reduce the permeability. However,
after the pressure drops below the desorption pressure, the shrinkage effect becomes dominant,
resulting in increasing permeability
Single-Phase Gas Production Equation
As reservoir pressure continues to drop below the desorption pressure, the relative permeability
to gas increases, subsequently reducing water production and therefore the flow stream can be
approximated as a conventional single-phase gas. However, a conventional dry gas concept
July 2013 85
cannot apply with the coal gas due to the effect of matrix shrinkage. Due to the effect of matrix
shrinkage, porosity and permeability of the cleat become functions of pressure; therefore, the
equation for single-phase gas production for coal with the effect of matrix shrinkage can be
described as follows:
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
6
ln
10 703
wf
g w e
g
p p p k
Z r r T
h
q

(1)

g
q
= gas flow rate
h
= thickness, ft
( ) p k
= permeability as a function of pressure, can be solved from either
Seidle & Huitt
2
equation or Palmer & Mansoori
3
equation.
wf
p
= bottom flowing pressure, psi
T = temperature, R
e
r
= drainage radius, ft
w
r
= wellbore radius, ft
g

= gas viscosity, cp
Z = gas deviation factor
Seidle and Huitt
2
(SH) measured the shrinkage of coal matrix due to gas desorption and
concluded that matrix shrinkage depends on coal rank and adsorbed gas composition. They
reported that the shrinkage of coal matrix increases the cleat width and subsequently increases
the permeability. The equations are derived based on the following assumptions; 1) matrix
swelling or shrinkage is proportional to the amount of gas sorbed on the coal matrix, not the gas
pressure and 2) that in-situ coal deposits can be represented by a matchstick geometry.
The equations for calculating the changing of porosity and permeability by Seidle and Huitt
2
are
written below.
3
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
fi
f
fi
f
k
k
|
|

( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =

bp
bp
bp
bp
V c
i
i
m m
fi fi
f
1 1
10
2
1 1
6
| |
|

(2)
where:
86 July 2013

(3)
The matrix swelling coefficient equation (3) is developed assuming that the swelling is
proportional to the amount of gas sorbed and that the sorbed gas is related to pressure by
Langmuirs equation.

= porosity

= initial porosity

= Langmuir isotherm surface constant, scf/ton

= Langmuir pressure constant

= pressure

= pressure, psi

= matrix swelling coefficient, ms-ton/scf

= micro-strain, experimental

= mechanical compliance coefficient, micro-strain/psi
Palmer and Mansoori
3
(PM) developed a new hypothetical equation for stress-dependent
permeability. The new equation includes both stress and shrinkage effects. The formula also
applies for uniaxial strain conditions expected in most reservoirs. The equation is derived from
an equation of linear elasticity for strain changes in porous rock and can be written as follows:
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
|
.
|
\
|
+ + =
i
i
i
o
i
i
m
i
bp
bp
bp
bp
M
K c
p p
c
1 1
1 1
| | |
|

(4)
|
(
+ = 1
1
f
M
K
M
c
m

(5)
3
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
i fi
f
k
k
|
|

(6)

o
c
= parameter of Langmuir curve match to volumetric strain change due to matrix
shrinkage
K = bulk modulus,
M = constrained axial modulus
bp
bp
V
p c
c
m
p
m
+
+
=
1
exp
c
f
|
fi
|
m
V
b
i
p
p
m
c
exp
c
p
c
July 2013 87
f = a fraction coefficient in C
m
equation
| = grain compressibility, 1/psi
The relationship between porosity and permeability is given by equation (6). The authors argued
that the changes in permeability are the functions of elastic moduli, initial porosity, sorption
isotherm parameters, and pressure drawdown. Moreover, this equation is valid only for one gas
component.
PM method is appropriate for uniaxial strain conditions expected in a reservoir. The equation
does not apply for a case where a pressure gradient exists during flow towards the wellbore from
the reservoir. The main limitation of this model appears to be that the porosity changes have to
be small. The model is recommended for porosity changes less than 30%. However, when the
porosity changes exceed this limit, the results should be able to illustrate the trend.
Finally, Thungsuntonkhun and Engler
1
concluded that:
- The single-phase gas production from coal is different from a conventional dry gas
reservoir because of the effect of matrix shrinkage. Thus the formulation to generate an
IPR curve for single-phase coal gas needs to include the changing of permeability with
pressure in the calculations.
- The effect of matrix shrinkage shows more influence at low flowing pressures.
- More data points especially at low pressure are required in order to prove which methods
(SH and PM) will be the better one to calculate IPR curve for coal bed methane with the
effect of matrix shrinkage.
- The smaller the porosity the more significant effect of permeability changing on the gas
flow rate and thus the IPR curve calculation.
References:
1. "Well Deliverability of Undersaturated Coalbed Reservoir", W. Thungsuntonkhun and
T.W. Engler, SPE 71068, May 2001
2. "Experimental Measurement of Coal Matrix Shrinkage Due to Gas Desorption and
Implications for Cleat Permeability Increase," P.J. Seidle and G.L. Huitt, SPE 30010,
Nov. 1995.
3. "How Permeability Depends on Stress and Pore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model," I.
Palmer and J. Mansoori, SPE 36737, Oct. 1996.
Coning/Cresting
Water coning occurs when a water front, below the oil zone, moves up toward the well
perforations in a cone shape. Under certain conditions, water breaks through to the well and both
oil and water are produced.
Similarly, gas coning occurs when gas coming from a free-gas zone above the formation moves
down to the perforations and breaks into the wellbore.
The two most important calculations regarding coning are the critical rate and the breakthrough
time. The Critical Rate is the maximum oil production rate under steady-state conditions,
88 July 2013
required in the well to avoid water or gas coning, when a bottom water zone or a gas cap is
present. For some certain production rate, the Breakthrough time is the time required by the
water or gas to get to the perforations by coning. Before this time, only oil is produced.
Some techniques used to prevent the coning phenomena include keeping the maximum oil
production rate below a critical rate and perforating away from the initial gas-oil and water-oil
contacts.
For vertical wells, most of the pressure drawdown occurs around the wellbore, but in horizontal
wells the pressure drawdown near the wellbore is smaller, and hence the effect of cresting is
minimized. For horizontal wells, coning is normally referred to as Cresting.
Critical Rate
Chaperon presented the following equations for critical rates to avoid gas and water coning under
steady-state conditions
83
.
For vertical wells,
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

5 . 0
h
v A
*
c
h
5
k
k
h
r
q ) h (
h k
10 x 486 . 3 Qc A

For horizontal wells,
F
h k
) h (
X
L
10 x 486 . 3 Qc
h
A
5
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

A
*
lc aq F =
5 . 0
h
v A
k
k
h
X
a |
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
where:
Q
c
= Critical rate, STB/D
h = Initial oil thickness, ft

= Oil viscosity, cp
A
= Density difference, water-oil and oil-gas
q
lc
= Dimensionless critical rate
k
v
= Vertical oil permeability, md
k
h
= Horizontal oil permeability, md
r
A
= Drainage radius for steady-state (where interface elevation is h)
L = Horizontal well length, ft
X
A
= Location of a constant pressure boundary for steady-state.
July 2013 89
Paper SPE 15377 shows different values of F and q
lc
*
(dimensionless critical rate) for different
Critical cone heights, a. The main assumptions in this study are:
Static equilibrium is achieved. (Viscous flow potential difference equals gravity potential
difference.)
Vertical well is completed on a short interval at the bottom of the oil zone.
Water Breakthrough Time
Yang and Wattenbarger proposed the following equation to estimate the breakthrough time for
water coning in vertical and horizontal wells
85
. The main assumptions are:
No flow across the outer boundary.
Formation is underlaid by a recharged bottom aquifer.
Only one perforation interval.
Reservoir is homogeneous but an isotropic.
Only water and oil are present at reservoir conditions.
For both vertical and horizontal wells,
qt
) Np (
t
bt
bt =
) )( 1 ( ) ( p ap wb or wc bt h h h h S S A Np =
For vertical wells,
4 . 0
4 . 1
7 . 0
D
6 . 0
De
4
2
wb
p ap
) 1 (
) 1 (
M 1
1
q
1
r
1
10 x 0633 . 39 1
h
h h h
o
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
(

(
(

+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
7 . 1 03 . 0
5 . 0
D
5 . 0
De
h
) 1 )( 1 (
M 1
1
q
1
r
1
7757 . 485 1 0015 . 0 m
o

kh
kv
h
re
rDe =

A
2
ro h
o t
D
h ' k k
q
q =

h
hap
=

h
hp
= o

ro
rw
w
o
' k
' k
M
=

90 July 2013
And, for horizontal wells,
4 . 0
D
65 . 0
D
32 . 0 4
2
wb
ap
M 1
1
q
1
x
1
xa 10 x 7921 . 4 1
h
h h
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
(

(
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
3 . 0 25 . 0
5 . 0
D
4 . 0
D
18 . 0
) 1 )( M 1 (
q
1
x
1
h
xa
7496 . 2 1 004 . 0 m

kh
kv
h
xa
XD =

A
Lh ' k k K
q
q
ro h v
o t
D =

h
hap
=

ro
rw
w
o
' k
' k
M
=

where:
t
bt
= Breakthrough time, days
Np
bt
= Cumulative Oil production at breakthrough, STBO
qt = Total fluid production rate, STB/D
A = Cross sectional area, ft
2

= Porosity, fraction
S
wc
= Connate water saturation
S
or
= Residual oil saturation
h = Initial oil formation thickness, ft
h
wb
= Breakthrough height, ft
h
ap
= Oil column height above perforations, ft
h
p
= Perforation length, ft
r
De
= Dimensionless drainage radius
r
e
= Drainage radius, ft
k
v
= Vertical permeability, md
k
h
= Horizontal permeability, md
July 2013 91
q
D
= Dimensionless production rate
A
= Water-oil gravity difference, psi/ft
x
D
= Dimensionless drainage width
x
a
= Drainage width, ft
L = Horizontal well length, ft
k
rw
= Water relative permeability at (1-S
or
)
k
ro
= Oil relative permeability at S
wc

o
= Oil viscosity, cp
w
= Water viscosity, cp
Gas Breakthrough Time
Benamara and Tiab performed regression analysis to develop empirical gas coning correlations
to estimate the gas breakthrough time
84
. The main assumptions included a horizontal gas-oil
contact, closed outer boundaries, one perforation interval and applicability of the frontal advance
theory. For vertical wells, the following expressions were proposed:
( ) ( )
726 . 2 296 . 2
241 . 0
D
913 . 0
h
v
928 . 0
bt 1 1
M 1
1
q
1
k
k
2 . 0 t c
|

+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

( ) g o
2
o h
o
D
h k
q
q
o

=

ro
rg
g
o
k
k
M
=

h
hbp
=

For horizontal wells,
( )
8122 . 2
3119 . 0
D
8819 . 0
h
v
2013 . 1
bt 1
M 1
1
q
1
k
k
0305 . 0 t
|

+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

) ( Lh k k
q
q
g o o h v
o o
D

=

ro
rg
g
o
k
k
M
=

92 July 2013
h
hbhw
=

where:
t
bt
= Breakthrough time, days

= Porosity, fraction
k
v
= Vertical permeability, md
k
h
= Horizontal permeability, md
q
D
= Dimensionless production rate
M = Mobility ratio

= Fraction of oil column height above perforations
c
= Fraction of perforation interval, h
p
/ h
qo = Oil production rate, STB/D
o
= Oil viscosity, cp
k
v
= Vertical oil permeability, md
k
h
= Horizontal oil permeability, md
L = Horizontal well length, m
o
= Oil density at reservoir conditions, gm/cc
g
= Gas density at reservoir conditions, gm/cc
ho = Initial oil formation thickness, m
h = Oil formation thickness, m
h
bhw
= Breakthrough height, m
h
bp
= Oil column height below, m
o
= Oil viscosity, cp
g
= Gas viscosity, cp
k
rg
= Gas relative permeability at (1-S
or
)
k
ro
= Oil relative permeability at S
wc

July 2013 93
Total Skin Factor
The ideal vertical well is an open-hole that produces a single-phase fluid through a non-damaged
or stimulated formation under the Darcys law. But since this is never the actual case, the
concept of the skin factor, s, was introduced to quantify the diverse parameters not considered in
the ideal flow equation that affect the pressure behavior around the wellbore.
The skin factor has been used to calculate additional pressure losses occurred around the
wellbore that are believed to be caused by formation damage. Thus, a positive value of s will
indicate damage, whereas negative values will reflect formation stimulation. However, linking
the skin factor only to formation damage is a very simple interpretation that is still used by many
in the oil industry.
Since the skin factor calculated from a well test is a combination of several pseudo-skin factors,
the definition of a total skin factor has to include other important factors that affect the flow near
the wellbore. Basically any flow restriction which is not accounted for in the ideal radial flow
equation has to be included in the total skin factor equation.
The total skin factor, s
t
, is computed as the combination of four major skin factors: mechanical,
partial penetration, geometrical and perforation. The equation to estimate this total skin factor
takes the following form:
S
t
= S
d
+ S
pp
+ S
g
+ S
p

where:
St = Total skin factor
Sd = Skin factor due to formation damage (drilling and completion fluids) around
the wellbore
Spp = Skin factor due to partial penetration
Sg = Skin factor due to well geometry
Sp = Skin factor due to compacted zone around the perforation
Most of the completion models (Except Gravel pack only) include the Sp. This is why it is not
added to the Skin Factor dialog box while calculating the total skin for the reservoir.
Depending on the completion type, you can select all or any of the three skins to be added with
the reservoir IPR (Darcy, Jones, etc.) to cover all the applicable skins for that system. This will
help you to avoid repetition of perforation skin while modeling a particular reservoir.
If a positive value of S
t
is calculated using the above equation, it does not necessarily indicate
formation damage and any attempt to increase production via stimulation treatments would be
unnecessary.
In case of gas wells producing at high flow rates, another pseudo-skin factor due to non-laminar
flow has to be included, but its generally integrated into the flow equation as a turbulence
factor.
94 July 2013
Partial Penetration Skin Factor
The partial penetration pseudo-skin factor accounts for additional pressure drop generated when
only a portion of the wellbore is open to flow because the perforated-interval length is lower than
the total formation thickness. A restricted entry creates turbulence because of flow convergence
and 2-D flow in the near wellbore zone. PERFORM uses the model developed by McKinley,
reported by Saidikowski
88
, as shown below:
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 2
Kv
Kh
rw
ht
Ln 1
hp
ht
Spp

where:
Spp = Partial penetration pseudo-skin factor
ht = Total formation thickness
Hp = Length of perforated interval
rw = Wellbore radius
Kh = Horizontal permeability
Kv = Vertical permeability
As can be seen, the controlling parameters on Spp are the permeability anisotropy, penetration
ratio and wellbore size.
Geometrical Skin Factor
Based on the geometry shape, wells can be classified as vertical, inclined, horizontal, undulating
and multibranched. The geometrical pseudo-skin factor is used to correct productivity
calculation of inclined (deviated/slanted) wells. The equations used are those proposed by
Rogers and Economides
89
:
Kv
Kh
ani I =

rw
ht
hD =

For I ani <1,
821 . 0
184 . 0 77 . 1
ani I
h sin
64 . 1 Sg
D u
=

For Iani 1,
964 . 0
152 . 0 87 . 5
ani I
h sin
48 . 2 Sg
D u
=

July 2013 95
where:
Sg = Partial penetration pseudo-skin factor
Iani = Ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability
ht = Total formation thickness
rw = Wellbore radius
Kh = Horizontal permeability
Kv = Vertical permeability
u
= Well deviation angle with respect to a vertical plane
Acid Treatment
Completion Stimulation Performance Evaluation After Acid Treatment
Matrix stimulation is a technique intended to remove near-wellbore damage for carbonate and
some sandstone reservoirs. The main objective of acid treatment is to reduce skin damage in
existing completions so that production from the well can be enhanced. Keeping completion
pressure drop low by stimulating the formation near the wellbore is a critical production
optimization technique. One of the most common problems associated with matrix acidizing
candidates well is the existence of high wellbore skin factors. The accurate identification and
quantitative analysis of these skins are extremely important in the design and evaluation of a
stimulation treatment.
The economic success of matrix acidizing treatment often cannot be evaluated until after several
months of production following clean-up of the well and recovery of the injected fluid from such
treatments. The initial evaluation of the engineering design must therefore be made from data
obtained on site immediately prior to the treatment, during the pumping, and immediately
following shut down.
PERFORM has a model to evaluate acid treatment performance for matrix acidizing (developed
by Prouvost and Economides1,2). This model provides skin evaluation for real time matrix
acidizing job by using reservoir transients during acid injection to simulate pressure response of
the unperturbed reservoir and comparing simulated pressures with measured values. The
difference between simulated and measured bottom hole pressures is attributed to the changing
skin effect. The skin evolution is shown as a function of injection time. PERFROM will calculate
the final skin value after the treatment is completed. This final skin indicates the effectiveness of
the acid treatment.
Note: This model is applicable to vertical oil well matrix stimulation. The model can be used in
production and injection wells, and can be used on both fractured and unfractured
reservoirs. In the future, PERFORM will include acid treatment models for gas wells,
horizontal wells.
96 July 2013
Although acid treatment feature is available for some downhole network options (with the
exception of Quad Opposed and Herringbone trilateral configurations), it should be used with
caution since the model originally was developed for vertical wells.
The following data are required to use acid treatment feature:
- Wellbore setup: Tubing and casing data are entered in the wellbore Data dialog
- Falloff test data and reservoir data: The density and viscosity of the injecting fluids (
mainly acid mixture) , as well as the injection rate and wellhead or bottom hole pressure
are entered in the Falloff Test Data table in Acid treatment dialog.
- The output from the calculation is a final skin factor after completion of the treatment
process: User can select to use the final skin factor for well deliverability (IPR) modeling
by selecting Apply Calculated Skin Factor to the Reservoir Skin in Acid treatment dialog.
Correlations
Correlations To Calculate Bottomhole Pressure (When Not Given)
Appendix A of reference 1 gives the procedure to calculate bottom hole pressure from well head
pressure etc.
friction H it iw
p p p p A A + = (1)

P
iw
= bottom hole injection pressure
P
it
= well head injection pressure
AP
H

= hydrostatic head
AP
friction

= friction pressure drop
Hydrostatic head
For inclined wellbore, include angle:
}
= A
H
H
dz z g p
0
) (
(2)
In filed units:
}
= A
H
H
dz z p
0
) (
144
1

(3)
Where H is the total true vertical depth of the well; is the density of wellbore fluids, varying
with depth either because of a change in the nature of the fluid or because of the
pressure/temperature change; g is the acceleration of gravity, equals 9.81 m/s
2
or 32.17 ft/s
2
.

July 2013 97
Friction pressure drop in field units:
L
D
f q
p
friction
5
2
525 . 1

= A

(4)
where:
APfriction = Frictional pressure drop, in psi

= Fluid density, in Lb/ft
3

q = Flow rate, in BPM
D = Tubing ID, in inches
L = Tubing length, in feet
f = Fanning friction factor determined by eq. (5) or eq. (6) depending on N
Re
.
vD
N =
Re

where:
v is the average fluid velocity, D is tubing ID and is fluid viscosity.
Re
/ 16 N f = for N
Re
< 2100 (5)
4 . 0 ) ( log 4
1
Re 10
= f N
f
for N
Re
> 3000
(6)
For N
Re
between 2100 and 3000, the friction factor is interpolated by a straight line on log-log
scales between its values for N
Re
= 2100 and N
Re
= 3000.
Correlations To Calculate Simulated Pressure (From Reference 3)
Simulated pressure at time t is calculated by:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
u
+ + =
0 2
87 . 0 2275 . 3 log log
6 . 162
s
r c
k
t
kh
B q
p p
w t
i
i sim

(7)
After changing the injection rate, the transient response would follow a superposition
relationship; the injection pressure for one rate change would be:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
u
+ A
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
u
+ A + + =
0 2
2
0 2
87 . 0 2275 . 3 log log
) ( 6 . 162
87 . 0 2275 . 3 log ) log(
6 . 162
s
r c
k
t
kh
B q q
s
r c
k
t t
kh
B q
p p
w t
i i i
w t
i
i sim

(8)

98 July 2013
At injection time t
i
, the simulated pressure would be:
( ) ( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
u
+
+ + =

0
2
1
1
1
1
1
) 1 (
87 . 0 2275 . 3 log ) log(
6 . 162
) log( ) (log(
6 . 162
s
r c
k
t t
q q
kh
q B
t t
kh
q B
p p
w t
i i
i i i i i psim simi

(9)
where:
q = Total liquid flow rate (stb/d)
P
i
= Initial reservoir pressure (psi)
P
w

t = Producing time (hrs)
|
= Porosity
c
t
r
w
s
o
= Initial skin (user entry. Usually use 0, if unknown).

Note: formation compressibility range is 3X10
-6
~ 25X10
-6
.
Correlations To Calculate Skin Factor (From Reference 1)
The difference between the simulated pressure and the measured value is interpreted as due to
the difference between the actual skin value and the initial value used for the simulation:
)] , ( ) ( [
) ( ) ( ) ( 2 . 141
) 0 ( ) (
0
s t p t p
t t B t q
kh
s t s
sim meas

+ =

(10)
Where:
S(t) = Skin effect at time t
q(t) = Injection rate
B(t) = Formation volume factor
(t) = Fluid viscosity at time t
July 2013 99
k = Effective permeability, md
h = Net formation thickness, ft
P
meas
(t) = Measured bottomhole pressure, psi
P
sim
(t,
0
s )
= Simulated bottomhole pressure, psi.
Final value of the skin is calculated at the end of acidizing time. This is reported and can be used
for post acid treatment analysis.
References:
1. Prouvost, L.P. and Economides, M.J., 1987. Real-time evaluation of matrix acidizing
treatments. J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 1: 145-154.
2. Prouvost, L.P. and Economides, M.J., 1989. Applications of real-time matrix-acidizing
evaluation method. SPE Production Engineering, November, 401-407.
3. Al-Dhafeeri, A.M., Engler, T.W. and Nasr-El-Din, H.A., 2002. Application of two
methods to evaluate matrix acidizing using real-time skin effect in Saudi Arabia. SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 20-21 February.

July 2013 101
Completion Component
The completion component is a critical part of an efficient producing system, yet it often is taken
lightly. In the past, it has been found that many wells have produced at less than optimum levels
due to inadequacies in the completion design.
There are five primary completion types for an oil or gas well. The well depth, well type and
formation characteristics generally govern the decision of which completion method is used.
Open Hole Completion
In an open hole completion, illustrated in Figure 5.1, casing is set ,and usually cemented, directly
above the producing horizon prior to penetration of the zone. This type of completion is the least
expensive and, although common several years ago, is not used often in the industry today. The
disadvantage of this completion method is the inability to isolate any part of the producing
formation for stimulation, water shut-off, etc.

Figure 4.1: Open Hole Completion
In system analysis, the open hole is generally regarded with no pressure loss between the
sandface and the wellbore. If any damage is incurred at the formation face, it can be accounted
for as an additional skin effect within the reservoir. In the open hole completion, the sandface
pressure, P
ws
, is considered equal to the wellbore pressure, Pwf.
Completion Component PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
102 July 2013
Open Perforation Completion
The most common form of well completion used today is the perforated completion. In this case,
pipe is set and cemented through the producing formation and subsequently perforated to allow
the flow of fluids from the formation into the wellbore.

Figure 4.2: Open Perforation Completion
The variables that determine the efficiency of this completion method include the size and
number of perforations, the distribution of perforations, and the integrity of the reservoir rock
directly adjacent to the perforated tunnel. In 1983, Harry McLeod
98
published a paper that
provided a practical solution to the effects of a perforation on the well productivity. The
approach was to treat each perforation as a miniature, horizontal wellbore surrounded by a
crushed or compacted zone of reduced permeability, as shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Open Perforation
The perforation crushed or compacted zone is generally assumed to be 0.5 inches thick, with a
permeability of 20 percent of formation permeability if shot over-balanced, and 60 percent of
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Completion Component
July 2013 103
formation permeability if shot under-balanced. In order to predict the pressure loss through the
perforation, the miniature wellbore is assumed to be infinite acting, and the Jones equation
(discussed previously in the reservoir section) is modified as follows:
Open Perforated Completion: Oil Well
bQ + aQ =
P P
p
2
p
wf ws

where:
( ) | |
2
p
c p
2
p
14
L
r / 1 r / 1 B 10 30 . 2
a
|
=

( ) | |
( )
c p
p c
k L 00708 . 0
r / r ln B
b

=

where:

P
ws
P
wf
Q
p
= Liquid flow rate per perforation (stb/d/perf)
|
p
= Perforation turbulence factor (ft
-1
)

3
)
r
p
= Radius of perf tunnel (ft)
r
c
= Radius of compacted zone (ft)
L
p
= Perforated tunnel length (ft)

k
c
= Compacted zone permeability (md)

104 July 2013
Open Perforated Completion: Gas Well
bQ + aQ =
P P
p
2
p
2
wf
2
ws

where:
( ) | |
2
p
c p p g
12
L
r / 1 r / 1 TZ 10 16 . 3
a
|
=

( ) ( ) | |
c p
p c p
k L
r / r ln TZ 1424
b

=

where:
P
ws
P
wf
Q
p
= Gas flow rate per perforation (Mscf/d/perf)
g
|
p
= Perforation turbulence factor (1/ft)
T = Average reservoir temperature (
o
R)
Z = Average gas compressibility factor
r
p
= Radius of perforated tunnel (ft)
r
c
L
p
g
k
c
It is suggested that the majority of pressure loss through a perforation is incurred as a result of
the turbulent flow through the crushed or compacted zone.
Stable Perforation Completion
An alternative method for considering the pressure drop through the completion is given by
modifying the previous equations to account for an additional damaged zone near the wellbore
due to drilling or completion fluid incompatibilities with the formation, or due to formation
damage from other sources. The equations used to account for the pressure loss through the
completion using this model are:

July 2013 105
Stable Perforation Completion: Oil Well
| | DQ + Q
S
h k
B 141.4
=
P P
2
P p
tot
p r
wf ws

where:
( )
L r N
h k
B
10
1.63
= D
2
p p
2
p r
p
-16
|

and:
S
+
S
+
S
=
S dp d p tot

( ) | | ( ) | || |
d r c r p c p p dp
k / k k / k r / r ln N L / h S =

( )| | 1
k
/
k r
/
r
ln =
S d r w d d

S
p
is a function of perforating density, perforation length, perforation diameter, phasing, wellbore
radius, damage zone radius, damaged-zone permeability, and vertical and horizontal
permeability. The value of S
p
may be obtained from Lockes graph, or calculated by
Saidikowski.
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 2 ln 1
5 . 0
v
H
w p
p
k
k
r
h
h
h
S

where:
S
tot
= Total Skin factor
S
p
= Skin factor due to perforation geometry
S
d
= Skin factor due to formation damage around wellbore
S
dp
= Skin factor due to compacted zone
P
ws
P
wf
k
r
= Formation permeability (md)
h
p
Q
p
= Liquid flow rate per perforation (stb/d/perf)
p
-1
)
106 July 2013
3)

N = Total number of perforations
r
p
= Radius of perf tunnel (ft)
L
p
S
p
r
c
k
c
k
d
= Damaged zone permeability (md)
r
d
= Radius of damaged zone (ft)
r
w
= Radius of the wellbore (ft)
H = total formation thickness (ft)
kH = horizontal permeability (md)
kv = vertical permeability (md)
Stable Perforation Completion: Gas Well
| | DQ + Q
S
h k
ZT 1424
=
P P
2
p p
tot
p r
g
2
wf
2
ws

where:
( )
L r N
h k 10
2.22
= D
2
p
g
p
2
p r
g p
-15
|

and:
S
+
S
+
S
=
S dp d p tot

( ) | | ( ) | || |
k
/
k k
/
k r
/
r
ln N
L
/
h
=
S d r c r p c p p dp

( )| | 1
k
/
k r
/
r
ln =
S d r w d d

S
p
is a function of perforating density, perforation length, perforation diameter, phasing,
wellbore radius, damage zone radius, damaged-zone permeability, and vertical and
horizontal permeability. The value of S
p
may be obtained from Lockes graph, or
calculated by Saidikowski.
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
= 2 ln 1
5 . 0
v
H
w p
p
k
k
r
h
h
h
S

July 2013 107
where:
S
tot
= Total Skin factor
S
p
S
d
= Skin factor due to formation damage around wellbore
S
dp
= Skin factor due to compacted zone
P
ws
P
wf
g
T = Formation temperature (
o
R)
k
r
h
p
Q
p
= Gas flow rate per perforation (Mscf/d/perf)
p
-1
)
g
r
p
= Radius of perforated tunnel (ft)
L
p
S
p
r
c
k
c
k
d
r
d
= Radius of damaged zone (ft)
r
w
= Radius of the wellbore (ft)
H = total formation thickness (ft)
kH = horizontal permeability (md)
kv = vertical permeability (md)
108 July 2013
Collapsed Perforation Completion
An alternate method for determining the pressure loss through a perforated well is used when the
damage caused by perforating is severe. This usually occurs when sands move or slough during
perforation washing or acidizing. The method used to predict the completion pressure loss under
these conditions assumes that the fluid is flowing spherically into each perforation. The resulting
pressure drop is significantly higher than for 'normally' perforated wells or 'normal' perforated
wells as shown by McLeod.
41

Figure 4.4: Collapsed Perforation (Spherical Flow Model)
Collapsed Perforation Completion: Oil Well
( ) DQ + Q
S
h k
B 2 141.
=
P P
2
tot
p r
wf ws

where:
( )
|
r N
h k
B
10
5.42
= D
3
p
2
p r
p
-17

and:
sd s tot
S S S + =
| | | || || |
r
48 1
r
1/ /N
h
+ /N
h
45 S
p p p
1.1
p s
=
| || || || |
k
/
k k
/
k r
/
r
1
r
1/ /N
h
=
S d r c r c p p p sd

July 2013 109
1.2
d
10
p
k
10 2.60
=
|
12
1
+ r = r
p c

where:
S
tot
= Total Skin factor
S
s
S
sd
= Skin factor due to Compact Zone and Damaged Zone
P
ws
P
wf
k
r
h
p
Q = Liquid flow rate (stb/d)
|
p
-1
)

3
)
r
p
= Radius of perforation tunnel (ft)
r
c
k
c
k
d
Collapsed Perforation Completion: Gas Well
( ) DQ + Q
S
h k
ZT 1424
= P P
2
g g
tot
p r
g
wf
2
ws
2

where:
( )
|
g
p
3 2
p r g p
-16
r
N
h k
10
x 7.37
= D

and:
110 July 2013
sd s tot
S S = S +

| | | || || |
r
48 1
r
1/ /N
h
+ /N
h
45 =
S p p p
1.1
p s

| || || || |
k
/
k k
/
k r
/
r
1
r
1/ /N
h
=
S d r c r c p p p sd

1.2
d
10
p
k
10 2.60
=
|
12
1
+ r = r
p c

and where:
P
ws
P
wf
g
T = Formation temperature (
o
R)
k
r
h
p
Q
g
|
p
-1
)
g
r
p
= Radius of perforation tunnel (ft)
r
c
k
d
k
c
Gravel Pack Completion
In many wells, matrix cementing within the formation sand is insufficient to prevent sand from
being produced when the well is exposed to a pressure drawdown. Problems that are realized
because of this include restricted production, erosion of equipment and sand disposal problems.
In order to eliminate this sand control problem, the gravel pack technique was developed.
July 2013 111
In a standard gravel pack arrangement, illustrated in Figure 4.5, the well is perforated and
sometimes washed to remove debris. A slotted liner or gravel pack screen is run on tubing and
set across the perforations. High-permeability gravel is then pumped downhole and placed
between the screen and the perforations to provide a barrier between the formation sand and
wellbore.

Figure 4.5: Gravel Pack Schematic
In system analysis, the technique used to predict completion effects through a gravel pack is
simply the pressure loss due to linear flow through the gravel. The flow of fluid is assumed to be
linear through the perforation tunnel, through the gravel pack, and into the perforated or slotted
liner. The effect of flow through a perforation-damaged zone is considered negligible due to the
high permeability and unconsolidated nature of wells that are typically gravel packed. However,
the effect of linear flow through the gravel filled perforation tunnel can cause significant non-
Darcy pressure drop as shown by McLeod.
41
The distance of linear flow generally is assumed to
be from the outside of the cement sheath to the outside edge of the liner or screen.
The effect of the perforation tunnel itself is not considered in the gravel pack equation, however,
it can be considered by simply adding the pressure loss of the open perforation equation to the
gravel pack pressure loss to arrive at a total completion loss. The same method is used with the
gravel pack stable perforation and gravel pack collapsed perforation completion models. It must
be realized that in all cases the perforation tunnel past the cement sheath is NOT considered
filled with sand with the exception of the collapsed perforation model. If you want to consider
sand in the perforation tunnel, it is suggested that the gravel packed collapsed perforation model
be used.
The gravel pack equation uses the Jones equation modified to predict the pressure loss through
the completion in a gravel packed well. The equation is used in the linear form.
112 July 2013
Gravel Pack Completion: Oil Well
bQ + aQ =
P P
2
wf ws

where:
( )
( ) A
k
0.001127
L
B
= b
A
L B 10
9.08
= a
g
g
2
g
2
g
13 -
|

and where:
P
ws
P
wf
|
g
= Gravel pack turbulence factor (1/ft)

3
)
L
g
= Gravel pack linear flow length (ft)
A = Total area open to flow (ft
2
)(area/perf)(SPF)(H
p
)

k
g
= Permeability of gravel (md)
Gravel Pack Completion: Gas Well
bQ + aQ =
P P
2
2
wf
2
ws

where:
( )
( )
A
k
L
TZ 8930
= b
A
L
TZ
10
1.247
= a
g
g
g
2
g
g g
10 -
|

and where:
P
ws
P
wf
July 2013 113
Q = Gas flow rate (Mscf/d)
g
= Gas Specific gravity(area/perf)(SPF)(H
p
)
|
g
T =
Z = Avg. gas compressibility factor
L
g
= Gravel pack linear flow length (ft)
A = Total area open to flow (ft
2
)
g
k
g
= Effective gas permeability (md)
Gravel Pack Beta Turbulence Factor
The most common equations used to determine the gravel pack turbulence factor term, |
g
, are
the Crawford-McLeod
41
equation, the Cooke equation,
36
the Saucier equation,
11
and the
Firoozabadi and Katz equation.
37
Additionally, Tenneco has determined that the turbulence term
for a resin pack can be predicted by using a separate equation from those listed.
Crawford-McLeod Equation
( )
0.5
gravel
g
k
10,000,000
= |

where:
|
g
k
gravel
= Gravel permeability (md)
Cooke Equation
( )
F
gravel
g
/1000
k
E 30,920,000
=
|
where E and F are dependent on the gravel pack sand size.
Gravel Size E F
8-12 3.32 1.24
10-12 2.63 1.34
20-40 2.65 1.54
114 July 2013
40-60 1.10 1.60
Saucier Equation
( ) ( ) ( ) 1000 / k log 0.95 6.5
g
gravel
10 =

|
Firoozabadi And Katz Equation
( )
55 . 0
gravel
g
k
4,700,000 1
= |
Tenneco Equation For Resin Packs
( ) ( ) /1000 k log - 5.7
g
gravel
10 = |

Unless company policy or field experience dictates otherwise, the Firoozabadi and Katz equation
is recommended for use in determining the gravel pack turbulence factor.
Gravel Pack Open Hole Completion
The gravel pack open hole completion is a gravel packed well that does not have casing or
perforations across the producing zone.
Gravel Pack Open Hole: Oil Well
12
L
r = r
h k 0.00708
r
r
log B Q
= P P
g
w s
g
s
w
wf ws
|
.
|
\
|

Gravel Pack Open Hole: Gas Well
12
L
r = r
h k 10 7.03
r
r
log Z T Q
= P P
g
w s
g
4 -
s
w
g
2
wf
2
ws
|
.
|
\
|

where:
P
ws
P
wf
July 2013 115

= Oil viscosity (cp)
B = Formation volume factor (rb/stb)
r
w
r
s
= Gravel pack screen radius (ft)
k
g
= Gravel pack sand permeability (md)
H = Reservoir thickness (ft)
L
g
= Gravel pack linear flow length (in)
g
T = Avg. reservoir temp (R)
Gravel Pack Open Perforation Completion
The gravel pack open perforation completion is a numerical addition of the gravel pack and open
perforation models.
Gravel Pack Stable Perforation Completion
The gravel pack stable perforation completion is a numerical addition of the gravel pack and
stable perforation models.
Flux Calculation
Flux calculations are introduced as new criteria (other than drawdown limits) to monitor and
operate sand control completions. The main purpose of this surveillance system is to estimate the
maximum production rate at which a sand control completion can be safely produced. The two
dominant completion failures are screen erosion and destabilization of annular pack because of
excessive downhole flowing velocity from perforations (Vc - at casing ID). At this point,
PERFORM implemented the second criteria described in the SPE paper 84497.
The method is fully developed for cased hole, gravel pack completions assuming gravel-filled
perforations dominate the flow with in the completion. The average flowing velocity exiting the
perforation at the casing inside diameter (ID) is labeled as Vc. The destabilization of the annular
pack is an instability failure that occurs when the perforation velocity at the casing ID (Vc) is
high enough to fluidize the granular pack in the annular region around the perforation.
Laboratory tests and the field production log data can provide estimates of the maximum flowing
116 July 2013
velocity (Vcm) above which this failure occurs. Authors of the SPE 84497 suggested the
following equation as the maximum flow criterion for the destabilization of annular pack failure:
For failure: V
c
> V
cm
= 10 ft/sec
For the destabilization of annular pack, the perforation flowing velocity, V
c
, is the main variable.
In cased-hole gravel packs the perforations are the most vulnerable part of the completion. All
flow from the reservoir must pass through the perforation tunnels (between the casing cement
sheath and the casing ID) packed with gravels. The porous media flow across this cylindrical
perforation tunnel can enter the non-Darcy regime and the flowing pressure drop, P perf as a
function of V
c
, for a nearly incompressible fluid, is given as:
P perf = b (V
c
) + a (V
c
)
2
(1)
where:
b = 1. 138E+ 06 L
p
/ k
g
(2)
a = 1. 799E-05
g
L
p
(3)

= Down-hole reservoir fluid viscosity, cP
L
p
= Length of the perforation tunnel, defined as the difference between wellbore radius and
radius to casing ID, inches
k
g
. = Gravel permeability in the perforation tunnel, md
= Down-hole reservoir fluid density, lb/ft
3

g
= kinetic energy

coefficient ( for non-Darcy flow through porous media) or beta factor for
the gravel, 1/ft
Equation (1) provides a simple and effective means to calculate V
c
after P perf is known. This
pressure drop will be provided from PTA.
The perforation tunnels packed with gravel are the most likely choke point within the cased-hole
gravel pack completion where both the flow velocity and pressure drop would be the highest. For
simplicity, the assumption is made that the entire completion pressure drop from PTA can be
attributed to flow in the perforation tunnels only. Therefore, Equation (1) can be re-written as:
P skin-mechanical = P perf = b (V
c
) + a (V
c
)
2
(4)
The use of Equation (4) would generally result in a higher value of Vc as other pressure drops in
a completion, like flow converging into perforations outside the casing and flow across the
annular pack are ignored with the above assumption. This is conservative but not inappropriate
given the uncertainties of field data and. economic consequence of well failures.
Two gravel pack models (Gavel pack stable and gravel pack open perforations) will enable user
to calculate this velocity.

July 2013 117
PERFORM can estimate the pressure drop due to mechanical skin in two different ways:
- Let the program calculate option:
- Pressure drops through and across the perforations are calculated by PERFORM using
the existing completion models.
Enter the pressure drop due to mechanical skin from Pressure Transient Analysis Data:
The Inflow rates are interpolated on the given rates associated with the pressure drop due to
mechanical skin obtained from the PTA.
Reference:
1. Wong, G. K., Fair, P. S., Bland, K. F., and Sherwood, R. S.: Balancing Act: Gulf of
Mexico Sand Control Completions, Peak Rate Verses Risk of Sand Control Failure,
paper SPE 84497 presented at the 12003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO, 5-8 Oct. 2003.
Gravel Pack Collapsed Perforation Completion
The gravel pack collapsed perforation completion is a numerical addition of the gravel pack and
collapsed perforation models. Wells with collapsed perforations typically have sand control
problems and are typically gravel packed. This model may be best used in most gravel packed
well situations.
Perforation Gun Database
A simple method is proposed for predicting downhole shaped-charge gun performance based on
the API RP 43, fifth edition, 1991, section 1 data or API 19B, first edition, 2000 section 1 data
(This document supersedes all previously issued editions of API RP 43). The purpose of this
section in API document is to describe recommended practices for evaluating perforating
systems using concrete targets under multiple shot, ambient temperature and atmospheric
pressure test conditions. Incorporating necessary corrections for casing entrance hole size,
downhole effective formation stress, and casing configuration difference from those in the API
test, completes the translation of surface data to the downhole conditions. The conversion of API
recommended surface test performance involves consideration of the specific downhole
formation physical properties, formation in situ stress, casing properties and the specific gun to
casing configuration. Figure 4.6 and 4.7 shows a typical test target set up recommended in the
API documents.
118 July 2013

Figure 4.6: Example concrete target (API 19B)

Figure 4.7: Full view of the concrete target
The method introduced in PERFORM is from the SPE paper 27424 to calculate the perforation
length based on the downhole conditions. This paper reviews the factors affecting downhole
penetration and casing entrance hole size for perforating guns, discuss API data as a basis for
predicting downhole performance and proposes a procedure for translating surface API data to
downhole conditions.
Authors
1
suggested the following correlation to determine the equivalent mean wet compressive
strength from field cores.
db w
S S 41 . 0 =
(1)

July 2013 119
where:
w
S
= equivalent mean wet compressive strength, psi
db
S
= Compressive strength of dry briquette, psi
Thompson
2
disclosed a semi log relationship between formation wet compressive strength and
total penetration depth (casing thickness+ cement thickness + formation penetration). Following
equation was proposed to estimate the formation penetration:
( )( )
3
1 1
10 086 . 0 ln ln

+ = C c p P
(2)
where:
P = penetration into the producing formation
1
p
= penetration into the test formation
1
c
= compressive strength of the test formation
C
= compressive strength of the producing formation
A table is reproduced based on figure 4 to find the penetration multiplier at a certain effective
stress as recommended in the paper
1
. According to the authors
1
, the 3000 psi stress level
accounts for most of the effect expected in a reservoir (which is indicated in figure 4). Caution
should be exercised at stress levels much below 3000 psi because accuracy diminishes as a result
of perforator and rock strength dependency.
It is also argued that casing grade affects perforation entrance hole diameter to a significant
degree but exerts only a negligible effect on penetration across the typical API sec. 1 test range
of single casing wall thickness.
In single-casing completions, d
eh
varies with the mid range Brinell hardness, H, of the particular
casing grade, according to the following expression:
( ) | |
5 . 0
1 .
2 . 4 2250 / 6 . 3186
downhole ehSec ehdownhole
H d d + =
(3)
where:
ehdownhole
d
= entrance hole diameter at downhole condition, in
1 . ehSec
d
= entrance hole diameter measured in the grade L-80 casing specified in API RP
API RP 43 (or 19B, edition 1) section 1, edition 5
H = Brinell hardness, dimensionless
In multicasing completions, d
eh
in the inner concentric casing may be predicted from equation
(3). Values of second and third strings must be determined from tests simulating downhole
configurations because no simple, reliable predictive relationships exist.
120 July 2013

Figure 4.8: Effective stress induced penetration changes.
Reference:
1. "Simple method predicts downhole shaped-charge gun performance," R.E. Ott, W.T. Bell
and J.W. Harrigan Jr., SPE Production & Facilities, August 1994.
2. Effects of Formation Compressive Strength on Perforator Performance, Gene D.
Thompson, reprint series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1991) 31, 69-75.
Sand Production Prediction
This method is available for Open perforation, stable perforation and collapse perforation
completion types. It is not valid for any gravel pack type completions as gravel pack is one of the
remedies for controlling sand production.
When producing oil and gas in unconsolidated or poorly consolidated sandstone reservoirs, sand
may be produced with the fluids depending on the inter-granular cementation, inter-granular
friction, compaction, and cohesion of the particles making up the sandstones. Sand production is
undesirable for equipment erosion and plugging of the well and surface equipment. The
prediction of sand production is often necessary to evaluate the production system.
Maximum or critical pressure drawdown is usually used to predict the sand production. Sand will
be produced if the required drawdown is greater than the critical drawdown pressure. The critical
and required drawdown from the reservoir inflow performance corresponds to critical rate and
required production rate. If the required production rate is greater than the critical rate, sand will
be produced. For the sand producing wells, the sand production should be controlled in the
completion part of the reservoir.
Theoretically, sand prediction analyzes the failure or stability of perforation tunnels using rock
mechanics. Two rock failure mechanisms, tensile failure and shear failure, are generally accepted
as the causes for sand production.
July 2013 121
Morita et al. (1989) presented simplified models, (critical cyclic drawdown and critical
maximum drawdown), to predict sand production due to tensile and shear failures.
Tensile failure usually results from excessive drawdown, the critical drawdown for tensile failure
is
y w
C p o = A

where:
p
w
= psi, is the critical cyclic drawdown.
y
= psi, is the unconfined uniaxial yield strength of the sandstone (use positive value).
C is a constant coefficient depending on penetration tunnel shape, stress concentration, and
failure envelope. Normally, for a slim cavity, 2 ~ C . The authors recommended using 1.5 for the
coefficient for a reasonable safety factor.
Shear failure becomes a problem after reservoir depletion. For a pseudo steady-state flow, the
critical drawdown for shear failure is
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
(
(
+ +
+
+
+
+
+

|
.
|
\
|
= A
+
1
6 4 (
6
1
2 3
3 1
2
2
1
) 3 ( 2
2 3
1
2 1
2 3
1
) 3 2 (
2
0
0 1 0 0
0
|
|
| |
|
| v
|
|
o
v
v
E
T
T B B T
T p H
w
where:
C
0
and C
1
are coefficients associated with yield envelope and good estimations are:
y
C C C o
|
|
.
|
\
|
= =
1 0 1
3
1
, 2 . 0 ,
1
1
2
3
1
6
C
C
= | ,
1
0
0
2
3
1
C
C
T
= ,
) 2 (
3
1
H V
H o o o A + A = ,
V
, psi, and
H
, psi, are formation vertical and horizontal
stresses (with pore pressure), which are negative for compressive stresses).
y
o , psi, is rock unconfined yield strength.
E, psi, is rock Youngs modulus.
is rock Poissons ratio. Use 0.15 if not available.
B
0
and B
1
are coefficients associated with the maximum strain that the rock can stand. A
good estimated values are B
0
=0.02 and B
1
=0.008.

July 2013 122
Wellbore and Flowline
The vertical flow component of the well system is necessary for calculating the wellbore or
tubing curve for the system analysis at several flow rates. It is also used to calculate the gradient
curve for the gradient analysis at a defined flow rate. For a system analysis, the calculation of the
vertical flow is dependent on the node position. If the node is at the bottom of the well, then the
vertical flow component is the outflow curve of the well system. If the node is at the wellhead,
then the vertical flow component is part of the inflow curve. In this case, the outflow curves are
nothing more than constant pressure curves if there is no flowline considered in PERFORM.
In system analysis, with the node at the top perforation in the wellbore, the outflow segment is
defined as the summation of the components between the node and the downstream endpoint of
the system, usually the separator (with a flowline) or wellhead (no flowline). Because this
discussion designates the node at a point within the wellbore directly adjacent to the top
perforation of the completion or the top of the reservoir interval in an open hole completion, the
outflow segment is comprised of the following components:
- Flow through wellbore downhole safety valves or restrictions
- Flow up the tubing
- Flow through surface valves, restrictions, or chokes
- Flow through the flowline
In most producing well systems, flow up the tubing constitutes the majority of pressure loss in
the outflow segment, if not the entire system. In fact, in some oil wells more than 80 percent of
the pressure loss in the entire system occurs in the tubing as fluids are moved vertically from
downhole to the surface.
The flowline component is usually the second most predominant pressure loss component in the
outflow segment followed by the valves, chokes and other restrictions. In general, pressure loss
through restrictions is minimal unless an obvious undersizing or similar abnormality is present.
For this reason, the majority of this discussion will concentrate on the effects of the vertical flow
(tubing) component of the outflow segment.
In a typical oil or gas well, predicting the pressure loss through the tubing (and flowline) is
complicated by the fact that more than one fluid phase generally exists in the producing stream.
This multiphase behavior causes a problem in determining the fluid characteristics necessary for
the pressure drop calculation. Because of the complexity, the remainder of the discussion on the
outflow segment will avoid theory and will concentrate on the results of the work done to date on
the subject.

PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Wellbore and Flowline
July 2013 123
Oil Well Vertical Flow
The general pressure gradient equation for vertical flow can be summarized as:
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
dZ
dP
+
dZ
dP
+
dZ
dP
=
dZ
dP
accel fric elev total

The elevation component is a function of average liquid density calculated using a liquid holdup
value. Holdup is defined as the volumetric fraction of the liquid phase to the total flowing fluid.
The friction component requires the determination of a two-phase friction factor. The
acceleration component is significant only in cases of extremely high flow velocities, and is
generally considered negligible.
Many correlations have been developed over the years to predict the relationship of the gradient
components to vertical multiphase flow. Beggs and Brill
21
have summarized these correlations in
three main categories, each varying in complexity and technique.
- Category A: No slip effect or flow regime considered
- Category B: Slip considered, no flow regime considered
- Category C: Slip and flow regime considered
Slip is defined as the movement of the gas phase by the liquid phase when the two phases are
flowing independently at different velocities. Flow regimes have been suggested to describe
these different types of flow patterns that can exist in multiphase flow. These include bubble,
slug, transition, and mist flow.
13

There have been many multiphase flow correlations developed to date. Yet, all of the
investigators maintain that no correlation has been found to be superior to all others for all flow
conditions. Individual well test data and experience in an area can be used to obtain the
correlation that will best fit each well's characteristics. In lieu of having data to validate a
particular correlation type, the Hagedorn and Brown correlation is suggested as the initial
correlation to use in oil wells and the Orkiszewski correlation for gas wells with GLR's above
50,000 scf/bbl. Use the Gray correlation for gas condensate wells. The following sections
describe some of the more predominant correlations by category type.

Wellbore and Flowline PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
124 July 2013
Category A
Correlation Explanation
Poettmann &
Carpenter
25

Used field data to prepare a correlation that treated the multiphase flow as
though it were a single, homogeneous phase. Assumed that the flow had a high
degree of turbulence and that flow would be independent of viscosity effects. It
can be used with confidence for the following conditions.
Tubing sizes, 2, 2.5, and 3 inches.
Viscosities less than 5 cp.
GLR less than 1500 scf bbl.
Flow rates greater than 400 bpd
Baxendell &
Thomas
26

Used La Paz and Mara field (Venezuela) data to develop a revision of the
Poettmann method to perform better at higher flow rates.

Fancher &
Brown
27

Used data generated from an 8,000-ft experimental well equipped with 2 3/8-
in. plastic coated tubing to develop a revision to the Poettmann method to
better match low rate, high GLR cases. Used for:
GLR less than 5000 scf/bbi
Flow rates less than 400 bpd
Extended to 2 7/8 in. tubing
Category B
Hagedorn &
Brown
12

Developed experimentally using a 1500-ft test well with 1-in., 1.25-in., and 1.5-
in. tubing. The correlation is used extensively throughout the industry and is
recommended for wells with minimal flow regime effects and generally with
GLR < 10,000 scf/bbl. The Griffith and Wallis correlation can be used for
improved performance in bubble flow regimes.

Category C
Orkiszewski
14
Developed using work from both Duns & Ros and Hagedorn & Brown. Used
Griffith and Wallis
30
method for bubble flow, a new method for slug flow,
and Duns and Ros for transition and mist flow. The Triggia liquid
distribution coefficient can be used if desired when the mixture velocity is
greater than 10 ft/sec. It was developed to eliminate pressure discontinuities.
July 2013 125
Duns & Ros
13
The result of laboratory work where liquid holdup and flow regime were
observed. Utilized a flow pattern map to determine the slip velocity (and
consequently liquid holdup) and friction factor. This correlation is
recommended for wells where high gas-liquid ratios and flow velocities have
induced flow regime behavior.
Aziz, et al.
29
Presented new correlations for bubble and slug flow. Used Duns & Ros for
transition and mist flow. Also revised the flow regime map.

Beggs & Brill
21
This correlation was developed experimentally using 1-in. and 1.5-in. pipe,
inclined at several angles. Correlations were made to account for inclined
flow. The correlation is recommended for deviated wells or horizontal flow.
The correlation is recommended for deviated wells or horizontal flow. You
can use the Palmer correlation to correct for liquid holdup effects. Note that
the Palmer correlation is unsuitable for single phase flow and should be used
with caution.

Mukherjee &
Brill
28

Developed experimentally using 1.5-in. steel pipe inclined at several angles.
Included downhill flow as a flow regime. Recommended for inclined or
horizontal flow.

MONA
49
Correlation requiring three flow coefficients to model vertical flow from
actual data to account for phase slippage. Coeff 1 is the relative velocity of
the liquid phase. Coeff 2 represents the additional velocity of the gas phase
over the liquid phase such that the gas velocity is (Coeff 1 X liquid velocity)
+ Coeff 2. Coeff 3 is a two-phase friction factor. Use 1.0 by default.
For nominal results, set Coeff 1 to 1.2, Coeff. 2 to 1.43, and Coeff. 3 to 1.00
for nominal results and change the Coeff 1 as needed to adjust the liquid
holdup. For homogeneous flow with no slip, set coeff 1 to 1.0, coeff. 2 to 0.0,
and coeff 3 to 1. For vertical slug flow, set coeff 1 to 1.2, coeff 2 to 0.35, and
coeff 3 to 1.0.
MONA
Modified
49

Correlation requiring two flow coefficients to model vertical flow from
actual data. Set Coeff 1 to 1.0 and Coeff. 2 to 0.0 for nominal results and
change the Coeff 1 as needed to adjust the liquid holdup. Coeff. 2 is normally
not changed. The Modified MONA omits Coeff. 3 because of the friction
factor being calculated using the Moody factor with either the laminar flow
or the Colebrook equations. If the flow is laminar, it uses the Blasius friction
factor for the first guess in the Colebrook equation and therefore does not
need Coeff. 3.
Sylvester & Yao
Mechanistic
70

Mechanistic and empirical combination model for predicting pressure
traverses for two-phase flow using flow pattern prediction and a set of
independent mechanistic models. Can be used for vertical and inclined flow.
126 July 2013
Ansari
Mechanistic
74

Consists of a comprehensive model to predict flow behavior for upward two-
phase flow composed of a model for predicting the flow patterns and
independent models for predicting holdup and pressure drop dependent on
the flow pattern. The model was compared to a 1,712 well data bank and
found to match better than any of the other empirical or mechanistic models.
Uses bubble flow, slug flow, and annular flow models.
Chokshi
Mechanistic
Mechanistic model developed for prediction of flow patterns, liquid hold up
and pressure drop in upward, vertical oil wells. Three flow patterns are
considered: bubble, slug and annular. Correlation was derived from measured
pressure drop in a test well. To develop this correlation, experimental data
have been gathered from 324 steady state flow tests for widely varying flow
rates for an air-water fluid system in a 3.5 in. diameter (2.991 in. internal
diameter), 1348 ft long, vertical test section. Each data set consists of surface
flowrate measurement and downhole pressure and temperature measurements
at eight Locations along the test section. Also for the first time non-intrusive
holdup measurements are conducted down hole at a depth of 490 ft using a
gamma-ray nuclear densitometer. (This correction is based on the SPE paper
35676).
Gomez
Mechanistic
The model is based on two-phase flow physical phenomena. It consists of a
unified flow pattern prediction model and unified individual models for
stratified, slug, bubble, annular and dispersed bubble flow, applicable to the
entire range of inclination angles, from horizontal (0
0
) to upward vertical
flow (90
0
). The model can be applied to vertical well bores, directional wells,
horizontal wells, and pipelines, under normal production operation or
artificial lift. The proposed model implements new criteria for eliminating
discontinuity problems, providing smooth transitions between the different
flow patterns. Following the validation of the individual flow pattern models
by Gomez, the entire unified model was evaluated against the Tulsa
University Fluid Flow Projects (TUFFP) wellbore databank, as reported by
Ansari et al. (1994). The databank includes a total of 1723 laboratory and
field data, for both vertical and deviated wells. The data cover a wide range
of flow conditions: pipe diameter 1 to 8 inch; oil rate 0 to 27,000 bbl/d; gas
rate 0 to 110,000 scf/d and oil gravity 8.3 to 112
o
API. Additionally, 6 most
commonly used correlations and models have been evaluated against the
databank. (Check the papers SPE 56520 and 65705 for more information).

In vertical multiphase flow calculations, the pipe is divided into small increments based either on
a set length or pressure amount. The pressure loss in each increment is determined in a trial-and-
error process using average pressure and temperature values to calculate fluid properties. The
iterative procedure is necessary as flow regime and subsequent fluid and flow properties change
continually through the pipe. As a result, computer solution is almost mandatory; however,
curves have been prepared and published to aid hand calculations.
July 2013 127
The pressure loss calculated over the entire pipe interval is related in part to the size and number
of increments chosen. Each of the correlations listed relates to certain wells and well conditions.
The determination of the best-suited correlation for a particular well is accomplished by first
using the preliminary guidelines listed earlier, followed by testing and comparison to actual field
results.
Many of the correlations presented actually use the methods of other authors in certain instances
or flow regimes where the other author describes the pressure traverse in that environment.
These correlation switches are documented by the author in either his original or subsequent
work. This manual does not document when or where these correlation switches are done, but
they are done according to the correlation author's method.
Gas Well Vertical Flow
Gas well vertical flow is very similar to the flow of oil wells except that special correlations have
been developed when gas is the primary phase. Some correlations can be used in either oil or gas
wells.
Gray
17
Gas well correlation for wet gas condensate consideration. Calculates
the dew point of the gas to predict flow behavior with a two-phase flow
when the condensate condenses into liquid.
MODIFIED GRAY Uses the Gray correlation with ability to modify two coefficients used
in the Gray correlation. Set Coeff. 1 to 2.314 and Coeff. 2 to 0.0 for the
original Gray result.
Note: Gray correlation is developed based on the following conditions:
flow velocity below 50 fps
Tubing size below 3-1/2 in.
condensate production below 50 bbl/MMscf
water production below 5 bbl/MMscf
When Gray correlation is used beyond the above ranges, there may be
spikes in PERFORM outflow curves for some cases. This is the
limitation of the correlation itself. If this happens, the results should be
viewed with caution.
DUNS & ROS
13
The result of laboratory work where liquid holdup and flow regime
were observed. Utilized a flow pattern map to determine the slip
velocity (and consequently liquid holdup) and friction factor. This
correlation is recommended for wells where high gas-liquid ratios and
flow velocities have induced flow regime behavior.
128 July 2013
HAGEDORN &
BROWN
12

Developed experimentally using a 1500-ft test well with 1-in., 1.25-in.,
and 1.5-in. tubing. The correlation is used extensively throughout the
industry and is recommended for wells with minimal flow regime
effects and generally with GLR < 10,000 scf/bbl. The Griffith and
Wallis correlation can be used for improved performance in bubble
flow regimes.

ROS & GRAY Combines the Duns & Ros flow regime maps for niist flow with the
Gray correlation for wet gas wells that produce condensate.
CULLENDER &
SMITH
50

Used for dry gas well calculations only for predicting dry gas pressure
losses in vertical flow. Suggested for wells where the GLR is 100,000
scf/bbl or higher.
FUNDAMENTAL
FLOW
4

Uses a basic pressure gradient equation derived from an energy balance
integrated over the entire flow distance to give an equation which is
similar- to the Cullender and Smith equation. If liquids are also in the
flow stream, suggest using the Fundamental flow adjusted correlation.
Suggested for wells where the GLR 50,000 scf/bbl or greater.
FUNDAMENTAL
FLOW ADJUSTED
Same as the Fundamental flow correlation except an adjustment to the
gas gravity is made to account for liquids in the flow stream. The liquid
gravity and GLR is combined to calculate an adjusted gas gravity.
Suggested for wells where the GLR 50,000 scf/bbl or greater.
Oil Well Horizontal Flow
The following correlations are available for determining pressure losses in pipelines for oil wells.
Some are for a single phase while others are for two-phase flow.
Xiao
Mechanistic
76

Comprehensive mechanistic model developed for gas-liquid two-phase flow
in horizontal and near horizontal pipelines. The model first detects the
existing flow pattern, predicts the flow characteristics (liquid holdup and
pressure drop) for stratified, intermittent, annular, or dispersed bubble flow
patterns.
Beggs, Brill, &
Minami
Modification of the original Beggs & Brill correlation for horizontal flow
only.
Dukler
15
Simple horizontal flow correlation that does not require determination of
flow patterns. It includes effects for single and two-phase flow in horizontal
flow only.
MONA
49
Correlation requiring three flow coefficients to model vertical flow from
actual data to account for phase slippage. Coeff 1 is the relative velocity of
the liquid phase. Coeff 2 represents the additional velocity of the gas phase
July 2013 129
over the liquid phase such that the gas velocity is (Coeff 1 X liquid velocity)
+ Coeff 2. Coeff 3 is a two-phase friction factor. Use 1.0 by default.
For nominal results, set Coeff 1 to 1.2, Coeff. 2 to 1.43, and Coeff. 3 to 1.00
for nominal results and change the Coeff 1 as needed to adjust the liquid
holdup. For homogeneous flow with no slip, set coeff 1 to 1.0, coeff. 2 to 0.0,
and coeff 3 to 1. For vertical slug flow, set coeff 1 to 1.2, coeff 2 to 0.35, and
coeff 3 to 1.0.
MONA
Modified
49

Correlation requiring two flow coefficients to model vertical flow from actual
data. Set Coeff 1 to 1.0 and Coeff. 2 to 0.0 for nominal results and change the
Coeff 1 as needed to adjust the liquid holdup. Coeff. 2 is normally not
changed. The Modified MONA omits Coeff. 3 because of the friction factor
being calculated using the Moody factor with either the laminar flow or the
Colebrook equations. If the flow is laminar, it uses the Blasius friction factor
for the first guess in the Colebrook equation and therefore does not need
Coeff. 3.
MUKHERJEE
& BRILL
28

Developed experimentally using 1.5-in. steel pipe inclined at several angles.
Included downhill flow as a flow regime. Recommended for inclined or
horizontal flow.

BEGGS &
BRILL
21

This correlation was developed experimentally using 1-in. and 1.5-in. pipe,
inclined at several angles. Correlations were made to account for inclined
flow. The correlation is recommended for deviated wells or horizontal flow.
The correlation is recommended for deviated wells or horizontal flow. You
can use the Palmer correlation to correct for liquid holdup effects. Note that
the Palmer correlation is unsuitable for single phase flow and should be used
with caution.

130 July 2013
Gas Well Horizontal Flow
Gas well horizontal flow is designed to predict pressure losses in horizontal flow. Some sections
of pipelines are many times vertical, therefore some vertical flow correlations are available for
these sections of the pipeline. Some correlations can be used in either oil or gas wells. The IGT,
Weymouth, Panhandle Eastern , and Panhandle A correlations differ only by the coefficients
used in the following equation.
5280
zL ) 460 T (
d
1
P
460 T
f 1 a
1000 q
P P
3 a / 1
5 a
4 a
g
2 a
SC
SC
e
g
U
2
D
+
(
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
| +

=

where:
P
D
= Downstream pressure (psi)
P
u
= Upstream pressure (psi)
q
g
= Gas rate (Mscf/d)
a = Coefficients
f
e
= Flow efficiency
T
sc
= Standard temperature (F)
P
sc
= Standard pressure (psia)
g
= Gas gravity (air=1.00)
d = Pipe diameter (in)
T = Gas temperature (F)
z = Gas compressibility factor
L = Pipeline length (ft)

July 2013 131

Correlation explanation
IGT a1=337.90 a2=1.1110 a3=0.5560 a4=0.4000 a5=2.667
Modified coefficients of Weymouth.
Panhandle
Eastern
a1=737.00 a2=1.0200 a3=0.5100 a4=0.4901 a5=2.530
Use for larger diameter pipelines 16-in. or greater.
Panhandle A a1=435.87 a2=1.0788 a3=0.5394 a4=0.4604 a5=2.618
Recommended for smaller diameter pipelines less than 16-in. ID. Use the
Panhandle Eastern correlation for larger diameter pipelines.
Weymouth a1=433.50 a2=1.0000 a3=0.5000 a4=0.5000 a5=2.667
Determined basic gas flow coefficients.
Cullender &
Smith
50

Used for dry gas well calculations only for predicting dry gas pressure loses in
vertical flow. Suggested for wells where the GLR is 100,000
scf/bbl or higher. Use in vertical sections of pipeline only.
Fundamental
Flow
Uses a basic pressure gradient equation derived from an energy balance
integrated over the entire flow distance to give an equation which is similar- to
the Cullender and Smith equation. If liquids are also in the flow stream,
suggest using the Fundamental flow adjusted correlation. Suggested for wells
where the GLR 50,000 scf/bbl or greater. Use in vertical flow sections of the
pipeline only.
Fundamental
Flow Adjusted
Same as the Fundamental flow correlation except an adjustment to the gas
gravity is made to account for liquids in the flow stream. The liquid gravity
and GLR is combined to calculate an adjusted gas gravity. Suggested for wells
where the GLR 50,000 scf/bbl or greater. Use in vertical flow sections of the
pipeline only.

132 July 2013
Pressure changes in Compressors and Pumps
Compressors and Pumps are used to increase the gas and liquid pressure at some point in a
Flowline. PERFORM calculates the pressure increase at the compressor or pump outlet based on
the available horsepower and total efficiency.
For Pumps, the fluid is assumed to be incompressible. The following equation is used to
calculate the pressure increase
91
:
Q
hpE
1715 P = A
where:
AP = Pressure increase, psia
hp = Power, hp
E = = Total Efficiency
Q = = Total Flow rate, gpm
Calculations assume that lost work is converted to heat, which may cause the temperature of the
fluid to rise. This is calculated as:
Cp 780
) 1 E / 1 ( hd T
T
1
2
+
=

l
P 31 . 2
hd
A
=

where:
T
2
= Outlet temperature, R
T
1
= Inlet temperature, R
hd = Head, ft
Cp = Specific heat

l
= Liquid specific gravity
For Compressors, PERFORM utilizes an expression derived for adiabatic processes
92
:
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

1
p
p
T
Tb
pb 027 . 3
1 k
k
E Q
1
hp
k / ) 1 k ( 1 Z
1
2
1
g

July 2013 133
where:
hp = Adiabatic horsepower, Hp
Qg = Total gas rate, MMcfd
E = Total Efficiency
p
b
, T
b
= Base conditions to specify 1 MMcfd of gas
p
1
, T
1
= Suction pressure and temperature; psia, R
p
2
= Discharge pressure, psia
Z
1
= Compressibility factor at suction conditions
k = Heat specific ratio, C
p
/C
v
, at suction conditions
The outlet temperature T
2
is computed with the following equation:
k / ) 1 k ( 1 Z
1
2
1 2
p
p
T T

|
|
.
|
\
|
=

In the above equations, the overall efficiency includes the compression efficiency (compressor-
valve losses) and the mechanical efficiency.
Downhole Pumps
The Downhole Pump is available when Oil is selected as fluid type, and any of the Rigorous
Calculation options is selected. Downhole pumps (ESP, PCP, or User added), can be modeled for
both System and Gradient Analysis cases.
Downhole Pumps express change in pressure (DP) as a function of flow rate. Two methods are
available for ESP and PCP pumps to calculate this pressure change. These are: a) Performance
Curve Method and b) Horsepower Conversion Method.
Performance Curve Method
Electrical Submersible Pumps ESP
For an ESP, head and efficiency curves are defined by user-input values or by importing the head
curve from SubPUMP, a program developed by IHS to design and analyze wells with electric
submersible pumps. SubPUMP database contains pumps, motor and cable data from major
manufacturers worldwide. All pump data necessary for calculations can be easily imported from
the file created with SubPUMP

(Go to File menu > Save Pump Data for Pipesoft-2/Perform).

134 July 2013
For this method, following inputs are required:
Number of Stages
This is the total number of stages. If greater than one, PERFORM does a stage by stage
calculation.
Available Horsepower
For the performance curve method, this is maximum available horsepower. This is used to
compare with the calculated total required horsepower (which is the summation of the required
horsepower at each stage). The calculation is complete when available horsepower equals or
exceeds total required horsepower. If the calculated total required horsepower exceeds available
horsepower, outlet pressure is adjusted until available and required horsepower are equal.
Note: A "0" value means unlimited available horsepower.
Pump Setting Depth
This is the measured depth to the bottom of the pump (usually the deepest tubing depth).
Performance Curve Data Table
The following parameters have to be entered for an ESP to define the Performance Curve:
Fluid Rate (liquid rate at standard conditions)
The range of flow rates defining the head curve must span the range expected in the problem.
Extend the curve from "0" to a maximum flow rate with zero head to avoid extrapolation
problems.
Head per Stage.
This is the head as a function of flow rate for a single-stage pump.
Efficiency
This is the adiabatic overall efficiency of the pump as a function of flow rate.
Progressing Cavity Pumps PCP
The performance curve for the PCP is given at 100 RPM. To use this curve, the required TDH
(Total Dynamic Head) is calculated at the desired flow rate. The PCP affinity laws are then used
to calculate the required RPM and horsepower for the given range of outflow rates at a constant
volumetric efficiency.
These laws are:
- Rate o speed (RPM)
- HP o speed (RPM) and
- There is no direct change in head with a change in speed. The pump generates whatever
head (or pressure) is necessary to pump the desired capacity (flow rate).
July 2013 135
For this method, following inputs are required:
Pump Setting Depth
Volumetric Efficiency
It is a ratio (or percentage) of what volume of fluid actually enters the pump at a given pressure
differential to the actual theoretical capacity of the PCP at zero pressure differential.
Desired Liquid Rate
Perform calculates the required RPM and TDH at which the PCP needs to operate to produce the
well at the Desired Liquid Rate (standard conditions).
Performance Curve Data Table
The following parameters have to be entered for a PCP to define its Performance Curve:
- Performance Curve RPM
Each PCP performance curve is associated with a given RPM and a volumetric
efficiency. The performance curve is usually entered at 100 RPM.
- Head
Enter the lifting capacity of the PCP
- Fluid Rate
Refers to the fluid rate that can be maintain by the PCP at the given RPM and volumetric
efficiency.
- Brake Horsepower
This parameter is also called operating horsepower. It represents the hydraulic
horsepower plus the frictional horsepower.

136 July 2013
Horsepower Conversion Method
Electrical Submersible Pumps ESP
A fixed and known horsepower is used to calculate DP (Pressure change) and DT (Temperature
change). The following parameters need to be entered to use this method:
This value is converted to Pressure at the overall pump efficiency with the following equation:
DP = (58800*HP*EFF) / Q
Total

where:
HP: Available horsepower, hp
EFF: ESP Overall efficiency, fraction
Q
Total
: Total fluid rate at in-situ conditions, Bbl/d
Pump Setting Depth
Efficiency (%)
The overall pump efficiency is defined as the ratio of the hydraulic horsepower and the brake
horsepower (before looses).
Temperature rise is calculated by assuming that all horsepower not converted to fluid pressure is
converted to heat, which is then translated into DT (temperature change) using the predicted (or
given) fluid specific heat.
Progressing Cavity Pumps PCP
A fixed and known horsepower is used to calculate DP (Pressure change) and DT (Temperature
change). The following parameters need to be entered to use this method:
This value is converted to Pressure at the PCPs volumetric efficiency with the following
equation:
DP = (58800*HP*VOL
EFF
) / Q
Total

where:
HP: Available hydraulic horsepower, hp
VOL
EFF
: PCP volumetric efficiency, fraction
Q
Total
: Total fluid rate at in-situ conditions, Bbl/d

July 2013 137
Pump Setting Depth
Volumetric Efficiency (%)
It is a ratio (or percentage) of what volume of fluid actually enters the pump at a given pressure
differential to the actual theoretical capacity of the PCP at zero pressure differential.
Pump Nominal Displacement (Pump Constant)
This parameter is readily available from the pump manufacturer and can be defined as the
amount of fluid that can be pumped by the PCP at 1 RPM in one day.
Kp = 4* Ps * Ecc * D* N
where:
Ps: Stator Pitch, in
D: Rotor/Stator Minor Diameter, in
Ecc: Rotor Eccentricity, in
N: RPM

Figure 5.1: Cross section of a Progressing Cavity Pump
User Added Pumps
This implementation provides a flexible method to represent any pump (like Jet pump, screw
pump). Data pairs of Liquid Rate at standard conditions and Pressure Increased must be available
to use this feature. Perform interpolates the given rates in the OUTFLOW rates to find the
Pressure Increased at the given Pump Depth.
The range of user entered data pairs (Flow Rates and Pressure Increased) should span the range
expected in the problem.
How Gas Separation Works for Downhole Pumps in PERFORM?
Perform simulates Gas Separation at Pump Intake by changing the Gas-Liquid Ratio at Pump
Intake Depth. This value should be lower than the Producing GLR entered in the Fluid Properties
dialog box. The GLR value in the Fluid Properties dialog box is used to calculate the Pressure
Profile from the Top of Perforations/Deepest Tubing to the Separator Intake.
138 July 2013
The GLR at Pump Intake is used to calculate a new pressure profile from the Pump Discharge to
the surface and also a new percentage of Free Gas at Pump Intake after the separation process.
Note: This GLR change will take effect when the Bubble Point Pressure is calculated from
Producing GOR/GLR in the Fluid Properties dialog box.
Flow Through Restrictions
Restrictions (chokes) are used in production wells mainly to control flow rates, to protect surface
processing equipment from slugging, to provide the necessary backpressure to a reservoir to
avoid formation damage from excessive drowdown and to reduce large pressure fluctuations.
Pressure loss occurs when fluids flow through restrictions or chokes and needs to be accounted
for in the wellbore or flowline of the system. The pressure loss calculations involve two distinct
types of choke performance. These are sub-critical and critical flow.
PERFORM includes several correlations to estimate the flow conditions and the pressure losses.
For subcritical flow, only Perkins
69
, Ashford
68
, Sachdeva and API 14B
33
may be used. Gilbert
20
,
Ros
66
, Baxendell, and Achong
39
can be used only for critical flow
The calculation of the flow type depends on the correlation selected. Thus, Perkins
69
, Ashford
68

and Sachdeva et al use their own equations to check the type of flow present, either subcritical or
critical. The Perkins
69
correlation is used for all other correlations at the beginning to check if the
flow is critical or sub-critical.
If the correlation selected is Gilbert
20
, Ros
66
, Baxendell, or Achong
39
(critical flow only), then the
program will use Perkins to estimate the flow type: if Perkins method determined that the flow is
sub-critical, then Perkins results are used for the pressure drop disregarding the selected
correlation. If the flow is critical then the selected correlation is used. If the selected correlation
is API-14B
33
(sub-critical only) and Perkins correlation determines that the flow is critical, then
the Perkins correlation results are used for the pressure drop disregarding the selected
correlation. Otherwise, the API-14B as selected is used.
Critical Flow
In order to model critical flow through chokes, the following conditions must be met:
For onshore wells, the node position or unknown pressure point has to be set at the Wellhead.
Also, the choke has to be placed in the first pipe section of the flowline.
For offshore wells, the node position or unknown pressure point has to be set at the riser outlet.
Also, the choke has to be placed in the first pipe section after the riser.
Pressure drops are highly dependent on the flow velocity through the restriction. If the velocity is
at the speed of sound, a compressional wave is generated. This compressional wave prevents
fluids from traveling faster than the wave generated. The flow rate at which this occurs is called
the critical flow rate. At the critical flow rate, any adjustment to the pressure on the downstream
side of the restriction does not affect the pressure distribution of the upstream side of the
restriction. Various investigators have used a similar technique for predicting the upstream
pressure for flow rates above or at the critical flow rate.
20, 37-39
All take the form of:
July 2013 139
D
Q
GLR
A
=
P
c
liq
B
u

where A, B, and C depend on the investigator. P
u
is the upstream pressure at the liquid flow rate,
Q
liq
, in bbls/day. D is the choke size in 64ths-in. and GLR is in Mscf/bbl or scf/bbl depending on
the 'A' constant used. The following table summarize the coefficients.
Investigator A B C
Gilbert
20
10.00 0.54
6
1.89
Ros
66
17.40 0.50
0
2.00
Baxendell 9.56 0.54
6
1.93
Achong
39
3.82 0.65
0
1.88
Subcritical Flow
Under subcritical flow, the mass flow rate of a stream will be a function of the pressure
downstream of the choke when the upstream pressure is held constant. If the pressure drop across
the choke becomes sufficiently large, the flow regime will become critical and the mass flow rate
will be independent of the downstream pressure when the upstream pressure is held constant.
API 14B
For subcritical flow (flow that is below the critical flow rate), the method used is API 14B (used
in the API Subsurface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve Design Program). It is used when
specific restriction information is unavailable. This method uses an iterative technique that
estimates a Y term based on an assumed gas pressure drop. A new gas pressure drop is calculated
and compared to the previous estimation. If the difference between the two values is within a
tolerable range, a liquid pressure drop is calculated based on the Bernoulli equation for
incompressible flow. A two-phase pressure drop is then calculated. The equations used in this
method are:
33

2
DL
2
c
4
t
c
L
C d 80083
Q

d
d
1 = P
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
A

|
|
.
|
\
| A
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
U
G
P
V
4
t
c
P
P

C
C

d
d
0.35 + 0.41 1 = Y

2
DG
DL
L G
YC
C
P = P
|
|
.
|
\
|
A A

140 July 2013
1
YC
C
f + 1 P = P
2
DG
DL
L
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
A A
( )
( )
w w o o g o s g
g o s g
B q + B q + B q R q
B q R q
= f

where:
AP
L
= Differential pressure drop for liquids (psia)

= Weight density of fluid (lbs/ft
3
)
d
c
= Orifice or bean diameter (in)
d
t
= Flow tube diameter (in)
Q = Flow rate (stb/d)
C
v
/C
p
= Ratio of specific heats for gas at constant pressure C
p
and constant volume C
v

C
DL
= Orifice discharge coefficient for liquid
Y = Net expansion factor for compressible flow through a bean
AP
G
= Differential pressure drop for gas (psia)
P
U
= Bean entry pressure upstream (psia)
C
DG
= Orifice discharge coefficient for gas
AP = Differential pressure drop (psia)
F = Free gas volumetric fraction
q
g
= Gas flow rate (scf/d)
R
s
= Gas solubility ratio (scf/stb)
q
o
= Oil flow rate (stb/d)
B
g
= Gas formation volume factor (bbl/scf)
B
o
= Oil formation volume factorl (bbl/stb)
q
w
= Water flow rate (bbl/d)
B
w
= Water formation volume factor (bbl/bbl)
July 2013 141
Critical and/or Subcritical Flow
Perkins
Perkins uses a general energy equation to describe isentropic (adiabatic with no friction) flow of
multiphase mixtures through chokes for both critical and sub-critical flow. The procedure
determines whether the flow is critical or sub-critical from equations and physical property
information for oil-water-gas systems for determining the mass flow rate of the choke. The
method solves for upstream pressure if the mass flow rate and downstream pressure are known.
Conversely, it solves for downstream pressure if the mass flow rate and upstream pressure are
known.
Determine choke throat temperature
( ) | | 460 p 460 T T
n / ) 1 n (
r 1 2
+ =

where:
n is the polytropic expansion factor
vw w vo o vg g
vw w vo o vg g
C f C f C f
C f C f FC f
n
+ +
+ +
=

Calculate average temperature and pressure upstream of the choke
2
p p
p
2 1
+
=

2
p p
T
2 1
+
=

Recalculate the polytropic expansion factor exponent, n, at the average pressure and
temperature
Iterate on p
r
until the following equation is satisfied:
( )
| | ( ) { }
( )
( )
( )
( )
)
o +
o +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
o +
o +
|
|
.
|
\
|
o +

+
+
2
1
n / 1
r g
n / n 1
r
2
1 g g
2
1
2
n / n 1
r
g
2
1
n / 1
r g
1 g
2
1
2
r 1
n / 1 n
r
p f
p f
n
f
A
A
p
n
f
p f
f
A
A
1 p 1 2 p 1 2
( )
(
o +
|
.
|
\
|
o +
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
o +
o +
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

1
n / 1
r 1
n / 1
r g
2
1
n / 1
r g
1 g
1
2
p
n
1 n
p f
p f
f
A
A
1

142 July 2013
Calculate downstream pressure (p
3
)

( )
85 . 1
d
c
4 1
1 3
d
d
1
p p
p p
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

If p
r
>p
3
, the flow is critical then use p
r
=p
2
/p
1
in the following equations.
If p
r
<p
3
, the flow is sub-critical and p
r
=p
3
/p
1
in the following equations for calculating isentropic
velocity and mass flow rate.
Calculate lambda () term
( )
zR
M C f C f C f
f
vw w vo o vg g
g
+ +
+ =

Calculate alpha (o
1
) term
|
|
.
|
\
|
= o
w
w
o
o
l 1
f f

Calculate isentropic velocity in the choke throat
| | ( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
o +
o +
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
1
n / 1
r g
1 g
2
1
2
r 1
w
w
o
o
n / ) 1 n (
r 1 1 c
2
p f
f
A
A
1
p 1 p
f f
p 1 v p g 288
V

Calculate isentropic mass flow rate
| | ( )
( )
2
1
n / 1
r g
2
1
n / 1
r g
1 g
2
1
2
r 1
n / ) 1 n (
r
1
1 c
2 i
p f
p f
f
A
A
1
p 1 p 1
v
p g 288
A w
o +
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
o +
o +
|
|
.
|
\
|
o +
=

If the actual mass flow rate is not known, calculate the actual mass flow rate with a discharge
coefficient (default is 0.826).
w
a
= 0.826 w
i
July 2013 143
Calculate downstream pressure
p
3
=p
r
p
l
where:
T
2
= Choke throat temperature (F)
T
1
= Upstream temperature (F)
p
r
= Pressure ratio
n = Polytropic expansion exponent
f
g
= Weight gas fraction
F = C
p
/C
v

C
vg
= Gas heat capacity at constant volume
f
o
= Weight oil fraction
C
vo
= Oil heat capacity at constant volume
f
w
= Weight water fraction
C
vw
= Water heat capacity at constant volume
p
1
= Upstream pressure (psia)
p
2
= Choke throat pressure (psia)

= Calculation factor
o
= Upstream calculation factor
A
2
= Choke throat area (ft
2
)
A
1
= Upstream pipe are (ft
2
)
p
3
= Choke outlet pressure (psia)
p
4
= Pipe downstream pressure (psia)
d
c
= Choke diameter (ft)
d
d
= Downstream pipe diameter (ft)
M = Molecular weight
R = Universal gas constant (ft-lbf/lbm/mol/R)
l
= Liquid density (lbm/ft
3
)
144 July 2013
o
= Oil density (lbm/ft
3
)
w
= Water density (lbm/ft
3
)
V
2
= Choke throat velocity (ft/sec)
g
c
= Gravity acceleration
v
l
= Upstream specific volume (ft
3
/lbm)
w
i
= Isentropic mass flow rate (lbm/sec)
w
a
= Actual mass flow rate (lbm/sec)
Ashford and Pierce
The Ashford and Pierce
68
choke calculation for critical and subcritical flow is very similar to the
Perkins method. The method considers polytropic expansion of the gas phase of the fluid
expanding through the choke. First, an expression is written relating the flowing fluid specific
volume and velocity to the mass flow rate. Second, an independent equation is used to
incorporate the behavior of the gaseous phase of the fluid with pressure and using the energy
balance equation. The method solves for upstream pressure if the mass flow rate and downstream
pressure are known. Conversely, it solves for downstream pressure if the mass flow rate and
upstream pressure are known. The critical ratio is defined as the ratio of the upstream pressure to
the downstream pressure.
The critical ratio is solved for indirectly by the relationship
( )
( )
( ) 1 n
Rn
1 n 2
n n
R 1 n
2
n / 1
c c
=
(
+
c + + c

The total flow rate is iterated until the critical ratio is minimized
w g o tf
q q q q + + =

Thus
(
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
wo
sc 1
1 1 sc s
o o tf
F
T p
z T p
615 . 5
R R
B q q

The oil flow rate
10 10
2
e o
Cd 51 . 3 q | o =

where
( )
2 / 1
wo o 10
F B

+ = o

July 2013 145
and
( ) ( ) | |
( ) | |
w wo g o
n / 1
s
l
l l
2 / 1
w wo s g o l
n
1 n
s 1 1
10
F R 000217 . 0 R R
p
z T
6 . 198
F R 000217 . 0 1 p 6 . 198 1 R R z T
1 n
n
+ +
(
c +
+ +
(
(
c +
|
|
.
|
\
|
c |
.
|
\
|
= |

where:
c
c
= Critical downstream pressure/upstream pressure
n = C
p
/C
v

R = Producing GOR (scf/stb)
q
tf
= Total fluid flow rate (bbls/d)
q
o
= Oil flow rate (stb/day)
q
g
= Gas flow rate (bbls/day)
q
w
= Water flow rate (bbls/day)
B
o
= Oil formation volume factor (rb/stb)
R
s
= Solution GOR (scf/stb)
p
sc
T
l
= Upstream temperature (R)
z
l
= Gas compressibility factor at T
l
and p
l

p
l
= Upstream pressure (psia)
T
sc
= Standard temperature (R)
F
wo
= Water-oil ratio
C = Orifice coefficient
d
e
= Choke diameter (64th-in.)
c
= Downstream pressure/upstream pressure
o
= Oil specific gravity (water=1)
g
= Gas specific gravity (air=1)
w
= Water specific gravity
146 July 2013
Sachdeva et al.
Sachdeva et al developed a model to solve for mass flow rate through a choke for both
subcritical and critical conditions. The main assumptions are 1D flow, equal phase velocities at
the throat, constant quality for high speed process, liquid phase is incompressible, and the main
contributor to pressure losses is the acceleration term.
In their study, data were gathered for air-water and air-kerosene flows through five choke
diameters, from 0.25 in. (16/64) to 0.5 in.(32/64). The models predict flow rates and the critical-
subcritical flow boundary.
Flow Boundary
Sachdeva et al presented equations to determine the critical ratio of downstream (p
2
) to upstream
(p
1
) pressure at the boundary
93
. The critical-subcritical boundary is found by iterating and
converging on the critical pressure ratio yc from the following equation:
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
1 k
k
D
N
yc

where:
l 1
1 g 1
X
) y 1 ( ) X 1 (
1 k
k
N
=

2
l 1
2 g 1
l 1
2 g 1
X
) X 1 (
2
n
X
) X 1 ( n
2
n
1 k
k
D
(
+ +

L 1 v 1
v p 1
C ) X 1 ( C X
) C C ( X
1 n
+

+ =

X
1
= Quality, mass fraction of gas at upstream conditions
g1
= Gas density at upstream conditions
g2
= Gas density at downstream conditions
l
= Liquid density at upstream conditions
k = Gas specific heat ratio, Cp/Cv
C
L
= Liquid specific heat
y = Downstream to upstream pressure ratio, p
2
/p
1

Critical flow will be indicated when yc s y. Subcritical flow will occur when yc > y.
In the above expressions, the quality is the ratio of the gas mass flow rate to the total mass flow
rate. Reference 4 presents the following expression to estimate the gas quality with production
data:
) fwBw foBo ( 615 . 5 ) foRs R ( 0764 . 0
) foRs R ( 0764 . 0
X
w o g
g

+ +

=

July 2013 147
where:
g
R = Producing GLR
fo = Fraction of oil, qo/(qo+qw)
fw = Fraction of water, (1- fo)
Rs = Solution gas-oil ratio at p
1
, T
1
,scf/STBO
o
= Oil density at p
1
, T
1
, lbm/ft
3

w
= Water density at p
1
, T
1
, lbm/ft
3

Bo = Oil formation volume factor at p
1
, T
1

Bw = Water formation volume factor at p
1
, T
1

Flow Rate
The following equation (in US units) can be used to estimate the total liquid flow rate through
the restriction for both subcritical and critical flow
4:
5 . 0
1 g
k / 1 k
1
1 L
1
2
2 m 1
2 M
d
L
) 1 k (
) y 1 ( k X ) y 1 )( X 1 (
p
C
d C 525 . 0
q
+

=

1
1 L
1
k / 1
1 g
1
2 m
) X 1 (
y
X

(

+ =

) Bw fw Bo fo ( 10 x 5 . 6 ) foRs R ( 10 x 84 . 8 C w o
5
g
7
2 m + + =

where:
q
L
= Liquid flow rate, STBL/day
C
d
= Discharge coefficient, dimensionless
d = Inside choke diameter, inches
p
1
= Upstream pressure, psia
l
= Liquid density, lbm/ft
3

g1
= Gas density at p1, T1, lbm/ft
3

X
1
= Quality at p1, T1, as shown above
Fluid properties for C
m2
are evaluated at downstream conditions.
148 July 2013
Maximum Erosional and Minimum Unloading Velocity
In multiphase production environments, specifically wet gas wells, excessive fluid velocity can
become a significant factor in the erosion of pipe walls. The erosional process is primarily
caused by small bubbles in the flow stream that form and break as vapor pressure of the liquid is
reached. These bubbles ultimately strike the pipe with considerable force usually causing erosion
of the corrosion inhibitor films, but may strike with a force great enough to erode the pipe wall.
An accepted value for maximum allowable velocity is 50 feet per second.
Maximum Erosional Rate
A correlation method is available to calculate the associated gas flow rate that corresponds to the
maximum allowable velocity to prevent pipe wall erosion. The correlation is a function of
surface tubing diameter, pressure, temperature, and gas properties. The maximum erosional
velocity generally occurs at the wellhead where pressure is at a minimum.
z
460 T
460 T
P 144
V AP 4 . 86
Q
sc
wh
sc
eros wh
ma
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
=

where:
Q
ma
= Maximum erosional rate (Mscf/d)
A = Tubing are at surface (in
2
)
P
wh
= Wellhead pressure (psi)
V
eros
= Erosional velocity (ft/sec)
P
sc
T
wh
= Wellhead temperature (F)
T
sc
= Standard temperature (F)
The erosional velocity, V
eros
, can be designated or calculated from a common industry
correlation.
m
eros
C
V
=

where
C = Predetermined constant usually 100
m
= Mixture density (lbm/ft
3
)
July 2013 149
The C constant for erosional limit ranges from 100 to 110. This constant is arbitrarily set by
engineers for keeping production velocities below the erosional limit. A higher value of C will
cause a higher erosional limit, thus increasing the maximum erosional rate.
Minimum Unloading Rate
Minimum unloading velocities represent the pipe velocity needed to effectively unload liquids
from gas wells for continuous flow. Efficient production is maintained by producing the well at a
sufficiently high rate and tubing velocity to keep all of the produced liquids cleaned out of the
tubing. If the rate and velocity fall below the minimum unloading rate for either water or
condensate, then the liquids will begin to build up in the tubing and eventually choke off the well
to extremely low or no flow conditions.
The unloading velocity and rate is calculated for two liquid phases being 100 percent produced
condensate and 100 percent produced water. The actual unloading minimum for wells that
produce both water and condensate will fall somewhere between these two unloading minimum
limits. The unloading velocity can be either entered directly or calculated using Turner's
34

correlation. As a default, it is suggested that the unloading minimum velocity for water is 7 feet
per second and for condensate it is 4 feet per second when not using Turner's correlation.
The velocity and corresponding rates calculated at these unloading minimum velocities represent
a theoretical minima on the tubing curve based on the theory of Turner. et al.
Turner unloading rate
( ) z 460 T 144
A P V 3060
q
wh
wh unl
unl
+

=

Coleman et. al. (Modified Turner unloading velocity)
The calculation of the unloading velocity is made according to the wellhead pressure. For
wellhead pressures less than 500 psig, the Coleman et al equation is used
94
.
Vt = 1.593 {[o
lg
1/4
(
l
-
g
)
1/4
] /
g
1/2
}
For wellhead pressures greater than 500 psig, the Turner et al method is used:
Vt = 1.912 {[o
lg
1/4
(
l
-
g
)
1/4
] /
g
1/2
}
where:
Vt = Unloading or critical velocity, ft/sec
o
lg
= Water-gas or condensate-gas interfacial tension, evaluated at wellhead
conditions (dynes/cm)
l
= Water or condensate density, evaluated at wellhead conditions (lbm/ft
3
)
g
= Gas density, evaluated at wellhead conditions (lbm/ft
3
)
Guo et. al. (2005)
The methodology implemented in PERFORM is based on the SPE paper 94081.
150 July 2013
A systematic approach is proposed to predict the minimum gas production rate for the
continuous removal of water and oil from gas wells. It was developed on the basis of the
minimum kinetic energy criterion and 4 - phase (oil, water, gas and solid particles) mist flow
model in gas well. This criterion requires that gas kinetic energy exceed a minimum value to
transport liquid droplets up in the gas well.
The kinetic energy (K.E.) theory indicates that the controlling conditions for Liquid drop
removal in gas wells are bottomhole conditions rather than top-hole conditions. The Authors
argued in the paper that their case studies indicates Turners method with 20% adjustment still
underestimates the minimum gas velocity for liquid removal and the newly developed equation
is more accurate and conservative than Turner's method. They showed that the gas kinetic energy
decreases with increased pressure, which means the controlling conditions are bottomhole
conditions (unlike Turner et. al. which indicated the wellhead is the controlling conditions)
where gas has higher pressure and lower K.E.
According to the 4-phase flow model, the flowing pressure at a depth can be solved numerically
from the following equation:
( )
( )L e d a
n
m P
n
m
E A
TQ S
n
bm n
c
b
m
n m P
n m
E A
TQ S
bm
P
E A
TQ S
b
hf
km
gm g
hf
km
gm g
hf
km
gm g
2 1
2
2
13
1
2
2
2
2
2
13
2
2
13
1 tan
10 46 . 6
tan
10 46 . 6
ln
2
2 1
10 46 . 6
+ =
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
| +
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
+ +
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
|
|
.
|
\
|

(1)
where:
( ) u cos
01879 . 0 07 . 86 07 . 86 33 . 15
g
g g o o w w s s
TQ
Q S Q S Q S Q S
a
+ + +
=
g
o w s
TQ
Q Q Q
b
379 . 1 379 . 1 2456 . 0 + +
=
A
TQ
c
g
5
10 712 . 4

=
( )
A
Q Q Q
d
o w s
86400
615 . 5 + +
=
) cos( 2 u
H
gD
f
e =
( ) ( )
2
2 log 2 74 . 1
1
(
=
H
D
f
c

July 2013 151
e d
cde
m
2
1+
=
( )
2
2
2
1 e d
e c
n
+
=
L km
E o 0576 . 0 =

g
S
= Specific gravity of gas, air = 1
g
Q
= Gas production rate, scf/day
s
S
= Specific gravity of produced solid, fresh water = 1
s
Q
= Solid production rate, ft
3
/day
w
S
= Specific gravity of produced water, fresh water = 1
w
Q
= Water production rate, bbl/day
o
S
= Specific gravity of produced oil, fresh water = 1
o
Q
= Oil production rate, bbl/day
H
D
= Hydraulic diameter, ft
T = Temperature,
o
R
gm
Q
= Minimum gas flow rate required to transport liquid drops, scf/day
A = Cross-sectional area of conduit, ft
2

hf
P
= Wellhead flowing pressure, lb
f
/ ft
2

L = Conduit length, ft
The minimum required gas flow rate
gm
Q
is solved from equation (1) iteratively. Equation (1)
can be used to predict the critical (minimum) gas production rate required for water and/ or
condensate removal in various well conditions. Sensitivity analysis conducted by the authors
indicated that the result is sensitive to liquid type (water or oil), wellhead pressure, and size of
flow conduit (tubing or annulus).
Note: Solid production rate and the specific gravity of the produced solid are optional entry in
PERFORM. If these are not available, minimum gas rate to remove oil or water will be
calculated without considering solid production.
Reference:
152 July 2013
1. Guo et al.: "A Systematic Approach to Predicting Liquid Loading in Gas Wells.", SPE
94081, presented in the SPE production and operations symposium held in Oklahoma
City, OK, April 17-19, 2005.
Calculation Control and Heat Transfer
Flowing temperature distribution or heat transfer is used to model the changes in temperature of
the produced flow stream along the path of flow. The fluid temperature is normally a constant in
the reservoir, however, when the fluid starts up the wellbore toward the surface, the temperature
decreases. The produced fluid heat is dissipated from the fluid to the surrounding environment as
it flows to the surface. For gases, the reduction in pressure as the fluid reaches the surface will
also cause a reduction in temperature.
Rigorous prediction of wellbore and pipeline temperature distribution is a complex issue. It
requires solutions for momentum, continuity, and energy balance. The solution is further
complicated by thermal environmental reactions, especially from the reservoir. For this reason,
rigorous analytical solutions are impossible, therefore, numerical algorithms or approximate
analytical solutions have been developed.
Quick and Detailed Pressure Traverse Calculation
Selecting an option from the Rigorous Calculations will force PERFORM to check pressure
convergence for every iteration. This is more accurate but may produce a non-convergence
warning message at certain flow rates. Please note that the warning does not mean that your
analysis is wrong if you can get a solution point, rather it means that PERFORM could not
calculate a pressure convergence at the particular flow rate, but other selected flow rates
generated pressure convergence. An outflow curve is generated to intercept the inflow curve to
get a solution point. Select this option if your system has downhole or flowline equipment to
consider pressure discontinuity that exists at this equipment location.
If you select a Quick Calculation option, the program will not check pressure convergence. It is
simple and easy but less accurate. Any equipment (except a choke) that may be included in the
wellbore and/or flowline will be ignored in pressure calculation. You can select a choke in either
calculation option, as the choke pressure drop calculation is handled by separate correlations in
PERFORM.
Unlike previous versions of PERFORM, the Rigorous or Quick calculation option selected in
this dialog will be applicable to both wellbore and flowline pressure drop calculation.
Note: For Quick calculation, chokes can be in critical or in subcritical flow and be placed
anywhere in the wellbore or flowline without any restriction in node position.
July 2013 153
Linear Temperature Gradient
The linear temperature gradient is a simple method of calculating the temperature at any point
along the flow stream by determining a temperature gradient between two known points a known
distance apart. For the wellbore, a bottomhole and surface temperature is given along with the
depth of the well. The temperature gradient is calculated as:
( )
tvd
wh bh
t
M
T T 100
g

=

The temperature at any depth is found by:
wh
tvd t
d
T
100
M g
T + =

where:
g
t
= Temperature gradient (F/100ft)
T
bh
= Bottomhole temperature (F)
T
wh
= Wellhead temperature (F)
M
tv
= True vertical depth (ft)
T
d
= Temperature at depth M
tvd
(F)
The flowline linear temperature gradient uses the same equations by substituting the flowline
length for the M
tvd
value and temperature at the separator for T
wh
and temperature of the
wellhead for T
bh
.
Temperature Survey
The temperature survey is used to indicate the temperature or temperature gradient for the
flowline or wellbore. Straight line interpolation is used along the temperature path to calculate a
temperature at any wellbore depth or distance from the wellhead for the flowline. The first
temperature point in the wellbore is at the wellhead and does not need to be entered in the survey
because it was entered on the Wellbore dialog box. The last point in the wellbore is the
bottomhole temperature also not entered into the table because it was entered in the Reservoir
dialog box. The first temperature point in the flowline is the separator temperature and the last
point is the wellhead temperature. Neither of these values needs to be entered into the survey
table but are carried over from the Flowline and Wellbore dialog boxes.

154 July 2013
Heat Transfer Correlation
The heat transfer correlations use environmental data to determine the amount of heat transfer
using either empirical or numerical solutions.
Alves et al.
unified model
60

A unified temperature distribution model for either the flowline or wellbore in
production or injection modes. Uses general and unified equations with
conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy balance solved for with
simplified yet sound assumptions. This correlation is highly recommended.
Sagar et al.
simplified
model
63

A simple temperature profile model for wellbores only for two-phase flow.
The model, developed with measured temperature data from 392 wells,
assumes that the heat transfer with the wellbore is steady state. The average
absolute error is suggested to be 2.4F when the mass flow rate is greater than
5 Ibm/sec and 3.9F otherwise.
Shiu &
Beggs
63,72

Empirical correlation for wellbores only that determines the relaxation
constant defined by Ramey's work. The method is an attempt to avoid the
complex calculation of the overall heat-transfer coefficient in the wellbore and
the transient heat behavior of the reservoir. Although this correlation
simplifies the Ramey method, it should be used with caution as a rough
approximation.
Ramey
61
Proposed the classic method for temperature prediction in wellbores only. The
method couples heat transfer mechanisms in the wellbore and transient
thermal behavior of the reservoir. Equations for injection or production of
single-phase fluids were derived.
Coulter &
Bardon
62

Equations developed to predict the thermodynamic behavior of the flowing
fluid in a rigorous approach. However, the assumptions of steady-state heat
transfer with a constant temperature environment and horizontal flow limit this
method to pipeline or horizontal flow only.
User-Entered Heat Transfer Coefficients
Use this heat transfer method to enter known heat transfer coefficients for the wellbore and
flowline segments separately. A table of oil and gas specific heats for a range of temperatures is
needed. The heat transfer coefficients and algorithms are used to calculate the temperature at the
specified segments needed in wellbore and flowline correlations.
Model Calibration Using Production Data
Model calibration using production data is a workflow designed specifically for the users who
have the production profile (production rate and corresponding flowing tubing pressure) of the
well, and want to use this information to enhance the accuracy of the model by matching actual
data with the models prediction. Other optional input such as fluid analysis (PVT) data from the
July 2013 155
laboratory, measured wellbore temperature data and pressure profile (tubing hydraulic curve)
data are also integrated into this module to further fine tune the model prediction.
This tool can only be activated after a basic well model has been completed. The steps below
describe the entire workflow of how to calibrate a nodal analysis model using production data.
Step 1: Production Data Selection
Daily or monthly well production data consist of Well Head Pressure (WHP) and corresponding
surface Production Rate. The calibration using production data module can take a minimum
input of 1 data point. More data points will increase the calibration accuracy but also require
more time to complete calculation. It is recommended to use relatively different WHP and rate
values to increase calibration accuracy.
Note: Calibration using production data module is not intended for decline curve analysis or
other historical data analysis where reservoir properties has changed significantly with
time.
Step 2: Calibration Of Fluid, Temperature And Wellbore Models
Although these steps are optional, users are strongly suggested to conduct fluid PVT calibration,
wellbore temperature profile calibration and hydraulic curve calculation using laboratory PVT
test data, temperature survey or correlation/coefficient data and measured pressure survey data
,respectively, if available. This will enable PERFORM to find and utilize the best PVT
correlation and multi-phase flow pressure loss correlation that are suitable for the actual
wellbore, and tune the calculation to match the actual well performance.
Note: If more than one of these information are available, PVT Calibration with Lab Data and
Temperature Profile Calibration need to be performed before Hydraulic Curve Calibration
since the data entered in these two optional adjustments will interfere with the calculation
in Hydraulic Curve Calibration.
Step 3: I nflow Parameter Adjustment (Well Deliverability Adjustment)
For many engineers working in the production or reservoir engineering area, the challenge is the
uncertainty of reservoir properties and completion parameters. Some of these parameters are
hard to find or expensive to measure; some are changing with time over the production life cycle
of the well. The Inflow Parameter Adjustment module allow users to adjust one or several
uncertain parameters in the Inflow model to match with the actual well performance. After the
adjustments, users can gain better understanding in the reservoir and completion conditions and
have more confident in conducting future production prediction, sensitivity analysis, or
implementing production enhancement measures.
Inflow calibration consists of two parts:
1. Reservoir model parameter adjustment.
2. Completion model parameter adjustment.
The adjustable parameters are depended on which inflow model the user selected to use in the
basic model setup. Certain inflow models may not be available for adjustments. Transient
156 July 2013
analysis types of inflow models are not viable for Calibration Using Production Data module due
to frequent changes in the properties with time.
The initial values of the adjustable parameters are copied from the original well setup reservoir
and completion dialog boxes.
Step 4: Update Calculation And Comparison Chart
After adjusting the values of the adjustable parameters, user can click on the Update button
located in the lower middle part of the dialog box. The prediction value of Calculated Production
Rate at given WHP will be calculated and displayed in the Production Data table. The Average
Absolute Error between the actual production rate and the predicted production rate will be
calculated and displayed below the table. The comparison curve of the actual production rate and
the predicted production rate will be plotted in the right side of the dialog box
User should repeat step three and four until the Average Absolute Error between the production
rate and the predicted production rate falls within an acceptable range.
Step 5: Update Base Model With Adjusted Parameters
Upon completion of the calibration using production data workflow, users are given two choices:
1. Replace all parameters in the basic well model: the adjusted inflow properties and the
calibrated PVT data, adjusted temperature profile data and adjusted/selected hydraulic
curve model (if entered), will replace the original ones available in the basic well model.
All the subsequent calculation, sensitivities will be based on this calibrated model to
reflect actual well conditions.
2. Save but not to replace the parameters: all adjusted values will be saved in the calibration
dialog box for further adjustment in the future. The parameters in the basic model will
remain unchanged and all future calculation and prediction will still be based on the
original basic well model until user decided to replace them with the calibrated
parameters.
Flow Assurance
Scales are solids deposited in wellbores and pipelines due to precipitation of minerals from
produced brines or injected water. These solids may cause formation damage and pipe blockage,
with a subsequent loss of production.
The most common scales found in oil and gas fields are calcium carbonate (CaCO
3
), calcium
sulfates (CaSO
4
), barium sulfate (BaSO
4
) and strontium sulfate (SrSO
4
). Carbonate scales are
formed mainly after pressure and temperature changes in the system, which causes the escape of
CO
2
and H
2
S from the gas and an increase in the pH of the water. Sulfates are formed basically
after breakthrough of injected incompatible waters or mixing of different brines from diverse
zones in the formation.
Scale minerals tend to precipitate after pressure drops in the system. As for temperature, an
increase will cause calcite deposition, whereas a decrease will cause barite deposition.
Scales are generally predicted with saturation indexes, which compare the amount of scaling
constituents in solution to the solubility. Oddo and Tomsom developed a prediction model that
is based on the produced water chemistry and production data such as pressure, temperature,
July 2013 157
flow rate, and percentage of CO2 in the gas at surface. In this method, the degree of saturation of
a scale is related to the saturation index, SI, and is defined as the log of the product of the
concentrations of the scaling minerals divided by the conditional solubility product of the
particular scale, Kc.
For instance, for calcium sulfate, the saturation index is:
) , , (
] 4 ][ [
log
2 2
Is p T Kc
SO Ca
SI
+
=
Kc was derived from literature data and is a function of temperature, pressure and ionic strength,
Is. The use of this parameter avoids the calculation of the activity coefficients for the metal ions
and the anions in the scales. The resulting equations are of the form:
-LogKc = a + bT + cT
2
+ dP + eIs
0.5
+ fIs + gIs
1.5
+ hTIs
0.5

Oilfield waters may have an important concentration of carboxylic acids, normally represented
as equivalent concentration of acetic acid. When this happens, the HCO3 concentration is
corrected to adjust the total alkalinity of the water.
Even though a theoretical value of saturation index above zero indicates a tendency of scale
deposition, Oddo and Tomson suggest a value above 0.4 for actual deposition to take place. For
calcium sulfate this number may be lower, about 0.2.
I nhibitor
In addition to the general Glycol inhibitor, this version also provides Ethylene Glycol (EG),
Diethylene glycol (DEG) and Triethylene glycol (TEG) as inhibitors for hydrate calculation.
Both Methanol (MeOH) and Ethanol (EOH) are provided as additional choices. Injection
inhibitor rates required to avoid hydrate formation are also calculated. This is reported in the
Flow Assurance report along with the pressure and temperature at which there is a possibility of
hydrate formation.
The inhibitor rate is calculated using the following equation:
( )
water
inh
water
inh
Q
wt
wt
Q
|
|
.
|
\
|
% 100
%

where:
inh
Q
= Inhibitor rate, Bbl/D
water
Q
= Water rate, Bbl/D
water

= Specific gravity of water
inh

= Specific gravity of the inhibitor
Wt% = Weight percent of the inhibitor
Following sp. gr. values are used for the inhibitors:
MeOH 0.79626
158 July 2013
EOH 0.79399
EG 1.11
DEG 1.12
TEG 1.1
Wellbore Deviation
You can use PERFORM to analyze deviated wells using the wellbore profile. The directional
survey dialog from the wellbore dialog has entries for entering the directional data as either a
TVD (true vertical depth) and MD (measured depth) data pair or an MD and angle. For vertical
wells, the directional survey is not needed. For deviated wells however, the MD to the top-perf
depth will be larger than the TVD of the well. The directional survey is used to tell PERFORM
how much to deviate the well by either entering MD/TVD depth pairs or angles at MD.
There is a difference in how this information is used by PERFORM.
- PERFORM assumes that the well is vertical if no directional survey data is entered.
- If you want to deviate the wellbore, you can select type of data to enter in the directional
survey as either "Measured vs. Vertical Depth" or "Measured Depth vs. Angles."
- If you choose "Measured Depth vs. Vertical Depth," then PERFORM will calculate the
angle of the wellbore for the segments listed when calculations are done. The listing of
data pairs should be completed all the way to the top perforation depth as the final data
entry. If the first segment of the wellbore near the surface is vertical, you should enter the
first data pair as the kickoff point with the MD and TVD values equal.
- If you choose "Measured Depth vs. Angles," the angles entered are used in the segment
below the measured depth entered. If the first segment of the wellbore is vertical, you
should enter the first data element as a measured depth of the kickoff point with an angle
greater than zero degrees from vertical to start deviating the wellbore from that depth and
below.
PERFORM uses angles in the calculation of the wellbore segments whether entered directly or
calculated from the MD/TVD pairs. You must enter the deviation information correctly. The
following examples show how PERFORM interprets the wellbore deviation to model a deviated
well.
Example 1
July 2013 159

Example 1 demonstrates using the directional survey and an
angle to deviate the well. Note that the TVD and MD in the
wellbore segment are set to the same value to allow
PERFORM to calculate the TVD itself. The kickoff point is
3000 ft.
The Directional Survey dialog box contains the following
information:
MD TVD ANGLE
3000 12 kickoff depth
6270 0 top perforation measured depth
An angle of 0 degrees is set from the surface to 3,000 ft MD as
the kickoff depth. The wellbore deviates from 3,000 ft MD to
6,270 ft MD at 12 degrees. The new TVD of the top
perforation is calculated as:
( ) ( ) ' 6199 = 3000 6270 12 cos + 3000 = calc TVD

Example 2

Example 2 demonstrates what happens if the kickoff depth
segment is not entered using the MD and TVD data entry option.
information:
MD TVD ANGLE
5 5
6270 6199 Top perforation measured depth
PERFORM assumes that the well is deviated starting at about 5
ft. The resulting angle from the surface is calculated as:
|
.
|
\
|
| 8.63 =
5 6270
5 6199

cos
=
1 -

160 July 2013
Example 3

Example 3 demonstrates how to correctly enter the directional
data using a kickoff point.
information:
MD TVD Angle
3000 3000 Kickoff depth
6270 6199 Top perforation measured depth
The angle calculated from the kickoff depth to the top perforation
is:
( )
( )

| 12 =
3000 6270
3000 6199

cos
=
1 -

This is good practice where a kickoff depth is entered in the
Directional Survey dialog box.

July 2013 161
Gas Lift Designs and Optimization
The Process of Gas Lift
Gas lift is the form of artificial lift that most closely resembles the natural flow process. It can be
considered an extension of the natural flow process. In a natural flow well, as the fluid travels
upward toward the surface, the fluid column pressure is reduced and gas comes out of solution.
The free gas, being lighter than the oil it displaces, reduces the density of the flowing fluid and
further reduces the weight of the fluid column above the formation. This reduction in the fluid
column weight produces the pressure differential between the wellbore and the reservoir that
causes the well to flow. When a well makes water and the amount of free gas in the column is
reduced but the same pressure differential between wellbore and reservoir can be maintained by
supplementing the formation gas with injected gas as shown in Fig. 6.1(B).

Figure 6.1: Reduction in fluid column weight by formation and injected gas
Gas Lift Designs and Optimization PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
162 July 2013
A typical closed flow gas lift system is shown schematically in Fig. 6.2:

Figure 6.2: A typical gas lift system
Valve Mechanics
Gas Lift Valves
A gas lift valve is designed to stay closed until certain conditions of pressure in the annulus and
tubing are met. When the valve opens, it permits gas or fluid to pass from the casing annulus into
the tubing. Gas lift valves can also be arranged to permit flow from the tubing to the annulus.
Fig. 6.3 illustrates the basic operating principles involved. Mechanisms used to apply force to
keep the valve closed are (1) a metal bellows charged with gas under pressure, usually nitrogen;
and/or (2) an evacuated metal bellows and a spring in compression. In both cases above, the
operating pressure of the valve is adjusted at the surface before the valve is run into the well. The
bellows dome may be charged to any desired pressure up to the pressure rating of a particular
valve. The compression of the spring can be adjusted. All gas lift valves when installed are
intended for one-way flow, i.e., check valves should always be included in series with the valve.
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Gas Lift Designs and Optimization
July 2013 163

Figure 6.3: Bellows Type Gas Lift Valve
The forces that cause gas lift valves to open are (1) gas pressure in the annulus operating against
the bellows and (2) pressure of the gas and fluid in the tubing operating against the valve plug.
As the conditions decreases below the design pressure, the valve will close and shut off gas flow
from the annulus. In the case of a continuous flow system, the one valve at the point of gas
injection will remain open; thus, the injection of gas will be continuous. Initially all valves in the
tubing string are open due to high annular and tubing pressure.
An operating gas lift valve is installed to control the point of gas injection. Valves are installed
above the desired point of injection to unload the well. After unloading, they close to eliminate
gas injection above the operating valve.
Valve Opening and Closing Forces
A gas lift valve is a pressure regulator. In response to either injection gas or production fluid
pressure, it opens to allow injection gas to enter the production stream. One common design is
the injection pressure operated tubing flow. The valve opens in response to injection pressure in
the annulus and gas enters the fluid column in the tubing through which the fluids are produced.
Pressure operated valves (Fig. 6.4) are made for either tubing (Fig. 6.4-A) or annulus (Fig. 6.4-
B) flow; tubing flow is more common. The dome above the bellows contains nitrogen gas under
pressure when the bellows is charged. The valve stem extends to the ball which seals on a seat
(port). In Fig. 6.4(A) and 6.4(B), fluid pressure is exerted against the ball on the seat from below.
Injection gas pressure, exerted on the outside of the bellows, causes the valve to open by lifting
the ball off of the seat allowing injection gas to enter the production fluids through the port. The
bellows and attached stem lower onto the seat to close the port.
164 July 2013

Figure 6.4: Injection pressure operated valves
Unbalanced Pressure Operated Valves:
Unbalanced Pressure Operated Valves (Fig. 6.4) are the simplest and most common type of gas
lift valve. The two areas of principal importance for an unbalanced pressure operated valve are
the effective area of the bellows (A
b
) and the area of the valve port (A
p
). The effective area of the
bellows (A
b
) is the cross-sectional area over which a pressure acts. The same force would result
if this pressure were exerted on a piston with a cross-sectional area equal to the effective bellows
area. The valve port area (A
p
) is equal to the cross-sectional area of the valve seat.
The closing force in a nitrogen charged bellows consists of the charge pressure exerted over the
total effective' bellows area. This force is calculated by multiplying the bellows charge pressure
times the effective area of the bellows (P
bt
x A
b
). P
bt
is used to denote the pressure at a
temperature downhole while P
b
is the pressure at the standard 60F of the valve test bench.
There are two pressures which cause a valve to open, Injection Pressure and production pressure.
One opening force is produced by the pressure of the injection gas (P
i
) operating on the effective
bellows area minus the effective seat (port) area (A
p
). This first opening force then, can be
expressed mathematically as P
i
(A
b
- A
p
).
A second opening force is created by the production pressure (P
p
) exerted over the area of the
valve seat (port). This pressure can be exerted from either the tubing or annulus depending on
whether the production flow it produced through the tubing or annulus. This force is calculated
by multiplying the production pressure at depth times the area of the port (P
p
x A
p
)
July 2013 165
The forces operating on the injection pressure operated, nitrogen charged gas lift valve consist
then of one closing force (P
bt
x A
b
) and two opening forces P
i
(A
b
- A
p
) and (P
p
x A
p
).
The equation below (1) is a basic force balance equation and forms the basis for all subsequent
equations.
P
bt
(A
b
) = P
i
(A
b
- A
p
) + P
p
(A
p
)
(closing force) = (opening forces)
(1)
Since the force is determined by multiplying the pressure times the area, the charge pressure in
the bellows at a downhole temperature (P
bt
) can be found by dividing the entire equation by the
area of the valve port resulting in the equation below:
P
bt
= P
i
(1- A
p
/A
b
) + P
p
(A
p
/A
b
) (2)
In order to reduce the number of tedious calculations, gas lift valve manufacturers provide the
values for 1 - A
p
/A
b
and A
p
/A
b
for all valves as illustrated in Table 2.1 for Camco Valves.
To calculate the injection pressure for opening the gas lift valve, first, solve for P
i
(1-A
p
/A
b
) in
equation 2 by transposing P
i
(1 - A
p
/A
b
) and P
bt
and make appropriate sign changes to yield:
P
i
(1- A
p
/A
b
) = P
bt
- P
p
(A
p
/A
b
) (3)
Next divide the entire equation by 1 - A
p
/A
b
to yield:
( ) ( )
P
P
A A
P
A A
A A
i
bt
p b
p
p b
p b
=

1 1 /
/
/

(3a)
The value of A
p
/A
b
1-A
p
/A
b
is known as the production, or Tubing Effect Factor (P.E.F. or
T.E.F.) and is one of the values supplied by valve manufacturers and is found in Table 2.1.
Equation 3 can, therefore, be expressed as:
P
i
= P
bt
/(1 - A
p
/A
b
) - P
p
(P.E.F.) (3b)
To solve for production pressure when casing pressure and bellows charge pressure are known,
the following operations must be performed. First, solve for P
t
(A
p
/A
b
) in equation 2 by
transposing this value with P
bt
and making all appropriate sign changes to yield:
P
p
(A
p
/A
b
) = P
bt
- P
i
(1 - A
p
/A
b
) (3c)

166 July 2013
Table 6.1: Specifications for Camco Pressure Operated Valves
Type Valve
A
b
Effective
Bellows Area
sq. in
Port
Size
I.D.
in.
Area of Port
with Bevel
sq. in. A
p
/A
b

(1-
A
p
/A
b
)
PEF =
( )
A A
A A
p b
p b
/
/ 1

Tubing Effect
Factor
J50, JR50 0.12 3/32
1/8
5/32
13/64
11/32
0.0077
0.0133
0.0204
0.0340
0.0955
0.06
0.11
0.17
0.28
0.80
0.94
0.89
0.83
0.72
0.20
0.07
0.12
0.21
0.39
4.00
AK, AKR, BK-1, BK,
BKF, BK-5-1,
BKG-5-1, BKR-3, BP,
J46-0, J40, J41, BKF-6,
BP-2, JR40,
PK-1, BKF-10
0.31 1/8
3/16
1/4
9/32
5/16
3/8
0.0133
0.0291
0.0511
0.0643
0.0792
0.1134
0.043
0.094
0.164
0.207
0.255
0.365
0.957
0.906
0.836
0.793
0.745
0.635
0.045
0.104
0.196
0.261
0.342
0.575
CP-2, J20, JR20, R20,
R21, R25, R28, R29,
RP-2, RPB-5, R-26, RI-
21, RI-20
0.77 3/16
1/4
5/16
3/8
7/16
1/2
0.0291
0.0511
0.0792
0.1134
0.1538
0.2002
0.038
0.067
0.104
0.148
0.201
0.262
0.962
0.933
0.896
0.852
0.799
0.738
0.040
0.072
0.116
0.174
0.252
0.355
NOTE: The Valves are grouped according to their bellows size. A specific valve type may not be available
in all port sizes shown for a given bellows. This is particularly true for valves with a crossover seat.
Notes on Table 6.1:
1. The maximum port size for the AK series valves is 9/32 in. I.D.
2. Valves with crossover seats and their corresponding maximum I.D. port sizes are as
follows:
AKR-3: 3/16" BKF: 3/16"
BK#-J: 3/16" BKF-10: 1/4"
BKR-3: 3/16" JR-20: 3/16"
JR-40: 3/16" JR-50: 3/32"
R-25: 5/16" R-28: 5/16"
3. The specifications apply to the pilot section only of a pilot valve.
4. Port areas were calculated based on the nominal I.D. plus 0.005 inch for the bevel.
5. Use of 3/8 in. ports in 1 in. O.D. valves (.31 A
b
) are not recommended except in special
applications.
July 2013 167
Then the equation above is divided by A
p
/A
b
to yield:
P
P
A A
P
A A
A A
p
bt
p b
i
p b
p b
=

/
/
/
1

(4)
The bellows charge pressure P
bt
has been discussed above as it would exist in a valve operating
downhole. Since the valves are set at the surface at a different temperature (60F) all bellows
charge pressures must be converted to pressure at standard conditions (P
b
).
The first step is to convert the pressure using the temperature correction factor (C
t
) found in
Table 2.2. The following operation corrects the pressure to test bench conditions.
P
b
= C
t
(P
bt
)
The pressure setting on the test bench at 60F or Test Rack Opening pressure (TRO) can be
determined by dividing the corrected pressure by 1 - A
p
/A
b
to produce:
TRO
P
A A
b
p b
=
1 /

(5)
Production Pressure Operated Valves
Production pressure operated valves are similar to Injection Pressure Operated valves. Typically
they are used for intermitting flow wells or for dual completed wells.
For those valves whose primary opening pressure comes from the production fluids, a special
crossover seat allows production fluid to enter the valve chamber and act upon the effective area
of the bellows (Fig. 6.5).

168 July 2013
Figure 6.5: Production Pressure Operated Valves
As we saw in the injection pressure operated valves, there is only one closing force and that is
the bellows charge pressure times the effective area of the bellows (P
bt
x A
b
). The two opening
forces have been reversed since the production fluid replaces the injection gas as the principal
opening force P
p
(A
b
-A
p
). The injection gas pressure acts to create the second opening force by
acting upon the area of the valve port P
i
(A
p
). The resulting force balance equation is:
P
bt
(A
b
) = P
p
(A
b
- A
p
) + P
i
(A
p
)
This equation can be subjected to all the operations outlined above to produce the values found
in equations 2-5.
Frequently, production pressure operated valves use a spring to supply the closing forces as
illustrated in Fig. 6.6. These valves have an uncharged (14.7 psia) bellows. In the force balance
equation, the spring pressure effect (P
st
) is used instead of the bellows charge pressure at well
temperature (P
bt
). The force balance equation for these valves must include one additional value.
Unlike pressure charged valves, the load rate of the valve bellows should be included in the
calculation of the valve's opening pressure in a well. Load rate is a measure of the force required
to compress or stretch the bellows in a gas lift valve at its set opening pressure. The measure of
bellows load rate used for a gas lift valve is the increase in pressure required to obtain a given
stem travel (psi/in.) rather than the units of force (lbs).

Figure 6.6: Production Pressure Operated Valve with a Spring providing the closing force

July 2013 169
Table 6.2 Temperature Correction Factors (Ct)
F Ct F Ct F Ct F Ct F Ct F Ct

61 .998 101 .919 141 .852 181 .794 221 .743 261 .698
62 .996 102 .917 142 .850 182 .792 222 .742 262 .697
63 .994 103 .915 143 .849 183 .791 223 .740 263 .696
64 .991 104 .914 144 .847 184 .790 224 .739 264 .695
65 .989 105 .912 145 .845 185 .788 225 .738 265 .694

66 .987 106 .910 146 .844 186 .787 226 .737 266 .693
67 .985 107 .908 147 .842 187 .786 227 .736 267 .692
68 .983 108 .906 148 .841 188 .784 228 .735 268 .691
69 .981 109 .905 149 .839 189 .783 229 .733 269 .690
70 .979 110 .903 150 .838 190 .782 230 .732 270 .689

71 .917 111 .901 151 .836 191 .780 231 .731 271 .688
72 .975 112 .899 152 .835 192 .179 232 .730 272 .681
73 .973 113 .898 153 .833 193 .778 233 .729 273 .686
74 .971 114 .896 154 .832 194 .776 234 .728 274 .685
75 .969 115 .894 155 .830 195 .775 235 .727 275 .684

76 .967 116 .893 156 .829 196 .774 236 .725 276 .683
77 .965 117 .891 157 .827 197 .772 237 .724 277 .682
78 .963 118 .889 158 .826 158 .771 238 .723 278 .681
79 .961 119 .887 159 .825 199 .710 239 .722 219 .680
80 .959 120 .886 160 .823 200 .769 240 .721 280 .679

81 .957 121 .884 161 .822 201 .767 241 .720 281 .678
82 .955 122 .882 162 .820 202 .766 242 .719 282 .677
83 .953 123 .881 163 .819 203 .765 243 .718 283 .676
84 .951 124 .879 164 .817 204 .764 244 .717 284 .675
85 .949 125 .877 165 .816 205 .762 245 .715 285 .674

86 .947 126 .876 166 .814 206 .761 246 .714 286 .673
87 .945 127 .874 167 .813 207 .760 247 .713 287 .672
88 .943 128 .872 168 .812 208 .759 248 .712 288 .671
89 .941 129 .871 169 .810 209 .757 249 .711 289 .670
90 .939 130 .869 170 .809 210 .756 250 .710 290 .669

91 .938 131 .868 171 .807 211 .755 251 .709 291 .668
92 .936 132 .866 172 .806 212 .754 252 .708 292 .667
93 .934 133 .864 173 .805 213 .752 253 .707 293 .666
94 .932 134 .863 174 .803 214 .751 254 .706 294 .665
95 .930 135 .861 175 .802 215 .750 255 .705 295 .664
170 July 2013

96 .928 136 .860 176 .800 216 .749 256 6704 296 .663
97 .926 137 .858 177 .799 217 .748 257 .702 297 .662
98 .924 108 .856 178 .798 218 .746 258 .701 298 .662
99 .923 139 .855 179 .796 219 .745 259 .700 299 .661
100 .921 140 .853 180 .795 220 .744 260 .699 300 .660
Ct
Gas Lift Valve Dome Pressure at 60 F
Gas Lift Valve Dome Pressure at T@L in Well
=

To account for a valve's bellows load rate and insure adequate gas throughput, the valve's
opening pressure should be set lower than calculated with the above force balance equations. one
design technique used is to ignore the forces exerted by the injection pressure applied over the
port area so that the force balance equation is:
P
st
= P
p
(1 - A
p
/A
b
)
Another "rule of thumb," which is particularly applicable to the higher load rate of the spring
loaded valve, is to subtract an arbitrary pressure difference (P
k
) from the production pressure to
yield the following force balance equation:
P
st
= (P
p
- P
k
)(1 - A
p
/A
b
) + P
i
(A
p
/A
b
)
The value of P is at least 60 psi. As a "rule of thumb," 60 psi is used k for 1-1/2 in. valves and 75
psi is used for 1 in. valves.
The tester for a tubing pressure operated valve is designed to apply the opening pressure over the
effective bellows less the port are in the same manner as employed for a casing pressure operated
valve.
The equation below is for Test Rack opening pressure for spring loaded valves
( )
TRO
P
A A
st
p b
=
1

No temperature correction is required for the spring loaded valve.

July 2013 171
Continuous Flow Unloading Sequence
Continuous flow unloading of a tubing-flow installation is illustrated in Fig. 6.7 A-F.

Figure 6.7: Continuous Gas Lift Unloading Sequence
Until the top valve in Fig. 6.7(A) is uncovered, fluid from the casing is transferred into the tubing
through open valves and U-tubed by injection gas pressure being exerted on the top of the liquid
column in the casing. No pressure drawdown across the formation occurs during U-tubing
operations because the tubing pressure at total depth exceeds the static bottomhole pressure. This
is due to the pressure exerted by the liquid column in the tubing.
172 July 2013
In Fig. 6.7(B) all valves are open. The top valve is uncovered, and injection gas is entering the
tubing through this valve. Unloading continues from the top valve which remains open until the
second valve is uncovered.
In Fig. 6.7(C) all valves are open. Injection gas is entering the tubing through the top and second
valves. With the fluid level in the casing below the depth of the second valve, the tubing pressure
is less than the casing pressure at valve depth, and injection gas enters the tubing through the
second valve. the flowing tubing pressure at the depth of the top valve is decreased by injecting a
high volume on gas through the top valve to uncover the second valve. This high injection gas-
liquid ratio is required for only a short time, and the valve must be capable of passing this gas
volume.
In Fig. 6.7(D) the top valve is closed and all other valves are open. Injection gas is entering the
tubing through the second valve. The third and bottom valves are not uncovered. Before the top
valve will close, the casing pressure must decrease slightly. The second valve must remain open
until the third valve is uncovered.
In Fig. 6.7(E) the top valve is closed and all other valves are open. The second and third valves
are uncovered, and injection gas is entering the tubing through both valves. The flow of injection
gas through the second valve has lowered the flowing tubing pressure at the depth of the second
valve. This allows the injection gas to enter the tubing through the third valve.
In Fig. 6.7(F) the top and second valves are closed, and the third and bottom valves are open.
Injection gas is entering the tubing through the third valve. The bottom valve is below the fluid
level in the casing. The producing capacity of the installation is reached with the available
injection-gas pressure before the bottom valve is uncovered.
Properties of Injection Gas and Applications
Designing a gas lift installation involves the determination of gas pressure in the casing or tubing
at the specific depth of a valve when the surface injection pressure is known. The designer must
also be able to determine the volume of gas that can be delivered to the production stream
through a particular valve in order to obtain the proper gas to liquid ratio needed to lift the fluids
to the surface. Since the dome pressure is set at the surface under a standard temperature, the
pressure must be corrected so that proper operating pressure will exist at the downhole
temperature.
The equation (6) below can be used to calculate the gas pressure at the depth.
( ) ( )
| |
P P EXP H TZ
ws ts
= 001875 . /
g

(6)
where:
P
ws
= static or shut-in bottomhole pressure, psia,
P
ts
= static tubing (wellhead) pressure, psia,
g
= gas gravity (air = 1),
H = well depth, ft,
July 2013 173
T
= average temperature in the tubing, R,
Z
= gas compressibility factor evaluated at T
P
= (P
ws
+ P
ts
)/2
Evaluation of Z makes the calculation iterative.
It is important to determine the quantity of gas that can pass through a given opening during a
specific time period. In a gas lift installation, if sufficient gas will not pass through a particular
port, the required GLR cannot be obtained to lift fluids from a given depth.
Most gas passage calculations for valve port sizing are based on the Thornhill-Craver equation:
where:
Q = Gas flow in 1000 scfd (MCFD) at 60F and 14.7 psia
C
d
= Discharge coefficient (0.865)
A = Area of opening, square inches
P
1
= Upstream pressure, psia
P
2
= Downstream pressure, psia
g = Acceleration of gravity = 32.2 ft/sec
2

k
=
Specific heat at constant pressure
Specific heat at constant volume

r = Ratio P
1
/P
2
r
o

r
o
=
2
1
1
K
K K
+
|
\
|
.
|
( /( )

G = Specific gravity (air = 1.0)
T = Inlet temperature, F
The chart illustrated in Fig. 6.8 with proper correction factor can also be used to approximate the
gas passage rate. The gas throughput chart and procedures are taken from the Camco Gas Lift
Manual.
To determine the gas passage rate using the chart and correction factor, use the following
procedure:
Step 1 Obtain port size, upstream pressure, downstream pressure, specific gravity
(gas gravity), and temperature (F)

174 July 2013

Step 2

Calculate the ratio of downstream pressure to upstream pressure applying the
following equation:
R
P
P
d
up
=

Step 3 Enter Fig. 6.8 with the ratio on the vertical axis.
Step 4 Travel across to the curve and down to the horizontal axis.
Step 5 Read value for K.
Step 6 Read coefficient for port (C) on Fig. 6.8.

Figure 6.8: Gas throughput chart
July 2013 175
Step 7 Calculate gas passage Q using the following equation:
Q = P
up
x K x C
Step 8 Correct the chart value by applying the following equation:
( )
Q actual =
Q chart
.0544 T
f
+ 460

Note: "C" in step six is determined by the following equation:
C = 46.08 x d
2

where:
d = port diameter in inches.
Continuous Flow Gas Lift
Continuous flow gas lift is a method whereby gas is injected into the flowing fluid column to
reduce the density of the fluid from the point of injection to the surface. The purpose is to
decrease the flowing bottom-hole pressure and thereby increase the producing rate. The injection
gas supplements the formation gas and lightens the flowing pressure traverse above the point of
gas injection as indicated in Fig. 6.9.
Pressure Gradients
As illustrated before, a pressure gradient always exists from the point of injection to the surface
in continuous flow gas lift. This gradient is dependent upon the gas liquid ratio, i.e., the greater
the GLR, the lighter the pressure gradient for a given flow rate. There is, however, a limit
beyond which any additional increase in gas injection actually results in a heavier gradient due
primarily to increasing flow resistance (friction) accompanying higher fluid velocities. This is
known as the "minimum gradient" and simply indicates the maximum gas-liquid ratio required
for a given flow rate to attain the minimum flowing traverse.
Gas Lift Feasibility Studies
The first step in the design of any continuous flow gas lift system is to determine the point of
injection, gas volume requirements, and injection pressure required.
The data necessary for accurately predicting these operating conditions are:
1. Tubing size
2. Desired producing rate (BFPD) Bbl of Fluid per Day
3. Water-oil ratio (WOR)
4. Formation gas-liquid ratio (GLR), cu ft. of gas per bbl of fluid
5. Flowing tubing pressure at the surface (P
wh
), Psig
6. Static bottomhole pressure (SBHP), psig
7. Productivity index (P.I.), BFPD per psig drawdown
176 July 2013
First plot the flowing gradient traverse (from the appropriate curve) below the point of injection.
This is based on the formation GLR, the flowing bottomhole pressure, producing rate, and water-
oil ratio as shown in Fig. 6.9.
Next plot the flowing gradient traverse above the point of injection starting with the flowing
wellhead tubing pressure and based on a reasonable gas liquid ratio. Where this traverse
intersects the traverse below the point of injection establishes the point of injection.
As indicated by the dotted line in Fig. 6.10, the injection gas pressure gradient is plotted with a
sufficient differential from casing to tubing to provide the injection gas required (this differential
is normally 40 to 60 psi). From the preceding plot the following information can be obtained:
1. Point of injection
2. Injection gas-liquid ratio
3. Surface injection gas pressure
This establishes the necessary criteria for proceeding to the valve spacing; however, we must
point out that PI data are not always reliable and in many instances a point of injection must be
estimated from previous field experience. Another method is to assume a percentage drawdown
across the formation (say 50 percent), but bear in mind that bottomhole pressure decline,
increasing water cut, and load fluid all influence the maximum point of injection and/or deepest
point of lift while unloading.

Figure 6.9: Pressure Versus Depth Plot Illustrating Continuous Flow Operations
July 2013 177

Figure 6.10: Flowing Gradient Traverse Below the Point of Injection

Figure 6.11: Point of Injection Determination
Computer Design Procedure (Pressure Operated Method)
The computer design procedure contained in the PERFORM program for the Pressure Operated
method closely follows the method outlined in the CAMCO Technical manual. It is suitable for
gas lift installations using unbalanced pressure valves.
The procedure used involves a computer simulated graphical design which provides design
information and predicts the well performance. The following is a list of the parameters and
equations for gas lift design.
178 July 2013
1. Depth (L) = Depth of each valve in the installation. The depth of the top valve is
determined by the static fluid gradient (G
s
), kick-off injection gas pressure (P
ko
), and
the wellhead tubing pressure (P
wh
). The depth of the top valve is calculated by using the
following equation:
L
P P
G
ko wh
s
1
=

Valves above the static fluid level will use 3/16" port size. Usually the well design
assumes the well is located with kill fluid and the top valve is placed to allow unloading
against this gradient. However, for deep wells with low BHP, the top valve may be
placed 500 ft above the expected liquid level. This will eliminate the need for an
excessive number of valves. In situations where the initial valve is set low and injection
gas pressure will not be sufficient, it may be necessary to suck some fluid from the
tubing so that the unloading procedure will begin.
2. Valve Type and size will depend on the characteristics of the well and the downhole
equipment, such as tubing size, and type of mandrels. Usually wireline retrievable
valves are used for offshore wells or high rate producers to minimize well downtime (to
repair or adjust valve settings).
3. Valve Port Size is determined by calculating the amount of gas that must be injected by
using Thornhill-Craver equation. The port must be large enough to pass the required
amount of gas, but not so large that it produces a large Production Pressure Effect.
4. Minimum Production Pressure (P
p
min.) = Required minimum pressure in the conduit
needed to transfer to next valve (Figure 4-5).
5. From gradient curves, the GLR to lift from the top valve is determined by starting at P
p
,
min at depth 1 (L
1
), proceed downward until the intersection with minimum gradient
line is obtained. Based on this GLR, the gas required is calculated and corrected for
temperature. Check if the port size is capable of passing enough gas. Assume that
upstream pressure of valve equals casing pressure at that depth and downstream
pressure equals the minimum flowing tubing pressure at the depth.
6. The depth of the second valve is then determined by drawing an unloading traverse
from P
p
, min at L
1
until it intersects the casing pressure line. Subtract pressure drop
across the valve from casing pressure line to locate the second valve depth (L
2
).
Determine P
p
, max at L, the maximum flowing tubing pressure at depth of top valve.
When lifting from the second valve, find the gradient curve (and the GLR) that passes
through the wellhead pressure and the point P
2
* (see figure). Thus P
p, max,1
is obtained
for the first valve.
Additional tubing effect for first valve (ATE) is:
ATE
1
= (Max P
p
at L
1
- Min P
p
at L
1
) TEF
where,
TEF
A A
A A
p b
p b
=
/
/ 1

and
A
b
= bellows area
July 2013 179
A
p
= port area
As before, estimate the injection GLR to establish the unloading traverse when gas-
lifting from the second valve. These calculations are now based on min P
p
at L
2
. Get
the injection GLR and producing rate and correct the former for temperature. Verify
if the choke passes sufficient amount of gas.
7. The depth of the third valve is determined along with the port size. However, the
depth of the third valve (L
3
) is based on the reopening pressure of the top valve when
lifting from the second valve and an assumed pressure differential across the gas lift
valve. The casing-tubing pressure difference used here equals the assumed (user-
input) pressure drop across the valve plus the additional tubing effect calculated
before (i.e. equal to AP3 in figure 4.5). Determine the following:
- L
3

- max P
t
at L
2

- additional TE
2

- min P
p
at L
3

- injection GLR needed, Q
gi
, temperature correction factor
Finally, select the proper valve port size.
8. The design of the fourth valve downwards is the same as for valve 3. The process is
continued until the maximum required valve depth is reached.
9. Bracketing may be done if asked for. Please refer to the next section for details on
bracketing.
10. P
bt
shown in the output is the bellows charge pressure at well temperature and is
obtained as:
P
bt
= (P
o
at L) (1 - A
p
/A
b
) + (Min P
p
at L) (A
p
/A
b
)
Here P
o
is the operating pressure at depth L and is given by:
P
o
at L = P
i
@L - TEF
for all valves excepting the top valve (for which available gas injection pressure is
used).
TRO, the test rack opening pressure as calculated using equations (4) and (5) in the
"Valve Mechanics" chapter (page 162).
The valve closing pressure at surface (Pv
c
@ S) is calculated as:
P
vc
@ S = P
bt
- (valve depth) (g
c
)
where,
g
c
= gas gradient in the annulus
The re-opening pressure at depth (P
re - op
@S) is given by:
P
re-op
@S = P
re-op
@L - (valve depth) * g
c

where,
P
re-op
@L = P
bt
/RV2 - P
max
@ L * TEF
180 July 2013
and,
RV2 = 1- A
p
/A
b

The valve opening pressure at surface, P
vo
@ S is given by:
P
vo
@ S = P
vo
@ L - (valve depth)(g
c
)
The (orifice) flow rate through the valve is calculated using the Thronhill - Craver
equation in.
Bracketing Criteria
The bracketing technique was developed primarily to account for fluctuations in FTP and surface
casing pressure which would result in injection taking place at a higher or lower depth than the
design point. The main reasoning behind the bracketing was to ensure that optimum spacing is
achieved within the "bracketing envelope" so that the well would be optimized despite the
fluctuations in wellhead pressure and surface casing pressure. The actual bracketing spacing is
determined by the operating differential which depends on well P.I.
Sometimes however, these variations in wellhead pressure and surface casing pressure are not of
critical concern. The main consideration in a gas lift design is the uncertainty of the rate the well
will produce at, primarily because of limited or out of date BHP data. To determine the
bracketing envelope the wells are grouped into two categories:
(a) Wells with relatively low flowing BHP.
(b) Wells with relatively high flowing BHP.
Wells in category (a) are those wells producing from solution gas drive or partial water drive
reservoirs where injection is possible close to the packer. For these wells the lower limit of
bracketing should be the packer or the deepest point at which injection is physically possible.
Category (b) consists of wells in strong water drive reservoirs where the depth of injection is
shallow or the well may be capable of flowing. In these cases, an attempt to space down to the
packer using the bracketing spacing from the operating valve would result in an excessive
number of valves. In cases like these the lower limit of bracketing should be based on the
projected performance of the well. For example, the completion is expected to last five years
before the well is repaired or re-completed, then we must estimate beforehand what the well's
rate, static BHP and flowing BHP will be at the time. Using this information, the future depth of
injection should be determined. This depth will be the lower limit of the bracketing envelope.
The bracketing spacing should then be used to space valves from the operating depth to the lower
limit of the bracketing envelope.
July 2013 181
Bracket Spacing
The bracket spacing varies inversely with the PI of the well. It is more critical to space valves
closer in a high PI well than it is for a low PI well. For example, consider a well in which the
pressure gradient above the point of injection is 0.1 psi/ft and below the point of injection is 0.4
psi/ft. Then if the valves are spaced 500 ft around the operating valve the potential reduction is
drawdown by transferring to the next lower valve is 500 (.4 - .1) = 150 psi. A reduction in the
bottomhole flowing pressure by this amount will benefit a high P.I. well much more than a low
P.I. well. Fig. 6.12 allows the bracket spacing to be determined once the P.I. is known.

Figure 6.12: Correlation for Bracket Spacing
182 July 2013

Figure 6.13: Pressure Operated Design Method
Gas lift optimization
In order to find the optimum injection depth for a production rate in an existing gas lift system,
gas lift optimization can be used.
Gas lift parameters such as injection pressure and rate, as well as injection gas specific gravity
are entered in the Gas Lift Optimization dialog. Valve information, such as differential pressure
and setting depths are also entered here. There are three situations possible in a system - one gas
lift valve installed, multiple valves installed, and no gas lift valve specified. PERFORM does the
following for these three situations as listed below.
1. If only one gas lift valve is installed in the system: PERFORM uses this valves depth as
injection depth for all production rates.
2. If multiple valves are installed in the well, PERFORM will find the best injection depth
among the specificied valve depths for a certain production rate by comparing the tubing
pressure and the casing pressure. For example, let us assume the given valve depths are
2000ft and 3000ft. If at 2000ft, the calculated tubing pressure plus the valve differential
pressure is less than the calculated casing pressure, and at 3000ft, tubing pressure plus the
valve differential pressure is greater than the casing pressure, the 2000ft depth will be
selected as the injection depth. This is because the casing pressure must exceed tubing
pressure plus the valve differential pressure in order to make gas injection possible.
July 2013 183
However, if in the above example, at 3000 ft, tubing pressure plus the valve differential
pressure is also less than the casing pressure, but the pressure difference is smaller than
the one at 2000 ft, then 3000 ft will be selected as the injection depth.
3. If no injection valve depth is specified, PERFORM will find the optimum depth for each
production rate by using the same concept as if valves depths are specified, that is, to find
the depth where tubing pressure plus the valve differential pressure exceeds casing
pressure, but the difference between the two pressures is the smallest. If no such a point
can be found, PERFORM uses the deepest possible injection depth (the top of perforation
in the wellbore data dialog) as injection depth.
Once the calculation is completed, the results (depth of injection point) are reported in system
report, in the Outflow Data section. You can also sensitize on injection rate and pressure to
identify the ideal injection conditions.
References:
1. ATOC's Proposed Gas Lift Practice - Engineering Practice 31, Amoco Trinidad Oil
Company June 12, 1986.
2. Basic Gas Lift Technology, Camco Inc., 1989.
3. Brown, K. E., et al: Gas Lift Theory and Practice. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1967.
4. Brown, K. E., et al: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, PennWell Books, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 1980.

July 2013 184
Downhole Network
Use the Downhole Network dialog box to optimize the performance of multilayers and
multilaterals for oil and gas wells. Multilayers, Figure 6.1, are the wells with a single wellbore
penetrating several production zones. Multilaterals, Figure 6.2, are the wells with several
wellbores penetrating a single or multiple production zones or reservoirs.
The Downhole Network dialog box makes reference to nodes and links. A node is a reference
point where flow enters, leaves, or merges. A link is a connection between two nodes in which a
single stream flows.

Figure 7.1: Multilayer
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Downhole Network
July 2013 185

Figure 7.2: Multilateral
In general, the calculation procedure is the same for both multilayer and multilateral. It starts
from the reservoir, continues for the links, and ends at the bottom of the main wellbore. From the
wellbore to the surface, the calculation is similar to that for a single wellbore and has the same
options. You can change the node position for calculation from separator, to wellhead, and to the
bottomhole, which in this case is the bottom of the main wellbore.
The following procedure is used to perform the calculation for downhole network.
1. For each individual reservoir, the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) is calculated by
considering the fluid, reservoir, and completion. The calculation procedure for each
reservoir is similar to the calculation for single reservoir. These IPR curves present the
inflow performance at the node closest to the reservoir, the reservoir node. These IPR
curves for the reservoirs are presented in the Inflow Graph by Reservoir.
2. If there is a link between the reservoir node and the next node, the pressure drop for each
rate is calculated. The IPR at the reservoir node is adjusted to present a new IPR at the
next node, link IPR. The link IPR presents the pressure and flow rate immediately before
the flow enters the next node. This procedure is similar to calculating the pressure drop in
the single wellbore and setting the node at the wellhead or top of the link for downhole
network. If there is no link, then the new IPR will be the same as the IPR for the reservoir
node. These IPR curves are presented in Inflow Graph by Node.
3. Flow is merged at the node, and three simultaneous calculations are performed:
- The fluid property of the mixed fluid is determined as a function of individual
fluid properties, temperature, and flow rate at in-situ condition.
- The temperature at the node is calculated based on oil, gas, and water flow rates
and temperature gradient.
Downhole Network PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
186 July 2013
- The composite IPR curve is calculated from individual IPR of step 2. The
composite IPR is different than IPR for single reservoir because the temperature
and/or fluid properties may vary with each rate. Therefore, each rate may have
different fluid properties and temperature.
Note: If you selected the option to handle crossflow in the Analysis Settings dialog
box, PERFORM determines which link or layer has the highest pressure. Each
of the other links joined at the node is assumed to be experiencing injection
until pressure drops to the pressure of that link or layer. For the same case, if
you have not selected crossflow instead of injection, PERFORM assumes zero
rate.
4. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated to establish the final composite IPR at the bottom of the main
wellbore. The final composite IPR curve is presented in System Graph for Total System.
5. The rest of the calculation is for the wellbore and flowline and is the same for single
wellbore and downhole network.
To illustrate these steps, consider the bilateral case in Figure 6.2. In step 1, the IPR curves for
reservoirs R
1
and R
2
at the nodes n
1
and n
2
are calculated. In step 2, the pressure losses for the
links from n
1
and n
2
to n
3
are calculated and included in new IPR curves for each link at n
3
. In
step 3, the fluid properties for the mixture, temperature, and composite IPR for n
3
is calculated.
The composite IPR is the combination of IPR curves for Link
1
and Link
2
.

July 2013 187
Maximization
Note: Maximization is available for System Analysis only.
Maximization allows users to examine production scenarios based on a group of selected
variables. It is truly a maximization tool that enables users of PERFORM to generate answers to
questions like, How can I maximize production from my well? or What will happen to my
production if certain well parameters change in the future?
Maximization creates a What if scenario to answer these questions. User can select up to five
different variables from a list which includes reservoir, wellbore, fluids, and completion
parameters. Each variable can have three different values (excluding the base case value).
Maximization starts after variables are selected from the list and anticipated values for each item
are entered. Scenarios (also called cases) are created from permutations of the user entered data.
The Maximization variables are combined together by value to form each Maximization case.
Solution points are calculated on a case by case basis, and reported in a Maximization Report
with four different maximization graphs.
For oil wells, a Maximization Liquid Graph shows oil, water, and liquid rates plotted for all
cases. Similarly, for gas wells, a Maximization Gas Graph shows the gas flow rates plotted for
all cases. A Maximization Sorted Liquid Graph and Maximization Sorted Gas Graph show rates
from high to low. This sorting is based on liquid rates for oil wells and gas rates for gas wells.
For gas wells, condensate rates are used in place of oil rates.
Maximization is only applicable for System Analysis and this procedure can be better described
as a permutation of variables with only one objective: Maximize Fluid Rate. While Sensitivities
can be performed for System, Gradient or Gaslift Analysis, Sensitivities are limited to 5 cases
(including base case) while Maximization may have up to 244 cases (including base case).
The following diagram illustrates how maximization and sensitivities are performed on items.

Figure 8.1 : Sensitivity has vertical mixing of variables
In Fig. 8.1, the total number of cases will be three plus base (four cases).
Maximization PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
188 July 2013

Figure 8.2: Maximization has both vertical and diagonal mixing of variables
For figure 8.2, the total number of cases will be twenty seven (3 * 3 * 3) plus base case, i.e,
twenty eight.

July 2013 189
References
1. Brown, K. E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 1, PennWell Publishing Co.,
Tulsa, OK (1980).
2. Brown, K. E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 4, PennWell Publishing Co.,
Tulsa, OK (1980).
3. Brill, J. P. and Beggs, H. D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1978).
4. Beggs, H. D.: Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, TX.
5. Vogel, J. V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution Gas Drive Wells," JPT,
(January 1968) 83-93.
6. Standing, M. B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells Producing by
Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT (November 1970) 1399-1400.
7. Standing, M. B.: "Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Performance of Wells
Producing from Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT (September 1971) 1141-1142.
8. Jones, Loyd G., Blount, E. M., and Glaze, O. H.: "Use of Short Term Multiple Rate
Flow Test to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence," SPE 6133, SPE of
AIME, (1976).
9. McLeod, H. O., Jr.: "The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance," JPT
(January 1983).
10. Crouch, E. C. and Pack, K. J.: "System Analysis Use for the Design and Evaluation of
High-Rate Gas Wells," SPE 9424, SPE of AIME (September 21-24, 1980).
11. Saucier, R. J.: "Gravel Pack Design Considerations," SPE 4030, SPE of AIME
(October 8-11, 1972).
12. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: "Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients
Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits,"
JPT (April 1965) 475.
13. Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N. C. J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells,"
6th World Petroleum Congress, Frankfurt, Germany.
14. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe," JPT (June
1967).
15. Dukler, A. E. et al.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines," Research Results, vol. 1.
American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, (May 1969).
16. Eaton, B. A. et al.: "The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup and Pressure
Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines," Trans.,
AIME (1966).
17. Gray, H. E.: "Vertical Flow Correlations for Gas Wells," User Manual 14B Subsurface
Controlled Safety Valve Sizing Computer Program, (June 1974).
18. Flanigan, O.: "Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of Two-Phase
Gathering Systems," Oil & Gas J. (10 March 1958) 132.
19. Cullender, M. H. and Smith, R. V.: "Practical Solution of Gas Flow Equations for
Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients," Trans., AIME (1956).
References PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
190 July 2013
20. Gilbert, W. E.: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance," API Drilling and Production
Practice, (1954) 126.
21. Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P.: "A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes," JPT
(May 1973) 607.
22. Odeh, A. S.: "Pseudosteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity Index for a Well
with Noncircular Drainage Area," SPE-AIME, Mobil Research Development Corp.,
Dallas, TX.
23. Lescarboura, J. A.: "Handheld Calculator Program Finds Minimum Gas Flow For
Continuous Liquids Removal," Oil & Gas J. (16 April 1984) 68-70.
24. Bradburn, J. B.: "Velocity in Gas Lines Erosional Velocity," internal correspondence,
Tenneco Oil Company, (7 November 1980).
25. Poettmann, F. H.: "The Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through Vertical Flow
Strings with Application to the Design of Gas Lift Installations," Drill. & Prod. Prac.
(1952) 257.
26. Baxendell, P. B. and Thomas, R.: "The Calculation of Pressure Gradients in High-Rate
Flowing Wells," JPT (October 1961) 1023.
27. Fancher, G. H., Jr. and Brown, K. E.: "Prediction of Pressure Gradients for Multiphase
Flow in Tubing," SPEJ (March 1963) 59.
28. Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: "Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two-Phase
Flow," JPT (May 1983) 1003.
29. Aziz, K., Govier, G. W. and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and
Gas," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-September 1972) 38.
30. Griffith, P. and Wallis, G. B.: "Two-Phase Slug Flow," J. of Heat Transfer (August
1961) 307.
31. Lawson, J. D. and Brill, J. P.: "A Statistical Evaluation of Methods Used to Predict
Pressure Loses for Multiphase Flow in Vertical Oil Well Tubing," JPT (August 1974)
903.
32. Vohra, I. R., Robinson, J. R. and Brill, J. P.: "Evaluation of Three New Methods for
Prediction Pressure Losses in Vertical Oil Well Tubing," JPT (August 1974) 829.
33. "API Users Manual for API 14B-Subsurface Controlled Safety Valve Sizing Program,"
API Manual 14BM Second Edition, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D. C.
(January 1978).
34. Turner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G., and Dukler, A. E.: "Analysis of Prediction of Minimum
Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells," JPT (November
1969) 1475.
35. Weller, W. T.: "Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow," JPT (September
1973) 210-246.
36. Cooke, C. E. Jr., "Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers," JPT
(September 1973) 1101-1107.
37. Firoozabadi, A. and Katz, D. L.: "An Analysis of High-Velocity Gas Flow Through
Porous Media," JPT (February 1973) 211-216.
38. Ros, N. C. J.: "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid as Encountered in Well Tubing,"
JPT (October 1961) 1037.
39. Achong, I. B.: "Revised Bean and Performance Formula For Lake Maracaibo Wells,"
University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela.
40. Beggs, H. D.: "Gas Production Operations," O. G. C. I. Publications, Tulsa, OK (1984).
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual References
July 2013 191
41. McLeod, H. O., Jr. and Crawford, H. R.: "Gravel Packing for High Rate Completions,"
SPE 11008, SPE of AIME (26-29 September 1982).
42. Brown, K.E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 2A, PennWell Publishing Co.:
Tulsa, OK (1980).
43. Winkler, H. W. and Smith, S. S.: CAMCO Gas Lift Manual, Houston, TX (1962).
44. Brown, K. E.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK
(1973).
45. Camacho, R.G.V. and Raghavan, R.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution
Gas Drive Reservoirs," SPE 16204, JPT (May 1989) 54.
46. Mukherjee, H. and Economides, Michael J.: "A Parametric Comparison of Horizontal
and Vertical Well Performance," SPE 18303, Proceedings for 63rd Annual Technical
Conference of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas (2-5 October 1988).
47. Dikken, B. J.: "Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect on Production
Performance," JPT (November 1990) 1426-1433.
48. Cinco-Ley, Heber: "Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing by Transient Pressure Analysis
Methods," SPE 10043, SPE of AIME (1982).
49. Ascheim: "MONA Correlation: An Accurate Two-Phase Well Flow Model Based on
Slippage," Transactions for SPE European Conference.
50. Cullender, M. H. and Smith, R. V.: "Practical Solution of Gas Flow Equations for
Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients," Trans., AIME (1956).
51. Economides et al.: "Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance,"
SPEFE (December 1991), 418-421.
52. Economides et al.: Petroleum Production Systems, PTR Prentice Hall (1994) Chap. 2
and 4.
53. Joshi, S. D.: "Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and Horizontal Wells,"
JPT (June 1988) 729-739.
54. Joshi, S. D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Book Publishing Co. (1991) 75,
91, 224-226, 344.
55. Giger, F. M. et al.: "The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Horizontal Drilling," paper
SPE 13024, presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition ,
Houston, TX, 16-19 September 1984.
56. Renard, G. and Dupuy, J. M.: "Formation Damage Effects on Horizontal Well Flow
Efficiency," JPT (July 1991) 786-869.
57. Kuchuk, F. J. et al: "Pressure Transient Analysis and Inflow Performance for
Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 18300, Houston, TX, 2-5 October 1988.
58. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup
Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media," May 1987.
59. Babu, D. K. and Odeh, A. S.: "Productivity of a Horizontal Well," SPERE (November
1989) 417-421.
60. Alves, I. N., Alhanati, F. J. S., and Shoham, O.: "A Unified Model for Predicting
Flowing Temperature Distribution in Wellbores and Pipelines," JPT (November 1992)
363-367.
61. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Wellbore Heat Transmission," paper SPE 96, April 1962.
62. Coulter, D. M. and Bardon, M. F.: "Revised Equation Improves Flowing Gas
Temperature Prediction," Oil & Gas J. (26 February 1979).
References PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
192 July 2013
63. Sagar, Rajiv: "Predicting Temperature Profiles in a Flowing Well," JPT (November
1991) 441-448.
64. Bradley, H. B.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, 46-4 and 46-5.
65. Brill, J. P. and Beggs, H. D.: "Two-Phase Flow in Pipes," U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK,
(December 1988), 1-31 to 1-36.
66. Ros, N. C. J.: "An Analysis of Critical Simultaneous Gas/Liquid Flow through a
Restriction and its Application to Flowmetering," Appl. Sci. Rev. (1960) 9, Sec. A,
374.3.
67. Ashford, F. E.: "An Evaluation of Critical Multiphase Flow Performance through
Wellhead Chokes," JPT (August 1974).
68. Ashford, F. E. and Pierce, P. E.: "Determining Multiphase Pressure Drops and Flow
Capacities in Downhole Safety Valves," JPT (September 1975).
69. Perkins, T. K.: "Critical and Subcritical Flow of Multiphase Mixtures through Chokes,"
paper SPE 20633 (December 1993).
70. Fortunati, F.: "Two-Phase Flow Through Wellhead Chokes," paper SPE 3742 (May
1972).
71. Omana, R. et al.: "Multiphase Flow Through Chokes," paper SPE 2682 (September
1969).
72. Shiu, K. C. and Beggs, H. D.: "Predicting Temperatures in Flowing Oil Wells," J.
Energy Res. Tech. (March 1980) Trans., ASME.
73. Karcher, B. J., Giger, F. M., and Combe, J.: "Some Practical Formulas to Predict
Horizontal Well Behavior", paper SPE 15430 (October 1986).
74. Ansari, A. M. et al.: "A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase
Flow in Wellbores," paper SPE 20630 (May 1994) 143-152.
75. Arirachakaran, S. et al.: "Intelligent Utilization of a Unified Flow Pattern Prediction
Model in Production System Optimization," paper SPE 22869 (October 1991) 503-516.
76. Xiao, J. J., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P.: "A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for
Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines," paper SPE 20631 (September 1990) 167-180.
77. Scott, S. L. and Kouba, G. E.: "Advances in Slug Flow Characterization for Horizontal
and Slightly Inclined Pipelines," SPE 20628 (September 1990) 125-140.
78. Beggs, H. D. et al.: "Design Criteria for Selecting Velocity Type Subsurface Safety
Valves," ASME (February 1980).
79. Eaton, B. A., Andrews, D. E., and Knowles, C. R.: "The Prediction of Flow Patterns,
Liquid Holdup and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in
Horizontal Pipelines," JPT (June 1967) 815-828.
80. Guo, B. and Schechter, D.S.: A Simple and Rigorous Mathematical Model for
Estimating Inflow Performance of Wells Intersecting Long Fractures, paper SPE
38104 (April 1997) 645-659.
81. Burton, R.C., Rester, S. and Davis, E.R.:Comparison of Numerical and Analytical
Inflow Performance Modelling of Gravelpacked and Frac-Packed Wells, paper SPE
31102 (February 1996) 327-349.
82. Klins, M.A. and Clark III, J.W.: An Improved Method to Predict Future IPR Curves,
paper SPE 20724 (September 1990) 123-130.
83. Chaperon, I.: Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in
Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates, paper SPE 15377 (October
1986).
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual References
July 2013 193
84. Benamara, A, and Tiab, D.: Gas Coning in Vertical and Horizontal Wells, a Numerical
Approach, paper SPE 71026 (May 2001).
85. Yang, W. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Water Coning Calculations for Vertical and
Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 22931 (October 1991) 459-470.
86. Wheatley, M.J.: An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning, SPE 14210
(September 1985).
87. Jones, L.G. and Watts, J.W.: "Estimating Skin Effect in a Partially Completed
Damaged Well". JPT 249 (Feb. 1971).
88. Saidikowski, R.M.: "Numerical Simulation of the Combined Effects of Wellbore
Damage and Partial Penetration". SPE 8204, 1979.
89. Rogers, E.J. and Economides, M.J.: "The Skin due to Slant of Deviated Wells in
Permeability-Anisotropic reservoirs". SPE 37068, 1996.
90. McLeod, H.: "The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance". JPT 31
(Jan. 1983).
91. GPSA Engineering Data Book, 9
th
Edition.
92. Ikoku, Chi U.: "Natural Gas Production Engineering". Krieger Publishing Company.
1992.
93. Sachdeva, R. et al.: Two-Phase Flow Through Chokes, paper SPE 15657 (October
1986).
94. Coleman, S.B et al.: "A New Look at Predicting Gas-Well Load-Up", JPT March 1991.
95. B. Guo: "Use of Wellhead-Pressure Data to Establish Well-Inflow Performance
Relationship," SPE 72372, October 17-19, 2001.
96. R.W. Chase and H. Alkandari: "Prediction of Gas Well Deliverability From Just a
Pressure Buildup or Drawdown Test", SPE 26915, November 1993.
97. Guo, G. and Evans, R.D.: "Inflow Performance of a Horizontal Well Intersecting
Natural Fractures," SPE 25501 (March 1993) 851-865.
98. Mutalik, P.N. et al.: "Effect of Drainage Area Shapes on the Productivity of Horizontal
Wells," SPE 18301, Oct. 1988
99. Kustamsi, A. et al.: Evaluation and Modification of Current Fractured Horizontal Well
Inflow Models, SPE 39076, 30 August 3 September 1997
100. Morita, N., Whltfill, D. L., Massle, I. and Knudsen, T. W.: Realistic Sand-Production
Prediction: Numerical Approach, SPE Production Engineering, February 1989.
101. Locke, S.: An Advanced Method for Predicting the Productivity Ratio of a Perforated
Well, JPT, Dec. 1981.
102. Saidikowski, R. M.: Numerical Simulations of the Combined Effects of Wellbore
Damage and Partial Penetration, SPE 8204, Sept. 1979.

July 2013 195
Index
A
a - term Jones equation, 33
Acid Treatment, 95
acid treatment performance for matrix acidizing, 95
Alves et al. unified model, 154
Ansari Mechanistic, 126
API 14B, 139
Ashford & Pierce, 144
Aziz, et al, 125
B
b - term Jones equation, 33
Babu and Odeh, 74
back pressure 4 pt test, 35
back pressure equation, 35
Baxendell & Thomas, 124
Beggs & Brill, 125, 129
Beggs, Brill, & Minami, 128
Bernoulli, 139
beta factor gravel pack, 113
BOEMRE, 9
C
C - term back pressure equation, 35
CBM, 84
chokes, 138
collapsed perforation, 108
compacted zone perforation, 102
completion component, 101
completion effects, 12
completion models
collapsed perforation, 108
gravel pack, 110
gravel pack collapsed perforation, 117
gravel pack open hole, 114
gravel pack stable perforation, 115
gravel-pack open perforation, 115
open hole completion, 101
open perforation completion, 102
constant productivity index, 22
constant productivity index (PI), 22
Cooke equation, 113
Coulter & Bardon, 154
critical flow, 138
crushed zone perforation, 102
Cullender & Smith, 128
D
D - Ramey D term, 28
damaged zone, 104
Darcy equation, 26
datafile inflow, 48
deviated well, 158
differential graph, 13
dimensionless fracture conductivity, 39
dimensionless pressure drop in the fracture and reservoir,
40
dimensionless time, 39
dimensionless wellbore tunnel length, 59
directional survey, 158
downhole network, 184
calculation, 185
drainage area and shape factor, 30
drainage ellipsoid, 64
drainage shape factor, 69
Dukler, 128
Duns & Ros, 125, 127
Index PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
196 July 2013
E
Economides, 64
elevation, 123
erosion, 148
erosional velocity, 148
F
Fancher & Brown, 124
Firoozabadi and Katz equation, 114
Flow Assurance, 156
flow rate, 40
flow through restrictions, 138
flow velocity, 41
flowing temperature distribution, 152
flowline, 122
four point test
back pressure equation, 35
Jones equation, 34
fracture penetration ratio, 39
fractured well, 38
fractured well non-Darcy flow, 41
Fundamental Flow, 128
Fundamental Flow Adjusted, 128
G
general, 5
Giger, 61
Goode and Thambynaya, 78
gradient, 8
gravel pack beta turbulence factor, 113
gravel pack completion, 110
gravel pack open perforation, 115
gravel pack stable perforation, 115
gravel-pack collapsed perf, 117
gravel-pack open hole completion, 114
Gray, 127
H
Hagedorn & Brown, 124, 128
Hagedorn and Brown, 123
heat transfer, 152
coefficients, 154
correlations, 154
horizontal flow
oil well, 128
horizontal well, 56
I
inflow, 2
Inflow calibration, 155
inflow performance
back pressure equation and 4 pt test, 35
constant productivity index, 22
Darcy equation, 26
datafile, 48
drainage area and shape factor, 30
fractured well analysis, 38
Jones 'a' and 'b' term and 4-pt. test, 34
Jones equation, 32
transient equation, 36
Vogel equation, 23
inflow performance relationship (IPR), 21
integration constant, 59
IPR (inflow performance relationship), 21
J
Jones 'a' and 'b' user-entered, 34
Jones equation, 32
Jones four-point test, 34
Joshi, 66
K
kickoff point, 57
Kuchuk, 71
L
linear temperature gradient, 153
link, 184
PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual Index
July 2013 197
M
Model calibration using production data, 154
Modified Gray, 127
MONA, 125, 128
MONA Modified, 125, 129
Mukherjee & Brill, 125, 129
multilateral, 184
multilayer, 184
multiphase flow calculations
vertical, 126
multiphase flow correlations, 123
Muskat, 61
N
n - term back pressure equation, 35
nodal analysis, 2
node, 2, 184
fundamental requirements of, 2
non-Darcy fractured well flow, 41
non-Darcy turbulent term, 28
O
open hole completion, 101
open perforation completion, 102
Orkiszewski, 124
outflow, 2
P
perforated completion, 102
perforation crushed zone, 102
perforation interval, 15
perforation shot density, 14
Perkins, 141
PI (productivity index), 22
Poettmann & Carpenter, 124
productivity index (PI), 22
constant, 22
R
Ramey, 154
Ramey D term, 28
references, 189
Renard and Dupuy, 69
reservoir, 21
reservoir skin, 11
restrictions, 138
Reynold's number, 41
Ros & Gray, 128
S
Sagar et al. simplified model, 154
Saucier beta equation, 114
separator pressure, 18
shape factor, 30
Shiu & Beggs, 154
skin
physical, 29
skin effect, 29
slip, 123
static reservoir pressure, 48
subcritical flow, 139
Sylvester & Yao Mechanistic, 125
system analysis
applying, 7
defined, 1
T
temperature survey, 153
Tenneco beta equation for resin packs, 114
Thungsuntonkhun and Engler, 84
time to pseudosteady state, 37
transient flow equation, 36
transient time to pseudosteady state, 37
tubing flow component, 122
tubing size effect, 16
turbulence beta factor, 41
Index PERFORM v8.0 Technical Reference Manual
198 July 2013
turbulence coefficient beta, 113
Turner, 149
U
unloading, 149
V
vertical flow
gas well, 127
oil well, 123
vertical flow component, 122
Vogel equation, 23
combination, 24
W
wellbore damaged zone, 104
wellbore deviation, 158
wellbore flowing bottomhole pressure
defined, 2
wellhead pressure, 18
Worst-Case Discharge, 9
X
Xiao Mechanistic, 128

Perf Tech

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Perf Tech

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2013 IHS. All Rights Reserved.

All trademarks belong to IHS

Anda mungkin juga menyukai