ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL TWO-PHASE FLOW

CALCULATIONS: CRUDE OIL - GAS FLOW IN WELL TUBING

G.A. GREGORY M. FOGARASI K. AZIZ

this article begins on the next page F

JCPT80-01-07 PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY Analysis of vertical two-phase How calculations: crude oil - gas flow in well tubing G.A. GREGORY, M. FOGARASI and K. AZIZ University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta ABSTRACT Pressure drops in oil-well tubing, cakulated by five well-known models are compared with actual field data covering a wide range of conditions. A detailed explanation is provide for the observed result that significantly higher accuracy is generally obtained when calculations are based on known bottom-hole conditions rather than known wellhead conditions. It is demonstrated that
greater accuracy may be obtained by using measured bubble-point data than by using calculated values. The results of this study suggest that either the Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi or the Orkiszewski model should generally be us- ed in Preference to other methods for calculating pressure drops in oil-well tubing. Introduction A reliable estimate of the pressure drop in well tubing is essen- tial for the solution of a number of important production engineering and reservoir analysis problems. For example, in- flow performance calculations require a knowledge of pressure drop in the
producing string as a function of flow rate. Many different models and correlations have appeared in the literature for this purpose. In addition, there are a number of correlations available for estimating the fluid properties re- K. Aziz Khalid Aziz is the manager of the Computer Modelling Group and Pro- fessor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Calgary. He holds a B.S.E. degree in mechanical engineer- ing from the University of Michigan' B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in petroleum engineering from Rice University. His research interest are multiphase flow in pipes and reservoir
simula- tion. He is the author or co-author of over eighty technical papers and three books. He has received several academic and professional awards, including the 1979 Cedric K. Ferguson award of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Keywords: Production technology, Flow calculations, Well tubing, Pressure drops, Bubble-point data. A paper presented at the 30th Annual Technical Meeting of The Petroleum Society of CIM. 86 quired for these calculations when experimental data are not available. _ In recent years, computer programs containing many of these models and fluid
property correlations have been developed and are readily available to the engineer. Unfor- tunately, however, the choice of the appropriate method for a particular problem is seldom obvious. Thus, some guidelines are required to help resolve the following questions: 1. Which multiphase flow calculation method is the most reliable for a given system? 2. What influence would errors in the estimation of fluid pro- perties have on the pressure-drop calculations? In this paper, we attempt to answer these two questions for typical oil wells, where gas-oil flow occurs over at least part
of the producing string. The resolution of the same two questions for gas-condensate wells requires a somewhat different treat- ment, and will be considered in a separate paper. Effect of Calculation Direction The total pressure drop over a differential length of the tubing may be separated into three components: APHH = PM g/gc AZ .............................. (1) The first term, APHH, iS the contribution to the total pressure change due to the hydrostatic-head effects. It is proportional to the density of the fluid mixture inside the pipe under flow- ing conditions (in-situ
density). The second term, APf, includes all frictional effects, and it is proportional, among other fac- tors, to the fluid velocity and viscosity. Finally, the third term, APKE, results from velocity changes (acceleration) caused by the expansion of the fluid with decreasing pressure. In oil wells, the fluid properties are such that the proper engineering design usually requires that the flow pattern be bubble or slug (see reference I for a description of various flow patterns). In some situations, the gas oil ratio (GOR) may be high enough to cause froth flow, but this situation is
more common in condensate wells. A direct consequence of this design criterion is that the pressure drop in oil wells is dominated by the hydrostatic head effects, and the other two terms on the right side of Equation (1) have only a minor effect on the calculations. Hence, it is essential that APH, be calculated accurately. The usual expression for APHH is APHH @ PM 9 Az....................................... (2) 9c where pm is the mixture density and Az the change in elevation. The in-situ mixture density may be written as pm = (I - EL) Pr, + EL
PL.................................. (3) The Journal of Canadian Petroleum