An Improved Method for Calculating

Bottomhole Pressures in Flowing Gas

Wells With Liquid Present
"'.w. Peffer, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
M.A. Miller, SPE, U. of Texas

A.D. Hili, SPE, U. of Texas

Summary. A method is presented for calculating bottomhole pressures (BHP's) from wellhead measurements in flowing gas
wells with liquid present in the well stream. This method, a modification of existing methods, is based on including the
contribution of entrained liquid to gravitational gradients. The study also includes evaluation of effective roughness factors evident
from actual flowing pressure data.
The proposed method was tested vs. both a two-phase flow model developed by Govier and Fogarasi 1 and currently applied
methods based on dry-gas wells. The method was also tested with Govier and Fogarasi's data from 94 flowing wells and with data
from 50 wells from the public files of the Texas Railroad Commission. The new method compared favorably with the two-phase
flow model and was superior to currently applied methods.
Introduction
Several methods currently exist for calculating BHP's in gas wells.
This information is used for reservoir analysis and on completion
reports submitted to state regulatory bodies. The method used by
most state agencies, such as the Texas Railroad Commission, is
based on a procedure detailed in U.S. Bureau of Mines Monograph
7 by Rawlins and Schellhardt2 and is often referred to as the average T and z method because of the assumptions inherent in its derivation. The method usually does not include compensation for
liquids in the flow stream. While this method is adequate for wells
producing from less than 4,000 or 5,000 ft [1220 or 1525 m] in
depth, it does not perform well for most deep, high-temperature,
high-pressure gas wells. When such wells produce at low gas/liquid ratios, the method is even less reliable. The aim of this paper
is to develop a simple method for calculating BHP's in gas wells
that takes into account condensate and water production.
Cullender and Smith's3 method, developed for dry-gas wells, is
generally believed to be the most accurate hand-held calculator
method to calculate BHP's. This method was therefore chosen as
the basic model for this paper. Several modifications have been made
to the method to take into account condensate and water production. These adjustments treat the gas/liquid system as a pseudohomogeneous mixture. The improved method has been tested vs.
both the average T and z method without adjustment for entrained
liquids and a two-phase flow model developed by Govier and
Fogarasi. The Govier and Fogarasi method is a modification of a
method originally developed by Wallis 4 and was designed specifically for gas-condensate wells. Govier and Fogarasi showed that
it had lower errors than the two-phase flow models of Duns and
Ros, 5 Hughmark, 6 and Wallis. 4 No attempt was made to compare
the results of the proposed new method with other two-phase flow
correlations because the Govier and Fogarasi model should be
among the best for gas-condensate wells and because our primary
intention in this work was to develop a simple calculator method
for these calculations.
From the outset of this project, it was decided that the chosen
method must be capable of being programmed on a Hewlett-Packard
HP-41CV hand-held calculator or equivalent. This constraint limited
the eventual candidates for the proposed method to those developed for single-phase flow. Most of the two-phase flow models
either could not be programmed into the limited memory of the
HP-41CV or would require impractical run times for general use.
The program that was developed 7 is presented in the Appendix.
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

Two data sets are included in this paper: one from the Govier
and Fogarasi paper and the second from the public files of the Texas
Railroad Commission. The latter data set was necessary because
the average T and z method used by the Railroad Commission requires that static BHP (BHSP) be calculated before flowing BHP
(BHFP) is calculated. The Govier and Fogarasi paper does not include the data needed to calculate BHSP, hence the need for a second data set.

CulienderSmlth Method
The Cullender-Smith2 method involves a numerical integration
technique for calculating both BHSP's and BHFP's. Because it takes
into account both variations in temperature and compressibility factor with depth, it is a more accurate method than the average T
and z method used by the Railroad Commission and others. Again,
this theoretical improvement makes little difference at less than
4,000 or 5,000 ft [1220 or 1525 m] in depth, but it does make a
significant difference in deep, high-pressure, high-temperature gas
wells drilled so often today.
If it is assumed that flow is steady state and kinetic energy effects are neglected, the mechanical-energy-balance equation can be
expressed as follows:

(:)dP

rllf--"'-.-)2

Ptf

667fMq2

'YgD

................... (1)

53.34

. d 5 (LlD) + Tz
where
Ptf = tubinghead flowing pressure,
PIIf = BHFP,
T = temperature,
z = gas compressibility factor,
fM = Moody friction factor,
q = volumetric flow rate,
d = pipe JD,
'Y g = gas specific gravity,
L = length of flow string, and
D = true vertical depth.

This equation is solved with a two-step numerical integration.

This procedure, described by Ikoku, 8 involves iterative calculations based on dividing the wellbore into two parts. The frictional
643

o --

Proposed Modifications of Cullender-Smlth Method

As given, the Cullender-Smith method is applicable only to drygas wells. Because most gas wells produce some liquid, this method
is inadequate for general use in its present form. Adjustments must
be made to account for the presence of liquids in the flow stream.
The other modification made to the Cullender-Smith method was
a change in calculating the frictional pressure loss by use of a realistic
pipe roughness.
Rzasa and Katz 9 developed a chart relating the ratio of well-fluid
gravity (as a vapor) to the surface gas gravity and the barrels of
condensate produced per million standard cubic feet of surface gas.
This chart may be expressed by the following relationship:

-.D4

II:

II:
II:
W

posed method uses an exact value of the Moody friction factor based
on a value for absolute roughness that was determined to be more
appropriate from Govier and Fogarasi's flowing pressure data.

-J

-1

C)
(

II:
W

/'g +

4,584/'0

Rg

/ ' w g = - - - - - - ' ............................ (5)

-2

132,800/, 0

-u

1+--~":'"

where
-3L---~----~----~----~----~---

.0006

.0015

.0018

.0021

.0024

ABSOlUTE ROUGHNESS, inches

Fig. 1-Effect of assumed roughness on error in calculated
BHP.

component of pressure drop, called p2 by Cullender and Smith,

is defined as

.................................... (2)

Proper evaluation of the Moody friction factor,!M, requires knowledge of gas viscosity, flow rate, and gravity, as well as tubing diameter and pipe roughness. To simplify their procedure, Cullender
and Smith generated a correlation between pipe 10 and F2. Assuming an absolute roughness of 0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm], they calculated values for the relative roughness corresponding to several
different pipe ID's. These values for relative roughness were then
used to determine different values offM corresponding to the turbulent flow portion of the Moody friction factor chart. A log-log
plot of the coefficient of friction vs. the corresponding pipe 10 indicated two straight-line portions, one for 10' s < 4.277 in. [< 10.86
cm] and one for ID's >4.277 in. [> 10.86 cm]. Applying a leastsquares fit to each of these straight-line sections gave the following expressions.
For ID's <4.277 in. [< 10.86 cm],
4.372x1O- 3
fM=----dO. 224

................................ (3)

For ID's >4.277 in. [> 10.86 cm],

4.007 x 10- 3
fM=

dO. l64

, ................................ (4)

/'wg = well-stream gas specific gravity,

Mo =
/'0 =
/' g =
Rg =

molecular weight of condensate,

specific gravity of condensate,
specific gravity of surface trap gas, and
surface producing GOR.

When the molecular weight of the condensate is not known, it

may be estimated with Cragoe'slO correlation:
6,084

44.29/'0

API-5.9

1.03-/'0

....................... (6)

In the proposed method, /'wg is used to determine the pseudocritical properties of the gas-condensate system for calculating compressibility factors.
Water production can also be quite significant in some gas wells.
Ikoku 8 suggested using Vitter'sll formula to adjust the surface gas
gravity for total liquid production, which can be expressed as
4,591/'L
/'g+
RL

/'mix= - - - - - , ............................. (7)

1,123

1+-RL

where /'L = average liquid (condensate plus water) specific gravity and RL = producing gaslliquid ratio. This adjusted value of /'mix
is used in Cullender and Smith's Eq. 1. If no water is produced,
then /'wg from Eq. 5 should be used.
The gas flow rate must also be adjusted for the presence of liquids in the flow stream. In this study, only produced condensate
is added to the produced dry gas by use of an equation from Ikoku:

133,037/'0
G - - - , ................................... (8)
Mo
where G=gas equivalent of condensate.
The total gas flow rate is then given by

qt =qg + Gqo' ..................................... (9)

where d is given in inches.
Eqs. 3 and 4 are used to calculate the friction-loss term with the
original Cullender-Smith method. It will be shown in the next section that the use of an absolute roughness of 0.0006 in. [0.0152
mm] is inadequate for use in flowing gas wells. Therefore, the pro644

where q0 = condensate flow rate.

The value of qt calculated by Eq. 9 is used in Eq. 1. Using this
correction makes little difference in wells producing at high GOR's,
but does make a difference in wells producing large volumes of
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

TABLE 1-GOVIER AND FOGARASP WELL DATA

Well

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74

Oil
(STB/D)

Oil
Specific Gravity

Water
(STB/D)

Gas
(Mscf/D)

Gas
Specific Gravity

GOR
(scf/STB)

775
200
390
141
118
1:34
138
176
105
140
64
17
11
1,300
736
236
270
100
187
84
97
102
131
26
57
67
136
34
946
1,590
774
536
865
121
59
422
272
88
444
207
174
57
96
234
114
29
56
49
263
78
53
13
49
48
136
62
8
14
11
1,660
635
134
480
1,060
233
814
1,650
68
720
832
252
810
232
655

0.931
0.647
0.690
0.667
0.775
0.815
0.759
0.645
0.662
0.718
0.695
0.620
0.712
0.663
0.774
0.803
0.672
0.768
0.657
0.794
0.713
0.730
0.724
0.750
0.793
0.739
0.682
0.737
0.712
0.688
0.747
0.692
0.677
0.661
0.569
0.671
0.679
0.638
0.690
0.654
0.756
0.723
0.837
0.709
0.662
0.772
0.697
0.640
0.776
0.786
0.642
0.752
0.747
0.761
0.645
0.639
0.646
0.841
0.683
0.759
0.654
0.734
0.681
0.693
0.647
0.694
0.645
0.552
0.675
0.666
0.640
0.723
0.702
0.712

9.9
0
18.3
11.4
2.2
0
14.9
0
0
54.0
0
0
0
22.3
8.1
15.1
12.2
0.1
3.1
0
66.5
49.5
17.5
1.5
7.1
0
20.7
8.3
0
16.3
0
15.4
0
0
0
0
1.2
0.6
10.1
0
1.3
0
5.5
1.1
3.5
0.4
4.0
0
3.6
0
0
1.2
1.6
0.6
13.2
0
0.8
0
0
0
9.4
3.6
0
7.0
2.5
315.4
9.8
0
175.8
5.4
0
0
1.2
0

10,100
10,000
27,400
10,000
8,880
10,100
15,200
22,500
15,000
20,300
17,900
11,700
12,400
16,300
13,600
8,030
9,-r90
5,480
10,600
5,000
5,890
7,330
11,300
2,470
6,190
7,700
20,100
7,870
4,880
8,320
9,210
6,860
13,900
3,200
1,590
14,400
9,420
3,130
15,800
7,880
6,890
2,470
4,300
12,100
5,990
1,570
3,230
2,940
17,100
5,090
3,570
923
3,610
3,850
11,500
8,150
1,100
2,420
1,940
6,480
3,870
954
3,930
9,080
2,050
7,220
16,200
674
8,300
9,830
3,210
11,400
3,310
9,510

0.800
0.713
0.671
0.649
0.721
0.736
0.661
0.699
0.686
0.651
0.690
0.766
0.688
0.830
0.710
0.700
0.718
0.720
0.717
0.731
0.724
0.758
0.688
0.643
0.666
0.647
0.672
0.697
0.727
0.760
0.698
0.839
0.760
0.741
0.681
0.789
0.701
0.692
0.698
0.768
0.726
0.676
0.627
0.751
0.720
0.709
0.695
0.716
0.705
0.717
0.707
0.702
0.762
0.789
0.713
0.748
0.673
0.681
0.713
0.820
0.712
0.703
0.701
0.765
0.831
0.824
0.709
0.699
0.718
0.707
0.703
0.798
0.713
0.737

13,100
50,300
70,300
70,900
75,400
75,700
110,000
128,000
143,000
145,000
281,000
701,000
1,170,000
12,500
18,500
34,100
36,300
54,800
56,600
59,200
60,700
72,200
86,500
94,700
109,000
115,000
147,000
234,000
5,160
5,250
11,900
12,800
16,000
26,400
26,900
34,100
34,600
35,500
35,600
38,100
39,600
43,200
44,600
51,800
52,400
53,300
58,000
59,700
65,100
65,200
67,100
72,100
73,300
81,100
84,200
132,000
143,000
169,000
183,000
3,900
6,100
7,120
8,180
8,570
8,820
8,870
9,810
9,940
11,500
11,800
12,700
14,100
14,200
14,500

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

Temperature
(OF)

Well
Depth

Tubing
10

Top

10,471
8,930
8,914
9,959
7,725
7,983
9,330
8,755
8,777
9,421
8,930
8,734
8,850
10,948
8,788
9,311
8,423
9,313
8,236
7,989
7,875
8,025
8,309
9,558
9,915
9,733
9,658
10,014
8,653
10,540
8,677
10,410
10,042
5,939
7,662
7,415
11,578
8,612
8,152
7,907
8,339
7,665
6,401
8,943
8,314
8,573
7,676
6,631
7,248
7,917
7,946
6,745
8,230
8,203
8,291
6,545
6,931
5,135
8,007
4,473
11,912
9,496
9,874
10,537
11,100
11,694
12,073
5,718
12,015
7,682
8,483
7,502
11,447
6,043

2.441
2.992
2.992
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.992
3.960
3.960
2.992
2.992
2.992
3.960
2.992
2.441
2.992
2.441
2.441
1.995
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.992
2.441
2.992
2.441
2.992
2.441
1.995
2.441
2.441
2.441
4.404
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.992
2.441
2.992
2.441
2.441
2.441
1.995
2.441
2.992
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.992
2.992
1.995
1.995
2.441
2.441
2.992
2.992
2.441
2.441
2.441
1.995
2.992
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.992
2.992
1.995
2.992
2.992
2.441
2.441
2.992
2.441

146
119
145
121
172
100
125
105
94
154
100
104
92
149
126
97
106
96
99
97
110
110
113
73
108
99
121
122
105
132
104
120
100
105
61
106
93
79
116
100
110
76
80
94
80
74
86
74
104
104
66
46
90
94
110
92
60
73
70
122
101
65
87
116
86
144
108
52
106
110
73
123
84
98

Bottom
--

242
196
194
212
182
182
198
190
180
273
180
168
189
235
240
169
184
171
184
182
180
180
176
194
196
200
220
208
181
211
176
235
168
193
178
119
180
185
181
182
186
180
169
164
179
190
182
162
154
181
168
160
184
186
180
115
148
145
166
165
188
186
180
214
242
244
187
122
180
157.
172
173
185
170

645

TABLE 1-GOVIER AND FOGARASP WELL DATA (continued)

Well

-75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102

Oil
(STBiD)

Oil
Specific Gravity

.Water
(STB/D)

Gas
(Mscf/D)

Gas
Specific Gravity

0.821
0.699
0.613
0.842
0.658
0.816
0.669
0.675
0.716
0.719
0.580
0.750
0.741
0.663
0.605
0.663
0.722
0.756
0.767
0.836
0.650
0.697
0.624
0.655
0.630
0.636
0.627
0.658

0
1.5
3.6
0
5.3
0
13.7
0
6.1
.1
5.4
1.6
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
7.2
0
0
7.2
1.1
0
0
0
0
0

1,750
6,310
2,650
1,000
10,000
2,100
1,870
10,700
1,450
1,100
11,600
4,670
2,780
1,180
3,100
2,210
4,140
1,110
19,900
4,790
8,960
10,500
3,250
9,020
6,880
1,330
3,230
1,010

0.710
0.719
0.636
0.658
0.710
0.706
0.728
0.740
0.688
0.725
0.729
0.723
0.707
0.705
0.727
0.693
0.703
0.657
0.734
0.698
0.742
0.744
0.719
0.757
0.733
0.751
0.733
0.740

105
380
157
59
550
114
83
458
61
46
441
172
94
40
101
57
95
23
391
84
144
150
42
112
66
12
25
7

condensate. Water was not included in the flow-rate adjustment because most produced water is in liquid form.
The last and most important adjustment made to the original
Cullendet-Smith method concerns the absolute roughness used to
determine the Moody friction factor. Cullender and Smith used an
absolute roughness of 0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm] to determine Eqs.
3 and 4. This corresponds to the absolute roughness of clean well
tubing and was proved to be exrerimentally correct by Cullender
and Binckley 12 and Smith et al. 3 From the results obtained in our
study, however, it appears that this value of absolute roughness
is too low for conditions present in most producing gas wells. The
higher friction losses indicated by the data in this report could be
caused by scale deposits, corrosion, sand pitting, etc. Whatever
the cause, the value of absolute roughness used to calculate the friction factor should be increased.
Because the absolute roughness used to generate Eqs. 3 and 4
was 0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm], these equations cannot be used with
the proposed method. Instead, it is necessary to determine the Moody friction factor.!M, directly. Nikuradse'sl4 friction-factor correlation for fully turbulent flow is given by

f~ =1.74+210g(~),

........................... (10)

where f = absolute roughness. This correlation is considered to be

one of the best available friction-factor correlations for fully developed turbulent flow in rough pipes. Turbulent flow is the case
in most gas wells producing near capacity.
When Govier and Fogarasi's well data are used, a value of
f=0.0018 in. [0.0457 mm] seems to be more representative of the
absolute roughness of the tubing in these wells. To arrive at this
value (which corresponds to the absolute roughness of commercial
steel pipe) the BHFP's of the Govier and Fogarasi wells were calculated with several values of absolute roughness. A comparison
of the root-mean-square (RMS) and average errors obtained with
these different values indicated that an absolute roughness of 0.0018
in. [0.0457 mm] was best. A comparison of the average errors with
the proposed method with f =0.0006,0.0015,0.0018,0.0021, and
0.0024 in. [0.0152,0.0381,0.0457,0.0533, and 0.0610 mm] is
shown in Fig. 1. This comparison was made with 32 randomly chos646

GOR
(scf/STB)

16,600
16,600
16,900
17,000
18,200
18,400
22,700
23,300
23,700
24,100
26,300
27,100
29,600
29,800
30,700
39,000
43,400
49,000
50,800
57,400
62,400
70,100
78,100
80,800
104,000
116,000
127,000
141,000

Temperature
(OF)

Well
Depth

Tubing
ID

Top

7,337
11,733
3,678
6,293
11,790
5,261
8,680
6,020
8,655
8,542
7,439
7,005
7,327
7,547
7,615
7,951
7,357
7,516
8,071
7,196
5,967
5,797
6,701
6,746
6,189
6,600
6,190
6,540

2.441
2.441
1.995
2.441
2.992
1.995
2.441
2.441
1.995
1.995
2.992
1.995
1.995
1.995
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.992
1.995
2.992
2.992
2.441
2.992
2.992
2.441
2.992
2.441

54
92
62
52
120
84
52
106
66
67
75
72
68
64
75
64
70
58
108
60
108
105
61
90
88
88
82
98

Bottom

--156
181
96
154
184
160
180
168
180
187
170
142
162
165
172
162
141
166
158
146
110
114
154
118
110
123
110
120

en wells from the Govier and Fogarasi paper. From Fig. I, it can
be seen that the average error was lowered from approximately
-2.2% fOH=0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm] to -0.04% fOH=0.0018
in. [0.0457 mm]. Similar results were obtained with RMS errors.
Inclusion of the adjustments to the original Cullender-Smith
method for hydrocarbon gas gravity, total gas/liquid mixture gravity ,
gas flow rate, and absolute roughness constitute the proposed method
in this paper. Following are the results of the comparison of the
proposed method vs. both the two-phase flow model of Govier and
Fogarasi and the average T and z method. It should be noted that
the average T and z method used here does take into account condensate production through the use of Eq. 5 but does not include
water in the mixture-gravity calculation.

Govier and Fogarasl Well Data

The data obtained from Govier and Fogarasi, given in Tables 1
through 3, come from the public files of the Energy Resources Conservation Board of Canada. The data cover a wide range of producing and well conditions. Gas rates range from 144 to 27,400 McflD
[4.08xI0 3 to 7.76x10 5 m 3 /d]; GOR's range from 3,900 to
1,170,000 scf/STB [702 to 210 x 10 3 std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]; tubing strings range from 1.995- to 3.958-in. [5.067- to 1O.053-cm]
ID; and well depths range from 3,678 to 12,073 ft [1121 to 3680
m]. The original paper included data on 102 wells, but the authors
indicated that some of the wells had data that they felt were in error
and therefore were not included in the final results. Table 3 does
not include data from these wells, Wells 64, 78, 80, 81, 91, 92,
and 102 in the Govier and Fogarasi paper. To avoid confusion, the
same numbers are associated with a particular well in both this work
and the Govier and Fogarasi work. Therefore, gaps in the data
presented in Table 3 occur where these wells should be found.
The Govier-Fogarasi method allows for the calculation of pressure gradients in wells producing only under two-phase flow conditions. Many wells, however, either produce only single-phase gas
or have only a portion of the well under two-phase flow conditions.
For wells exhibiting two-phase flow conditions at the surface, Govier
and Fogarasi performed flash calculations to determine where, if
at all, flow changed from single- to two-phase flow. For wells where
two-phase flow was indicated at both the top and the midpoint of
the well but single-phase at the bottom, it was assumed that 75%
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

TABLE 2-H 2S, CO 2 , AND N2 IN WELL EFFLUENT FROM

GOVIER AND FOGARASll WELLS (mol%)
Well

-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76

H2 S
17.06
0.66
0.00
1.26
12.31
10.00
1.15
0.57
0.67
1.91
0.66
0.74
0.57
18.52
0.53
3.30
0.54
5.16
0.10
11.32
9.26
12.21
0.41
0.55
1.45
1.57
1.92
1.81
0.00
7.24
0.00
17.76
16.15
1.44
0.00
14.71
2.83
0.67
0.08
13.13
0.67
1.38
0.00
12.11
0.63
0.63
1.73
0.00
1.07
7.73
0.00
0.00
12.75
16.15
0.47
9.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.63
2.70
4.49
0.00
8.87
19.97
19.61
2.68
0.00
2.81
0.35
0.00
14.59
2.75
1.12
0.00
3.07

CO 2

3.20
4.72
1.37
4.14
4.85
6.20
4.03
4.85
4.83
3.58
5.43
4.47
4.86
3.80
4.89
1.90
4.43
1.97
5.44
5.24
5.53
7.10
4.72
3.84
3.98
3.66
4.31
4.12
1.57
2.33
0.62
3.35
4.02
1.27
0.83
2.15
4.38
3.82
5.29
2.06
4.37
2.60
1.84
2.55
6.44
4.43
2.59
2.70
5.05
4.55
4.34
1.23
5.82
7.24
5.89
4.89
2.46
1.18
1.62
6.64
3.59
1.74
0.63
2.99
3.37
3.09
3.90
0.46
4.99
5.18
0.63
2.10
3.72
1.75
2.91
3.63

1.92
0.42
0.26
0.17
3.51
4.44
0.16
0.44
0.43
0.13
0.43
0.38
0.45
1.89
0.44
1.83
0.55
2.23
0.71
4.24
4.36
4.45
0.41
0.18
0.22
0.31
0.15
0.15
1.25
4.45
0.57
1.13
0.90
1.54
0.58
9.01
1.07
0.47
0.44
8.37
0.59
5.08
0.20
0.68
0.38
0.51
5.79
0.73
0.51
4.51
0.73
1.29
4.07
3.72
0.39
0.50
0.28
0.90
3.78
0.58
1.02
1.83
0.25
4.39
1.14
0.98
0.96
0.60
0.94
0.73
0.51
8.41
1.06
1.68
0.51
1.05

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

TABLE 2-H 2 S, CO 2' AND N 2 IN WELL EFFLUENT FROM

GOVIER AND FOGARASll WELLS (mol%) (continued)
Well

-77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

H2 S
0.00
0.68
3.19
0.00
0.00
1.22
0.44
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.21
0.48
0.00
8.10
8.18
0.00
8.78
8.33
9.10

CO 2

0.26
2.63
4.41
0.38
2.82
1.60
4.01
3.93
4.22
2.22
0.91
1.93
1.00
0.51
0.63
4.22
6.07
4.27
3.20
3.65
4.70
5.05
3.08
4.33

3.86
0.54
0.97
3.79
0.32
2.00
0.60
0.52
1.51
0.62
0.55
0.37
0.73
1.04
0.51
5.00
0.44
0.47
0.48
0.22
0.46
0.46
0.48
0.47

of the well was occupied by a two-phase mixture and the pressure

gradient was calculated as
P
P
I1p =0. 75( I1 ) +0.25( I1 ) . . ................. (11)
I1h
I1h ~
I1h ~

Alternatively, where two-phase conditions were present only at

the surface, the pressure gradient was calculated as
P
P
I1p =0.25( I1 ) +0.75( I1 ) ................... (12)
I1h
I1h ~
I1h ~

Wells 1 through 13, despite the production of condensate at the

separator, were shown to be under single-phase gas flow conditions at all three checkpoints in each well. Wells 14 through 28
were shown to be in two-phase flow at the surface but single-phase
flow at the midpoint and bottom of the well. Wells 29 through 59
exhibited two-phase flow at the top and midpoint of the well but
were in single-phase flow at the bottom of the well. It is interesting to note the wide range ofGOR's under which these four groups
fall. For instance, flash calculations indicated single-phase flow
throughout for Wells 1 through 13, whose GOR's by themselves
are no sure indicator as to whether a well is under single- or twophase flow conditions in the wellbore.
Table 3 and Figs. 2 through 5 give the results in both tabular
and graphical form for the comparison between the proposed method
and that of Govier and Fogarasi. Overall results indicate that very
good values were obtained. RMS errors of 4.6% and 108 psia [745
kPa] and average errors of -0.4% and +2.2 psia [+ 15.2 kPa]
were achieved for the set of wells as a whole. This compares with
RMS values of7% and 127 psia [876 kPa] and average error values
of 1.2 % and +20 psia [ + 138 kPa] for the Govier and Fogarasi
method. These error values for the proposed method are more than
adequate and point out that the proposed method effectively accounts
for liquid production in gas wells. These results clearly show that
the modified Cullender-Smith method is a very good way of calculating BHP's from surface measurements. The Govier and Fogarasi analysis was developed specifically for gas-condensate flow, was
shown in their paper to be better than several previously developed
methods, and yet had larger overall errors than the proposed method.
These results show that the proposed method compares very favorably with a more theoretically sound two-phase model, yet gives similar results while being easier to use.
647

TABLE 3-PRESSURE GRADIENTS AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR GOVIER AND FOGARASll WELLS BY
GOVIER AND FOGARASI AND PROPOSED METHODS WITH E=O.0018 In.
Calculated Pressures and Gradients
Measured Pressure
(psia)
Well

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Top

2,685
2,082
2,672
2,120
1,717
1,785
2,815
1,990
2,239
2,120
1,990
1,879
2,347

Bottom
-

4,579
2,937
4,087
3,100
2,445
2,683
3,713
2,993
3,053
3,202
2,930
2,806
3,013

Govier and Fogarasi

Gradient
(psia/ft)

0.1809
0.0958
0.1588
0.0984
0.0942
0.1125
0.0963
0.1146
0.0927
0.1149
0.1053
0.1061
0.0753

BHP
4,671

2,867
4,169
3,143
2,489
2,675
3,769
2,742
2,940
3,205
2,931
2,716
3,010

2,147
1,716
2,218
2,040
1,812
1,423
1,769
1,914
1,822
1,563
2.151
1.336
941
1,303
1.433

4,066
3,309
3,186
2,968
2,614
2,969
2,354
2,525
2,524
2,166
2.788
1.781
1.865
2.585
2,182

0.1753
0.1813
0.1040
0.1102
0.0861
0.1877
0.0732
0.0776
0.0875
0.0726
0.0667
0.0449
0.0949
0.1327
0.0748

4,139
3,187
3,272
3,036
2,616
3,150
2,396
2,591
2,610
2,216
2.785
1.822
1.792
2,466
2.263

1.333
2.146
2.214
1,840
2.210
1.896
1.040
1.485
690
1,099
1.661
1,854
1.708
1.603
897
1.351
1,889
1,240
1,486
1.130
1.288
1.294
1.318
450
1.925
1.877
1.580
1,045
654
787
597

RMS error
Average error

648

Error
(psia)

0.1899
0.0877
0.1676
0.1029
0.0942
0.1115
0.1022
0.0859
0.0799
0.1179
0.1055
0.0959
0.0730

+92
-70
+82
+43
+44
-8.0
+56
-251
-113
+3.0
+ 1.0
-90
-3.0

+1.8
-3.7
+2.7
+2.3
0
+6.1
+ 1.8
+2.6
+3.4
+2.3
0
+2.3
-3.9
-4.6
+3.7

3.244
3.883
3.363
3,117
3,363
2,429
1.343
2.652
1.398
1.502
2.445
2,619
2.390
2.098
1,462
2,487
2,490
1,662
1.918
1,472
2,070
1,654
1.857
653
2.549
2,499
2,295
1.455
786
981
877

0.2208
0.1648
0.1324
0.1226
0.1148
0.0900
0.0395
0.1574
0.0612
0.0468
0.0962
0.0967
0.0818
0.0646
0.0883
0.1270
0.0723
0.0492
0.0563
0.0516
0.1079
0.0455
0.0679
0.0301
0.0758
0.0758
0.0863
0.0626
0.0190
0.0351
0.0350

2.654
4.143
3.430
3,345
3,511
2,378
1,412
2.726
1,453
1.537
2,555
2.792
2.500
2.056
1.513
2,591
2.565
1.699
1,926
1,471
2,070
1,690
1,961
624
2,613
2.589
2,323
1,435
1.056
967
811

-18.2
+6.7
+2.0
+7.3
+4.4
-2.1
+5.1
+2.8
+3.9
+2.3
+4.5
+6.6
+4.6
-2.0
+3.5
+4.2
+3.0
+2.2
+0.4
+0.1
0
+2.2
+5.6
-4.4
+2.5
+3.6
+1.2
-1.4
+34.3
-1.4
-7.5
8.0
+2.4

BHP

Error
(%)

Gradient
(psia/ft)

4,794
2,837
4,128
3,131
2,477
2,704
3,784
2,688
2,916
3,202
2,930
2,674
3,013

+4.7
-3.4
+1.0
+ 1.0
+1.3
+0.8
+1.9
-10.2
-4.5
0
0
-4.7
0

0.2015
0.0846
0.1633
0.1015
0.0983
0.1152
0.1038
0.0797
0.0771
0.1149
0.1053
0.0910
0.0753

--

92
-16
0.1819
0.1675
0.1131
0.1184
0.0865
0.2098
0.0786
0.0858
0.0981
0.0785
0.0663
0.0491
0.0792
0.1204
0.0829

3.2
+1.1

RMS error
Average error

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59

+2.0
-2.4
+2.0
+ 1.4
+1.8
-0.2
+1.5
-8.4
-3.7
+0.1
0
-3.2
-0.1

Cullender and Smith

Gradient
(psia/ft)

3.0
-0.7

RMS error
Average error

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

!=rror
(%)

+73
-122
+86
+68
+2.0
+ 181
+42
+66
+86
+50
+3.0
+41
-73
-119
+81

3.8
-0.9
3,956
3,253
3,275
3,036
2,593
3,165
2,401
2,611
2,615
2,177
2.799
1,808
1.673
2,466
2.239

85
+31
0.1526
0.1894
0.1403
0.1445
0.1297
0.0812
0.0485
0.1674
0.0658
0.0508
0.1095
0.1188
0.0949
0.0591
0.0962
0.1389
0.0810
0.0535
0.0572
0.0514
0.1079
0.0501
0.0809
0.0258
0.0835
0.0869
0.0894
0.0594
0.0579
0.0351
0.0261

-590
+260
+67
+228
+148
-51
+69
+74
+55
+35
+ 110
+173
+ 110
-42
+51
+104
+75
+37
+8.0
-1.0
0
+36
+104
-29
+64
+90
+28
-20
+270
-14
-66
147
+46

-2.7
-1.7
+2.8
+2.3
-0.8
+6.6
+2.0
+3.4
+3.6
+0.5
+0.4
+ 1.5
-10.3
-4.6
+2.6

-16.7
+7.2
+4.0
+5.7
+3.5
-3.6
-1.7
+6.9
+1.2
-1.1
+2.9
+3.9
+2.7
-2.9
-5.8
+5.3
+1.0
-2.4
+0.8
-2.7
+0.2
+ 1.8
+0.4
-11.7
+2.2
+3.5
-3.1
-2.6
+0.9
-4.7
-10.5
5.0
-0.4

+215
-100
-41
+31
+32
+21
+71
-305
-137
0
0
-132
0
122
-27

0.1653
0.1749
0.1135
0.1179
0.0839
0.2115
0.0791
0.0885
0.0988
0.0739
0.0679
0.0476
0.0752
0.1204
0.0805

3.9
+0.4
2,819
4,163
3,498
3,295
3,481
2,342
1.320
2,835
1.415
1,486
2.516
2.721
2,454
2,037
1,377
2,619
2,515
1.622
1,933
1.432
2,074
1,684
1.864
577
2.605
2,586
2,224
1,417
793
935
785

Error
(psia)

-110
-56
+89
+68
-21
+196
+47
+86
+91
+ 11
+ 11
+27
-192
-119
+57
97
+12

0.1717
0.1913
0.1479
0.1397
0.1265
0.0750
0.0366
0.1821
0.0626
0.0449
0.1049
0.1097
0.0895
0.0567
0.0750
0.1417
0.0753
0.0446
0.0583
0.0449
0.1085
0.0492
0.0688
0.0188
0.0802
0.0865
0.0776
0.0569
0.0201
0.0289
0.0235

-425
+280
+135
+178
+ 118
-87
-23
+183
+17
-16
+71
+ 102
+64
-61
-85
+132
+25
-40
+15
-40
+4.0
+30
+7.0
-76
+56
+87
-71
-38
+7.0
-46
-92
121
+13

SPE Production Engineering. November 1988

TABLE 3-PRESSURE GRADIENTS AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR GOVIER AND FOGARASP WELLS BY
GOVIER AND FOGARASI AND PROPOSED METHODS WITH E=O.0018 in. (continued)
Calculated Pressures and Gradients

Well
-

60
61
62
63
65
66
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
79
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101

Measured Pressure
(psia)
Bottom
Top

Gradient
(psia/ft)

-2,005
2,205
1,437
1,939
2,400
2,398
2,679
2,269
2,033
1,722
2,243
1,729
2,196
883
1,551
1,125
2,205
1,939
1,509
1,349
1,642
1,716
1,909
1,908
1,859
1,322
2,089
1,622
1,761
1,901
1,495
1,490
1,387
1,260
1,434

639
1,169
816
1,187
1,413
1,277
1,232
1,183
1,199
1,165
960
1,053
1,438
626
663
839
1,197
1,157
1,012
1,008
1,057
1,063
1,360
1,428
1,452
973
1,135
958
1,349
1,430
1,169
1,079
1,064
968
1,109

0.2607
0.0669
0.0654
0.0762
0.0689
0.0958
0.1199
0.0904
0.1085
0.0657
0.1710
0.0586
0.1254
0.0350
0.0757
0.0778
0.0855
0.1299
0.0574
0.0399
0.0786
0.0932
0.0722
0.0636
0.0535
0.0439
0.1182
0.0923
0.0724
0.0813
0.0487
0.0609
0.0522
0.0412
0.0525

BHP

Govier and Fogarasi

Error
Gradient
(%)
(psia/ft)

1,973
1,926
1,880
2,055
2,431
2,360
2,711
2,156
1,789
1,732
2,167
1,682
2,167
904
1,598
1,054
2,134
1,885
1,462
1,403
1,644
1,750
2,167
1,909
1,945
1,326
1,828
1,661
1,793
1,903
1,549
1,544
1,429
1,544
1,398

-1.6
-12.6
+30.8
+6.0
+ 1.3
-1.6
+ 1.2
-5.0
-12.0
+0.6
-3.4
-2.7
-1.3
+2.4
+3.0
-6.3
-3.2
-2.8
-3.1
+4.0
+0.1
+2.0
+ 13.5
0
+4.6
+0.3
-12.5
+2.4
+0.7
+0.1
+3.6
+3.6
+3.0
+22.5
-2.5

--

0.2535
0.0636
0.1120
0.0881
0.0917
0.0926
0.1225
0.0810
0.0767
0.0669
0.1609
0.0545
0.1206
0.0379
0.0797
0.0585
0.0795
0.1210
0.0520
0.0463
0.0789
0.0981
0.1074
0.0638
0.0647
0.0444
0.0859
0.0976
0.0746
0.0816
0.0567
0.0689
0.0590
0.0841
0.0467

BHP

Cullender and Smith

Error
Gradient
(%)
(psia/ft)

2,099
2,082
1,288
1,989
2,626
2,544
2,920
2,233
1,842
1,681
2,272
1,650
2,227
659
1,646
1,033
2,117
1,939
1,391
1,372
1,658
1,733
1,894
1,862
1,920
1,273
2,244
1,594
1,756
1,869
1,495
1,511
1,387
1,230
1,375

+4.7
-5.6
-10.4
+2.6
+9.4
+6.1
+9.0
-1.6
-9.4
-2.4
+ 1.3
-4.6
+ 1.4
-2.7
+6.1
-8.2
-4.0
0
-7.8
+1.7
+1.0
+ 1.0
-0.8
-2.4
+3.3
-3.7
+7.4
-1.7
-1.4
-1.7
0
+ 1.4
0
-2.4
-4.1

--

-32
-279
+443
+ 116
+31
-38
+32
-113
-244
+10
-76
-47
-29
+21
+47
-71
-71
-54
-47
+54
+2.0
+34
+258
+ 1.0
+86
+4.0
-261
+39
+12
+2.0
+54
+54
+42
+284
-36

8.2
+ 1.0

RMS error
Average error

Error
(psia)

134
+6.5

4.8
-0.5

SO'

tMs study

0.2617
0.0766
0.0497
0.0813
0.1092
0.1084
0.1399
0.0874
0.0837
0.0608
0.1749
0.0517
0.1306
0.0318
0.0838
0.0527
0.0780
0.1299
0.0438
0.0426
0.0808
0.0957
0.0701
0.0576
0.0615
0.0378
0.1374
0.0885
0.0682
0.0757
0.0487
0.0640
0.0522
0.0367
0.0430

method

+94
-123
-149
+50
+226
+146
+241
-36
-191
-41
+29
-79
+31
-24
+95
-92
-88
0
-118
+23
+16
+17
-15
-46
+61
-49
+ 155
-28
-25
-32
0
+21
0
-30
-59
94
-0.6

41

~ Govier & Fogoro.t

Error
(psia)

thts study

I!llIGovter & Fogorllst

method

31
11

0
II

25
2f)

Q.

Il:

II:

Il:
Il:
W

12

1.1

_IJ_~

(J

Il:
W

II:
II:

JJ-.l

-1

J _~_ J_

12

-.4

-J

-J

W
C)

II:

-25

-u

-2-'---,----,---r--,---,-1-13
14-28
29-59 61HOI
HOI

WEll NUUBERS

1-13

14-28

29-59

60-101

HOI

Will NUUBERS

Fig. 2-Average percent error, Govier and FogarasJ1 wells.

Fig. 3-Average absolute error, Govier and Fogarasl t wells.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

649

10

~ this study

150

~ this stUdy

I(jIJ 60yler & Fogoro.1

IQ<;j method

R:i:I Govter &. Fogorasl

III

~method

c
iiQ. 100

It:

It:

III

It:
It:
W

It:
It:
W

III

It:

It:

H3

14-28

29-59

6/HOI

HOI

WELL NUUBERS

50

H3

14-28

29-59

60-101

HOI

WEll NUUBERS

Fig. 4-Percent RMS error, Govier and Fogarasi I wells.

Fig. 5-Absolute RMS error, Govier and Fogarasl 1 wells.

Railroad Commission Well Data

The data for 50 wells used in comparing the proposed method with
the average Tand z method are given in Table 4. These wells were
all obtained from the public files of the Texas Railroad Commission. Unfortunately, compositional analyses were not available on
these wells, so the compressibility factors calculated while the two
methods were used were not adjusted for the presence of H 2 S,
CO 2 , and N2 , which added a degree of uncertainty to all the calculated BHP's. This could not be avoided; however, it did affect
the pressures calculated by both methods equally.
The data given for the wells in the Govier and Fogarasi paper
were for fairly-low-pressure, low-temperature wells, generally with
BHP's <3,000 psia [<20.7 MPa] and bottornhole temperatures
(BHT's) < 175F [<79C]. To test the merits of the proposed
method, wells with high BHP's and BHT's and low gas/liquid ratios were chosen for comparing the proposed method and the average T and z method. The majority of these wells have BHP's
>5,000 psia [>34.5 MPa], BHT's of at least 225F [107C],
and gas/liquid ratios below 35,000 scf/STB [6300 std m 3 /stocktank m 3 ].
Tables 5 and 6 present the BHSP's and BHFP's calculated by
the average T and z and the proposed methods for the Railroad Commission wells. Figs. 6 through 9 show the errors calculated for both
the static and flowing cases with the two methods. These graphs
show that the modified Cullender-Smith method gives RMS errors
that are approximately 50% lower than those given by the average
T and z method. For the static case, the RMS errors were reduced
from 7.9% and 597 psia [4.12 MPa] to 4.1 % and 280 psia [1.93
MPa]. Likewise, for the flowing case, the RMS errors were reduced from 13.9% and 627 psia [4.32 MPa] to 8.5% and 329 psia
[2.27 MPa]. Results similar to these were also obtained for the average error calculations. The proposed method was able to provide
good results even under these severe conditions.
Errors for the proposed method shown in Figs. 6 through 9 are
larger than those calculated for the wells from the Govier and
Fogarasi paper, partly because the z factors were not corrected for
the presence of H 2 S, CO 2 , and N2 , but also because of the types
of wells used to test these two methods. Very high BHSP's and
BHFP's were present in many of them. When this was accompanied by the production of large volumes of liquid, relatively low
wellhead pressures resulted, and the calculated BHP's tended to
be low. The inadequacies associated with trying to model the dy-

namic flow of a two- or three-phase mixture as if it were a singlephase vapor had a great deal to do with this.

650

Conclusions
1. A simple method for calculating BHSP's and BHFP's in gas
and gas-condensate wells has been developed by modifying the
Cullender-Smith method. The modifications consisted of accounting for entrained liquid in the gas stream and using a pipe roughness of 0.0018 in. [0.0457 mm].
2. The proposed method outperformed the conventional average
T and z method and the two-phase flow correlation of Govier and
Fogarasi in comparisons on 145 wells.
3. The proposed method performed robustly in predicting the
BHP's of a wide range of gas-condensate well conditions.
Nomenclature
d = pipe rD, in. [cm]
D = true vertical well depth, ft [m]
1M = Moody friction factor, dimensionless
F2 = frictional pressure drop in Cullender-Smith method,
psi [kPa]
G = gas equivalent of condensate, scf/STB [std m 3 /stocktank m3 ]
h = vertical distance, ft [m]
L = length of flow string, ft [m]
M = molecular weight
p = pressure, psia [kPa]
q = volumetric flow rate, MMcflD [m 3 /d]
R = universal gas constant, 10.732 psia-ft 3 /lbm-mol- OR
[J/gmol' K]
Rg = producing GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
RL = producing gas/liquid ratio, scf/STB [std m 3 /stocktank m 3 ]
T = temperature, OR [K]
z = gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
'Yg = dry-gas gravity, dimensionless (air = 1)
'Yo = oil specific gravity, dimensionless (water = 1)
'Ywg = wet-gas gravity, dimensionless (air = 1)
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

TABLE 4-RAILROAD COMMISSION WELL DATA

Well
-

Oil
(STB/D)

Gravity
(OAPI)

469
410
768
74
129
753
99
275
520
188
158
213
66
48
52
196
487
130
324
538
38
104
38
170
59
212
95
209
95
48
45
211
107
59
72
14
132
24
40
56
54
55
58
16
16
32
0
0
0
0

59.5
45.2
59.3
49.0
55.0
49.6
50.4
53.8
53.3
48.9
52.0
56.6
43.7
52.8
52.6
53.6
50.7
51.9
52.2
52.0
54.9
53.8
63.2
53.3
43.8
45.5
56.9
51.9
53.1
46.9
57.8
41.9
52.3
55.9
46.7
50.8
53.0
47.9
43.3
44.4
45.2
47.0
54.5
43.5
50.0
42.8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Water
(STB/D)

Gas
(Mscf/D)

Gas
Specific Gravity

GOR
(scflSTB)

0
750
10
64
0
8
45
6
0
2,000
105
42
0
0
17
5
8
0
0
13
6
0
10
0
0
15
0
0
0
139
0
0
0
1
150
102
117
4
4
0
25
0
15
0
11
0
72
0
52
0

2,426
2,340
4,680
529
1,051
6,585
891
2,680
5,081
1,853
1,566
2,381
774
572
678
2,586
6,427
1,782
4,664
7,800
594
1,635
606
2,800
1,059
4,240
2,046
4,510
2,529
1,348
1,430
7,175
3,774
2,770
2,800
530
5,465
1,258
2,333
3,209
3,703
4,477
4,939
2,911
1,550
24,900
3,811
2,026
460
19,576

0.884
0.762
0.870
0.658
0.719
0.722
0.690
0.645
0.680
0.696
0.659
0.655
0.656
0.694
0.645
0.653
0.680
0.645
0.681
0.671
0.640
0.664
0.636
0.640
0.640
0.654
0.700
0.666
0.635
0.642
0.646
0.602
0.657
0.675
0.643
0.614
0.619
0.659
0.601
0.610
0.620
0.673
0.662
.0.593
0.604
0.631
0.635
0.623
0.690
0.595

5,180
5,720
6,094
7,137
8,122
8,743
8,991
9,740
9,779
9,835
9,921
11,174
11,733
11,867
13,041
13,180
13,209
13,663
14,378
14,579
15,505
15,799
15,831
16,440
18,075
20,000
21,566
21,609
26,717
27,104
31,609
34,005
35,136
38,540
38,654
38,700
41,511
52,504
57,417
57,427
68,424
81,474
84,950
180,000
332,618
780,000

Subscripts

=
he =
L =
mix =
g

o =
sp

t =
if =
tp =
ts =
w =

wi =
wg =
ws =
wst =

gas
hydrocarbon
liquid
mixture
condensate
single phase
total
tubing, flowing (surface conditions)
two phase
tubing, static (surface conditions)
water
well, flowing (bottomhole conditions)
wet gas
well, static (bottomhole conditions)
well stream
absolute pipe roughness, in. [cm]

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry

Well
Depth

Tubing
ID

(tt)

12,444
11,824
11,787
8,579
11,000
14,742
12,318
10,224
11,040
11,719
8,882
9,858
13,055
11,322
10,607
8,850
13,150
10,355
10,743
12,944
11,462
10,885
9,559
9,974
13,037
13,468
9,643
11,032
7,552
11,990
7,237
11,654
12,024
8,126
12,330
7,676
12,150
10,279
12,970
10,676
10,790
10,314
11,351
9,160
9,220
15,676
16,711
11,045
9,120
21,453

2.441
1.995
2.992
1.995
1.995
2.441
2.441
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
2.441
1.995
1.995
1.995
2.441
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.610
1.995
1.751
1.995
2.441
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
1.995
2.441
2.441
2.441
2.992
2.992
1.995
2.441
3.958

Temperature
(OF)
Top
Shut-in
--

85
74
32
80
45
85
74
74
74
136
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
74
74
72
74
81
74
74
76
76
74
70
74
88
74
74
88
74
75
74
100
74
89
74
85
71
90
74
74
100
75
74
74
78

Flowing

140
184
116
94
67
145
80
120
120
188
80
115
90
90
95
105
90
100
100
94
80
92
85
100
86
92
80
90
100
108
100
80
90
95
80
95
125
69
100
100
90
74
98
95
115
174
100
80
90
115

Bottom

-295
280
289
228
270
322
260
237
260
260
225
239
278
255
254
215
295
239
251
300
259
253
239
238
286
294
275
276
192
263
219
250
282
240
271
224
275
264
275
288
250
271
283
246
255
300
320
293
243
322

Superscript

- = average
References
\. Govier, G.W. and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure Drop in Wells Producing
Gas and Condensate," paper presented at the 1975 Annual Technical
Meeting, Petroleum Soc. of CIM, Banff, Canada, June 11-13.
2. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.: Back-Pressure Data on Natural
Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices, Bureau of
Mines, Monograph 7 (1935).
3. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: "Practical Solutions of Gas-Flow
Equation for WeBs and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients,"
Trans., AIME, 207 (1956) 281-87.
4. WaBis, G.B.: "Annular Two-Phase Flow," f. Basic Eng., Trans.,
ASME, Series D (1970) 92, 59.
5. Duns, H. lr. and Ros, N.C.l.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in WeBs," Proc., Sixth World Pet. Cong., Frankfurt (1963) 10,
694.
6. Hughmark, G.A.: "Film Thickness Entrainment and Pressure Drop
in Upward Annual Dispersed Flow," AlChEf. (Sept. 1973) 19,1062.
651

TABLE 5-STATIC PRESSURES, GRADIENTS, AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR RAILROAD COMMISSION WELLS BY
AVERAGE T AND z AND PROPOSED METHODS
Calculated Pressures and Gradients
Measured Pressure
(psia)
Well

Top

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

3,385
5,550
3,450
5,085
4,400
8,250
3,323
6,272
7,157
4,048
5,139
6,042
6,078
7,215
6,192
5,406
8,230
6,574
7,275
8,472
4,317
4,524
3,107
8,049
6,382
8,275
6,515
4,320
4,850
6,837
4,498
7,884
8,213
3,350
8,141
3,400
6,685
4,115
7,300
5,726
7,455
6,228
4,890
4,908
4,967
10,180
12,313
7,189
4,428
6,976

RMS error
Average error

Average T and z

Bottom

Gradient
(psialft)

5,998
9,288
5,939
7,109
6,214
11,250
5,393
8,339
9,148
8,128
6,944
7,592
8,206
9,087
7,839
6,780
10,606
8,185
8,869
10,707
6,503
6,128
4,125
10,049
7,774
10,426
7,921
5,901
6,565
10,134
5,390
9,469
10,032
4,201
10,228
5,879
8,393
5,238
8,971
7,000
8,882
7,653
6,016
5,786
5,978
12,045
14,713
8,455
5,930
9,348

0.2100
0.3161
0.2112
0.2359
0.1649
0.2035
0.1681
0.2022
0.1804
0.3481
0.2032
0.1572
0.1630
0.1654
0.1553
0.1553
0.1807
0.1559
0.1484
0.1726
0.1907
0.1474
0.1065
0.1534
0.1396
0.1597
0.1460
0.1433
0.2271
0.2750
0.1233
0.1360
0.1513
0.1047
0.1692
0.3230
0.1406
0.1092
0.1288
0.1193
0.1322
0.1382
0.0992
0.0958
0.1097
0.1190
0.1436
0.1138
0.1647
0.1106

--

BHP

Gradient
(psialft)

Error
(psia)

5,628
7,739
5,574
6,524
6,176
10,876
5,064
7,993
9,027
5,594
6,512
7,579
8,168
9,090
7,786
6,718
10,392
8,155
8,997
10,566
5,759
5,958
4,108
10,031
7,837
10,365
7,919
5,654
5,797
8,476
5,339
9,477
9,917
4,153
9,860
4,097
8,182
5,188
8,890
6,911
8,830
7,524
6,108
5,793
5,860
12,211
14,685
8,464
5,395
9,321

-6.2
-16.7
-6.2
-8.2
-0.6
-3.3
-6.1
-4.2
-1.3
-31.2
-6.2
-0.2
-0.5
0
-0.7
-0.9
-2.0
-0.4
+ 1.4
-1.3
-11.4
-2.8
-0.4
-0.2
+0.8
-0.6
0
-4.2
-11.7
-16.4
-1.0
0
-1.2
-1.1
-3.6
-30.3
-2.5
-1.0
-0.9
-1.3
-0.6
-1.7
+1.5
+0.1
-2.0
+ 1.4
-0.2
+0.1
-9.0
-0.3

0.1803
0.1824
0.1802
0.1677
0.1615
0.1781
0.1413
0.1683
0.1696
0.1319
0.1556
0.1559
0.1601
0.1656
0.1503
0.1483
0.1692
0.1530
0.1603
0.1618
0.1258
0.1317
0.1047
0.1520
0.1459
0.1552
0.1459
0.1209
0.1254
0.1367
0.1162
0.1367
0.1417
0.0988
0.1394
0.0908
0.1232
0.1044
0.1226
0.1110
0.1274
0.1256
0.1073
0.0966
0.0969
0.1296
0.1419
0.1126
0.1060
0.1093

-370
-1,549
-365
-585
-38
-374
-329
-346
-121
-2,534
-423
-13
-38
+3.0
-53
-65
-214
-30
-128
-141
-744
-170
-17
-18
+63
-61
-2.0
-247
-768
-1,658
-51
+8.0
-115
-48
-368
-1,782
-211
-50
-81
.,.89
-52
-129
+92
+7.0
-118
+ 166
-28
+9.0
-535
-27

--

7.9
-4.0

7. Peffer, J.W.: "An Improved Method for Calculating Bottomhole Pressures in Gas Wells," MS thesis, U. of Texas, Austin (1985).
8. Ikoku, C.U.: Natural Gas Production Engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
New York City (1984).
9. Rzasa, M.J. and Katz, D.L.: "Calculation of Static Pressure Gradients
in Gas Wells," Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 100-05.
10. Cragoe, C.S.: "Thennodynamic Properties of Petroleum Products,"
Bureau of Standards, u.s. Dept. of Commerce (1929) Miscellaneous
Publication No. 97, 22.
11. Vitter, A.L.: "Back-Pressure Tests on Gas-Condensate Wells," Drill.
& Prod. Prac., API (1942) 79-87.
12. Cullender, M.H. and Bincldey, C.W.: "Adaptionofthe Relative Roughness Correlation of the Coefficient of Friction to the Flow of Natural
Gas in Gas Well Casing," Railroad Commission of Texas, Amarillo
(1950).
13. Smith, R.V., Williams, R.H., and Dewees, E.J.: "Measurement of
Resistance to Flow of Fluids in Natural Gas Wells," Trans., AIME
(1954) 201, 279-86.
652

Proposed

Error
(%)

597
-295

BHP

Error
(%)

Gradient
(psialft)

Error
(psia)

5,761
9,199
5,677
7,004
6,230
11,078
5,355
7,980
9,101
8,627
6,837
7,683
8,183
9,156
7,943
6,748
10,455
8,199
9,045
10,645
5,827
5,984
4,181
10,088
7,867
10,380
7,939
5,675
5,806
9,260
5,344
9,496
9,940
4,158
10,347
4,782
8,246
5,210
8,914
6,960
8,887
7,535
6,137
5,802
5,941
12,211
14,975
8,472
5,854
9,357

-4.0
-1.0
-4.4
-1.5
+0.3
-1.5
-0.7
-4.3
-0.5
+6.1
-1.5
+ 1.2
-0.3
+0.8
+0.2
-0.5
-1.4
+0.2
+2.0
-0.6
-10.4
-2.4
+ 1.4
+0.4
+ 1.2
-0.4
+0.2
-3.8
-11.6
-8.6
-0.9
+0.3
-0.9
-1.0
+ 1.2
-18.7
-1.8
-0.3
+0.6
-0.6
0
-1.5
+2.0
+0.3
-0.6
+ 1.4
+ 1.8
+0.2
-1.3
+0.1

0.1909
0.3086
0.1904
0.2237
0.1664
0.1918
0.1649
0.1671
0.1762
0.3908
0.1912
0.1665
0.1613
0.1715
0.1651
0.1517
0.1692
0.1572
0.1648
0.1679
0.1317
0.1341
0.1124
0.1564
0.1489
0.1563
0.1478
0.1229
0.1266
0.2021
0.1169
0.1383
0.1436
0.0994
0.1789
0.1801
0.1285
0.1065
0.1244
0.1156
0.1327
0.1267
0.1099
0.0976
0.1056
0.1296
0.1593
0.1162
0.1564
0.1110

-237
-89
-262
-105
+16
-172
-38
-359
-47
+499
-107
+91
-23
+69
+104
-32
-151
+14
+176
-62
-676
-144
+56
+39
+93
-46
+18
-226
-759
-874
-46
+27
-92
-43
+ 119
-1,097
-147
-28
-57
-40
+5.0
-118
+ 121
+16
-37
+166
+262
+17
-76
+9.0

--

4.1
-1.3

280
-85

14. Nikuradse, J.: "Stromungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren," VDIForschungsheft (1932) No. 361.

Appendlx-MultlplelJun Program
PRP "CSBHP"
01. LBL "CSBHP"
02 FIX 3
03 SF OS
04 "L=?"
05 PROMPT
06 STO 06
07 "GAS GV=?"
08 PROMPT
09 STO 15
10 STO 75
11 "DIA=?"

12 PROMPT
13 STO 08
14 "SIWHT=?"
15 PROMPT
16460
17+
18 STO 09
19 "FWHT=?"
20 PROMPT
21460
22 +
23 STO 81
24 "BHT=?"

25 PROMPT
26460
27 +
28 STO 10
29 "SITP=?"
30 PROMPT
31 STO 23
32 "FTP=?"
33 PROMPT
34 STO 83
35 "Q GAS=?"
36 PROMPT
37 STO 16

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

TABLE 6-FLOWING PRESSURES, GRADIENTS, AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR RAILROAD COMMISSION WELLS BY
AVERAGE T AND z AND PROPOSED METHODS
Calculated Pressures and Gradients
Measured Pressure
(psia)
Well
-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Top

2,783
4,867
2,206
4,335
2,300
7,325
806
6,070
6,562
1,140
4,117
5,100
4,090
3,595
4,672
3,590
5,765
5,335
6,505
7,082
1,397
2,907
2,769
6,042
7,538
5,091
4,931
2,820
4,565
1,700
2,429
6,330
6,125
2,655
7,325
2,400
5,523
1,695
6,830
5,342
7,305
5,067
3,175
2,256
1,920
9,438
6,970
3,550
865
6,368

Bottom

Gradient
(psialft)

5,247
8,473
4,320
6,441
4,101
10,090
1,771
8,175
8,607
4,311
5,771
6,667
5,889
5,000
6,360
4,835
8,373
6,771
8,311
9,457
2,371
4,210
3,820
7,544
9,591
7,242
6,253
4,089
5,567
3,977
3,033
8,221
8,397
3,420
9,524
4,208
7,148
2,207
8,581
6,588
8,836
6,440
4,571
2,785
2,603
11,890
10,006
4,350
1,587
8,697

0.1980
0.3050
0.1794
0.2455
0.1638
0.1876
0.0783
0.2059
0.1822
0.2706
0.1863
0.1590
0.1378
0.1241
0.1592
0.1407
0.1983
0.1390
0.1681
0.1835
0.0850
0.1197
0.1099
0.1506
0.1575
0.1597
0.1372
0.1150
0.1327
0.1899
0.0835
0.1623
0.1890
0.0942
0.1783
0.2356
0.1338
0.0498
0.1349
0.1167
0.1419
0.1331
0.1230
0.0578
0.0741
0.1564
0.1817
0.0724
0.0792
0.1085

--

BHP

Error
(%)

Gradient
(psialft)

Error
(psia)

4,740
6,905
3,782
5,622
3,422
9,919
1,361
7,712
8,532
1,924
5,318
6,494
5,607
4,734
5,966
4,574
8,032
6,717
8,294
9,150
1,967
3,974
3,670
7,488
9,436
6,819
6,205
4,180
5,464
2,284
2,948
8,120
7,655
3,373
9,000
2,899
7,115
2,239
8,382
6,535
8,748
6,376
4,169
2,745
2,306
11,782
8,539
4,329
1,083
8,636

-9.7
-18.5
-12.5
-12.7
-16.6
-1.7
-23.2
-5.7
-1.1
-55.4
-7.9
-2.6
-4.8
-5.3
-6.2
-5.4
-4.1
-0.8
-0.2
-3.3
-17.0
-5.6
-3.9
-0.7
-1.6
-5.8
-0.8
+2.2
-1.9
-42.6
-2.8
-1.2
-8.8
-1.4
-5.5
-31.1
-0.5
+ 1.5
-2.3
-0.8
-1.0
-1.0
-8.8
-1.4
-11.4
-0.9
-14.7
-0.5
-31.8
-0.7

0.1573
0.1724
0.1337
0.1500
0.1020
0.1760
0.0451
0.1606
0.1821
0.0669
0.1370
0.1414
0.1162
0.1006
0.1220
0.1112
0.1724
0.1338
0.1665
0.1598
0.0497
0.0981
0.0942
0.1450
0.1456
0.1283
0.1322
0.1233
0.1190
0.0487
0.0717
0.1536
0.1272
0.0883
0.1358
0.0650
0.1310
0.0529
0.1196
0.1117
0.1338
0.1269
0.0876
0.0534
0.0419
0.1495
0.0939
0.0706
0.0239
0.1057

-507
-1,568
-538
-819
-679
-171
-410
-463
-75
-2,387
-437
-173
-282
-266
-394
-261
-341
-54
-17
-307
-404
-236
-150
-56
-155
-423
-48
+91
-103
-1,693
-85
-101
-742
-47
-524
-1,309
-33
+32
-199
-53
-88
-64
-402
-40
-297
-108
-1,467
-21
-504
-61

--

13.9
-8.0

RMS error
Average error

38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

STO 98
"Q COND=?"
PROMPT
STO 60
X=O?
GTO 17
"API=?"
PROMPT
STO 61
"GOR=?"
PROMPT
STO 71

50+LBL 17
51 "Q WATER=?"
52 PROMPT
53 STO 70
54 "%N2=?"
55 PROMPT

Proposed

Average T and z

56 STO 26
57 "%C02=?"
58 PROMPT
59 STO 27
60 "%H2S=?"
61 PROMPT
62 STO 28
630
64 STO 85
65 STO 12
661
67 STO 84
68 RCL 60
69 RCL 70
70 +
710
72 X=Y?
73 GTO 12
74 XEQ 14

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

75
76
77
78

250000
X< >Y
X< =Y?
XEQ 13

79+LBL 12
8037.5
81 RCL 75
82 *
83 RCL 06
84 *
852
86/
87 STO 14
88 .0036
89 RCL 08
90/
91 LOG
922

BHP

Error
(%)

Gradient
(psialft)

Error
(psi a)

4,935
8,316
4,014
6,156
3,708
10,182
1,374
7,775
8,677
3,501
5,717
6,659
5,912
5,119
6,236
4,712
8,241
6,850
8,377
9,330
2,023
4,085
3,750
7,529
9,531
7,046
6,313
4,106
5,481
2,736
2,979
8,186
7,789
3,350
9,526
3,433
7,170
2,257
8,425
6,545
8,802
6,396
4,201
2,765
2,359
11,814
9,134
4,444
1,174
8,696

-6.0
-1.9
-7.1
-4.4
-9.6
+0.9
-22.4
-4.9
+0.8
-18.8
-0.9
-0.1
+0.4
+2.4
-2.0
-2.5
-1.6
+ 1.2
+0.8
-1.3
-14.7
-3.0
-1.8
-0.2
-0.6
-2.7
+ 1.0
+0.4
-1.6
-31.2
-1.8
-0.4
-7.2
-2.1
0
-18.4
+0.3
+2.3
-1.8
-0.7
-0.4
-0.7
-8.1
-0.7
-9.4
-0.6
-8.7
+2.2
-26.0
0

0.1729
0.2917
0.1534
0.2133
0.1280
0.1938
0.0461
0.1667
0.1916
0.2015
0.1801
0.1582
0.1396
0.1346
0.1474
0.1268
0.1883
0.1466
0.1742
0.1737
0.0546
0.1082
0.1026
0.1491
0.1529
0.1451
0.1435
0.1166
0.1213
0.1489
0.0760
0.1593
0.1384
0.0856
0.1785
0.1346
0.1356
0.0547
0.1229
0.1127
0.1388
0.1290
0.0904
0.0556
0.0476
0.1516
0.1295
0.0810
0.0339
0.1085

-312
-157
-306
-285
-393
+92
-397
-400
+70
-810
-54
-8.0
+23
+ 119
-124
-123
-132
+79
+66
-127
-348
-125
-70
-15
-60
-196
+60
+17
-86
-1,241
-54
-35
-608
-70
+2.0
-775
+22
+50
-156
-43
-34
-44
-370
-20
-244
-76
-872
+94
-413
-1.0

--

627
-389
93 *
94 1.74
95 X< >Y
96 971/X
98 Xf2
994
100 /
1012.6665
102 *
103 RCL 08
104 5
105 Ytx
106/
107 STO 77
108 XROM "CTcPc"
109 RCL 00
110 STO 17
III RCL 05

8.5
-4.3
112 STO 18
113 +LBL 28
114 RCL 09
115 RCL 10
116 +
1172
118/
119 STO 11
120 RCL 85
121 X=O?
122 GTO 10
123 RCL 77
124 RCL 16
125 1000
126/
127 Xt2
128 *
129 STO 12

329
-178
130+LBL 10
131 RCL 09
132 RCL 18
133/
134 STO 20
135 RCL 11
136 RCL 18
137/
138 STO 21
139 RCL 10
140 RCL 18
141/
142 STO 22
143 RCL 20
144 STO 41
145 RCL 09
146 STO 43
147 RCL 23
148 STO 44
653

fj

21

"]

this study

~.yg T & z

119

iOOevgT&z
~ method

method

.J----

~ this study

12

I
I

-2,

It:

It:
It:

It:

It:

I
-41

w
w

"a:

0::

w
UJ

4:

It:

> -oj
<{

91,

I
I

61

Ii

31

-8~

!
---,------FI11t1NC

SHtITtl

Fig. 6-Average percent error, Railroad Commission wells.

250

Fig. 8-Percent RMS error, Railroad Commission wells.

750

~ this study
iOOayg1

&
~m8thod

~ this study

iOO ovg T & z

I'll

o
a.

Ii
((

~ method

o
li5QQ
a.

Q ---- -t.\\\\:\m~

((
((

((

((
((

CJ
4:

Ul

((

l
(( 250

~ -250
~

-lIS

-~~-----.----------.-------

Fig. 7-Average absolute error, Railroad Commission wells.

149
150
151
152

STO 45
STO 46
0
STO 36

153.LBL 08
154 XEQ 03
155 RCL 46
156 RCL 45
157 158 ABS
159 1
160X<>Y
654

161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169

X<=Y?
GTO 04
RCL 45
STO 46
RCL 21
STO 41
RCL 11
STO 43
GTO 08

170.LBL 04
171 RCL 30
172 STO 51

173 STO 31
174 RCL 22
175 STO 41
176 RCL 10
177 STO 43
178 RCL 45
179 STO 44
180 RCL 30
1812
182 *
183 1/X
184 RCL 14
185 *

Fig. 9-Absolute RMS error, Railroad Commission wells.

186 RCL 45
187 +
188 STO 45
189 STO 46
190.LBL 07
191 XEQ 03
192 RCL 45
193 RCL 46
194 195 ABS
196 1
197X<>Y

198
199
200
201
202

X< =Y?
GTO 09
RCL 45
STO 46
GTO 07

203.LBL 09
204 RCL 30
205 RCL 51
2064
207 *
208 +
209 RCL 50

210 +
211 lIX
212 RCL 14
213 *
2146
215 *
216 RCL 23
217 +
218 "BHP="
219 ARCL X
220 AVIEW
221 STOP
222 RCL 85

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

223 1
224 +
225 STO 85
226 RCL 84
227 X=Y?
228 GTO 27
229 "FTP=?"
230 PROMPT
231 STO 23
232 "FWHT=?"
233 PROMPT
234460
235 +
236 STO 09
237 "Q GAS=?"
238 PROMPT
239 STO 16
240 RCL 98
241 I

242
243
244
245

STO 97
RCL 64
*
1000

246 I

247 RCL 16
248 +
249 STO 16
250 GTO 28
251+LBL 27
252 RCL 83
253 STO 23
254 RCL 81
255 STO 09
256 GTO 28
257 RTN
258 +LBL 14
259 RCL 16
260 1000
261 *
262 RCL 60

263 RCL 70
264 +
265 STO 67
266 I

267 STO 69
268 RTN
269+LBL 13
270 RCL 60
2710
272 STO 76
273 STO 64
274 STO 66
275 STO 73
276 X=Y?
277 GTO II
278 141.5
279 RCL 61
280 131.5
281 +
282 I

283 STO 62
2846084
285 RCL 61
2865.9
287 288 I

289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299

STO 73
l/X
133037.4
*
RCL 62
*
RCL 60
*
STO 64
RCL 60
RCL 67

304 STO 76
305 RCL 71
306 RCL 15
307 *
3084584
309 RCL 62
310 *
311 +
312 132800
313 RCL 62
314 *
315 RCL 73
316 I

317 RCL 71
318 +
319 l/X

320 *
321 STO 15
322 +LBL 11
323 RCL 70
324 X=O?
325 GTO 20
326 RCL 76
327 1
328 RCL 66
329 330 +
331 4591
332 *
333 RCL 69
334 I
335 RCL 75
336 +
337 1123
338 RCL 69
339 I
340 I

300 I

341

301 STO 66
302 RCL 62
303 *

342 I

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

343 STO 75
344 GTO 21

345 +LBL 20
346 RCL 15
347 STO 75
348 GTO 22
349 + LBL 21
350 RCL 15
351 X> Y?
352 STO 75
353 +LBL 22
354 RCL 16
355 RCL 64
3561000

365 RCL 41
366X<>Y
367 CZ
368 RCL 43
369 *
370 l/X
371 RCL 45
372 *
373 STO 29
374 Xt2
375 1000
376 I

377 RCL 12
378 +

388
389
390
391
392
393

X=Y?
GTO 05
RCL 30
RCL 31

+
GTO 06

394 + LBL 05
395 RCL 30
396 STO 31
397 STO 50
3982
399 *

357 I

379 l/X

4oo+LBL 06

358 +
359 STO 16
360 RTN

380 RCL 29
381 *
382 STO 30
383 RCL 36
384 1
385 +
386 STO 36
387 I

401 l/X

361+LBL 03
362 RCL 45
363 RCL 17
364 I

SI Metric Conversion Factors

API 14l.5/(131.5 + API)
E-Ol
bbl X l.589873
E-Ol
ft x 3.048*
ft3 x 2.831 685
E-02

OF CF-32)/1.8
in. x 2.54*
psi x 6.894757
seflbbl x l.801 175

Conversion factor is exact.

E+OO
E+OO
E-Ol

402 RCL 14
403*
404 RCL 44
405 +
406 STO 45
407 END

g/em 3

m3
m
m3
C
em
kPa
std m 3 /stoek-tank m 3

SPEPE

Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 5, 1986. Paper accepted for publication
Jan. 22, 1988. Revised manuscript received Feb. 29,1988. Paper (SPE 15655) first presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Oct. 5-8.

655