Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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).
( " #)
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
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)
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
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
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.
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
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