IN THE NAME OF GOD

Petroleum Production Engineering 1

Well Deliverability-Part 2
M.H.Ghazanfari
Effect of Changing Well Conditions
1. CHANGING WELLHEAD PRESSURE

Decreasing wellhead
pressure by increasing
choke opening will
usually shift the TPR
curve downward to a
lower intake pressure.
Consequently increasing
the rate of natural
flow.
Effect of Changing Well Conditions
composite effect of gas on total
2.CHANGING GAS/LIQUID RATIO: pressure loss in tubing

 Different effects on the two components of

pressure loss in tubing-friction and
hydrostatic
 Increasing GLR lightens the mixture density,
reduces the pressure loss due to hydrostatic
forces
 Larger quantities of gas will result in larger
pressure losses due to friction
 Increase in GLR tends to shift the TPR
upward and to the right so higher natural
flow
 Trend continues up to a certain GLR where
the trend is then reversed
 Natural flow decreases with additional
injection of gas once a critical GLR has
been reached
Effect of Changing Well Conditions

3. CHANGING TUBING DIAMETER

 Similar to the effect of GLR
 Increasing diameter increases the
rate of natural flow until a critical
diameter, due to change of
dominance in pressure loss from
friction to gravity and to holdup
forces that occur with increasing
diameter
 Natural flow is the primary
criterion used to choose tubing size.
Other criteria include price,
availability, mechanical
considerations, and future
production characteristics.
Effect of Changing Well Conditions
4. CHANGING INFLOW
PERFORMANCE
 Deteriorating inflow performance is the
natural result of reservoir depletion
 Average reservoir pressure decreases in
the absence of artificial pressure
maintenance or a strong natural water
drive
 Additional reductions may result from (1
) damage near the wellbore related to
drilling and completion operations, (2)
reduced drainage area due to infill
drilling. (3) reduced permeability due to
two-phase flow, compaction , or fines
migration, (4) increased viscosity due to
gas liberation from reservoir oil. (5)
transient effects usually associated
with low permeability formations
Nodal Analysis
Analysis with the Bottom-Hole Node:
 Is carried out by plotting the IPR and TPR curves and graphically
finding the solution at the intersection point of the two curves.
 The solution can be computed quickly without plotting the curves
using computer technologies.
Analysis with Wellhead Node:
 Is carried out by plotting the WPR(Wellhead performance
relationship) and CPR(Choke performance relationship) curves
and graphically finding the solution at the intersection point of
the two curves solution at the intersection point of the two curves.
 The solution can be computed quickly without plotting the curves
using computer technologies.
WPR Construction
 After establishing TPR, well head performance relation could be constructed
as follows: for different well head pressures natural flow must be obtained
from related TPR curve and then well head pressure vs. flow rate will be
WPR.

Wellhead performance relation A procedure for constructing the WPR

Constructing a WPR Curve-Example

 Alternative production plans for the Davis No.3 (TPR

Construction Example) require the estimate of
natural flow rate at three wellhead flowing
pressures: 200, 500 , and 800psia . Perform the
necessary calculations without determining tubing
performance curves for each wellhead pressure.
 Solution
 For a given rate, enter the gradient curve at the wellbore flowing pressure and
note the intersection with the GLR of 600 scf/STB. Moving vertically up the length of
the tubing (8000ft) and then horizontally until the same GLR curve is found. read
the flowing wellhead pressure from the x-axis. This procedure is repeated for
each rate and results are tabulated in table. A plot of wellhead flowing pressure
versus rate is given in figure. Entering wellhead pressures of 200, 500 and 800
psia we read the corresponding flow rates of 415, 325 and 245 STB/day.

qo(STB/day) pwf(psia) pwh(psia)

50 3880 1350
100 3708 1150
200 3263 950
400 1807 250
Computational View To Well Deliverability

 There are numerous correlations either empirical or

numerical to characterize flow behavior through different
parts of a production configuration.
 Correlations differ in involving details such as present
phases, compositional aspects ,facility characteristics etc.
 This correlations can be used in finding natural production
point directly or first generating gradient curves based on
them and then finding the point using traditional view.
 By case study using related spreadsheets a useful sensitivity
analysis can be performed to perceive the effect of
different parameters on flow behavior.
 Single Phase Oil Flow
𝑔 𝜌 2
2𝑓𝐹 𝜌𝑢2 𝐿
∆𝑃 = 𝑃1 − 𝑃2 = 𝜌∆𝑧 + ∆𝑢 +
𝑔𝑐 2𝑔𝑐 𝑔𝑐 𝐷
Where:
ΔP=pressure drop, lbf/ft2
g=gravitional acceleration, 32.17 ft/s2
gc=unit conversion factor, 32.17 lbm-ft/lbf-s2
ρ=fluid density, lbm/ft3
Δz=elevation increase, ft
u=fluid velocity, ft/s
fF=Fanning friction factor
L=tubing length, ft
D=tubing inner diameter, ft

 It happens if Pwh>Pb , which is usually not a reality since multiphase flow is dominant usually.
 A correlation based on law of conservation of energy is generated above.
Single Phase Oil Flow
 The friction factor depends on Reynolds number and relative roughness.
For Re<2000:
16
𝑓𝐹 =
𝑁𝑅𝑒
For Re>2000:
0.8981
1 𝜀 5.0452 𝜀 1.1098 7.149
= −4 × log − log
𝑓𝐹 3.7065 𝑁𝑅𝑒 2.8257 𝑁𝑅𝑒
Reynolds number defined as:
1.48𝑞𝜌
𝑁𝑅𝑒 =
𝑑𝜇
Where:
NRe=Reynolds number
q=fluid flow rate, bbl/day
ρ=fluid density, lbm/ft3
d=tubing inner diameter, in.
μ=fluid viscosity, cp
Darcy–Wiesbach friction factor diagram
Multiphase Flow in Oil Wells
 Almost all oil wells produce a certain amount of water,
gas, and sometimes sand.
 The TPR equation for single phase flow is not valid for
multiphase oil wells.
 Multiphase flow is much more complicated than single
phase flow because of the variation of flow regime (or
flow pattern).
 TPR models for multiphase flow wells fall into two
categories:
1-Homogeneous flow models
2-Separated flow models
Single Phase Oil Flow-Example
 Suppose that 1,000 bbl/day of 40 ̊API, 1.2 cp oil is being
produced through 2 7⁄8 -in.,8.6-lbm/ft tubing in a well that is 15
degrees from vertical. If the tubing wall relative roughness is
0.001,calculate the pressure drop over 1,000 ft of tubing.
Multiphase Flow Models
 Homogeneous models treat multiphase as a homogeneous mixture and do
not consider the effects of liquid holdup (no-slip assumption). Therefore,
these models are less accurate .The major advantage of these models
comes from their mechanistic nature. They can handle gas-oil water and
gas-oil-water-sand four-phase systems. It is easy to code these mechanistic
models in computer programs.
 Separated-flow models are more realistic than the homogeneous-flow
models. They are usually given in the form of empirical correlations. The
effects of liquid holdup (slip) and flow regime are considered. The major
disadvantage of the separated flow models is that it is difficult to code
them The major disadvantage of the separated flow models is that it is
difficult to code them in computer programs because most correlations are
presented in graphic form
 In multiphase flow, due to density difference between phases the areal
ratio of a phase is often different from its proportion of the total
volumetric flow rate. The density difference causes the lighter phase moves
faster than the denser phase (dense phase to slip down in an upward flow)
Gas-Oil-Water-Sand Flow Model
Guo and Ghalambor(2005)
Gas-Oil-Water-Sand Flow Model
Guo and Ghalambor(2005)
Four Phase Problem Using Spreadsheet-Example

 For the following data estimate bottom-hole pressure.

Single Phase Gas Flow
 The first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) governs gas flow in
tubing. The effect of kinetic energy change is negligible because the variation
in tubing diameter is insignificant in most gas wells. With no shaft work device
installed along the tubing string, the first law of thermodynamics yields the
following mechanical balance equation:

 Substituting

 Result in:
Single-Phase Gas Flow
Average T and Z Method

 Using average values of T and Z over the entire tubing

length can be assumed

 Separating of the variables and integrating over the full

length of tubing yields( in field units):

 The average Z is a function of pressure itself, so a numerical

technique such as newton-raphson iteration is required to
solve the equation for pwf .
Single-Phase Gas Flow
Average T and Z Method

 For fully turbulent flow, which is the case for most

gas wells, a simple empirical relation may be used
for calculating friction factor in typical tubing
strings.

 For fully turbulent flow in rough pipes:

Average T and Z Method-Example

 Suppose that a vertical well produces 2 MMscf/day

of 0.71 gas-specific gravity gas through a 2 7⁄8 in.
Tubing set to the top of a gas reservoir at a depth
of 10,000 ft. At tubing head, the pressure is 800
psia and the temperature is 150 ̊F; the bottom-hole
temperature is 200 ̊F. The relative roughness of
tubing is about 0.0006. Calculate the pressure
profile along the tubing length and plot the results.
Average T and Z Method-Solution

 Calculation procedure:
Assume a BHFP, a good initial guess is:
𝑝𝑡𝑓 𝐿 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
𝑝𝑤𝑓 ≈ 𝑝𝑡𝑓 + 0.25
100 100
Compute average p and T
Calculate average Z and gas vis. using average p and T
Calculate Reynolds number and then the friction factor
Calculate pwf, iterate on step 2 through 5 until pwf
converge
Solution
With Related Spreadsheet
Solution
Pressure Gradient(profile)
Single Phase Gas Flow
Cullender and Smith Method

 Makes no simplifying assumption for the variation of T and Z in the wellbore. To

achieve the accuracy the wellbore is divided into two or more segment.
 The basic gas flow equation can be numerically solved.

 By some rearrangement one can get,

 Integrating,
Single Phase Gas Flow
Cullender and Smith Method

 In U.S. field qmsc in MMscf/day, so the equation has the form:

 If the integrant is denoted with symbol I that is:

 In the form of numerical integration, one can write:

 Where the pmf is the pressure at the mid-depth. The Ihf , Imf and Iwf
are integrant Is evaluated at phf , pmf and pwf respectively.
Single Phase Gas Flow
Cullender and Smith Method

 The first and second terms in the right-hand side are:

 The following equation can be obtained:

(a)

(b)

 Because Imf is a function of pmf itself, a numerical technique such as

newton-raphson iteration is required to solve the equation (a) for pmf .
once pmf is computed, pwf can be solved numerically from the equation
(b).
Cullender and Smith Method-Example

 Suppose that a vertical well produces 2 MMscf/day

of 0.71 gas-specific gravity gas through a 27⁄8 in.
tubing set to the top of a gas reservoir at a depth
of 10,000 ft. At tubing head, the pressure is 800
psia and the temperature is 150 ̊F; the bottom-hole
temperature is 200 ̊F. The relative roughness of
tubing is about 0.0006. Calculate the pressure
profile along the tubing length and plot the results.
Cullender and Smith Method-Solution

 Calculation procedure:
Calculate the right-hand side of integral Equation
Calculate the gas vis. at flowing wellhead pressure
Calculate Reynolds number and then the friction factor
Evaluate the integral I at the wellhead p and T, call Ihf

Compute the midpoint pressure of the production string

For the initial estimate assume Ihf=Imf

Then iterate with new value of Imp for each new estimate of pmp
Stop when pmp converge
Cullender and Smith Method-Solution
Compute the bottom-hole flowing pressure, pwf

For the initial estimate assume Iwf = Imf

Then iterate with new value of Imf for each new estimate of pwf
Stop when pwf converge
Use the Simpson’s rule to obtain a more accurate value of pwf
6𝛼
𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 𝑝𝑡𝑓 + 𝛼 = 0.01875𝛾𝑔 𝐿
𝐼𝑡𝑓 + 4𝐼𝑚𝑝 + 𝐼𝑤𝑓
Cullender and Smith Method Using Spreadsheet-Solution

The pressures at depth of 5,000 ft and 10,000 ft are 937 psia and
1,082 psia, respectively. These results are exactly the same as that
given by the average T and Z method.
References and further studying

 Well performance,2nd edition: Michael

Golan/Curtis H. Whitson
 Petroleum Production Engineering, A

computer-Assisted Approach: Boyun

Guo/William C. Lyons/Ali Ghalambor