A chapter about well bore Performance

© All Rights Reserved

62 tayangan

A chapter about well bore Performance

© All Rights Reserved

- Chemical Engineering With Mathcad
- The Journal Paper
- lab5HT
- Contoh Soal "Vertical Oil Well Performance"
- Section 1.15 Flow Conditions
- 2nd Paper - Tidal Current Turbines (1)
- Fluid Flow Operation
- MAT514note5
- Analysis of Three Dimensional Couette Flow and Heat
- J. Civil Eng. Urban.,B11!63!67
- Viscous Flows Introduction
- Big Pipes, Small Pumps: Interface, Inc. Factor Ten Engineering Case Study
- MAE552 Introduction to Viscous Flows
- 7.5-02-07-03.9
- Production and Transport of Oil and Gas-Academic Press, Elsevier (1975)
- 2016-04-18 C - Pipe Flows & Open Channel Flows - Examples
- Characteristic of Flow
- IJETT-V26P230
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Project
- Lecture 7 on Stokes Flow

Anda di halaman 1dari 14

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

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

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

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).

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

( " #)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

- Chemical Engineering With MathcadDiunggah olehJavi Lopez
- The Journal PaperDiunggah olehshahidmb
- lab5HTDiunggah olehiyergv
- Contoh Soal "Vertical Oil Well Performance"Diunggah olehInggit Yulias Saputri
- Section 1.15 Flow ConditionsDiunggah olehaerogem618
- 2nd Paper - Tidal Current Turbines (1)Diunggah olehAmber Malik
- Fluid Flow OperationDiunggah olehmehfuzansari1
- MAT514note5Diunggah olehSHareduwan KasiHmuddin
- Analysis of Three Dimensional Couette Flow and HeatDiunggah olehInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- J. Civil Eng. Urban.,B11!63!67Diunggah olehSyed M Ali Sohaib
- Viscous Flows IntroductionDiunggah olehRanpreet Singh Bhatia
- Big Pipes, Small Pumps: Interface, Inc. Factor Ten Engineering Case StudyDiunggah olehGavin D. J. Harper
- MAE552 Introduction to Viscous FlowsDiunggah olehakiscribd1
- 7.5-02-07-03.9Diunggah olehelsaorduna
- Production and Transport of Oil and Gas-Academic Press, Elsevier (1975)Diunggah olehJavier Zamir Cárdenas Arana
- 2016-04-18 C - Pipe Flows & Open Channel Flows - ExamplesDiunggah olehshifuka
- Characteristic of FlowDiunggah olehBrilliand Tegar Verlambang
- IJETT-V26P230Diunggah olehperules
- Computational Fluid Dynamics ProjectDiunggah olehSrishti
- Lecture 7 on Stokes FlowDiunggah olehRoshinee
- 3 Folien Summerschool SPP1506 Martin WoernerDiunggah olehGaga852
- 10.2307@87454Diunggah olehSubhajit Kar
- SubjectOutlineFM-2017Autumn 48641 v3 Standard City 0305Diunggah olehacr2362_809983255
- FM FPMDiunggah olehBhawani Pratap Singh Panwar
- Topic-8-Class-Notes1.pdf.pdfDiunggah olehsugmah
- SLIDE-1Diunggah olehEmtiazEmon
- 09 External Flows (1)Diunggah olehFindo Triandhana
- fluid flowDiunggah olehAbdi Rageedi
- HB-PIPINGDiunggah olehHaithem Hadiji
- Hydrodynamic Design of Electrochemical Reactors Based on Computational Fluid DynamicsDiunggah olehLeo Rodríguez

- well completion planningDiunggah olehreborn2
- SPE-112544-Annular Pressure Loss Predictions for Various Stand-Off Devices CFDDiunggah olehehsan
- Article WritingDiunggah olehehsan
- Writing a Paper SlidesDiunggah olehczxchua
- Offshore and Onshore ProductionDiunggah olehMurali Krishnan
- Bit & HydrolicDiunggah olehRenato Simanjuntak
- CHEMENG_techreportsDiunggah olehehsan
- CompassDiunggah olehehsan
- Casing Setting Depth DesignDiunggah olehehsan
- Introduction to Well CompletionDiunggah olehehsan
- SPE-188138-MSDiunggah olehehsan
- SPE-25647-MSDiunggah olehehsan
- 6cb75278-9ea0-4ce3-a156-0f8da2dcf952-160623120722Diunggah olehehsan
- 13JSSHS-0431-2017-1stProofDiunggah olehehsan
- 110405lucintelbriefopportunityinonshoreandoffshoreommarket 13116073427168 Phpapp02 110725102504 Phpapp02Diunggah olehehsan
- KhanDiunggah olehehsan
- A Review of the Status of Foam Applications in Enhaced Oil RecoveryDiunggah olehRosales Didier
- SPE-21639-MS++Diunggah olehehsan
- 9 - Well Tubing, Pages 109-115Diunggah olehehsan
- 7 - Forecast of Well Production, Pages 87-96Diunggah olehehsan
- 5 - Choke Performance, Pages 59-67Diunggah olehehsan
- 3 - Reservoir Deliverability, Pages 29-43Diunggah olehehsan

- 13 - Copes-Vulcan ValvesDiunggah olehshalegp
- Pipe and Tube Bursting PressuresDiunggah olehRaymond Metselaar
- PrE Standards Codes-2014Diunggah olehHameed Ul Haq
- Hot Water Circulation Pump Sizing1Diunggah olehimtiyaz94
- Mj-1761-Us Expanding Gate Valve Technical MjDiunggah olehMahendran Kuppusamy
- GN 62-001 - Valve Type Selection Spreadsheet - 0900a866802201baDiunggah olehmadihanaz84
- Modeling of Surge in Free-Spool Centrifugal Compressors: Experimental ValidationDiunggah olehkhknima
- Rotary CompressorDiunggah olehEzhil Arasu
- levelDiunggah olehAthul Kc
- ISOGATE_Slurry_Valves_ Autoball.pdfDiunggah olehMargarita Rivera Segovia
- WAS Pumps XFP100E CB1 50HZ.pdfDiunggah olehDanilo Rocha
- Flow MeasurementDiunggah olehVarun
- Diagrams of Valves API-6D ISO14313Diunggah olehIsqa
- Control Valve Primer 4th Ed_Baumann_TOCDiunggah olehAshraf Adel Nashed Zaki
- Advance electronic System.PDFDiunggah olehSachin Kumar
- JIA(3)Diunggah olehRizal Mubarok
- FM assignDiunggah olehEkantha Moorthy
- As 2360.1.2-1993 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Pressure Differential Methods - Measurement UsiDiunggah olehSAI Global - APAC
- Installation Operation Maintenance Manual IOM 720 XDiunggah olehheri monawir zebua
- Valvulas Serie 100Diunggah olehCarlos Rovello Gando
- AL Selection Edited --- 2.4d --- Hydraulic PumpingDiunggah olehSunnyVerma
- Basic Types of CompressorsDiunggah olehfurqankausarhaider
- Fans and BlowersDiunggah olehDawit Wale
- PSV Data Sheet WettedDiunggah olehIoana Popescu
- P&ID.docxDiunggah olehJash Desai
- AG 6800Diunggah olehel_carlewis
- hpm-catalog.pdfDiunggah olehTON
- Belimo CCV_Databook_V8.6_05.2017.pdfDiunggah olehkautuk
- Computational Aerodynamics of Vortex FlowDiunggah olehawethaf9876
- Fluid Machinary(EME011)Diunggah olehsebin