Anda di halaman 1dari 14

Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 45 22.12.

2006 6:07pm

4 Wellbore
Performance

Contents
4.1 Introduction 4/46
4.2 Single-Phase Liquid Flow 4/46
4.3 Multiphase Flow in Oil Wells 4/48
4.4 Single-Phase Gas Flow 4/53
4.5 Mist Flow in Gas Wells 4/56
Summary 4/56
References 4/57
Problems 4/57
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 46 22.12.2006 6:07pm

4/46 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

4.1 Introduction g gravitational acceleration, 32:17 ft=s2


gc unit conversion factor, 32:17 lbm -ft=lbf -s2
Chapter 3 described reservoir deliverability. However, the
r fluid density lbm =ft3
achievable oil production rate from a well is determined by
wellhead pressure and the flow performance of production z elevation increase, ft
string, that is, tubing, casing, or both. The flow perform- u fluid velocity, ft/s
ance of production string depends on geometries of the fF Fanning friction factor
production string and properties of fluids being produced. L tubing length, ft
D tubing inner diameter, ft
The fluids in oil wells include oil, water, gas, and sand.
Wellbore performance analysis involves establishing a re- The first, second, and third term in the right-hand side
lationship between tubular size, wellhead and bottom-hole of the equation represent pressure drops due to changes in
pressure, fluid properties, and fluid production rate. elevation, kinetic energy, and friction, respectively.
Understanding wellbore flow performance is vitally im- The Fanning friction factor ( fF ) can be evaluated based
portant to production engineers for designing oil well on Reynolds number and relative roughness. Reynolds num-
equipment and optimizing well production conditions. ber is defined as the ratio of inertial force to viscous force.
Oil can be produced through tubing, casing, or both in The Reynolds number is expressed in consistent units as
an oil well depending on which flow path has better per-
formance. Producing oil through tubing is a better option Dur
in most cases to take the advantage of gas-lift effect. The NRe (4:2)
traditional term tubing performance relationship (TPR) is m
used in this book (other terms such as vertical lift perform-
ance have been used in the literature). However, the math- or in U.S. field units as
ematical models are also valid for casing flow and casing-
tubing annular flow as long as hydraulic diameter is used. 1:48qr
This chapter focuses on determination of TPR and pres- NRe (4:3)
dm
sure traverse along the well string. Both single-phase and
multiphase fluids are considered. Calculation examples are where
illustrated with hand calculations and computer spread-
sheets that are provided with this book. NRe Reynolds number
q fluid flow rate, bbl/day
r fluid density lbm =ft3
4.2 Single-Phase Liquid Flow
d tubing inner diameter, in.
Single-phase liquid flow exists in an oil well only when the m fluid viscosity, cp
wellhead pressure is above the bubble-point pressure of the
oil, which is usually not a reality. However, it is convenient For laminar flow where NRe < 2,000, the Fanning
to start from single-phase liquid for establishing the con- friction factor is inversely proportional to the Reynolds
cept of fluid flow in oil wells where multiphase flow usually number, or
dominates.
Consider a fluid flowing from point 1 to point 2 in a 16
tubing string of length L and height z (Fig. 4.1). The first fF (4:4)
NRe
law of thermodynamics yields the following equation for
pressure drop: For turbulent flow where NRe > 2,100, the Fanning
g r 2fF ru2 L friction factor can be estimated using empirical cor-
DP P1  P2 rDz Du2 (4:1) relations. Among numerous correlations developed by
gc 2gc gc D
different investigators, Chens (1979) correlation has an
where explicit form and gives similar accuracy to the Cole-
P pressure drop, lbf =ft2 brookWhite equation (Gregory and Fogarasi, 1985)
P1 pressure at point 1, lbf =ft2 that was used for generating the friction factor chart
P2 pressure at point 2, lbf =ft2 used in the petroleum industry. Chens correlation takes
the following form:
( "   #)
1 5:0452 1:1098 7:149 0:8981
p 4  log  log
fF 3:7065 NRe 2:8257 NRe
2 (4:5)
where the relative roughness is defined as dd, and d is
the absolute roughness of pipe wall.
The Fanning friction factor can also be obtained based
on DarcyWiesbach friction factor shown in Fig. 4.2. The
L

DarcyWiesbach friction factor is also referred to as the


z Moody friction factor ( fM ) in some literatures. The rela-
tion between the Moody and the Fanning friction factor is
expressed as

fM
fF : (4:6)
4
1
Example Problem 4.1 Suppose that 1,000 bbl/day of
408API, 1.2 cp oil is being produced through 278 -in.,
q 8:6-lbm =ft tubing in a well that is 15 degrees from
vertical. If the tubing wall relative roughness is 0.001,
Figure 4.1 Flow along a tubing string. calculate the pressure drop over 1,000 ft of tubing.
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 47 22.12.2006 6:07pm

WELLBORE PERFORMANCE 4/47

0.1 Relative Roughness

0
0.09
0.000001

0.000005
0.08 Turbulent Flow
0.00001

0.00005
0.07
0.0001

0.0002
0.06
0.0004
Friction Factor

0.0006
0.05
0.001

0.002
0.04
0.004

0.006
0.03
Laminar 0.01
Flow
0.015
0.02
0.02

0.03
0.01
0.04

0.05
0
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Reynolds Number

Figure 4.2 DarcyWiesbach friction factor diagram (used, with permission, from Moody, 1944).

Solution Oil-specific gravity: 2:259


D
12
141:5 0:188 ft:
go 
API 131:5
Fluid velocity can be calculated accordingly:
141:5
4q
40 131:5 u
0:825 pD2
4(5:615)(1,000)
Oil density:
p(0:188)2 (86,400)
r 62:4g o 2:34 ft=s:
(62:5)(0:825) Reynolds number:
51:57 lbm =ft3
1:48qr
Elevation increase: NRe
dm
DZ cos (a)L 1:48(1,000)(51:57)

cos (15)(1,000) (2:259)(1:2)
966 ft
28,115 > 2,100, turbulent flow
The 278 -in., 8:6-lbm =ft tubing has an inner diameter of
2.259 in. Therefore, Chens correlation gives
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 48 22.12.2006 6:07pm

4/48 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

( "   #)
1 5:0452 1:1098 7:149 0:8981 Liquid holdup depends on flow regime, fluid proper-
p 4 log  log ties, and pipe size and configuration. Its value can be
fF 3:7065 NRe 2:8257 NRe
quantitatively determined only through experimental
12:3255 measurements.
fF 0:006583
4.3.3 TPR Models
If Fig. 4.2 is used, the chart gives a Moody friction factor Numerous TPR models have been developed for analyzing
of 0.0265. Thus, the Fanning friction factor is estimated as multiphase flow in vertical pipes. Brown (1977) presents a
0:0265 thorough review of these models. TPR models for multi-
fF phase flow wells fall into two categories: (1) homogeneous-
4
flow models and (2) separated-flow models. Homogeneous
0:006625
models treat multiphase as a homogeneous mixture and do
Finally, the pressure drop is calculated: not consider the effects of liquid holdup (no-slip assump-
g r 2fF ru2 L
tion). Therefore, these models are less accurate and are
DP rDz Du2 usually calibrated with local operating conditions in field
gc 2gc gc D
32:17 51:57 2(0:006625)(51:57)(2:34)2 (1000)
applications. The major advantage of these models comes
(51:57)(966) (0)2 from their mechanistic nature. They can handle gas-oil-
32:17 2(32:17) (32:17)(0:188)
water three-phase and gas-oil-water-sand four-phase sys-
50,435 lbf =ft2
tems. It is easy to code these mechanistic models in com-
350 psi
puter programs.
Separated-flow models are more realistic than the
4.3 Multiphase Flow in Oil Wells homogeneous-flow models. They are usually given in the
In addition to oil, almost all oil wells produce a certain form of empirical correlations. The effects of liquid holdup
amount of water, gas, and sometimes sand. These wells are (slip) and flow regime are considered. The major disad-
called multiphase-oil wells. The TPR equation for single- vantage of the separated flow models is that it is difficult to
phase flow is not valid for multiphase oil wells. To analyze code them in computer programs because most cor-
TPR of multiphase oil wells rigorously, a multiphase flow relations are presented in graphic form.
model is required.
Multiphase flow is much more complicated than single-
phase flow because of the variation of flow regime (or flow 4.3.3.1 Homogeneous-Flow Models
pattern). Fluid distribution changes greatly in different Numerous homogeneous-flow models have been devel-
flow regimes, which significantly affects pressure gradient oped for analyzing the TPR of multiphase wells since the
in the tubing. pioneering works of Poettmann and Carpenter (1952).
PoettmannCarpenters model uses empirical two-phase
friction factor for friction pressure loss calculations with-
4.3.1 Flow Regimes out considering the effect of liquid viscosity. The effect
As shown in Fig. 4.3, at least four flow regimes have been of liquid viscosity was considered by later researchers
identified in gas-liquid two-phase flow. They are bubble, including Cicchitti (1960) and Dukler et al. (1964). A
slug, churn, and annular flow. These flow regimes occur as comprehensive review of these models was given by
a progression with increasing gas flow rate for a given Hasan and Kabir (2002). Guo and Ghalambor (2005)
liquid flow rate. In bubble flow, gas phase is dispersed in presented work addressing gas-oil-water-sand four-phase
the form of small bubbles in a continuous liquid phase. In flow.
slug flow, gas bubbles coalesce into larger bubbles that Assuming no slip of liquid phase, Poettmann and Car-
eventually fill the entire pipe cross-section. Between the penter (1952) presented a simplified gas-oil-water three-
large bubbles are slugs of liquid that contain smaller bub- phase flow model to compute pressure losses in wellbores
bles of entrained gas. In churn flow, the larger gas bubbles by estimating mixture density and friction factor. Accord-
become unstable and collapse, resulting in a highly turbu- ing to Poettmann and Carpenter, the following equation
lent flow pattern with both phases dispersed. In annular can be used to calculate pressure traverse in a vertical
flow, gas becomes the continuous phase, with liquid flow- tubing when the acceleration term is neglected:
ing in an annulus, coating the surface of the pipe and with   Dh
k
droplets entrained in the gas phase. Dp r (4:8)
r 144
4.3.2 Liquid Holdup where
In multiphase flow, the amount of the pipe occupied by a Dp pressure increment, psi
phase is often different from its proportion of the total r average mixture density (specific weight), lb=ft3
volumetric flow rate. This is due to density difference Dh depth increment, ft
between phases. The density difference causes dense
phase to slip down in an upward flow (i.e., the lighter and
phase moves faster than the denser phase). Because of
this, the in situ volume fraction of the denser phase will f2F q2o M 2
be greater than the input volume fraction of the denser 
k (4:9)
7:4137  1010 D5
phase (i.e., the denser phase is held up in the pipe
relative to the lighter phase). Thus, liquid holdup is where
defined as f2F Fanning friction factor for two-phase flow
VL qo oil production rate, stb/day
yL , (4:7) M total mass associated with 1 stb of oil
V
D tubing inner diameter, ft
where
The average mixture density r can be calculated by
yL liquid holdup, fraction
VL volume of liquid phase in the pipe segment, ft3 r1 r2
r (4:10)
V volume of the pipe segment, ft3 2
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 49 22.12.2006 6:07pm

WELLBORE PERFORMANCE 4/49

Flow Direction
O P O R

10

Annular
Mist
(Water
dispersed)
Superficial Water Velocity, VSL, ft./sec.

H I J K L M N

1.0

h s
ot se
le d) 4 d) Fr pha ed)
bb rse ug se h s
u
B spe Sl sper ot er
i i (B disp
A ir d B C ir d D E F G
(A (A

0.1

0.1 1.0 10 100


Superficial Gas Velocity, VSG, ft./sec.

Figure 4.3 Flow regimes in gas-liquid flow (used, with permission, from Govier and Aziz, 1977).

where
Vm 5:615(Bo WOR Bw ) (GOR
r1 mixture density at top of tubing segment, lb=ft3    
r2 mixture density at bottom of segment, lb=ft3 14:7 T z
 Rs ) (4:13)
p 520 1:0
The mixture density at a given point can be calculated
based on mass flow rate and volume flow rate:
M and where
r (4:11)
Vm
g o oil specific gravity, 1 for freshwater
where WOR producing wateroil ratio, bbl/stb
gw water-specific gravity, 1 for freshwater
M 350:17(go WOR gw ) GORrair gg (4:12) GOR producing gasoil ratio, scf/stb
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 50 22.12.2006 6:07pm

4/50 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

rair density of air, lbm =ft3 to use. The GuoGhalambor model can be expressed as
gg gas-specific gravity, 1 for air follows:
Vm volume of mixture associated with 1 stb of oil, ft3  
Bo formation volume factor of oil, rb/stb 1  2bM  (144p M)2 N 
144b(p  phf ) ln 
Bw formation volume factor of water, rb/bbl 2 (144phf M)2 N 
Rs solution gasoil ratio, scf/stb
p in situ pressure, psia M bc N  bM 2
 p
T in situ temperature, 8R N
z gas compressibility factor at p and T.     
144p M 144phf M
 tan1 p  tan1 p
If data from direct measurements are not available, N N
solution gasoil ratio and formation volume factor of oil
can be estimated using the following correlations: a( cos u d 2 e)L, (4:18)

 1:2048 where the group parameters are defined as


p 100:0125API
Rs g g (4:14)
18 100:00091t 0:0765g g qg 350go qo 350g w qw 62:4g s qs
a , (4:19)
4:07Tav qg
"  0:5 #1:2
gg
Bo 0:9759 0:00012 Rs 1:25t (4:15)
go 5:615qo 5:615qw qs
b , (4:20)
4:07Tav Qg
where t is in situ temperature in 8F. The two-phase friction
factor f2F can be estimated from a chart recommended by
Poettmann and Carpenter (1952). For easy coding in com-
Tav qg
puter programs, Guo and Ghalambor (2002) developed c 0:00678 , (4:21)
the following correlation to represent the chart: A

f2F 101:4442:5 log (Drv) , (4:16)


0:00166
d (5:615qo 5:615qw qs ), (4:22)
where (Drv) is the numerator of Reynolds number repre- A
senting inertial force and can be formulated as
fM
1:4737  105 Mqo e , (4:23)
(Drv) : (4:17) 2gDH
D
Because the PoettmannCarpenter model takes a finite- cde
M , (4:24)
difference form, this model is accurate for only short- cos u d 2 e
depth incremental h. For deep wells, this model should
be used in a piecewise manner to get accurate results (i.e.,
the tubing string should be broken into small segments c2 e cos u
and the model is applied to each segment). N , (4:25)
Because iterations are required to solve Eq. (4.8) for ( cos u d 2 e)2
pressure, a computer spreadsheet program Poettmann- where
CarpenterBHP.xls has been developed. The program is
available from the attached CD. A cross-sectional area of conduit, ft2
DH hydraulic diameter, ft
Example Problem 4.2 For the following given data, fM DarcyWiesbach friction factor (Moody factor)
calculate bottom-hole pressure: g gravitational acceleration, 32:17 ft=s2
L conduit length, ft
Tubing head pressure: 500 psia p pressure, psia
Tubing head temperature: 100 8F phf wellhead flowing pressure, psia
Tubing inner diameter: 1.66 in. qg gas production rate, scf/d
Tubing shoe depth (near qo oil production rate, bbl/d
bottom hole): 5,000 ft qs sand production rate, ft3 =day
Bottom hole temperature: 150 8F qw water production rate, bbl/d
Liquid production rate: 2,000 stb/day Tav average temperature, 8R
Water cut: 25% g g specific gravity of gas, air 1
Producing GLR: 1,000 scf/stb g o specific gravity of produced oil, freshwater 1
Oil gravity: 30 8API g s specific gravity of produced solid, fresh water 1
Water specific gravity: 1.05 1 for freshwater g w specific gravity of produced water, fresh water 1
Gas specific gravity: 0.65 1 for air
The DarcyWiesbach friction factor (fM ) can be
Solution This problem can be solved using the computer obtained from diagram (Fig. 4.2) or based on Fanning
program Poettmann-CarpenterBHP.xls. The result is friction factor (fF ) obtained from Eq. (4.16). The required
shown in Table 4.1. relation is fM 4fF .
Because iterations are required to solve Eq. (4.18) for
The gas-oil-water-sand four-phase flow model proposed
pressure, a computer spreadsheet program Guo-Ghalam-
by Guo and Ghalambor (2005) is similar to the gas-oil-
borBHP.xls has been developed.
water three-phase flow model presented by Poettmann
and Carpenter (1952) in the sense that no slip of liquid
phase was assumed. But the GuoGhalambor model Example Problem 4.3 For the following data, estimate
takes a closed (integrated) form, which makes it easy bottom-hole pressure with the GuoGhalambor method:
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 51 22.12.2006 6:07pm

WELLBORE PERFORMANCE 4/51

Based on comprehensive comparisons of these models,


Total measured depth: 7,000 ft Ansari et al. (1994) and Hasan and Kabir (2002) recom-
The average inclination angle: 20 deg mended the HagedornBrown method with modifications
Tubing inner diameter: 1.995 in. for near-vertical flow.
Gas production rate: 1 MMscfd The modified HagedornBrown (mH-B) method is an
Gas-specific gravity: 0.7 air 1 empirical correlation developed on the basis of the original
Oil production rate: 1,000 stb/d work of Hagedorn and Brown (1965). The modifications
Oil-specific gravity: 0.85 H2 O 1 include using the no-slip liquid holdup when the original
Water production rate: 300 bbl/d correlation predicts a liquid holdup value less than the no-
Water-specific gravity: 1.05 H2 O 1 slip holdup and using the Griffith correlation (Griffith and
Solid production rate: 1 ft3 =d Wallis, 1961) for the bubble flow regime.
Solid specific gravity: 2.65 H2 O 1 The original HagedornBrown correlation takes the fol-
Tubing head temperature: 100 8F lowing form:
Bottom hole temperature: 224 8F
Tubing head pressure: 300 psia dP g 2fF ru2m D(u2m )
r r , (4:26)
dz gc gc D 2gc Dz
Solution This example problem is solved with the
which can be expressed in U.S. field units as
spreadsheet program Guo-GhalamborBHP.xls. The result
is shown in Table 4.2.
dp fF Mt2 D(u2m )
144 r r , (4:27)
dz 7:413  1010 D5 r 2gc Dz
4.3.3.2 Separated-Flow Models
A number of separated-flow models are available for TPR where
calculations. Among many others are the Lockhart and
Martinelli correlation (1949), the Duns and Ros correla- Mt total mass flow rate, lbm =d
tion (1963), and the Hagedorn and Brown method (1965). r in situ average density, lbm =ft3

Table 4.1 Result Given by Poettmann-CarpenterBHP.xls for Example Problem 4.2


PoettmannCarpenterBHP.xls
Description: This spreadsheet calculates flowing bottom-hole pressure based on tubing head pressure and tubing flow
performance using the PoettmannCarpenter method.
Instruction: (1) Select a unit system; (2) update parameter values in the Input data section;
(3) Click Solution button; and (4) view result in the Solution section.

Input data U.S. Field units

Tubing ID: 1.66 in


Wellhead pressure: 500 psia
Liquid production rate: 2,000 stb/d
Producing gasliquid ratio (GLR): 1,000 scf/stb
Water cut (WC): 25 %
Oil gravity: 30 8API
Water-specific gravity: 1.05 freshwater 1
Gas-specific gravity: 0.65 1 for air
N2 content in gas: 0 mole fraction
CO2 content in gas: 0 mole fraction
H2 S content in gas: 0 mole fraction
Formation volume factor for water: 1.2 rb/stb
Wellhead temperature: 100 8F
Tubing shoe depth: 5,000 ft
Bottom-hole temperature: 150 8F
Solution
Oil-specific gravity 0.88 freshwater 1
Mass associated with 1 stb of oil 495.66 lb
Solution gas ratio at wellhead 78.42 scf/stb
Oil formation volume factor at wellhead 1.04 rb/stb
Volume associated with 1 stb oil @ wellhead 45.12 cf
Fluid density at wellhead 10.99 lb/cf
Solution gasoil ratio at bottom hole 301.79 scf/stb
Oil formation volume factor at bottom hole 1.16 rb/stb
Volume associated with 1 stb oil @ bottom hole 17.66 cf
Fluid density at bottom hole 28.07 lb/cf
The average fluid density 19.53 lb/cf
Inertial force (Drv) 79.21 lb/day-ft
Friction factor 0.002
Friction term 293.12 (lb=cf)2
Error in depth 0.00 ft
Bottom hole pressure 1,699 psia
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 52 22.12.2006 6:07pm

4/52 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

Table 4.2 Result Given by Guo-GhalamborBHP.xls for Example Problem 4.3


Guo-GhalamborBHP.xls
Description: This spreadsheet calculates flowing bottom-hole pressure based on tubing head pressure and tubing flow
performance using the GuoGhalambor Method.
Instruction: (1) Select a unit system; (2) update parameter values in the Input data section;
(3) click Solution button; and (4) view result in the Solution section.

Input data U.S. Field units SI units


Total measured depth: 7,000 ft
Average inclination angle: 20 degrees
Tubing inside diameter: 1.995 in.
Gas production rate: 1,000,000 scfd
Gas-specific gravity: 0.7 air 1
Oil production rate: 1000 stb/d
Oil-specific gravity: 0.85 H2 O 1
Water production rate: 300 bbl/d
Water-specific gravity: 1.05 H2 O 1
Solid production rate: 1 ft3 =d
Solid specific gravity: 2.65 H2 O 1
Tubing head temperature: 100 8F
Bottom-hole temperature: 224 8F
Tubing head pressure: 300 psia
Solution
A 3.1243196 in:2
D 0.16625 ft
Tav 622 8R
cos (u) 0.9397014
(Drv) 40.908853
fM 0.0415505
a 0.0001713
b 2.884E-06
c 1349785.1
d 3.8942921
e 0.0041337
M 20447.044
N 6.669E09
Bottom-hole pressure, pwf 1,682 psia

r
um mixture velocity, ft/s 4 rL
NvG 1:938uSG (4:31)
s
and
Pipe diameter number, ND :
r
r yL rL (1  yL )rG , (4:28) rL
ND 120:872D (4:32)
s
um uSL uSG , (4:29)
Liquid viscosity number, NL :
where s
rL liquid density, lbm =ft3 4 1
NL 0:15726 mL , (4:33)
rG in situ gas density, lbm =ft3 rL s3
uSL superficial velocity of liquid phase, ft/s
where
uSG superficial velocity of gas phase, ft/s
D conduit inner diameter, ft
The superficial velocity of a given phase is defined as the
s liquidgas interfacial tension, dyne/cm
volumetric flow rate of the phase divided by the pipe cross-
mL liquid viscosity, cp
sectional area for flow. The third term in the right-hand
mG gas viscosity, cp
side of Eq. (4.27) represents pressure change due to kinetic
energy change, which is in most instances negligible for oil The first chart is used for determining parameter (CNL )
wells. based on NL . We have found that this chart can be re-
Obviously, determination of the value of liquid holdup placed by the following correlation with acceptable ac-
yL is essential for pressure calculations. The mH-B cor- curacy:
relation uses liquid holdup from three charts using the
following dimensionless numbers: (CNL ) 10Y , (4:34)
Liquid velocity number, NvL : where
r
4 rL
NvL 1:938 uSL (4:30) Y 2:69851 0:15841X1  0:55100X12
s
Gas velocity number, NvG : 0:54785X13  0:12195X14 (4:35)
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 53 22.12.2006 6:07pm

WELLBORE PERFORMANCE 4/53

and dp fF m2L
144 r , (4:46)
dz 7:413  1010 D5 rL y2L
X1 log [(NL ) 3]: (4:36)
where mL is mass flow rate of liquid only. The liquid
Once the value of parameter (CNL ) is determined, it is used holdup in Griffith correlation is given by the following
NvL p0:1 (CNL ) expression:
for calculating the value of the group 0:575 0:1 , where 2 s 3
NvG pa ND  
14 um um 2 usG 5
p is the absolute pressure at the location where pressure yL 1  1  1 4 , (4:47)
gradient is to be calculated, and pa is atmospheric pressure. 2 us us us
The value of this group is then used as an entry in the
second chart to determine parameter (yL =c). We have where ms 0:8 ft=s. The Reynolds number used to obtain
found that the second chart can be represented by the the friction factor is based on the in situ average liquid
following correlation with good accuracy: velocity, that is,
2:2  102 mL
yL NRe : (4:48)
0:10307 0:61777[ log (X2 ) 6] DmL
c
To speed up calculations, the HagedornBrown cor-
 0:63295[ log (X2 ) 6]2 0:29598[ log (X2 )
relation has been coded in the spreadsheet program Hage-
6]3  0:0401[ log (X2 ) 6]4 , (4:37) dornBrownCorrelation.xls.
where Example Problem 4.4 For the data given below, calculate
and plot pressure traverse in the tubing string:
NvL p0:1 (CNL )
X2 0:575 0:1
: (4:38)
NvG pa ND
Tubing shoe depth: 9,700 ft
According to Hagedorn and Brown (1965), the value of Tubing inner diameter: 1.995 in.
parameter c can be determined from the third chart using Oil gravity: 40 8API
NvG NL0:38 Oil viscosity: 5 cp
a value of group . Production GLR: 75 scf/bbl
ND2:14 N N 0:38 Gas-specific gravity: 0.7 air 1
vG L
We have found that for > 0:01 the third chart Flowing tubing head pressure: 100 psia
ND2:14
Flowing tubing head temperature: 80 8F
can be replaced by the following correlation with accept-
Flowing temperature at tubing shoe: 180 8F
able accuracy:
Liquid production rate: 758 stb/day
c 0:91163  4:82176X3 1,232:25X32 Water cut: 10 %
Interfacial tension: 30 dynes/cm
 22,253:6X33 116174:3X34 , (4:39) Specific gravity of water: 1.05 H2 O 1
where
NvG NL0:38
X3 : (4:40)
ND2:14 Solution This example problem is solved with the
NvG NL0:38 spreadsheet program HagedornBrownCorrelation.xls. The
However, c 1:0 should be used for # 0:01. result is shown in Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.4.
ND2:14
Finally, the liquid holdup can be calculated by
  4.4 Single-Phase Gas Flow
yL
yL c : (4:41)
c The first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy)
governs gas flow in tubing. The effect of kinetic energy
The Fanning friction factor in Eq. (4.27) can be deter- change is negligible because the variation in tubing diam-
mined using either Chens correlation Eq. (4.5) or (4.16). eter is insignificant in most gas wells. With no shaft work
The Reynolds number for multiphase flow can be calcu- device installed along the tubing string, the first law of
lated by thermodynamics yields the following mechanical balance
2:2  102 mt equation:
NRe , (4:42)
DmyLL mG
(1yL )
dP g fM n2 dL
dZ 0 (4:49)
where mt is mass flow rate. The modified mH-B method r gc 2gc Di
29g P
uses the Griffith correlation for the bubble-flow regime. Because dZ cos udL, r ZRT g
, and n 4qsc zPsc T
pD2i Tsc P
, Eq.
The bubble-flow regime has been observed to exist when (4.49) can be rewritten as
(   )
lG < LB , (4:43) zRT dP g 8fM Q2 P2 zT 2
cos u 2 sc5 sc2 dL 0, (4:50)
where 29g g P gc p gc Di Tsc P
usG
lG (4:44) which is an ordinary differential equation governing
um
gas flow in tubing. Although the temperature T can be
and approximately expressed as a linear function of length L
 2 through geothermal gradient, the compressibility factor z
u
LB 1:071  0:2218 m , (4:45) is a function of pressure P and temperature T. This makes
D it difficult to solve the equation analytically. Fortunately,
which is valid for LB $ 0:13. When the LB value given by the pressure P at length L is not a strong function of
Eq. (4.45) is less than 0.13, LB 0:13 should be used. temperature and compressibility factor. Approximate so-
Neglecting the kinetic energy pressure drop term, the lutions to Eq. (4.50) have been sought and used in the
Griffith correlation in U.S. field units can be expressed as natural gas industry.
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 54 22.12.2006 6:07pm

4/54 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

Table 4.3 Result Given by HagedornBrownCorrelation.xls for Example Problem 4.4


HagedornBrownCorrelation.xls
Description: This spreadsheet calculates flowing pressures in tubing string based on tubing head pressure using the
HagedornBrown correlation.
Instruction: (1) Select a unit system; (2) update parameter values in the Input data section;
(3) click Solution button; and (4) view result in the Solution section and charts.

Input data U.S. Field units SI units


Depth (D): 9,700 ft
Tubing inner diameter (dti ): 1.995 in.
Oil gravity (API): 40 8API
Oil viscosity (mo ): 5 cp
Production GLR (GLR): 75 scf/bbl
Gas-specific gravity (gg ): 0.7 air 1
Flowing tubing head pressure (phf ): 100 psia
Flowing tubing head temperature (thf ): 80 8F
Flowing temperature at tubing shoe (twf ): 180 8F
Liquid production rate (qL ): 758 stb/day
Water cut (WC): 10 %
Interfacial tension (s): 30 dynes/cm
Specific gravity of water (g w ): 1.05 H2 O 1
Solution
Depth Pressure
(ft) (m) (psia) (MPa)
0 0 100 0.68
334 102 183 1.24
669 204 269 1.83
1,003 306 358 2.43
1,338 408 449 3.06
1,672 510 543 3.69
2,007 612 638 4.34
2,341 714 736 5.01
2,676 816 835 5.68
3,010 918 936 6.37
3,345 1,020 1,038 7.06
3,679 1,122 1,141 7.76
4,014 1,224 1,246 8.48
4,348 1,326 1,352 9.20
4,683 1,428 1,459 9.93
5,017 1,530 1,567 10.66
5,352 1,632 1,676 11.40
5,686 1,734 1,786 12.15
6,021 1,836 1,897 12.90
6,355 1,938 2,008 13.66
6,690 2,040 2,121 14.43
7,024 2,142 2,234 15.19
7,359 2,243 2,347 15.97
7,693 2,345 2,461 16.74
8,028 2,447 2,576 17.52
8,362 2,549 2,691 18.31
8,697 2,651 2,807 19.10
9,031 2,753 2,923 19.89
9,366 2,855 3,040 20.68
9,700 2,957 3,157 21.48

2
8fM [Exp(s)  1]Q2sc P2scz2 T
4.4.1 Average Temperature and Compressibility P2wf Exp(s)P2hf , (4:52)
Factor Method p2 gc D5i Tsc2 cos u
If single average values of temperature and compressibility
where
factor over the entire tubing length can be assumed, Eq.
(4.50) becomes
58g g gL cos u
 dP g
zRT  2

8fM Q2 P2 z2 T s  : (4:53)


cos u 2 cs 5 sc 2 2 dL 0: (4:51) gc RzT
29g g P gc p gc Di Tsc P

By separation of variables, Eq. (4.51) can be integrated Equations (4.52) and (4.53) take the following forms when
over the full length of tubing to yield U.S. field units (qsc in Mscf/d), are used (Katz et al., 1959):
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 55 22.12.2006 6:07pm

WELLBORE PERFORMANCE 4/55

Pressure (psia)
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
0

2,000

4,000
Depth (ft)

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Figure 4.4 Pressure traverse given by HagedornBrownCorrelation.xls for Example Problem 4.4.

p2wf Exp(s)p2hf sections. The calculated pressure profile is plotted in


2 Fig. 4.5.
6:67  104 [Exp(s)  1]fM q2scz2 T
5
(4:54)
di cos u
and 4.4.2 Cullender and Smith Method
Equation (4.50) can be solved for bottom-hole pressure
0:0375g g L cos u using a fast numerical algorithm originally developed by
s  (4:55)
zT Cullender and Smith (Katz et al., 1959). Equation (4.50)
The DarcyWiesbach (Moody) friction factor fM can be can be rearranged as
found in the conventional manner for a given tubing
diameter, wall roughness, and Reynolds number. How-
ever, if one assumes fully turbulent flow, which is the Table 4.4 Spreadsheet AverageTZ.xls: the Input Data
case for most gas wells, then a simple empirical relation and Result Sections
may be used for typical tubing strings (Katz and Lee
1990): AverageTZ.xls
Description: This spreadsheet calculates tubing pressure
0:01750 traverse for gas wells.
fM 0:224 for di # 4:277 in: (4:56)
di Instructions:
Step 1: Input your data in the Input data section.
0:01603 Step 2: Click Solution button to get results.
fM for di > 4:277 in: (4:57)
di0:164 Step 3: View results in table and in graph sheet Profile.
Guo (2001) used the following Nikuradse friction factor Input data
correlation for fully turbulent flow in rough pipes:
2 32 gg 0.71
4 1 d 2.259 in.
fM  5 (4:58) =d 0.0006
1:74  2 log 2di L 10.000 ft
Because the average compressibility factor is a function of u 0 degrees
pressure itself, a numerical technique such as Newton phf 800 psia
Raphson iteration is required to solve Eq. (4.54) for bot- Thf 150 8F
tom-hole pressure. This computation can be performed Twf 200 8F
automatically with the spreadsheet program Average qsc 2,000 Mscf/d
TZ.xls. Users need to input parameter values in the Solution
Input data section and run Macro Solution to get results. fM 0.017396984
Depth (ft) T (8R) p (psia) Zav
Example Problem 4.5 Suppose that a vertical well 0 610 800 0.9028
produces 2 MMscf/d of 0.71 gas-specific gravity gas 1,000 615 827 0.9028
through a 278 in. tubing set to the top of a gas reservoir 2,000 620 854 0.9027
at a depth of 10,000 ft. At tubing head, the pressure is 3,000 625 881 0.9027
800 psia and the temperature is 150 8F; the bottom-hole 4,000 630 909 0.9026
temperature is 200 8F. The relative roughness of tubing is 5,000 635 937 0.9026
about 0.0006. Calculate the pressure profile along the 6,000 640 965 0.9026
tubing length and plot the results. 7,000 645 994 0.9026
8,000 650 1023 0.9027
Solution Example Problem 4.5 is solved with the 9,000 655 1053 0.9027
spreadsheet program AverageTZ.xls. Table 4.4 shows the 10,000 660 1082 0.9028
appearance of the spreadsheet for the Input data and Result
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 56 22.12.2006 6:07pm

4/56 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

Pressure (psia)
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000
Depth (ft)

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Figure 4.5 Calculated tubing pressure profile for Example Problem 4.5.

P 29g g 18:75g g L
zT dp pmf phf (4:67)
P 2 8fM Q2sc P2sc  dL (4:59)
Imf Ihf
g
cos u zT p2 gc D5 T 2 R
gc i sc

that takes an integration form of 18:75g g L


pwf pmf (4:68)
Iwf Imf
Pwf 2 3
P 29gg L
4 Because Imf is a function of pressure pmf itself, a numerical
P 2 8fM Q2sc P2sc 5dp
zT
: (4:60)
g
cos u R technique such as NewtonRaphson iteration is required
Phf gc zT p2 g D5 T 2 c i sc to solve Eq. (4.67) for pmf . Once pmf is computed, pwf can
be solved numerically from Eq. (4.68). These computa-
In U.S. field units (qmsc in MMscf/d), Eq. (4.60) has the tions can be performed automatically with the spreadsheet
following form: program Cullender-Smith.xls. Users need to input
pwf 2 3 parameter values in the Input Data section and run
p
4 zT 5dp 18:75gg L (4:61) Macro Solution to get results.
p 2 f q2
0:001 cos u zT 0:6666 Md 5msc
phf i Example Problem 4.6 Solve the problem in Example
Problem 4.5 with the Cullender and Smith Method.
If the integrant is denoted with symbol I, that is,
p Solution Example Problem 4.6 is solved with the
zT
I p 2 f q2
, (4:62) spreadsheet program Cullender-Smith.xls. Table 4.5
0:001 cos u zT 0:6666 Md 5 sc shows the appearance of the spreadsheet for the Input
i
data and Result sections. The pressures at depths of
Eq. (4.61) becomes 5,000 ft and 10,000 ft are 937 psia and 1,082 psia,
pwf
respectively. These results are exactly the same as that
Idp 18:75g g L: (4:63) given by the Average Temperature and Compressibility
phf
Factor Method.

In the form of numerical integration, Eq. (4.63) can be 4.5 Mist Flow in Gas Wells
expressed as
In addition to gas, almost all gas wells produce certain
(pmf  phf )(Imf Ihf ) (pwf  pmf )(Iwf Imf ) amount of liquids. These liquids are formation water and/

2 2 or gas condensate (light oil). Depending on pressure and
18:75g g L, (4:64) temperature, in some wells, gas condensate is not seen at
surface, but it exists in the wellbore. Some gas wells pro-
where pmf is the pressure at the mid-depth. The Ihf , Imf , duce sand and coal particles. These wells are called multi-
and Iwf are integrant Is evaluated at phf , pmf , and pwf , phase-gas wells. The four-phase flow model in Section
respectively. Assuming the first and second terms in the 4.3.3.1 can be applied to mist flow in gas wells.
right-hand side of Eq. (4.64) each represents half of the
integration, that is,
(pmf  phf )(Imf Ihf ) 18:75gg L Summary
(4:65)
2 2 This chapter presented and illustrated different mathemat-
ical models for describing wellbore/tubing performance.
(pwf  pmf )(Iwf Imf ) 18:75g g L
, (4:66) Among many models, the mH-B model has been found
2 2 to give results with good accuracy. The industry practice is
the following expressions are obtained: to conduct a flow gradient (FG) survey to measure the
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 57 22.12.2006 6:07pm

WELLBORE PERFORMANCE 4/57

Table 4.5. Spreadsheet Cullender-Smith.xls: the Input guo, b. and ghalambor, a. Natural Gas Enginee-
Data and Result Sections ring Handbook. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company,
Cullender-SmithBHP.xls 2005, pp. 5961.
Description: This spreadsheet calculates bottom-hole pres- hagedorn, a.r. and brown, k.e. Experimental study of
sure with the CullenderSmith method. pressure gradients occurring during continuous two-
Instructions: phase flow in small-diameter conduits. J. Petroleum
Step 1: Input your data in the Input data section. Technol. 1965;475.
Step 2: Click Solution button to get results. hasan, a.r. and kabir, c.s. Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Input data in Wellbores. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2002, pp. 1015.
gg 0.71 katz, d.l., cornell, d., kobayashi, r., poettmann, f.h.,
d 2.259 in. vary, j.a., elenbaas, j.r., and weinaug, c.f. Handbook
=d 0.0006 of Natural Gas Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill
L 10,000 ft Publishing Company, 1959.
u 0 degrees
katz, d.l. and lee, r.l. Natural Gas EngineeringProduc-
phf 800 psia
Thf 150 8F tion and Storage. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing
Twf 200 8F Company, 1990.
qmsc 2 MMscf/d lockhart, r.w. and martinelli, r.c. Proposed cor-
Solution relation of data for isothermal two-phase, two-
component flow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1949;39.
fM 0.017397
poettmann, f.h. and carpenter, p.g. The multiphase flow
Depth (ft) T (8R) p (psia) Z p/ZT I
0 610 800 0.9028 1.45263 501.137 of gas, oil, and water through vertical strings. API Dril.
5,000 635 937 0.9032 1.63324 472.581 Prod. Prac. 1952:257263.
10,000 660 1,082 0.9057 1.80971 445.349

Problems
flowing pressures along the tubing string. The FG data are 4.1 Suppose that 1,000 bbl/day of 16 8API, 5-cp oil is
then employed to validate one of the models and tune the being produced through 278 -in., 8:6-lbm =ft tubing in
model if necessary before the model is used on a large a well that is 3 degrees from vertical. If the tubing
scale. wall relative roughness is 0.001, assuming no free gas
in tubing string, calculate the pressure drop over
1,000 ft of tubing.
4.2 For the following given data, calculate bottom-hole
References
pressure using the PoettmannCarpenter method:
ansari, a.m., sylvester, n.d., sarica, c., shoham, o.,
Tubing head pressure: 300 psia
and brill, j.p. A comprehensive mechanistic model Tubing head temperature: 100 8F
for upward two-phase flow in wellbores. SPE Production Tubing inner diameter: 1.66 in.
and Facilities (May 1994) 143, Trans. AIME 1994; Tubing shoe depth (near bottom hole): 8,000 ft
May:297. Bottom-hole temperature: 170 8F
brown, k.e. The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, Liquid production rate: 2,000 stb/day
Vol. 1. Tulsa, OK: PennWell Books, 1977, pp. 104 Water cut: 30%
158. Producing GLR: 800 scf/stb
chen, n.h. An explicit equation for friction factor in pipe. Oil gravity: 40 8API
Water-specific gravity: 1.05 1 for freshwater
Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 1979;18:296.
Gas-specific gravity: 0.70 1 for air
cicchitti, a. Two-phase cooling experimentspressure
drop, heat transfer and burnout measurements. Ener- 4.3 For the data given below, estimate bottom-hole pres-
gia Nucleare 1960;7(6):407. sure with the GuoGhalambor method.
dukler, a.e., wicks, m., and cleveland, r.g. Frictional
pressure drop in two-phase flow: a comparison of
existing correlations for pressure loss and hold-up.
AIChE J. 1964:3842. Total measured depth: 8,000 ft
duns, h. and ros, n.c.j. Vertical flow of gas and liquid The average inclination angle: 5 degrees
mixtures in wells. Proceedings of the 6th World Petrol- Tubing inner diameter: 1.995 in.
Gas production rate: 0.5 MMscfd
eum Congress, Tokyo, 1963.
Gas specific gravity: 0.75 air 1
goier, g.w. and aziz, k. The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Oil production rate: 2,000 stb/d
Pipes. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Drieger Publishing Oil-specific gravity: 0.85 H2 O 1
Co., 1977. Water production rate: 500 bbl/d
gregory, g.a. and fogarasi, m. Alternate to standard friction Water-specific gravity: 1.05 H2 O 1
factor equation. Oil Gas J. 1985;April 1:120127. Solid production rate: 4 ft3 =d
griffith, p. and wallis, g.b. Two-phase slug flow. Trans. Solid-specific gravity: 2.65 H2 O 1
ASME 1961;83(Ser. C):307320. Tubing head temperature: 100 8F
guo, b. and ghalambor, a. Gas Volume Requirements Bottom-hole temperature: 170 8F
Tubing head pressure: 500 psia
for Underbalanced Drilling Deviated Holes. Tulsa,
OK: PennWell Corporation, 2002, pp. 132133. (continued)
Guo, Boyun / Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach 0750682701_chap04 Final Proof page 58 22.12.2006 6:07pm

4/58 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

of a gas reservoir at a depth of 8,000 ft. At the tubing


Tubing shoe depth: 6,000 ft head, the pressure is 1,000 psia and the temperature is
Tubing inner diameter: 1.995 in. 120 8F; the bottom-hole temperature is 180 8F. The
Oil gravity: 30 8API relative roughness of tubing is about 0.0006. Calculate
Oil viscosity: 2 cp the flowing bottom-hole pressure with three methods:
Production GLR: 500 scf/bbl (a) the average temperature and compressibility factor
Gas-specific gravity: 0.65 air 1 method; (b) the CullenderSmith method; and (c) the
Flowing tubing head pressure: 100 psia four-phase flow method. Make comments on your re-
Flowing tubing head temperature: 80 8F sults.
Flowing temperature at tubing shoe: 140 8F 4.6 Solve Problem 4.5 for gas production through a K-55,
Liquid production rate: 1,500 stb/day 17-lb/ft, 512 -in casing.
Water cut: 20% 4.7 Suppose 2 MMscf/d of 0.65 specific gravity gas is
Interfacial tension: 30 dynes/cm produced through a 278 -in. (2.259-in. inside diameter)
Specific gravity of water: 1.05 H2 O 1 tubing string set to the top of a gas reservoir at a depth
of 5,000 ft. Tubing head pressure is 300 psia and the
temperature is 100 8F; the bottom-hole temperature is
4.4 For the data given below, calculate and plot pressure 150 8F. The relative roughness of tubing is about
traverse in the tubing string using the Hagedorn 0.0006. Calculate the flowing bottom pressure with
Brown correlation: the average temperature and compressibility factor
4.5 Suppose 3 MMscf/d of 0.75 specific gravity gas is method.
produced through a 312 -in. tubing string set to the top