Advanced Production Engineering - PTPR 465

Course Module
Advanced Production Engineering PTPR 465
Introduction to
System NODAL
Analysis
PTPR 6093
Module 1
Revised: September 2007
MacPhail School of Energy
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Introduction to System NODAL

Analysis
Rationale
Why is it important for you to learn this material?
Production Systems NODAL Analysis is a key analytical technique applied to
hydrocarbon production systems. It provides an accurate quantitative
understanding of the interrelationships among all the components of the
hydrocarbon production system. It allows for the isolation of any single
component or groups of components for detailed analysis of the effect of possible
changes to increase production rate from the well. It can be used to optimize
production from existing wells or to plan critical components of production
systems for new wells.
Learning Outcome
When you complete this module you will be able to .
Understand the concept of System NODAL Analysis for production optimization
and how it is used to determine the inter-relationships between system
components and the production rate from a hydrocarbon system.
Learning Objectives
Here is what you will be able to do when you complete each objective.
1. Understand the concept of System NODAL Analysis and how it is used to
optimize production from oil and gas wells.
2. Identify the various components that affect pressure drop, and hence
production, from the reservoir to the stock tank, pipeline or gas plant.
3. Learn how to pick critical nodes for analysis that most affect production rates
and which types of calculations and correlations are appropriate.
1
PTPR 6093
OBJECTIVE ONE
When you complete this objective you will be able to
Understand the concept of System NODAL Analysis and how it is used to
optimize production from oil and gas wells.
Learning Activity
Complete each of the Learning Activities listed below.
1. Read and study the learning material in this objective.
2. Do the exercise provided.
3. Do the assignment provided.
4. Research outside sources (that is, the Internet, library materials, reference
texts, and so on) for additional information.
Learning Material
CONCEPT OF SYSTEM NODAL ANALYSIS
NODAL analysis is a technique used to analyze the components of the
hydrocarbon production system and to determine the production rate the system
can deliver to the sales or custody meter. It is an effective way to analyze an
existing well and recommend changes to optimize production or to plan for new
wells.
The hydrocarbon production system starts at the reservoir and ends at the sales
point, sales line, stock tank or custody meter (Figure 1).
2
PTPR 6093
Figure 1
Simple Production System
(Courtesy of Schlumberger)
Each component of the production system between the reservoir and the sales
point contributes its own characteristic loss of available pressure (Figure 2) and
has its own unique response to any change in flow variables in terms of the
resulting pressure loss. This unique response of each component is described by
different flow equations or correlations.
The hydrocarbon production system is composed of interacting components. In
other words, the pressure for each component depends on the pressure
immediately adjacent to it either on the upstream side in the inflow system or on
the downstream side in the outflow system.
3
PTPR 6093
Figure 2
Location of Various Nodes
NODAL analysis is done at a division point, called a node, in the production

system (Figure 2).
A solution node is selected depending on which component or segment of the
production system it is desired to evaluate.
If a solution node is selected between the two ends of the production system, the
solution node pressure is calculated from both directions starting at the known,
fixed end-point pressures. The pressure changes from the starting point of the
production system are evaluated and their response curves are added together
until the solution node is reached on the inflow side and an inflow relationship is
constructed. Similarly, the pressure changes from the end point are evaluated until
the solution node is reached from the other side and the response curves for each
component or segment are added together to form an outflow relationship at the
solution node. The intersection of the inflow and outflow response curves at the
solution node represents the system operating point which is the solution to the
analysis of the total production system.
It is not necessary to re-calculate the inflow system curve if changes are made
only in the outflow system curve to investigate their effect on total system flow
rate. Likewise, it is not necessary to recalculate the outflow system curve if
changes are made in the inflow system to investigate their effect on total system
flow rate.
4
PTPR 6093
A node is described as a functional node if a pressure differential exists across it

and the pressure or flow rate response can be described by a flow equation or
correlation. Lab, manufacturer or field-based measurements can also sometimes
be a source of pressure and flow data for functional nodes or components. An
example of a functional node is a surface choke.
In the hydrocarbon production system there are two pressures which are not a
function of changes in flow rate over the short term. One is average reservoir
pressure at one end of the production system and the other is the separator or sales
line or stock tank pressure at the other end of the system. While average reservoir
pressure can change over time, it normally doesnt change significantly over the
short-term. Any production systems that discharge to atmospheric tanks obviously
operate at constant end pressure. Any production systems that discharge into
pipelines normally do not affect the pipeline pressure with relatively small
changes in flow rates. However, large changes in flow rates can sometimes
change pressures in production systems that discharge into pipelines although the
changes tend to be small. Regardless, any solution to the total production system
analysis must be started from one or both of the known, and assumed constant,
conditions at either end of the production system.
If a solution node is picked at either end of the production system then all the
pressure losses (or gains) from the other end are evaluated and summed up for
each component or node until the solution node is reached.
5
PTPR 6093
OBJECTIVE TWO
Identify the various components that affect pressure drop, and hence production,
from the reservoir to the stock tank, pipeline or gas plant.
Learning Material
PRODUCTION SYSTEM COMPONENTS
A diagram of the production system for a flowing well and some common nodes
are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Common Nodes for a Simple Production System
6
PTPR 6093
A partial list of applications that can be analyzed utilizing production system

NODAL analysis techniques includes:
Maximizing rate in competitive reservoirs
Stimulation evaluation
Gravel pack design
Perforation density
Artificial lift design
Abnormal flow restrictions
Tubing size
Subsurface safety valve design
Choke size
Flow line size and length
Compression evaluation
Figure 4 illustrates the pressure differentials in some of the above listed

components of the production system.
Figure 4
Possible Pressure Losses in Production System
Courtesy of Schlumberger
7
PTPR 6093
Each pressure loss indicated in Figure 4 corresponds to a different component of

the production system. Each component generally requires a unique way of
calculating its pressure loss. For example, the tubing pressure loss often must be
calculated using multi-phase flow correlations that differ from correlations used
for multi-phase flow in horizontal flow lines. Furthermore, there are often several
correlations available that have been developed by different authors to cover one
component of a production system or one range of flow rates or one type of fluid
or one range of pressures better than others. Thus, care must be taken to use the
appropriate correlation to calculate pressure loss that is best matched to the
specific conditions of the production system under evaluation.
Subsequent modules in this course will provide more information on the
applicability of various correlations for multi-phase flow which is the most
common complication in production system analysis.
8
PTPR 6093
OBJECTIVE THREE
Learn how to pick critical nodes for analysis that most affect production rates and
which types of calculations and correlations are appropriate
Learning Material
CRITICAL NODE SOLUTIONS
Nodes are selected to provide information on the performance of specific system
components and to determine whether there is a benefit to changing operating
parameters or if there is an economic opportunity to modify a system component.
Figure 5 shows example intake and outflow curves at Node 3 which is the well
head. The intake curve is the response curve for all the system components
upstream of the well head and includes the reservoir, the perforations, any
restrictions in the tubing, the well bore tubing itself and any surface choke. The
outflow curve is the response curve for the surface flow line and the separator.
The intersection of the intake and outflow curves will be the system operating
point. The system operating point is dictated by the pressures at either end of the
system and the pressure loss characteristics of every component on each side of
the solution node as summed in the respective intake or outflow curves.
Figure 5
Solution to Production System at Node 3
9
PTPR 6093
Figure 5 indicates that if the horizontal system performance curve can be flattened
and/or lowered then the production from the well should increase. The
intersection point of the intake and outflow curves will move to the right thereby
indicating a higher production rate.
Cleaning any restrictions out of the flow line by pigging it will reduce the
pressure loss in the flow line thereby flattening the outflow curve which results in
increased production. Replacing the flow line with a larger diameter flow line,
twinning the flow line, making it shorter or reducing the end point pressure will
also flatten the outflow curve and result in increased production.
Figure 6 shows an example of the effect on well production of the flattening of
the surface flow line curve as a result of an increase in its diameter from 2-inch to
3-inch.
Figure 6
Effect of Change in Flow Line Diameter at Node 3
The procedure for picking a critical node for analysis involves selecting the node
that provides the most useful information about the effect of a change in system
pressure on flow rate. If it is desired to evaluate the benefits of a change to a
surface flow line or a change in separator pressure compared to a change in well
tubing to a larger diameter or to install artificial lift, then a node at the well head
is the appropriate choice. This is because a node at the well head isolates the flow
line from the rest of the production system so that the effect of changes in the
horizontal flow line or the vertical tubing becomes obvious.
10
PTPR 6093
On the other hand if surface equipment can not be easily changed and well head
pressure is fixed, then an appropriate critical node may be at Node 6 (Figure 3)
which is the bottom hole node. Information about the outflow curve at Node 6
provides information about the tubing and tubing attachment performance in
addition to the IPR (Inflow Performance Relationship), or well inflow
performance curve, which represents the inflow curve to Node 6. In this case the
effect of a larger (or smaller) tubing string diameter on the system intake
performance (outflow curve at Node 6) or the effect of improved completion
efficiency on the IPR curve (inflow curve at Node 6) can be evaluated for effect
on pressures and production rate.
Figure 7
Production System Analysis at Node 3
In Figure 7, if well head pressure is fixed, then the system intake performance
curve (outflow curve) represents the performance of the completion and the
tubing and all its attachments. If well head pressure is not fixed, then the system
intake performance curve (outflow curve) is for the whole production system as
indicated.
If well head pressure is fixed, increasing tubing diameter or removing tubing
restrictions will lower tubing intake pressure by reducing friction losses and
flatten the intake performance curve (outflow curve) resulting in increased inflow
from the reservoir.
11
PTPR 6093
Similarly, if the Inflow Performance Relationship can be improved through

stimulation or better perforation techniques, the IPR curve will be lifted and/or
flattened and its intersection with the system intake performance curve will shift
right indicating an increase in production rate for the production system.
FUNCTIONAL NODE SOLUTIONS
When a functional node such as a surface choke is selected as the solution node,
then the node itself creates a pressure drop that is a function of pressure and/or
flow rate.
Where a functional node is selected as a solution node, the intake and outflow
curves are determined as normal for the case where the solution node is not a
functional node.
The pressure differential, or loss, across the functional node, in this case a surface
choke, is then determined for various choke settings which govern the flow rate
through the choke. The pressure loss is then plotted between the intake and
outflow curves as shown in Figure 8 and the flow rate for each differential
pressure is noted. Then a single curve of choke pressure loss versus flow rate,
Figure 9, represents the total production system performance curve for a choked
well.
Using data for the specific choke, choke pressure loss can be related to bean size
which is the orifice size of the choke.
Figure 8
Surface Choke Evaluation
12
PTPR 6093
Figure 9
Total System Performance Curve for Surface Choke
The remaining modules for this course will detail the procedures and calculations
to determine the flow rate and pressure drops of the various components of the
hydrocarbon production system.
13
PTPR 6093
Exercise One
1. A production system for a flowing oil well has the following conditions:
Psep, 100 psi
Flowline, 2-in. dia., 3000 ft long
Water-oil ratio, 0
Perforation depth, 5000 ft
Gas-oil ratio = 400, scf/bbl
Tubing size, 2 in
Pr, 2200 psi
IPR (productivity index assumed constant) = 1.0/bopd/psi
a) Using the following table (from Reference 1) of flow rates and pressure
losses calculated for you, and using node 8 as the solution node with
reference to Figure 3, determine the flow rate of this production system at
the given reservoir pressure.
Table 1
b) Determine the flow rate of this production system at a reservoir pressure

of 1500 psi.
Use the following procedure:
i. Select flow rates to construct the outflow system curve (system intake
performance curve) at node 8. This example assumes 200, 400, 600,
800, 1000 and 1500 bopd.
ii. For each rate, starting at Psep = 100 psi, calculate and add all the
pressure losses until reaching node 8 (this is done for you in this
example).
iii. Calculate and plot the resulting total system pressure loss in the
outflow system versus flow rate data as the system performance curve
(outflow curve at node 8).
iv. Plot the reservoir pressure (being constant, it will be a horizontal line)
on the system performance curve.
v. Read the intersection of the two curves to determine the predicted flow
rate and flowing bottom hole pressure.
vi. Repeat step iv. for a reservoir pressure of 1500 psi.
14
PTPR 6093
Exercise One Solutions

Adding up the total system pressure losses completes the table as follows:
Plotting the system outflow curve and reservoir pressure gives an intersection at
900 bopd for the system operating point if average reservoir pressure is 2200 psi
and 700 bopd if average reservoir pressure is 1800 psi.
Selecting the solution node at the reservoir allows evaluation of the effect of a
decline in average reservoir pressure on this production system.
15
PTPR 6093
Module Self-Test
1. NODAL analysis is:
a. a technique used to analyze the components of the hydrocarbon production
system
b. an effective way to analyze an existing well and recommend changes to
optimize production
c. used to determine the production rate the system can deliver to the sales or
custody meter
d. all of the above
2. A node is described as a functional node if
a.
b.
c.
d.
it interacts with other components of the production system

the pressure loss is constant as the flow rate varies
the flow rate is constant as the pressure loss varies
a pressure differential exists across it that can be calculated by some
means
3. Each node in a production system except for the end nodes

a. has different flow equations or correlations to describe the pressure loss
through each node
b. contributes the same pressure loss to the system
c. divides the production system into groups of upstream and downstream
components
d. all of the above
4. A solution node can be described as
a.
b.
c.
d.
a node selected at one end of the production system

a division of the hydrocarbon production system
the point where the inflow and outflow response curves intersect
all of the above
5. The inflow response curve is

a. the sum of the pressure responses on the outflow side of a bottom hole
node
b. the sum of the pressure responses of all the components on the inflow side
of the functional node
c. the sum of the pressure responses of all the components on the inflow side
of the solution node
d. none of the above
16
PTPR 6093
6. The outflow response curve is

a. the sum of the pressure responses on the inflow side of the sales point or
custody meter/shipping tank
b. the sum of the pressure responses of all the components on the outflow
side of the solution node
c. the sum of the pressure responses of all the components on the outflow
side of a functional node
d. all of the above
7. The intersection of the inflow and outflow response curves at a solution node
represents
a. the operating point of the production system for the given end conditions
b. the solution to the analysis of the total production system
c. the flow rate the production system will produce at for the given end
conditions
d. all of the above
8. When using a functional node as a solution node to analyze a production
system,
a. the pressure losses and component responses on either side of the
functional node are evaluated as normal
b. the intersection of the intake and outflow curves provides the system
operating point only if the choke is wide open
c. the intersection of the intake and outflow curves must be modified by the
pressure loss through the functional node
d. all of the above
9. The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)
a. is the well inflow performance curve
b. represents the inflow curve to a node at the bottom hole
c. describes the variation in production rate with bottom hole pressure
d. all of the above
10. The most common complication affecting production system analysis is
a.
b.
c.
d.
selecting one end of the production system as the solution node

selecting a functional node as a solution node
selecting the appropriate multi-phase flow correlation
determining the intersection of the inflow and outflow curves
17
PTPR 6093
Module Self-Test Answers

1. d
2. d
3. c
4. d
5. c
6. b
7. d
8. d
9. d
10. c
18
PTPR 6093
Assignment
1. What tools are available to determine the pressure differential across a
functional node?
2. Which pressures in the production system are not functions of flow rate?
3. List all the components of a typical hydrocarbon production system.
19
PTPR 6093
References
1. Brown, K.E., Mach, J. and Proano, E., A NODAL Approach for Applying
Systems Analysis to the Flowing and Artificial Lift Oil or Gas Well, JohnsonMacco/Schlumberger training material, undated.
2. Brown, K.E., Mach, J. and Proano, E., Systems Analysis as Applied to
Producing Wells, Congreso Pan Americano de Ingenieria del Petroleo,
Mexico City, Mexico, March 19-23, 1979.
20
PTPR 6093
Appendix
Table 2
Conversion Factor Table
21
PTPR 6093
Course Module
SAITs vision is sharply focused to be

recognized as Canadas premier polytechnic, one
of the worlds finest, setting the standard in
education, training and innovation.
SAIT shall be an innovative organization

equipping people to compete successfully in the
changing world of work by providing relevant,
skill-oriented education.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED:

This material may not be reproduced in whole or part
without written permission from the Director,
Centre for Instructional Technology and Development.
Southern Alberta Institute of Technology,
1301 16 Ave. N.W. Calgary AB T2M 0L4
Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Liquid Deliverability
(Inflow Performance
Relationship or IPR)
PTPR 6094
Module 2
Revised: October 2007
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Liquid Deliverability (Inflow

Performance Relationship or IPR)
Rationale
One of the most common questions addressed by those involved in hydrocarbon
production is What rate will the well produce at? This module will provide you
with the basic tools, techniques and terminology and the understanding to enable
you to find an answer to that question. This module will focus on liquid (oil)
deliverability of producing wells with reservoir pressures either above or below
the bubble point and for wells that are either damaged or stimulated.
Learning Outcome
Calculate the relationship between the liquid (or oil) flow rate from the reservoir
to the well and the pressure drop between the reservoir and the bottom of the well.
Learning Objectives
1. Calculate and use the Productivity Index (PI) for pressures above the bubble
point.
2. Calculate and use the Vogel Liquid IPR equation for zero skin (and pressures
below the bubble point) and link it with the Productivity Index.
3. Calculate and use the Vogel/Standing Liquid IPR equations for near well bore
damage or stimulation (non-zero skin).
4. Calculate and use the Vogel/Standing Liquid IPR equations for reservoir
pressures above and below the bubble point.
1
PTPR 6094
OBJECTIVE ONE
Calculate and use the Productivity Index (PI) for pressures above the bubble
point.
Learning Activity
Learning Material
TYPES OF RESERVOIR DRIVE MECHANISMS
Before we discuss and learn to use the Productivity Index (PI) and then the Inflow
Performance Relationship (IPR) for oil wells, some background on the basic types
of reservoir drive mechanisms is required. This background will assist in
understanding the derivation, nature and applicability of the Productivity Index
and Inflow Performance Relationship equations and curves.
The three main naturally occurring types of oil reservoir drives are solution gas
drive, water drive and gas cap drive.
Solution Gas Drive
Solution gas drive is also referred to as depletion drive, volumetric performance
or internal drive. In a solution gas drive reservoir, the reservoir pressure is below
the bubble point of the reservoir liquid, either at discovery or as a result of
subsequent pressure depletion by production. Pressure depletion below the bubble
point causes the liberation and expansion of gas that was in solution in the oil.
The liberated gas takes the form of tiny bubbles in the oil phase which expand
under pressure depletion, thereby mobilizing the oil. This provides the main
internal drive to mobilize the oil in solution gas reservoirs that are below the
bubble point.
2
PTPR 6094
The expression bubble point pressure originates from tests of reservoir fluid
samples. The pressure of a reservoir fluid that has the same composition as the insitu reservoir fluid is slowly reduced while maintaining the sample at reservoir
temperature. The observed pressure when the first bubbles appear within the
reservoir fluid sample is the bubble point pressure for that fluid sample.
Continued production from a solution gas drive reservoir eventually causes an
increase in the gas phase within the reservoir sufficient to reduce the permeability
to oil significantly.
Furthermore, solution gas drive reservoirs are subject to relatively rapid pressure
decline when enough solution gas has been liberated and produced. This has the
effect of depleting the energy of the solution gas drive mechanism of the
reservoir.
Water Drive
In a water drive reservoir, sometimes referred to as water encroachment or
hydraulic control or active aquifer, there is at least some degree of pressure
support as the oil and gas are withdrawn. This is due to encroachment by a mobile
water leg, or aquifer, which underlies, and is in contact with, the oil leg. In many
cases, the water leg is so mobile, or active, that it completely replaces any liquid
or gas volumes produced from the reservoir. In such cases, the 100% pressure
support provided by the underlying aquifer maintains the reservoir at its original
pressure and its production at original rates.
Gas Cap Drive
In gas cap expansion drive reservoirs, also called gravity drainage or segregation
drive, the expansion of an overlying gas zone provides the energy to help
maintain production. In high permeability gas cap drive reservoirs, gas liberated
from the oil as a result of pressure depletion can move into the gas cap to further
help maintain reservoir pressure and production rates. The larger the size of the
gas cap in relation to the oil leg and the higher the vertical permeability, the
greater the pressure support provided by the gas cap. Oil recovery from gas cap
expansion drive reservoirs tends to be intermediate between solution gas drive
and water drive reservoirs.
Note that some reservoirs called, surprisingly, combination drive reservoirs, can
have one or more of the above natural drive mechanisms operating at the same
time.
3
PTPR 6094
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX
The inflow performance of a well is the ability of the reservoir to give up fluids
through a specific well bore.
In the simplest case, a plot of bottom hole producing pressure versus flow rate is a
straight line (Figure 1). This is the ideal case for a water drive reservoir with
100% pressure support or for an oil reservoir above its bubble point.
A plot of bottom hole producing pressure versus flow rate will curve downward
(Figure 1) for solution gas drive reservoirs below the bubble point.
Figure 1
Sample Inflow Performance Curves
The Productivity Index, denoted as J, is a commonly used measure of a wells

ability to produce. It is defined as the production rate divided by the pressure
drawdown at the mid-point of the producing interval.
Productivity Index, J =
q
m3 /d/kPa
(pe - p w )
4
PTPR 6094
For oil wells producing little water, the productivity index is usually calculated
using only the oil rate.
For some wells such as those in water drive reservoirs with strong aquifer support
or those with sufficient pressure support from injection to maintain reservoir
pressure, the productivity index remains constant over a wide range of pressure
drawdowns. For wells in solution gas drive reservoirs above the bubble point, the
productivity index remains constant above the bubble point
With reference to Figure 1, the example water drive reservoir IPR curve is straight
and therefore has a constant slope. That slope is the Productivity Index (PI) which
is constant for the sample well in a water drive reservoir.
For other wells, such as those in solution gas drive reservoirs below the bubble
point, the IPR curve is exactly that (Figure 1) and the PI is no longer constant as
pressure drawdown and flow rate increase.
When a wells IPR is curved, the wells PI is defined by the slope of a tangent to
the curve at a point corresponding to the bottom hole pressure. Obviously, with
reference to the sample curve for a solution gas drive reservoir in Figure 1, the PI
of a well in a solution gas drive reservoir continues to decrease with increasing
drawdown and production rate.
Reservoir pressure declines with time in many reservoirs and a wells PI will also
therefore decline with time. Water drive reservoirs with 100% aquifer pressure
support or reservoirs with 100% pressure support from water injection will have
constant reservoir pressure and have well PIs that do not decline with time.
In solution gas drive reservoirs, the PI of all the wells decreases over time due to
an increase in oil viscosity as a result of the reduction in reservoir pressure. As
gas in solution; that is, the light ends; is released out of the oil and into the
reservoir, the viscosity of the remaining oil increases. This causes oil productivity,
and hence the PI, to decrease. Not all of the liberated gas is produced out of the
reservoir. Some of it remains in the reservoir and causes the formation of a gas
phase. The PI of all the wells will therefore also decrease over time as increased
gas saturation in the reservoir decreases the permeability of the reservoir rock to
oil.
Finally, with reference to Figure 1, note that if the producing bottom hole pressure
is maintained close to zero, then the maximum available drawdown is being used
and the maximum rate is obtained. The well is then considered pumped-off.
Similar to the Productivity Index, an Injectivity Index can be defined as follows
for injection wells:
Injectivity Index, I =
PTPR 6094
q
m3 /d/kPa
(p w - pe )
Obviously, for injection wells, the Injectivity Index requires the difference
between bottom hole injection pressure and reservoir pressure to be used in the
denominator. The Injectivity Index applies to injection wells used in pressure
maintenance schemes or in secondary recovery (for example, waterfloods) as well
as to salt water disposal wells.
Exercise One
1. A well was tested with the following results:
Reservoir pressure, 9500 kPa
Bottom hole producing pressure, 5200 kPa
Oil rate, 15 m3/d
Water rate, 59 m3/d
Assuming a reservoir with strong aquifer support (the ideal case of a constant
PI), calculate the PI for this well.
2. Using the calculated PI, what is the expected total rate of this well, assuming a
constant PI, if bottom hole pressure can be reduced to 2200 kPa with
improved artificial lift?
6
PTPR 6094
OBJECTIVE TWO
Calculate and use the Vogel Liquid IPR equation for zero skin (and pressures
below the bubble point) and link it with the Productivity Index.
Learning Material
VOGELS LIQUID IPR EQUATION
Vogel published a method in 1968 (Reference 1) to determine the inflow

performance relationship (IPR) curve for a well producing by solution gas drive
below the bubble point. He assumed radial, uniform, two-phase flow of oil and
gas with constant water saturation and no gravity segregation. He also assumed a
skin factor of zero. His work resulted in a reference curve which allows
construction of an IPR curve from only one test on a well.
The equation of Vogels curve is;
qo
q o,max
p
p
= 1 - 0.20 wf - 0.80 wf
pR
pR
For comparison, the inflow performance curve for a constant IPR (straight line)
is;
qo
q o,max
p
= 1 - wf
pR
7
PTPR 6094
Vogels reference curve is shown in Figure 2.
V OGEL'S IPR FOR S OLU T ION -GAS D R IV E R E SE R V OIR S

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
.
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
D IME N SION LES S R AT E (q/ q m a x ), Fra ction of Ma ximum
Figure 2
Vogels Inflow Performance Relationship for Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs
In his original work, Vogel also showed there was a progressive deterioration in
the IPRs for a solution gas drive reservoir as depletion proceeds (Figure 3).
Note the rapid deterioration in productivity indicated by the low recovery factors
(ultimate recovery factor of only 14%) shown in Figure 3 for the example well in
a solution gas drive reservoir. This type of performance is all too typical for
solution gas drive reservoirs.
8
PTPR 6094
Figure 3
Calculated IPRs for a Solution gas Drive Reservoir
Journal of Petroleum Tech. This material has been copied under license from Access
Copyright. Resale or further copying of this material is strictly prohibited.
Vogels reference IPR curve is strictly valid only for solution gas drive reservoirs
producing below the bubble point of the reservoir fluid. Because it was
constructed by computer modeling of a variety of solution gas reservoirs with
different fluid and rock properties, expect a little error when applying it to a
specific reservoir.
That said, Vogels reference IPR has been applied to solution gas reservoirs
producing water with reasonable accuracy - provided water cuts are less than
50%.
Note that when evaluating artificial lift systems, which are typically necessary in
wells producing significant amounts of water with the oil, the productivity index
is calculated using total liquid rate (oil + water).
9
PTPR 6094
Exercise Two
1. A well was tested with the following results
Reservoir pressure, 9500 kPa
Reservoir fluid bubble point, 9500 kPa
Bottom hole producing pressure, 5200 kPa
Oil rate, 74 m3/d
Assuming a solution gas drive reservoir with no aquifer support or gas cap;
(a) Determine the maximum oil rate for this well using Vogels IPR reference
curve for solution gas drive reservoirs.
(b) Calculate the maximum oil rate for this well using Vogels IPR equation
for solution gas drive reservoirs.
(c) Determine the predicted oil rate at a bottom hole pressure of 2200 kPa
using Vogels IPR equation for solution gas drive reservoirs.
10
PTPR 6094
OBJECTIVE THREE
Calculate and use the Vogel/Standing Liquid IPR equations for near well bore
damage or stimulation (non-zero skin).
Learning Material
STANDINGS EXTENSION OF VOGELS IPR FOR NON-ZERO SKIN
As mentioned, Vogels initial work assumed that the well was neither damaged
nor stimulated, that is, a skin factor of zero applied.
Standing (Reference 3) created a chart (Figure 5) to aid in the calculation of
production rate of a damaged or stimulated well as a function of flow efficiency.
In order to be able to use that chart, an understanding of the concept of flow
efficiency is required.
Flow efficiency is a measure of the condition of a well. Flow efficiency, FE, is
defined as follows:
FE =
p - p'wf
undamaged/unstimulated drawdown
= R
actual drawdown
p R - p wf
Since p'wf = pwf + pskin, (referring to Figure 4) then:

FE =
p R - p wf - pskin
p R - p wf
A well that is neither damaged nor stimulated would have a flow efficiency of 1.0.
Damaged wells would have a flow efficiency of less than 1 while stimulated wells
would have flow efficiency greater than 1.
Inspection of Figure 4 will make the above nomenclature clear.
Also note in Figure 4, for future reference, that at radius equal to 0.472 re, where
re is the no flow boundary of the reservoir, the pressure is equal to the average
reservoir pressure. In addition, the effective drainage radius stabilizes at the value
of 0.472 re.
11
PTPR 6094
Figure 4
Reservoir Pressure Profile for Damaged Well
In order to determine pskin, the following relationship defined by van Everdingen

(Reference 4) is used;
pskin = S
q
2kh
The value for the skin factor, S, is normally obtained from a pressure transient
analysis of a well test which is also the normal source of a value for the reservoir
permeability, k.
Note that a method to determine FE from two flow tests is given in Reference 2,
pages 273-275.
Figure 5 can be used to determine the maximum rate, qo(max):
for a well that is damaged (FE < 1)

for a well that is stimulated (FE > 1)
for a well that has had the damage removed (FE = 1.0)
12
PTPR 6094
Figure 5
Standings IPR Curves for Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive
Figure 5 can also be used to determine:
The flow rate at any bottom hole pressure for different values of FE
IPR curves showing flow rate versus bottom hole pressure for damaged or
improved wells
In order to use Figure 5 correctly, it is usually necessary to first determine qo(max)

at an FE = 1.0. Also, note that it is not recommended to extrapolate the curves in
Figure 5 beyond the ratio of 1.0, for producing rate divided by the maximum
producing rate at a FE = 1.0, as errors become unacceptable.
The best way to learn to use Figure 5 is to work through some exercises.
13
PTPR 6094
Exercise Three
1. Given the following data for a damaged well:
Oil rate, 10 m3/d
Average reservoir pressure, 4000 kPa
Producing bottom hole pressure, 3000 kPa
Flow efficiency, 0.7
a) Determine the maximum possible rate for this well at FE = 0.7.
b) Determine the oil rate at a producing bottom hole pressure of 2000 kPa for
this well.
2. Given the following data for a damaged well
Oil rate, 10 m3/d
a) Determine the maximum possible rate for this well if it is stimulated to a
FE = 1.2.
b) Determine the oil rate at a producing bottom hole pressure of 1200 psi and
a FE = 1.2 for this well.
3. Given the following data for a stimulated well
Oil rate, 20 m3/d
a) Determine the bottom hole pressure at which this well will produce
20 m3/d if FE = 1.0.
14
PTPR 6094
OBJECTIVE FOUR
Calculate and use the Vogel/Standing Liquid IPR equations for reservoir
pressures above and below the bubble point.
Learning Material
EXTENSION OF VOGELSS IPR CURVE FOR FLOW ABOVE AND
BELOW THE BUBBLE POINT
Vogels initial work assumed that the well was producing from a reservoir that
had a pressure below the bubble point pressure of the reservoir fluid.
There is a method that makes it possible to use Vogels reference IPR curve to
analyze wells that have production tests either above or below the bubble point.
Obviously, this requires knowledge of what the reservoir fluid bubble point
pressure is and what the average reservoir pressure is. This information is
normally obtained from actual tests (PVT and reservoir pressure).
Note that a reservoir pressure that is higher than the bubble point pressure of the
reservoir fluid is the definition of an undersaturated oil reservoir. An
undersaturated reservoir is one in which the reservoir fluid has the capacity to
dissolve more gas in solution.
Undersaturated reservoirs are typically a result of an oil pool subjected to
increased burial depth after the accumulation of hydrocarbons has occurred within
it. This can result in the reservoir pressure being higher than the bubble point of
the original hydrocarbon mixture. Note that these reservoirs are sometimes
brought closer to surface later as a result of erosion or other geologic conditions.
This can result in such reservoirs also being overpressured for their current depth.
Undersaturated reservoirs produce as a result of liquid expansion drive only until
the bubble point is reached unless they are subject to a water drive. By definition,
undersaturated reservoirs will not have a gas cap as any free gas will have been
dissolved into the oil.
15
PTPR 6094
It is preferable to have a test sample of original reservoir fluid taken at bottom

hole conditions before any production has been taken from the reservoir. If that is
not possible, the next best option is to take samples of produced liquid and gas at
surface, as soon after production starts as possible, and recombine them in the
same proportion as the producing gas-oil ratio to attempt to recreate the original
reservoir fluid.
The basic technique to analyze wells that have production tests above or below
the bubble point involves constructing a composite well IPR curve that is straight
above the bubble point and curved, as usual per Vogels reference IPR, below the
bubble point.
Production Test Data above the Bubble Point (after Reference 4)
Figure 4
Flow Tests Above and Below Bubble Point
If well flow test data (q1, pwf1) is available above the known bubble point (pb), the
procedure to calculate qo(max) and to estimate the flow rate, q, at any bottom hole
pressure, pwf2, below the bubble point is as follows:
Calculate the constant PI above the bubble point using:

PI =
q1
p R - p wf1
16
PTPR 6094
Calculate the flow rate, qb, at the bubble point pressure using the PI above
the bubble point:
qb = PI (p R - p wf1 )
Calculate qo(max):
q o (max) = q b +
J (p b )
1.8
To estimate the flow rate, q, at a pressure below the bubble point, pwf2
begin by inspecting Figure 4 and applying Vogels IPR below the bubble
point as follows:
p
q2
p
= 1 - 0.20 wf2 - 0.80 wf2
qx
pb
pb
Substituting qx = qo, max - qb , and q2 = q qb, and re-arranging gives:

q = q b + (q o,max
p wf2
p wf2
- q b ) 1 - 0.20
- 0.80

p
R
p R
Note: The expression for qo(max) above is derived by differentiating

Vogels IPR reference curve equation with respect to pwf.
Production Test Data below the Bubble Point (after Reference 4)
If well test data (q, pwf) is available below the known bubble point, pb, the
procedure to calculate qo(max) and to estimate the flow rate, q, at any bottom hole
pressure, pwf2, below the bubble point is as follows:
Start with the equation to solve for q derived in section 1:

q = q b + (q o,max
2
p wf2
p wf2
- q b ) 1 - 0.20
- 0.80

pR
p R
Derive an equation for the PI at the bubble point, pb:
LET;
p
p
A = 1 - 0.20 wf2 - 0.80 wf2
pb
pb
17
PTPR 6094
Then;
q = q b + (q o,max - q b ) A
(1)
qb = PI (p R = p b )
(2)
PI(p b )
1.8
q o(max) = q b +
Substituting (3) and (2) into (1) and re-arranging to solve for PI gives:
PI =
qb
pb
p R - p B + 1.8 (A)
With PI known, qo(max) can be found using qb = PI (pR pb) and;
q o(max) = q b +
(3)
PI (p b )
1.8
With qo(max) known, the flow rate, q, at a bottom hole pressure of pwf2 can
be determined as follows:
q = q b + (q o,max
p wf2
p wf2
- q b ) 1 - 0.20
- 0.80

pR
p R
Exercise Four
1. Given the following data for an oil well
Oil rate, 30 m3/d
Reservoir pressure, 16 000 kPa
Producing bottom hole pressure, 12 000 kPa
Reservoir fluid bubble point, 8000 kPa
a. Determine the maximum flow rate possible for this well.
b. Determine the expected oil rate for a producing bottom hole pressure
of 5000 kPa.
18
PTPR 6094
Exercise One Answers

1. PI = J =
qo + qw
15 + 59
=
= 0.017 m3 /d /kPa
pR - pw
9500 - 5200
2. PI = J =
qo + qw
pR - pw
Re-arranging to solve for q o + q w

q o + q w = J(p R - p w ) = 0.017(9500 - 2200) = 124 m3 /d
Exercise Two Answers

1 a. Refering To Figure 2;
p
5200
At wf =
= 0.55,
pR
9500
q
q max
= 0.65
Therefore,
q max =
q
74
=
= 114 m3 /d
0.65 0.65
b. Using the Equation For Vogel's Reference IPR Curve:

q
q max
p
p
= 1 - 0.20 w - 0.80 w
pR
pR
= 1 - 0.20 [ 0.55] - 0.80 [ 0.55]
= 0.65
Therefore,
q
74
q max =
=
= 114 m3 /d
0.65 0.65
c. At p wf = 2200 kPa,
p wf
2200
=
= 0.23
pR
9500
Using Vogel's reference IPR curve
p
q
= 0.91 At wf = 0.23
q max
pR
Therefore:
q = 0.91q max = 0.91(124) = 113 m3 /d
PTPR 6094
19
Exercise Three Answers

1. a. Given q o = 10 m3 /d
p wf = 3000 kPa
p R = 4000 kPa
FE = 0.7
Determine q o(max) At FE = 0.7

First, find q o(max) for FE = 1.0
Using
p wf
3000
= 0.75
=
pR
4000
From Fig. 2 for FE = 0.7,
qo
= 0.281
q o(max)
Therefore, at FE = 1.0,
qo
10
=
= 35.6 m3 /d
0.281 0.281
Next, find q o for FE = 0.7
q o(max) -
From Fig. 2, for FE = 0.7, and for

qo
q o(max)
p wf
=0
pR
= 0.87
Therefore a = 0.87(35.6) = 31.0 m3 /d

b. Determine q o For p WF = 2000 kPa
At FE = 0.7
p wf
2000
=
= 0.5
pR
4000
From Fig. 2, for FE = 0.7,
qo
q
= 0.523
)FE = 1.0
o(max
Therefore, q o = 0.523(q o(max) FE=1.0 )

= 0.523(35.6) = 18.6 m3 /d
20
PTPR 6094
2. a. Given q o = 10 m3 /d
p R = 4000 kPa
p wf = 3000 kPa
FE = 0.7
Determine q o(max) At FE = 1.2

First, find q o(max) for FE = 1.0
p wf
3000
=
= 0.75
pR
4000
From Fig. 2, for FE = 0.7
qo
= 0.281
q o(max)
10
= 35.6 m3 /d
0.281
For FE = 1.2
Therefore, q o(max) Fe=1.0 =

Next, find q o(max)
From Fig. 2, for
p wf
= 0 and FE = 1.2
pR
qo
q o(max) FE=1.0
Therefore q o = 0.96(35.6) = 34.2 m3 /d
b. Find q o for p wf - 2000 kPa and FE - 1.2
p wf
2000
=
= 0.5
pR
4000
From Fig. 2, using FE = 1.2 curve
qo
= 0.788
q o(max)Fe=1.0
q o = 0.788(35.6) = 28.1 m3 /d
3. Given q o = 20 m3 /d
p wf = 1200 kPa
p R = 4000 kPa
FE = 0.7
Determine the bottom hole pressure at which this well makes 20m3 /d if FE = 1.0.
Of the total drawdown of 2800 kPa, 1960 kPa occurs accross the formation.
Therefore, for p wf = 400 - 1960 = 2040 kPa,
This well will make 20 m3 /d if FE = 1.0.
21
PTPR 6094
Exercise Four Answers

1. a. Given q = 30 m3 /d
p wf = 12 000 kPa
p R = 16 000 kPa
p b = 8000 kPa
Determine q o(max)
First, determine PI above bubble point
PI =
q
30
=
= 0.0075 m3 /d /kPa
p R - p wf
16 000 - 12 000
Next, determine q b
q b = PI(p R - p b ) = 0.0075(16 000 - 8000)
= 60 m3 /d
Then, find q o(max)
J pb
0.0075 g 8000
= 60 +
1.8
1.8
3
= 93 m /d
b. Determine q at Pwf = 5000 kPa
q o(max) = q b +
use q = q b + (q o(max)
Pwf
Pwf
- q b ) 1 - 0.20
- 0.80

PR
PR
5000
5000
q = 60 + (93 - 60) 1 - 0.2
0.80
16 000
16 000
3
= 92.5 m /d
22
PTPR 6094
Module Self-Test Questions

1. The three main naturally-occurring types of oil reservoir drives are:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Depletion drive, volumetric performance and internal drive

Depletion drive, volumetric performance and gas cap drive
Solution gas drive, water drive, gravity drainage drive
Solution gas drive, internal drive and gas cap drive
2. In a segregation drive reservoir, the expansion of tiny bubbles of liberated gas

that was in solution mobilizes the oil and provides the main source of energy.
a. True
b. False
3. In a reservoir that is producing by solution gas drive, the reservoir pressure is
below the bubble point of the reservoir fluid.
a. True
b. False
4. In a solution gas drive reservoir, the expansion of tiny bubbles of liberated gas
that was in solution maintains reservoir pressure.
a. True
b. False
5. The inflow performance of a well in a solution gas drive reservoir:
a. Is a plot of producing bottom hole pressure versus flow rate
b. Is the ability of a reservoir to give up fluids at that specific well
c. Is represented by a plot of producing bottom hole pressure versus flow that
always curves downward
d. All of the above
6. The productivity index of a well
a. Is constant above the bubble point in solution gas drive reservoirs
b. Is constant for any oil reservoir that has 100% pressure support from an
underlying aquifer
c. Curves below the bubble point in solution gas drive reservoirs
d. All of the above
7. The PI of a well
a. Is calculated using the oil rate only for wells producing little water
b. Is calculated using the sum of the oil and water rates for wells producing
up to about 50% water
c. Is not recommended for wells producing more than a 50% water cut
d. All of the above
PTPR 6094
23
8. The most direct measure of the condition of a well is

a.
b.
c.
d.
J
PI
FE
IPR
9. Vogels initial work on the reference IPR for solution gas wells
a. Assumed the well was producing from a reservoir that was below its
bubble point
b. Assumed the well was neither stimulated nor damaged
c. Showed there was a progressive deterioration in IPR for solution gas drive
reservoirs as depletion proceeded
d. All of the above
10. Vogels reference IPR
a. Is strictly valid only for solution gas drive reservoirs above the bubble
point
b. Is the best measure of the condition of a well
c. Has been successfully applied to solution gas reservoirs producing more
than 50% water cut though not strictly valid
d. None of the above
11. The value for a wells skin factor is normally obtained
a.
b.
c.
d.
From an analysis of pressure build-up data

From van Everdingens equation for pskin
From a production test of a well
All of the above
12. A well that has a skin factor of zero has a flow efficiency of 1.0.
a. True
b. False
24
PTPR 6094

1. c
2. b
3. a
4. a
5. d
6. d
7. d
8. c
9. d
10. d
11. a
12. a
25
PTPR 6094
Assignment
1. Name three main types of naturally-occurring reservoir drives, one other type
of naturally-occurring reservoir drive type and two types of man-made
reservoir drives. In a sentence or two for each type of reservoir, describe what
makes that type of reservoir unique and different from the others.
2. Describe what a PVT test is, how it is carried out and what information is
sought from it.
3. Define bubble point pressure; explain its impact on reservoir liquid
deliverability and its significance in constructing IPR curves.
4. Define undersaturated reservoir and describe how its drive mechanism differs
from a solution gas drive reservoir.
26
PTPR 6094
References
1. Vogel, J.V., Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution Gas Drive Wells,
J. Pet. Tech., January 1968.
2. Brown, K.E., Beggs, H.D., The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,
PennWell Publishing Co., 1977.
3. Standing, M.B., Inflow performance Relationships for Damaged Wells
Producing by Solution Gas Drive, J. Pet. Tech., November, 1970.
4. Production and Reservoir Systems Analysis, Johnston-Macco/Schlumberger,
undated training material.
27
PTPR 6094
Appendix
Table 1
28
PTPR 6094
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Gas Deliverability
-Simplified Method
(Inflow Performance
PTPR 6095
Module 3
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Gas Deliverability Simplified

Method (Inflow Performance
Rationale
Well test information is second only to production data in importance for the
prudent management of oil or gas reservoirs. As such, well testing is an integral
part of the overall production and depletion strategy of a reservoir. The lowest
cost and the greatest benefit are realized when an appropriate number of high
quality tests are run throughout the producing life of the reservoir. AEUB
Directive 040, Pressure and Deliverability Testing Oil and Gas Wells, December 15,
2006.
Knowledge of gas well testing is a critical part of conventional oil and gas
production engineering. Many subsequent decisions on exploration, development,
and capital rely on competent gas well deliverability tests, their interpretation and
use.
Learning Outcome
Understand and calculate the relationship between the gas flow rate and the
pressure drop from the reservoir to the bottom of the well using the Simplified
Method of Gas Deliverability Analysis (laminar flow) and the pseudo-pressure
function for gas.
Learning Objectives
1. Understand and apply the Darcy radial inflow equation for gas.
2. Calculate Gas IPRs with the Simplified Gas Analysis Method for stabilized
(non-transient) conditions.
3. Understand and calculate the gas pseudo-pressure.
1
PTPR 6095
OBJECTIVE ONE
Understand and apply the Darcy radial inflow equation for gas.
Learning Activity
Learning Material
INTRODUCTION WELL TESTING
According to EUB Directive 040, Bottom hole deliverability relationships are
required for all producing gas wells prior to or during the first three consecutive
calendar months of sales. There are exceptions refer to Directive 040 for
details.
In addition, initial subsurface pressures are required as follows: Gas Wells on
all productive wells, within the first three months of production (one well per pool
per section). Again, there are exceptions.
Almost every well file for a gas well has at least one deliverability test and either
one measurement of static bottom hole pressure or a pressure build-up test to
measure reservoir pressure. It is important to understand some of the theory
behind gas well testing in order to be able to correctly interpret and use those
deliverability tests.
Decisions such as whether a well is economic to tie-in, workover, have
compression installed, etc. all depend upon familiarity with gas well deliverability
tests.
In addition, as covered in Module 1 of this course, the technique for nodal
analysis of the total hydrocarbon production system relies on an accurate inflow
performance relationship from the reservoir to the bottom hole of a well.
Hydrocarbon systems nodal analysis will be further covered in Module 7.
2
PTPR 6095
RADIAL GAS FLOW EQUATION BASED ON DARCYS LAW

The Darcy radial flow equation for gas applies only to laminar flow in nontransient (stabilized) conditions.
The following common versions of the Darcy radial flow equation can be used to
estimate gas flow rates from a reservoir under stabilized conditions where
turbulence can be neglected.
a) For steady-state flow in oilfield units,
qg =
0.703 k g h (p e 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln (re /rw ) + s]
mscfd
b) For steady-state flow in metric units,

qg =
0.000763 k g h (p e 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln (re /rw ) + s]
103 m3 /d
c) For pseudo steady-state flow in oilfield units,

qg =
0.703 k g h (p R 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + s]
mscfd
d) For pseudo steady-state flow in metric units,

qg =
Where: q
kg
h
pe
pR
pwf
g
re
rw
z
s
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.000763 k g h (p R 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + s]
103 m3 /d
gas rate, mscfd or 103m3/d

effective permeability to gas, md
net pay, ft or m
reservoir pressure at drainage radius, psia or kPa(a)
average reservoir pressure, psia or kPa(a)
producing bottom hole pressure, psia or kPa(a)
average gas viscosity, cp or mPas
drainage radius, ft or m
nominal bore hole radius, ft or m
real gas deviation factor, dimensionless
total of skins other than sd (true formation damage), dimensionless
3
PTPR 6095
The following must be noted when applying the above equations:

1. A well is considered to be in steady-state if it is infinite acting; that is, the
radius of investigation has not encountered a no-flow boundary. Wells with
100% pressure support from an underlying aquifer or from offset injection
would also be considered to be in steady-state as the pressure at the external
boundary does not change with production.
2. A well is considered to be in pseudo steady-state if the radius of investigation
has encountered a no-flow boundary. Examples of no-flow boundaries include
the drainage boundary of an offset producer or the productive edge of the
reservoir. In these cases, the reservoir pressure declines at what is assumed to
be a constant rate.
3. The steady state equation requires knowledge of the pressure at the external
boundary of the reservoir, pe. The pseudo steady-state equation requires
knowledge of the average reservoir pressure, pR. The average reservoir
pressure is defined as the volumetrically weighted pressure in the reservoir.
Usually, pR is obtained from a pressure build-up test. If not known, pR may be
calculated from a stabilized flowing bottom hole test, where the stabilized
flow rate and flowing bottom hole pressure are known, using the stabilized
bottom hole deliverability equation.
4. The above equations require the use of the average values for and z between
pe and pwf or pR and pwf.
5. The above equations are strictly correct only for radial flow for a well in the
center of a circular reservoir. For all other geometric cases, the above
equations can be modified to incorporate the appropriate Dietz shape factor
(References 7 and 8) for the specific well/reservoir geometry.
6. The time at which a well transitions to pseudo steady-state, tpss, which is also
the time that the radius of investigation reaches the external boundary of the
reservoir, was given by Earlougher (Reference 9) in oilfield units as:
t pss =
C t A t DA
0.000264 k
Where: A is the drainage area

Ct is the system compressibility
tDA is a variable whose value depends on the geometric shape of the
drainage area
Values for tDA can be found in Reference 9.
7. The above equations are strictly correct only for laminar flow.
4
PTPR 6095
BACKPRESSURE EQUATION FOR SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF GAS

WELL TESTS
It will be shown in Module 4 that the familiar and commonly used backpressure
equation used in the simplified method of gas well deliverability analysis, to be
reviewed in detail later in this module, is an approximation of the Forcheimer
equation, introduced in the next section, with the rate-dependent turbulence
neglected.
The form of the backpressure deliverability equation is:
qg = C(p2)n
Or, rearranging,
1/ n
qg
p =
C
2
Where: C is a constant called the flow coefficient

p2 is the difference between reservoir pressure squared and producing
bottom hole pressure squared
n, the flow exponent, has a value between 0.5 and 1.0
If laminar flow is assumed or exists, n has a value of 1.0 and p2 = qg/C. For well
tests that show the effect of turbulence, n can range down to 0.5 for fully turbulent
flow.
In the simplified method of gas well deliverability test analysis, it is assumed that
n is either 1.0 or that n is constant and not a function of flow rate.
LAMINAR- INERTIAL-TURBULENT FLOW (LIT ANALYSIS)
DELIVERABILITY EQUATIONS BASED ON THE FORCHEIMER
EQUATION FOR TURBULENT FLOW
The following Forcheimer-type equations that take turbulent flow into account
will be covered in more detail in Module 4 of this course.
a) In oilfield units, for steady-state flow;
qg =
0.703 k g h (p 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln (rd /rw ) + s + Dq]
mscfd
5
PTPR 6095
In metric units, for steady-state flow;

qg =
0.000763 k g h (p 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln (rd /rw ) + s + Dq]
103 m3 /d
In the above Forcheimer equations, D is the non-Darcy (turbulent) flow

coefficient and Dq is termed the turbulence skin effect (or pseudo-skin factor).
Note that in the Forcheimer equation, rd is the effective drainage radius. It is time
dependent until rd = 0.472 re; thereafter, rd/rw = 1.5 (tD) 0.5. The value of tD,
dimensionless time, is given in oilfield units by;
tD =
0.000264 k g t
( g C t )i rw 2
Rearranged, Forcheimer-based equations for deliverability analysis of gas well

tests that have turbulence accounted for have the following form:
p 2 = aq g + bq g 2
Where: the constant a accounts for the laminar component of gas flow
the constant b accounts for the turbulent component of gas flow
DELIVERABILITY EQUATIONS FOR TURBULENT FLOW USING GAS
PSEUDO-PRESSURE
The use of the gas pseudo-pressure in the Forcheimer equation will be covered in
detail in Module 4. It is simply the Forcheimer (LIT) flow equation above with
the pressure terms replaced by the gas pseudo-pressure as follows.
= aq g + bq g 2
Where: is the gas pseudo-pressure function

It takes into account the variation of gas viscosity and gas deviation factor when
pressure gradients in the reservoir have a significant effect on the solution to the
flow equation. Gas viscosity and gas deviation factor are functions of pressure
and in reservoirs with significant pressure gradients, using values averaged
between reservoir pressure and producing bottom hole pressure does not provide
acceptable accuracy.
Discussion and calculation of the gas pseudo-pressure will be done later in this
module.
6
PTPR 6095
Exercise One
1) An apparently very good gas well in Oklahoma was tested to stabilization as
follows:
Choke size, in
Flow Rate, mscfd
20/64
3/8
7/16
0
4023
5974
8240
9228
Bottom hole pressure at

MPP, psia
4068
4042
4030
4017
4012
Other data for this well:

Net sand thickness, 54 ft
Average gas viscosity, 0.028 cP
Reservoir temperature, 260F
Assumed re, 1300 ft (160 ac)
Average Z factor, 0.931
Well bore diameter, 0.532 ft (casing size)
It is assumed the well is undamaged and unstimulated and that steady state
conditions apply.
a) Calculate the average permeability of the reservoir using all four flow
rates.
b) Determine the bottom hole absolute open flow (AOF) using the Darcy
radial flow equation and the average permeability.
7
PTPR 6095
OBJECTIVE TWO
Calculate Gas IPRs with the Simplified Gas Analysis Method for stabilized (nontransient) conditions.
Learning Material
GAS WELL DELIVERABILTY - SIMPLIFIED METHOD
The following equation can be used to estimate the flow rate from the reservoir
into the bottom of a gas well:
q g = C(p R 2 - p wf 2 ) n
Where: qg = gas flow rate at standard conditions, m3/d or mscfd

C = deliverability coefficient
pR = average reservoir pressure obtained by shut-in of the well to
complete stabilization, kPa(a) or psia
pwf = flowing bottom hole pressure, kPa(a) or psia
n = deliverability exponent which is the inverse of the slope of the
stabilized deliverability line
This equation, called the backpressure equation, was discovered empirically
and published by Rawlins and Schellhardt in 1936 (Reference 1). Empirically
means that a large amount of actual gas well flow test data was analyzed and the
above relationship between drawdown and flow rate was observed to represent
the actual test data satisfactorily. It is important to note that the well tests
analyzed by Rawlins and Schellhardt were for gas wells flowed until stabilized
rates were achieved. In addition, the wells were typically shallower, lower
pressure wells.
In the simplified method of gas well deliverability analysis, a plot of (pR2 - pwf2)
versus flow rate, q, on log-log paper (Figure 1) is assumed to give a line of
constant slope.
For gas wells with laminar gas flow at all times, that constant slope is equal to one
giving a value for the flow exponent, n, of one.
Many, if not most, gas wells actually have some degree of turbulent flow. For
those wells, a plot of (pR2 - pwf2) versus flow rate, q, on log-log paper (Figure 2)
gives a line of slope somewhere between 1/n = 2 for wells with fully turbulent
flow and 1/n = 1 for wells with fully laminar flow.
8
PTPR 6095
In other words, an intermediate value of n, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0

represents flow that is somewhere between fully turbulent and fully laminar. Most
gas well deliverability tests result in an intermediate value of n. Relatively few
wells have flow exponents of either 0.5 or 1.0.
It is not necessary that most of the reservoir within the drainage radius of the well
be in turbulent flow to result in a flow exponent having a value that approaches
0.5. The main determinant of laminar versus turbulent flow is the product of kh
(in md-m or md-ft) where k is the permeability to gas and h is the thickness of the
reservoir. A relatively high value of kh would tend to indicate more laminar flow
while a relatively low value of kh would tend to indicate more turbulent flow.
Figure 1
Simplified (Stabilized) Gas Deliverability Plot Metric Units
The position of the deliverability line along the x-axis depends upon the value of
the flow coefficient C.
9
PTPR 6095
In the simplified method of gas well deliverability the following assumptions are
made:
a) Average reservoir pressure (or static well head pressure) is determined
when well pressure has completely stabilized.
b) The coefficient C and the exponent n are assumed to be constant.
c) Extrapolation of the deliverability curve beyond the range of the flow rates
used to construct the curve is standard practice and is assumed sufficiently
correct.
Thus, one of the limitations of the simplified gas well deliverability analysis is
that it assumes a constant value for the turbulent flow exponent n. This constant
value is also used to extrapolate the flow test data to determine the absolute open
flow (AOF) potential of the reservoir (or well).
In Figure 2, it can be seen that for a typical well producing at higher rates, the
exponent n actually changes as a function of gas flow rate.
Figure 2
Actual Gas Deliverability Plot Oilfield Units
Prentice-Hall. This material has been copied under license from Access Copyright.
Resale or further copying of this material is strictly prohibited.
10
PTPR 6095
Note in Figure 2:
At low flow rates, the slope is 1 and n = 1 indicating laminar flow as

would be expected.
At higher flow rates, the slope starts to increase and even approach 2
(n = 0.5) in some cases indicating fully turbulent flow. For this well, the
maximum observed slope was 1.48 (n = 0.675).
The absolute open flow potential (AOF) of the reservoir, not the well head
AOF at surface, is 58,000 mscfd for the sample well. It is determined at
the extrapolated maximum drawdown of the well which occurs when pwf
is 14.7 psia (0 psig). Note that in this case, the extrapolation is a straight
line which does not account for a likely further change in n.
If the permeability to gas of this reservoir were higher or if the pay were
thicker or if the gas viscosity were lower, and so on, the flow coefficient C
would be higher and the deliverability curve would shift to the right. This
would indicate a higher reservoir absolute open flow potential and
deliverability.
The flow coefficient C is obviously a function of permeability, reservoir

thickness, gas viscosity, reservoir temperature, gas deviation factor, well bore
radius, external drainage radius and skin factor.
Mathematically, in oilfield units, C = 0.703 kg h/[ z T ln(re/rw) + s]. In the
simplified analysis, these variables are assumed to be constant not just from
average reservoir pressure to a flowing bottom hole (or well head) pressure of
zero but also over the life of the well.
The Rawlins and Schellhardt conventional deliverability equation required that
the well be flowed to a stabilized condition. This could take a very long time
particularly in low permeability reservoirs,. Another issue was waste and loss of
revenue due to flaring of gas if a well had to be tested for long periods before it
could be tied-in.
To speed up gas well testing and reduce waste of gas and loss of revenue, several
methods of flow rate analysis were developed culminating with the modified
isochronal well test.
The modified isochronal well test procedure requires that a well be shut-in for
exactly as long as it was produced for each of several flow rates. Usually, there
are four such transient flow and shut-in periods. A best fit line through these
points defines the slope of the deliverability curve. A final flow rate extended to
stabilization determines the position of the deliverability curve on the log-log
deliverability plot. Note that in the modified isochronal test, the preceding shut-in
pressure is used to calculate the drawdown rather than the stabilized reservoir
pressure except for the final extended flow period.
11
PTPR 6095
A sample isochronal well test plot is shown in Figure 3. Note the best fit line
drawn through the four transient data points to determine the slope of the
deliverability line and the stabilized flow data point used to determine the position
of the deliverability line.
Figure 3
Transient and Stabilized Gas Deliverability (Reference 3)
Note that there are actually two related gas well deliverability equations in
common use.
When bottom hole data is used, the deliverability equation represents the capacity
of the reservoir to produce gas. In other words, it is the inflow performance
relationship at the bottom hole. It can also be used to determine the Absolute
Open Flow (AOF) potential of the reservoir. The bottom hole AOF is often used
by regulatory bodies to set maximum allowable production rates for gas wells.
When well head data is used, the well head deliverability equation represents the
actual sales gas production rate of the well and the effects of gathering line backpressure. Gathering line back-pressure is simply the pressure in the gathering
line that the well must overcome at surface to produce gas.
12
PTPR 6095
The well head deliverability equation is as follows:

q g = C' (p ts 2 - p tf 2 ) n'
Where: qg = gas flow rate at standard conditions, m3/d or mscfd

C' = well head deliverability coefficient
pts = well head static pressure obtained by shut-in of the well to
complete stabilization, kPa(g) or psig
ptf = flowing tubing head (well head) pressure, kPa(g) or psig
n' = well head deliverability exponent which is the inverse of the slope
of the stabilized well head deliverability line
In this module and in Module 4, we will focus on the bottom hole gas
deliverability equation and the inflow performance relationship.
Once the gas deliverability relationship is determined from testing, or by other
means, an IPR curve of flowing pressure versus flow rate can be constructed as
shown in Figure 4.
Gas Well IPR
Well Head Pressure, kPag
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
IPR Curve, n=0.8
5000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
3
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Gas Rate, 10 m /d
Figure 4
Sample Well Head Curve for Gas Well Simplified Analysis
Figure 4 is a well head performance curve. A similar IPR curve can be

constructed at bottom hole conditions to represent reservoir deliverability.
Note that in Figure 4, the well head IPR curve is valid at only one static shut-in
well head pressure. A series of similar curves at different static shut-in well head
pressures would be required to predict future well performance as depletion
reduces static shut-in well head pressure.
In the simplified method of analysis, the deliverability coefficient C and the
deliverability exponent n are assumed to remain constant with depletion.
PTPR 6095
13
Exercise Two
1) A gas well is producing 7.1 103m3/d at a drawdown of 2750 kPa. Static (or
stabilized) reservoir pressure is 11 000 kPa(a).
a) Assuming simplified analysis and 100% laminar flow; calculate the
bottom hole AOF of this well using the backpressure equation.
b) What drawdown is required to double the flow rate?
c) If the deliverability exponent is 0.855, determine the deliverability
coefficient and the bottom hole AOF.
2) Determine the bottom hole deliverability relationship using the Simplified
Method for a gas well in Oklahoma that was tested to stabilization as follows:
Choke size, in
Flow Rate, mscfd
20/64
3/8
7/16
0
4023
5974
8240
9228
Bottom hole pressure

at MPP, psia
4068
4042
4030
4017
4012

Net sand thickness, 54 ft
Average gas viscosity, 0.028 cP
Assumed re, 1300 ft (160 ac)
Average Z factor, 0.931
Well bore diameter, 0.532 ft (casing size)
a) Plot (pe2 pwf2) in psi2 versus flow rate in mscfd on a log-log chart in
Excel.
b) Do a best fit of the data points using the Excel trend line tool and
extrapolate with a straight line on the log-log plot to determine bottom
hole AOF.
c) Use the Excel equation for the trend line to calculate the deliverability
coefficient C and the deliverability exponent n for this well.
d) Write the completed bottom hole deliverability equation. Was the
simplified method of analysis valid for this well? Justify your answer.
14
PTPR 6095
OBJECTIVE THREE
Understand and calculate the Gas Pseudo-Pressure
Learning Material
GAS PSEUDO-PRESSURE FUNCTION (after Reference 3)
The main limitation of the Forcheimer LIT equation (turbulent flow)

deliverability analysis is that it assumes that pressure gradients are small and that
as a result, gas viscosity and gas compressibility are constant. In fact, pressure
gradients, particularly in tighter reservoirs, can be large.
To overcome this problem, a pseudo-pressure function, m (p), denoted by the
symbol (psi), is used. A plot of versus pressure, called a p plot, is
constructed for a specific gas and reservoir temperature. Using this plot, pressure
can be converted to pseudo-pressure and vice-versa. Wherever a value for
pressure, p, appears in the gas deliverability equation being used, it is replaced
with the appropriate value of the pseudo-pressure, .
The pseudo-pressure function, , describes the variation of gas viscosity, , and
the real gas deviation factor (sometimes termed the gas compressibility), Z, with
pressure.
The pseudo-pressure function was defined by Al-Hussainy in 1965 (Reference 4)
as:
=2
p0
(p/Z) dP
The value under the integral can be solved numerically by plotting 2 p/Z versus
p and determining the area under the curve from any convenient reference
pressure p0 to a pressure p. The area under the curve is the value of
corresponding to a pressure p.
Whenever the pressure difference, and therefore the pseudo-pressure difference, is
required in a calculation and not a pressure alone, then the actual reference
pressure, p0, used is immaterial. Note that different authors in the literature use
different values for the base pressure when evaluating for different gases such
as sour gases.
15
PTPR 6095
When required, it is easy to convert from one reference pressure to another

using the following relationship:
()pp0 = ()0p - ()0p
The ERCB provided a table (Table 1) of values for as a function of pseudoreduced temperature, Tr, and pseudo-reduced pressure Pr of sweet gases. It uses
the viscosity correlations of Carr, Kobayashi and Burrows (Reference 5) and the
compressibility factor correlation of Standing and Katz (Reference 6) and uses
zero as the reference pressure.
16
PTPR 6095
Table 1
Values of Reduced Pseudo-Pressure r as a Function of Pr and Tr
For sour gases the pseudo-pressure, , is obtained by numerical integration or

using the tables of Zana and Thomas (Reference 7).
17
PTPR 6095
Exercise Three (after Reference 3)

1. Given the following properties for a sweet gas:
Pressure, P kPa
Real Gas Deviation

Factor, Z
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
1.000
0.952
0.908
0.871
0.847
0.834
and, Pc = 4581 kPa,
Tc = 198 K,
Gas Viscosity,
Pas
12.0
12.8
13.9
15.0
16.3
i = 11.6 Pas
Note: 1 cp = 1000 Pas = 1 mPas
a) Calculate the pseudo-pressure using simple numerical integration and plot

the results on a plot of y versus pressure.
Procedure (construct a table to contain the result for each step for every
pressure):
i. Calculate 2(p/Z) at each pressure p.
ii. Calculate the mean of two successive values of 2(p/Z) for each
pressure p.
iii. Calculate the pressure difference, p, for two successive values of p.
iv. Calculate the product of 2(p/Z)p.
v. Calculate by adding the value from iv) to the previous value for .
b) Calculate using Table 1 for each pressure and compare with the results
for simple numerical integration.
Procedure (construct a table to contain the result for each step for every
pressure):
i. Calculate reduced temperature Tr. Calculate reduced pressure, pr, at
each pressure p.
ii. Obtain a value of r by interpolating between values of pr and Tr.
iii. Calculate the value for from the product of r and 2pc2 i at each
pressure.
18
PTPR 6095

1. a. Use the Darcy radial flow equation in oil field units for steady-state
conditions. Rearranging to solve for permeability,
kg:
q g M g ZT [ lm(re/rw) + s ]
kg =
0.703 n(pe 2 -p wf 2 )
qg
p wf
kg
mscfd
0
psia
4068
md
--
4023
5974
8240
9228
4042
4030
4017
4012
72.3
73.8
75.9
77.6
74.9 md

1) a. Deliverability (Back Pressure) Equation for simplified analysis is:
q = C(p R 2 - p wf 2 ) n
First, solve for the flow constant C:
C=
=
(p R
q
- p wf 2 ) n
7100
(11 0002 - 82502 )1.0
= 0.000134 m3 /d/ kPa 2
Then, calculate the AOF:

q = 0.000134(11 0002 02)1.0
= 16.2 103m3/d
19
PTPR 6095
b. What drawdown is required to double the flow rate?

q = 14.2 103 m3 /d
= 0.000134 (p R 2 - p wf 2 )
p R 2 - p wf 2 = 105.97 106 kPa 2
p wf = 11 0002 - 105.97 106
= 3877 kPa(a)
Drawdown = 11 000 kPa(a) - 3877 kPa(a)
= 7123 kPa
c. Determine AOF if n = 0.855
First, determine C at q = 14.2 103 m3 /d
C=
=
q
(p R - p wf 2 ) n
2
14 200
(11 0002 - 3877 2 )0.855
= 0.00195 m3 /d /kPa 2n
AOF = 0.00195(11 0002 - 02 )0.855
= 15.9 103 m3 /d
20
PTPR 6095
2. a. An Excel plot of p2 versus q is shown below.

Exercise Two, Problem 2) a.
Simplified Analysis
1.00E+08
0.9931
y = 55.051x
(pR -pwf ), psi
1.00E+07
1.00E+06
1.00E+05
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Flow rate, mscfd
b. Extrapolation of the data on the log-log plot to a p2of 16 549 000

indicates an AOF of 330,000 mscfd.
c. The Excel generated best fit trend line for the data is given by:
y = 55.051 x0.9931
p2 = 55.051 q0.9931
Rearranging:
1.007
p 2
q=
55.051
1.007
1
Where C =
55.051
= 0.0177
n = 1.007
21
PTPR 6095

1. a. By simple numerical integration:
(i)
p
0
3000
0.952
(ii)
(iii)
P
P
z
p
z
z

z
Pags 103 kPa/mPags 103 kPa/mPags kPa
12.0
0.0
525.2
262.6
3000
(iv)
(v)
P
z p
z
109 kP 2 a/mPags
109 kP 2 a/mPags
0.0
0.788
0.788
6000
0.908
12.8
1037.5
778.9
3000
2.337
3.125
9000
0.871
13.9
1486.8
1259.7
3000
3.779
6.904
12000 0.847
15.0
1889.0
1687.9
3000
5.064
11.968
15000 0.834
16.3
2206.8
2047.9
3000
6.144
18.112
b. From Table 1, by interpolation:

(i)
(ii)
pr
0
3000
0
0.65
0
0.215
0.863
1.901
3.311
4.986
(iii)
p 2
2 r
i
r =
0.0
0.779
3.121
6.878
11.979
18.040
22
PTPR 6095
2. The plot of the pseudo-pressure function , versus pressure as calculated by

simple numerical integration is shown below:
Exercise Three, Problem 1) b.
15
Pseudo-pressure, , 10 kPa /mPa-s
20
10
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Pressure, kPaa
23
PTPR 6095
Module Self-Test
1. Well deliverability test information is obtained because
a. It minimizes costs and maximizes benefits throughout the life of a
reservoir
b. It is necessary for the prudent management of reservoirs
c. It is required by Albertas EUB
d. It is an integral part of the production and depletion strategy for a reservoir
e. All of the above
2. Bottom hole deliverability relationships are required by the EUB for all
producing gas wells prior to or during the first three consecutive calendar
years of sales.
a. True
b. False
3. Gas well deliverability equations based on Darcys law are best used to
estimate flow rates from gas wells with turbulent flow.
a. True
b. False
4. A well is infinite-acting if the radius of investigation has not yet felt any
boundary in the reservoir.
a. True
b. False
5. The effective drainage radius of a well
a. Eventually stabilizes at a value equal to 47.2 percent of the external radius
of the reservoir and does not change after that
b. Is the same as the external radius of a radial, cylindrical reservoir
c. Is time dependent until it reaches the external boundary of the reservoir.
6. The Rawlins-Schellhardt gas well deliverability equation
a. Is an approximation of the Forcheimer gas deliverability equation for
turbulent flow
b. Was developed empirically based on analysis of actual deliverability tests
c. Assumes that the flow exponent is constant
d. Assumes that the flow exponent is equal to one
e. All of the above
24
PTPR 6095
7. The simplified method of gas well test analysis is

a. good for wells tested in very tight reservoirs but not in high permeability
reservoirs.
b. not very good for wells tested in very tight reservoirs but good in high
permeability reservoirs.
c. not very good for testing wells in very tight reservoirs or in high
permeability reservoirs.
8. A well head deliverability equation has the same form and the same values for
the deliverability coefficient and flow exponent as a bottom hole deliverability
equation
a. True
b. False
9. A modified isochronal well test usually involves four short-term tests of equal
flow and shut-in length and an extended flow test to stabilization.
a. True
b. False
10. Gas viscosity and gas compressibility factor
a. Vary less for wells with high pressure gradients in the reservoir than for
wells with low pressure gradients
b. Are a function of temperature, gas composition, pressure and pressure
gradients in the reservoir
c. Are constant for wells with small pressure gradients in the reservoir
d. All of the above
11. The appropriately-defined gas pseudo-pressure function , 2, or 2, can be
used in place of a pressure term p, p2 or p2 in a gas deliverability equation.
a. True
b. False
25
PTPR 6095

1. e
2. b
3. b
4. a
5. a
6. e
7. c
8. b
9. a
10. b
11. a
26
PTPR 6095
Assignment
1. Obtain copies of the EUB Gas Well Deliverability Test Summary report forms
for both Simplified Analysis and LIT Analysis. Fill in the Simplified
Analysis form as completely as possible using the data for Exercise One Part
2) and fill in the forms Simplified Analysis calculation area (convert the oil
field units data to metric).
2. List the assumptions inherent in the Darcy radial gas flow equation.
3. List the assumptions inherent in the Simplified Analysis of gas well
4. List the assumptions inherent in the Forcheimer turbulent gas flow equation.
5. Which assumptions are not part of the use of pseudo-pressure in the
Forcheimer turbulent gas flow equation?
27
PTPR 6095
References
1. Rawlins, E.L., Schellhardt, M.A., Backpressure Data on Natural Gas Wells
and their Application to Production Operations, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Monograph 7, 1936.
2. Craft, B.C., Hawkins, M.F., Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959.
3. ERCB Guide G-3, Gas Well Testing, 4th Ed, 1979.
4. Al-Hussainy, R., The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media, M.Sc.
Thesis, Texas A&M. Univ., 1965.
5. Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R., Burrows, D.B., Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases
under Pressure, Trans. AIME, 201, 264-272, 1954.
6. Standing, M.B., Katz, D.L., Density of Natural Gases, Trans. AIME, 146,
140, 1942.
7. Dietz, D.N., Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure from Build-up
Surveys, JPT, pp. 955-959, Aug. 1965.
8. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C., Petroleum
Production Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1993.
9. Earlougher, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE, 1977.
28
PTPR 6095
Appendix
Table 2
29
PTPR 6095
30
PTPR 6095
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Gas Deliverability
- LIT Analysis
(Inflow Performance
PTPR 6096
Module 4
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Gas Deliverability LIT Analysis

(Inflow Performance Relationship or
IPR)
Rationale
Deliverability testing of many wells - particularly high-pressure wells, high-rate
wells, wells in low permeability reservoirs and wells that can not be tested to
stabilized rates, require the application of techniques that account for turbulent
flow, for variation in gas properties in reservoirs having significant pressure
gradients and for flow tests conducted under transient conditions.
Learning Outcome
Understand and calculate the relationship between the gas flow rate from the
reservoir to the well and the pressure drop between the reservoir and the bottom
of the well assuming either laminar or turbulent flow.
Learning Objectives
1. Calculate Gas IPRs with the Laminar-Inertial-Turbulent (LIT) Method (both
laminar and turbulent) using stabilized (non-transient) conditions.
2. Understand and calculate the effect of formation damage or stimulation (skin)
on the laminar Simplified Gas Analysis Method and the LIT Method (both
laminar and turbulent).
3. Apply the transient Modified Isochronal Well Testing technique to both the
Simplified Gas Analysis and LIT Methods.
1
PTPR 6096
OBJECTIVE ONE
Calculate Gas IPRs with the Laminar-Inertial-Turbulent (LIT) Method (both
laminar and turbulent) using stabilized (non-transient) conditions.
Learning Activity
Learning Material
OVERVIEW OF WELL DELIVERABILTY TESTS
Conventional Back Pressure Test
As previously discussed in Module 3, the conventional back pressure test requires
flowing a gas well until pressure stabilization is achieved for each rate (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Conventional Backpressure Deliverability Test Plot
Amoco Production Company. This material has been copied under license from Access
2
PTPR 6096
Stabilization occurs when the radius of investigation (the well pressure transient)
has reached an external boundary of the reservoir. When that happens, average
reservoir pressure, and pressure at every point in the reservoir, decreases at a
constant (stabilized) rate.
Conventional back pressure testing is usually not practical for reservoirs with low
permeability because of the time required to reach pressure stabilization for each
rate.
Isochronal Test
An isochronal test of a gas well is conducted by flowing it at several different
flow rates, with four being a typical number, each of equal duration (Figure 2
below).
Figure 2
Isochronal Deliverability Test Plot
The length of each flow period is usually much less than the time required for
stabilization. The well is shut-in long enough between each flow period for the
shut-in pressure to approach static conditions.
The isochronal test takes advantage of the fact that the radius of investigation is a
function of time and not flow rate. However, an extended flow rate long enough
to reach pressure stabilization is required to determine the position of the
deliverability curve on the log-log plot of p2 versus qg.
In tight reservoirs the length of time required to reach pressure stabilization
between flow periods could also make an isochronal test impractical.
3
PTPR 6096
Modified Isochronal Test

An isochronal test in which the shut-in between flow periods is of the same
duration as each flow period is called a modified isochronal test (Figure 3). It also
requires an extended flow period to determine the position of the stabilized
deliverability line. There are typically four flow and shut-in periods. These equal
length periods are often four hours each though that can vary depending on the
reservoir.
Figure 3
Modified Isochronal Deliverability Test Plot
Some authors believe the theoretical validity of the modified isochronal test is not
as good as the isochronal test and therefore prefer the isochronal test. However,
the modified isochronal test requires the shortest time to conduct the test which
results in its widespread application nonetheless.
Single Point Test
A single point test consists only of an extended flow rate. It requires an estimate
of the degree of turbulent flow in the formation. This estimate is often based on
information provided by other wells in the same formation or calculated from
reservoir and fluid properties.
4
PTPR 6096
Simplified or LIT Analysis?

The two common methods of gas well deliverability analysis are the Simplified
Method that was covered in Module 3 and the Laminar-Inertial-Turbulent (LIT)
Method to be covered in detail in this module.
The LIT method is the most rigorous and technically sound method but it requires
more calculation effort and time. As a result, it is normally used to analyze those
gas well tests where turbulence is significant and where a straight-line
extrapolation to determine the AOF would result in significant error.
The laminar-inertial-turbulent terminology arises from the concept that between
laminar flow at low Reynolds numbers and turbulent flow at high Reynolds
numbers there is a transition period dominated by inertial effects as flow changes
from laminar streamline flow to turbulent (chaotic) flow.
Pressure, Pressure Squared or Pseudo-Pressure?
In the past, many analysts have used the following guidelines to determine
whether p, p2, or terms are used in gas inflow equations;
Static Reservoir Pressure
0 > 2500 psi; 0-17,500 kPa(a)
2500 > 3500 psi; 17,500-24,500 kPa(a)
> 3500 psi; >24,500 kPa(a)
Pressure
Function
p2
m(p) or
p
The above guidelines should be used with a good deal of caution as they are not
rigorous and may not apply in many cases - particularly in view of the following.
The Alberta EUB has an extensive technical discussion in Reference 2, page 2136, regarding which pressure term will provide the best accuracy for any
particular well. In summary, the EUBs finding is that if is a linear function of p
then the pressure approach becomes identical to the approach. If is a linear
function of p2 then the p2 approach becomes identical to the approach.
Obviously if is not a linear function of either p or p2 then the approach must
be best.
Furthermore, the EUB uses a chart presented in Reference 3 to state that it
essentially negates the generalization that the p2 approach is valid at low pressure
and the p approach applies at high pressures.
If in doubt and much is at stake, the pseudo-pressure approach works for all
pressure ranges although, as shown in Module 3, it requires much more
computation.
5
PTPR 6096
Transient or Steady State?

In their useful Guide G-3 (Reference 2), the EUB, and others, refer to the flow
during steady-state conditions as transient flow. This is because during transient
flow the well transient (radius of investigation) has not yet reached the external
no-flow boundary of the reservoir and is not influenced by either boundary effects
or well bore storage effects. As a result, the transient period provides the
maximum amount of information about the reservoir. However, the use of the
term transient to describe the steady state flow period is cause for some confusion
as the two words are somewhat opposite in meaning.
Stabilized or Unstabilized?
Deliverability testing a well to stabilization does not mean flowing it at constant
rate until the bottom hole pressure stops dropping but until the bottom hole
pressure, and the pressure everywhere else in the reservoir, declines at a constant
rate. This happens when the radius of investigation of the pressure disturbance
from opening the well to flow (the pressure transient) has reached the external
boundary of the reservoir. At that time the well is said to be stabilized sometimes referred to as depletion mode.
Flow testing a well so that none of the pressure transients have enough time to
reach the external boundary of the reservoir results in the technique of transient
deliverability testing. This means that transient deliverability testing is conducted
within the period the well is infinite-acting, that is, in steady state conditions. This
technique, to be covered in detail later in this module, minimizes test time and
costs as well as waste of gas if it can not be done into a flow line.
Obviously a calculation of the time to reach pseudo steady-state flow, to be
covered later in this module, is required to confirm that the radius of investigation
does not reach, or is affected by, the external boundaries of the reservoir.
GAS WELL DELIVERABILTY - LIT ANALYSIS
The following Forcheimer-type equations that take turbulent flow into account
were introduced in Module 3 of this course.
1. In oilfield units, for steady state flow in a gas reservoir with constant pressure
outer boundaries open to flow (for example, reservoirs with 100% aquifer
pressure support):
qg =
0.703 k g h (p e 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln (re /rw ) + s + Dq]
mscfd
(1)
2. In metric units, for steady state flow in a gas reservoir with constant pressure
outer boundaries open to flow:
PTPR 6096
qg =
0.000763 k g h (p e 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln (re /rw ) + s + Dq]
103 m3 /d
(2)
3. In oilfield units, for pseudo steady-state flow in a gas reservoir with no-flow
boundaries where the pressure everywhere in the reservoir declines at the
same rate (for example, a volumetric reservoir):
qg =
0.703 k g h (p R 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + s + Dq]
mscfd
(3)
4. In metric units, for pseudo steady-state flow in a gas reservoir with no-flow
boundaries where the pressure everywhere in the reservoir declines at the
same rate:
qg =
0.000763 k g h (p R 2 - p wf 2 )
g z T [ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + s + Dq]
103 m3 /d
(4)
In the above Forcheimer-type equations, D is the non-Darcy (turbulent) flow

coefficient, Dq is termed the turbulence skin effect (or pseudo-skin factor) and s is
the sum of all the skins other than the rate-dependent (turbulent) skin.
It was shown in Reference 6 that the effective drainage radius in pseudo steadystate flow (reservoirs with no-flow boundaries) initially increases with time but
then stabilizes at a value given by:
rd = 0.472 re
The metric equation for pseudo steady-state (stabilized) flow can be rearranged as
follows;
g z T
q g ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + s + Dq g
(pR2 - pwf2) =
0.000763 k h
g
If we define,
A =
and,
B =
1310 g z T
kg h
1310 g z T
kg h
ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + sq g + Dq g 2
[ln 0.472 (re
/rw ) + s ]
1310 g z T D
kg h
7
PTPR 6096
then we get,
p2 = (pR2 - pwf2) = Aqg + Bqg2
(5)
Equation (5) represents the LIT method for analysis of stabilized gas well
deliverability tests. Note that equation (5) can also be written in terms of pseudopressure as follows:
= (R - wf) = Aqg + Bqg2
(6)
Equation (6) represents the (LIT) method for analysis of stabilized gas well
In both equations, the A-term is the pressure-squared or pseudo-pressure drop due
to laminar and well bore effects while the B-term is the pressure-squared or
pseudo-pressure drop due to inertial-turbulent flow effects.
Note that the inertial-turbulent flow effect increases as the well bore is
approached in a radial system. This is due to the increase in flow velocity
(v = q/A) as the flow area (A = r2) decreases with the square of the distance (r).
If we ignore the turbulence term Bqg2, or assume it is negligible, we get
qg = C (pR2 - pwf2)
where
C = 1/A
n = 1
This, of course, is the conventional backpressure deliverability equation obtained

empirically by Rawlins and Schellhardt (Reference 1) that was covered in
Module 3.
Rearranging equation (5) above, we get
(p R 2 - p wf 2 )
qg
= A + Bqg
which has the form y = mx + b, the equation of a straight line of slope m with
intercept b.
This indicates that a plot of (pR2 - pwf2)/qg versus qg will give a straight line of
slope B (the value of the turbulent flow term) with intercept A (the value of the
laminar flow term).
If the value of kg h is known, for example from a build-up plot, then the turbulent
flow term B can be solved to determine the turbulence coefficient D.
PTPR 6096
Similarly, the laminar flow term A can be solved to determine the non-rate
dependent skin s if kg h is known.
In the Forcheimer equations, rd is the effective drainage radius. It is time
dependent until rd = 0.472 re; thereafter, rd/rw = 1.5 (tD)0.5. The value of tD,
dimensionless time, is given in oilfield units by:
tD =
0.000264 k g t
( g c t )i rw 2
Note in equation (5) above that the A-term which is multiplied by qg will increase
more slowly than the B-term which is multiplied by qg2. This implies that
turbulence is more of an issue in high kg h reservoirs that will have higher flow
rates than in low kg h reservoirs that will have lower flow rates.
9
PTPR 6096
Exercise One
1. A gas well was tested as follows;
Stabilized rate,
mscfd
0.0
9424
15628
20273
Bottom hole flowing

pressure, psia
408.2
394.0
378.7
362.7

Permeability to gas, 1405 md
Reservoir thickness, 115 ft
Gas viscosity, 0.02 cP
Real gas deviation factor, 0.91
Well spacing, four/section
Well bore diameter, 7-in.
Gas gravity, 0.60
Perforated interval, 115 ft
Non-turbulent skin, zero
a) Plot the backpressure data for this well on a log-log deliverability chart.
b) Calculate the laminar flow term for this well assuming non-turbulent skin
is zero. Plot a laminar deliverability line on the deliverability chart.
c) Determine the inertial-turbulent flow term for this well and plot the
inertial-turbulent deliverability line on the deliverability plot.
d) Sum the laminar and inertial-turbulent lines and plot the result on the loglog chart.
e) Calculate the turbulence coefficient D by correlation and compare to the
value of D calculated in 1. c).
f) Write the complete LIT deliverability equation for this well.
g) Determine the bottom hole AOF for this well.
h) Calculate one or two extra points on the deliverability curve to better
define it and create a bottom hole Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)
curve for this well. Can this curve be used throughout the life of this well?
10
PTPR 6096
OBJECTIVE TWO
Understand and calculate the effect of formation damage or stimulation (skin) on

the laminar Simplified Gas Analysis Method and the LIT Method (both laminar
and turbulent).
Learning Material
SIMPLIFIED METHOD SKIN CALCULATION
The conventional backpressure deliverability equation is:

qg = C (pR2 - pwf2)n
where n = 1.0 for 100% laminar flow
n = 0.5 for 100% turbulent flow
with intermediate values of n representing the relative amount of laminar and
turbulent flow.
The simplified method assumes stabilized flow that is made up of some
combination of laminar and turbulent components.
Ignoring the turbulent flow component and assuming 100% laminar flow, n = 1.0
and the conventional backpressure equation can be rearranged as follows:
(p R 2 - p wf 2 )
=C
qg
where (in metric units), C =
and (in oilfield units),
C=
kg h
1310 ( g z)avg T [ ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + s ]

kg h
1424 ( g z)avg T [ ln 0.472 (re /rw ) + s ]
If flow is laminar and the deliverability equation flow coefficient is determined

from a stabilized well test, then it is possible to calculate the non-turbulent skin
factor, s, if the product of kg h is known.
Normally the product of kg h (in md-m or md-ft), known as the flow capacity of
the reservoir, is obtained from a build-up test.
11
PTPR 6096
When kg h is small, the assumption of laminar flow is good and the value of s
obtained by this method is reasonably accurate.
LIT METHOD SKIN CALCULATION
In Exercise One above, the information that the non-turbulent skin, s, was zero
was provided for the problem well.
The non-turbulent skin, s, shows up only in the laminar flow term of the
deliverability curve while the turbulence coefficient, D, shows up in the turbulent
flow term of the deliverability curve.
If the value of the non-turbulent skin, s, is not known then it is necessary to solve
a pair of simultaneous equations in order to determine the two unknowns, s and D,
which both figure in the calculation of (pR2 - pwf2).
The pair of equations to be solved is:
(pR2 - pwf12) = Aqg1 + Bqg12
and
(pR2 - pwf22) = Aqg2 + Bqg22
Once values for A and B are determined, then the equations for A and B can be
solved for the non-turbulent skin factor, s, and the turbulent flow factor, D.
If it turns out that the total apparent skin is constant at two different gas well flow
test rates, then non-Darcy (turbulent) flow is not a factor at the higher of the two
flow rates. Note that turbulent flow could become a factor at a higher flow rate.
The best way to illustrate this is to work through Exercise Two.
12
PTPR 6096
Exercise Two
1. A gas well was tested as follows;
Stabilized rate,
mscfd
0.0
9424
15628
20273
Bottom hole flowing

pressure, psia
408.2
380.8
350.1
316.3

Permeability to gas, 1405 md
Reservoir thickness, 115 ft
Real gas deviation factor, 0.91
Well spacing, four/section
Well bore diameter, 7-in.
Gas gravity, 0.60
Perforated interval, 115 ft
Note that the laminar and turbulent skin factors for this well are not known.
a) Plot the backpressure data for this well on a log-log deliverability chart.
b) Using the second and third flow rates, write a pair of simultaneous
deliverability equations and solve for the laminar flow term A and the
turbulent flow term B.
c) Solve the laminar flow term A for the skin factor s and the turbulent flow
term B for the turbulence factor D.
d) Plot the laminar deliverability line and the inertial-turbulent deliverability
line on the log-log deliverability chart. Determine the slopes of the laminar
deliverability line and the inertial-turbulent deliverability line.
e) Sum the laminar and inertial-turbulent deliverability lines and plot the
calculated LIT deliverability line on the log-log plot.
f) Write the complete deliverability equation.
g) Calculate the bottom hole AOF for this well.
h) Plot the IPR for this well with a skin factor on the same chart as the well
in Exercise One which has a skin factor of zero. Note the effect of skin on
deliverability and AOF.
13
PTPR 6096
OBJECTIVE THREE
Apply the transient Modified Isochronal Well Testing technique to both the
Simplified Gas Analysis and LIT Methods.
Learning Material
FLOW REGIMES OVERVIEW
During a well flow test that is conducted at a constant flow rate, three flow
regimes are apparent (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Flow Regimes for Constant Pressure Drawdown
Prentice Hall. This material has been copied under license from Access Copyright.
14
PTPR 6096
Early Time Flow (Well Bore Storage)
The early-time flow period is strongly affected by well bore storage effects and
linear flow through any fractures. It is usually short. When a well is opened, flow
is initially from the well bore and any connected fractures (natural or induced).
Flow from the reservoir increases from zero until all the flow is from the
reservoir. This occurs at a time tws given by the following (for wells with zero
skin) in metric units:
t ws =
2653 Vws C ws
kh
Vws is the well bore storage volume and Cws is the total compressibility of the
fluids in the well bore storage volume. The above equation also gives the time
when the transient (steady state) period starts.
For wells with non-zero skin, References 8 and 9 provide dimensionless type
curves showing the combined effect of well bore storage and skin on the time of
the end of the well bore storage (early time flow) period and the start of the
transient (pseudo steady-state) flow period.
Transient Period (Steady State Flow)
The transient period starts after the early-time flow period (there may be a period
of transition) and ends when the reservoir boundary begins to have a significant
effect. During this period, the well is infinite-acting because the well pressure
transient sees a constant pressure equal to the pressure at the external boundary of
the reservoir until it reaches that boundary. During transient (steady state) flow,
there is flow across the constant pressure boundary equal to the flow from the
well bore.
Transient flow ends when the well transient (that is, radius of investigation)
reaches the external boundary, at re, of the closed reservoir at a time given by:
t ss =
0.25 re 2 c
k
15
PTPR 6096
During the transient (steady state) period, the reach of the well transient, or
radius of investigation, is given by the following:
rinv
kt
=2
0.5
This equation, a re-arrangement of the preceding one, is valid only for rinv re.
Note the difference between the radius of investigation, rinv, and the effective
drainage radius, rd. It was shown that the effective drainage radius for a well in
stabilized (pseudo steady-state) flow stabilizes at a value given by:
rd = 0.472 re
The effective drainage radius is a mathematical definition required to force the
steady state equation to represent the pseudo steady-state solution and does not
have a physical counterpart.
Stabilized Period (Pseudo Steady-State)
The steady state period ends when the pressure transient encounters the external
boundary of the reservoir. At this time the reservoir pressure at the boundary, and
at all points in the reservoir, start to decrease at the same constant rate hence the
name pseudo steady-state.
Depending on the shape of the reservoirs external boundary and the location of
the well relative to that boundary, there may be a long transition period between
the transient (or steady-state) flow regime and the stabilized (or pseudo steadystate) flow regime. Not all reservoirs are circular with a well in the center by any
means! Boundary effects ultimately dominate the pressure behaviour at a well.
16
PTPR 6096
TRANSIENT DELIVERABILTY
To this point the deliverability relationships presented - the Rawlins and

Schellhardt conventional back pressure deliverability equation and the Forcheimer
versions of the deliverability equation for turbulent flow represented by equations
(5) and (6) - are all at stabilized (pseudo steady-state) conditions, that is, where
rinv re.
The transient flow deliverability equation presented below is not derived
empirically or from the Forcheimer equation for turbulent flow. It is an
approximation to the analytical solution of the classic diffusivity equation as
applied to flow in reservoirs with appropriate inner boundary conditions. The
mathematics of deriving the deliverability equation for transient (steady state)
conditions will not be covered here. Detail on the derivation of this equation can
be found in chapters 2 and 4 of Reference 4.
The deliverability equation for transient (steady state) flow conditions, was
written using p2 as follows in oil field units by Fetkovich (Reference 7):
(p R 2 - p wf 2 ) =
Where pR
pwf
g
z
T
s
k
h
rw
qg
t
tD
and,
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
tD =
1424 (g z)avg T
kh
{0.5 (ln t D + 0.809) + s} q g + Dq g 2
(7)
static reservoir pressure, psia

flowing bottom hole pressure, psia
gas viscosity, cps
gas deviation factor, dimensionless
reservoir temperature, Rankin
non-turbulent skin, dimensionless
turbulence factor, ft-1
gas gravity
effective permeability to gas, md
net pay, ft
porosity, fraction
well bore radius, ft
gas flow rate, mscfd
time, days
dimensionless time
6.33 x 10-3 k P t
g rw 2
17
PTPR 6096
Fetkovich provided a definition of the turbulence coefficient D as:

2.226 x 10-15 k
D =
h rw g
If we define,
At =
and,
Bt =
1424 ( g z)avg T
kg h
[{0.5(ln t D
(8)
+ 0.809) + s}]
1424 ( g z)avg T D
kg h
then, by substituting in Equation 7 we get,

p t 2 = (p R 2 - p wf 2 ) = A t q g + Bt q g 2
(9)
Equation (9) represents the LIT method for analysis of transient (pseudo steadystate) gas well deliverability tests. However, Equation (9) is strictly correct only
in terms of pseudo-pressure as follows:
t = ( R - wf ) = A t q g + Bt q g 2
(10)
Equation (10) represents the LIT- method for analysis of transient (pseudo
steady-state) gas well deliverability tests.
By combining the definitions for B and D above, we get:
rearranging,
3.17 x 10-12 z T
Bt =
h 2 rw
(11)
Bt h 2 rw
3.17 x 10-12 z T
(12)
A value for is determined using equation (12) with the value of Bt determined
from solving a pair of simultaneous equations for values of At and Bt. Then a
value for D can be calculated. The turbulent flow skin effect is then given by Dq.
18
PTPR 6096
Exercise Three
1. A modified isochronal test was conducted on a gas well. Average reservoir
pressure was 1948 psia. Given the following flow test data:
Flow No.
1
2
3
4
Extended
pwf, psia
1784
1680
1546
1355
1233
pws, psia
1948
1927
1911
1887
1948
qg, mscfd
4500
5600
6850
8250
8000
a) Determine C and n for this well for stabilized conditions.

b) Determine the stabilized AOF under stabilized and transient conditions
using graphical and equation methods as outlined below.
Procedure: Graphical Method Stabilized Conditions
a. Plot the data on a log-log deliverability chart and draw a best fit line
through the four transient data points.
b. Determine n by calculating the slope of the transient curve. To do this,
read the flow rate change over one log cycle of p2 and divide by one
(log 10x log x is always 1).
c. Draw a stabilized line with the same slope as the transient line through
the stabilized test point.
d. Calculate C by using the stabilized deliverability equation.
e. Determine stabilized AOF by extrapolating the stabilized deliverability
line and by calculating it using the stabilized deliverability equation.
Do the values agree?
Procedure: Equation Method Transient Conditions
f. Since values for s and D are not known, plot values of (pR2 - pwf2)/qg
versus qg to determine At and Bt graphically.
g. Write the transient deliverability equation and use it to calculate the
transient AOF for this well.
h. Calculate a stabilized IPR using the stabilized deliverability equation.
Plot the stabilized IPR curve and the transient (test data) IPR curve on
a Cartesian plot.
19
PTPR 6096

1. a. Construct the deliverability plot of
(p
2
R
p wf 2 ) versus q g on Log-Log chart
(p
p wf
2
R
-p wf 2 )
qg
psi 2
mscfd
480.2
394.0
0
11391
0
9424
378.7
23214
15628
362.7
35076
20273
psia
b. Calculate the laminar deliverability line using the L-I-T (for cheimer) equation
for pseodo-steady state flow in oilfield units:
(p
2
R
-p wf 2 ) = A q g +Bqg 2
where
A=
rd
1424gZT
ln 0.472
kgh
rw

+ s

solving
A=
1424i0.02i0.91i58o
1489
ln 0.472
+ o
1405i115
0.292
= 0.72436
(p
2
R
-p wf 2 )
11391
23214
35076
Aq g
6826
11320
14685
20
PTPR 6096
c. Calculate the inertial-turbulent deliverability line using hte L-T-T

(fercheimer) equation for pseudo-steady state flow in oilfield units:
(p
2
R
-p wf 2 ) =A q g +Bqg 2
where
B=1424
kgZT
D
kgh
Solving
1424i0.02i0.91i580
D
1405i115
= 0.093033 D
To find D, use flow rate # 3 data
35076=0.72436 (20273) + 0.093033 D (20273)
B=
D= 5.3329 i 10-4
B= 0.093033 i5.329i10-4
and
= 4.9577i10-5
(p R 2 -p wf 2 )
11391
23214
35076
Bq g 2
4406
12117
20391
d. Calculate the turbulence coefficient D by correlation and compare to the value

of D from the test data.using the correlation:
D=
6g10-5 k -0.1 h
rw h 2 pert
Solving,
D=
6g10-5 g0.60g(1405)-0.1 g115

0.02g0.292g(115) 2
= 2.597 g10-5
e. Add the laminar and inertial turbulent deliverability lines to determine the
calculated LIT line
(p
-p wf 2 )
Aq g
Bq g 2
A q g + Bq g 2
11391
6826
4406
11233
23214
11320
12113
23438
35076
14685
20391
35076
PTPR 6096
21
f. The LIT deliverability equation for this well is, in oilfiend units:
(p
2
R
-p wf 2 ) = 0.72436q g + 4.9614i105 q g 2
g. There are several ways to determine the bottom hole 4of for this well:
(i) Extrapolate by "eyeball" the deliverability curve on the log-log plot
(quick, but least accuarate)
(ii) use the forcheimer flow equation to calculate q g for p wf =0
(iii) Re-arrange the deliverability equation and solve for q g with p wf = 0
Using the quadratic formula we will use method (iii)
Re-arranging the LIT equation in 1)f above to the form
ax 2 +bx+c=0
gives 4.9614i10-6 q g 2 + 0.72436q g 166627 = 0
The solution to equations of the above form is:
y=
-b b 2 -4ac
2a
( 0.72436 )
0.72436
qg =
4(4.9614i105 i166727)
2(4.9614i105 )
-0.72436 5.7957
9.9228i10-5
Only the + root yields a positive answer therefore
-0.72436+5.7957
qg =
9.9228i10-5
= 51 100 mscfd = 4 of
=

1. a. Plot (p R 2 -p wf 2 )versus q g on a log-log delverability plot.
p wf
(p R 2 -p wf 2 )
qg
psi 2
mscfd
408.2
380.8
21632
9424
350.1
44083
15628
316.3
66069
20273
psia
22
PTPR 6096
Exercise Two, Problem 1)

L-I-T Analysis
Test data
1.00E+06
(pR -pwf ), psi
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Flow rate, mscfd
23
PTPR 6096
b. Use (p R 2 -p wf 2 ) = A qg + Bqg 2
#3
(408.22 350.12 ) = 15626 A + (15628) 2 B
#4
(408.22 316.32 ) = 20273 A + (20273)2 B
#3
44083 = 15628A+244.23i106 B
#4
66609 = 20273A+410.99i106 B
2252.6 = 4645 A + 166.76 i106 B
A = 4.850-35900 B
#4-#3
44083 = 15628 (4.850-35900B) +244.23i106 B
substituting
44083 = 75796 - 561.05i106 B + 244.23i106 B

3i6.82B = 31713
B = 1.001i10-4
A = 1.256
substituting
c. Laminar flow term in oilfield units

A=
1424 gZT
rd
ln 0.472 + s
kgh
rn
1.256=
1424i0.02i0.91i580
2980
ln 0.472
+ s
1405i115
0.292
1.256
8.48
0.09303
= 5.02
s=
The turbulent flow term is given by:

B=
1424 g ZT
D
kgh
1.001 i10-4 = 0.09303D

D= 1.076i10-3
24
PTPR 6096
d. Plot the laminar deliverability line given by

(p R 2 -p wf 2 ) = Aq
or
(p R 2 -p wf 2 )
psi 2
q2 =
(PR 2 -Pwf 2 )
A
q
Aq
mscfd
21632
17223
11837
44083
35098
19629
66609
53033
25463
Plot the inertial- turbulent deliverability line given by:

(p R 2 -p wf 2 ) = Bq g 2
(p R 2 -p wf 2 )
Bq 2
21632
17223
8816
44083
35098
24243
66609
53033
40797
psi 2
d. See laminar and inertial-turbulent deliverability lines plotted below.

Slope (1/n) of laminar deliverability line is 1 (n=1).
Slope (1/n) of inertial-turbulent line is 2 (n=0.5).
25
PTPR 6096
Exercise Two, Problem 1) d.

L-I-T Analysis
Test data
Inertial-Turbulent Line
Laminar Line
1.00E+06
(pR -pwf ), psi
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Flow rate, mscfd
e. Sum laminar and inertial-turbulent deliverability lines and plot on log-log chart:
(p R 2 -p wf 2 )
Aq
Bq 2
Aq +Bq 2
21632
44083
11837
19629
8816
24243
20652
43872
66609
25463
40797
66529
inertial turbulent p excess laminar p 2 at about 12 000 mscfd

2
26
PTPR 6096
Exercise Two, Problem 1) e.

L-I-T Analysis
Test data
Inertial-Turbulent Line
Laminar Line
Calculated L-I-T Line
1.00E+06
(pR -pwf ), psi
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1000
10000
100000
1000000
Flow rate, mscfd
27
PTPR 6096
f. The deliverability equation is

(408.22 -Pwf 2 )= 1.256 q g + 1.00i104 q g 2
g. Re-arranging the deliverability
equation to the form:
ax 2 +bx+c=0
1.001i10-4 q g 2 + 1.256q g 166627 = 0
Gives
for Pwf=0 and q g =Aof

The solution to the quadratic equation is:
b b 2 4ac
x=
2a
substituting,
Aof=
-1.256
(1.256 )
4i1.00i104 i1.66627
2i1.001i10-4
= 34900 mscfd
h. Well IPR curves with zero non-turbulent skin and with +5 non-turbulent
skin are plotted below.
Exer. Two, Prob 1) h.
500
IPR Curve, Skin = +5
400
pwf, psia
IPR Curve, Skin = 0

300
200
100
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
q g, m scfd
28
PTPR 6096
60000

1. a. Plot of data on log-log deliverability chart with best fit line
1
log 6000 log1600
=
scope
log106 log105
3.78-3.20
=
1
= 0.58
c. See log-log deliverability chart below:
b. n=
Exercise Three, Problem 1) a., 1) c.

L-I-T Analysis
(pR 2-pwf2), psi2
1.00E+07
1
1.00E+06
Transient Test Data

Stabilized Test Data
1.00E+05
1000
10000
100000
Flow rate, mscfd
29
PTPR 6096
d. For the stabilized line,

q = c( p R 2 - p wf 2 ) n
and
q
C=
(p
2
R
- p wf )
From the stabilized line

At (p R 2 - p wf 2 ) = 1i106 psi 2
q = 5000 mscfd
Therefore
5000
(1i106 )0.54
c=
= 2.877 mscfd/psi 2
AOF = 2.877 (19482 -0)0.54
e.
= 10,273 mscfd
By extrapolation
AOF
10,200 mscfd
f. To determine A t and Bt ,calculate
(p
2
ws
p wf 2 )
qg
and plot versus q g , on a cartesian plot. The intercept of the straight
line fitted to the transient data is A t and the slope is Bt .

Test
Flow
no
Rate
p ws
mscfd
psia
0
1948
1
4500
1984
2
5600
1927
3
6850
1911
4
8250
1887
EyL.
8000
1948
Intercept = A t = 49.233
p wf
psia
1948
1284
1680
1546
1355
1233
p ws 2 -p wf 2
psia 2
0
612048
840929
1261805
1724744
2274415
p ws 2 -p wf 2
qg
psia2/mscfd
136.01
159.09
184.21
209.66
284.30
Slope = Bt = 0.0195
30
PTPR 6096
g. The transient deliverability equation is
(p
2
R
-p wf 2 ) =19.666q g +0.0267q g 2
Re-arranging,
0.0195 q g 2 + 49.233q g ( p R 2 -p wf 2 ) = 0
Which has the form
ax 2 +bx +c=0
That can be solved using the quadratic formula
b b 2 4ac
x=
2a
At p wf = 0
p R = 1978
0.0195 q g 2 + 49.233q g 3794704 = 0
and q g =
-49.233
( 49.233)
4i0.0195i3.794709
2i0.0195
= 12 745 mscfd
This is the AOF during the transient period
31
PTPR 6096
Prob. 1. e. and 1. g. Plot showing stabilized and transient AOFs shown below.
Exercise Three, Problem 1) e., 1) g.
L-I-T Analysis
(pR 2-pwf2), psi2
1.00E+07
1
1.00E+06
Transient Test Data

Transient AOF
Stabilized Test data
Stabilized AOF
1.00E+05
1000
10000
100000
Flow rate, mscfd
h. Calculate stabilized IPR curve using stabilized deliverability equation:

q g =1.656 (19482 -p wf 2 )0.58
p wf
32
psia
1948
1800
1600
1300
900
600
300
0
qg
mscfd
0
5553
5652
7700
9430
10230
10689
10839
PTPR 6096
Exercise Three, Problem 1) h.

Transient and Stabilized IPR Curves
2000
Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure, psia
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
Transient IPR from Test Data
200
Calculated Stabilized IPR
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Gas Rate, mscfd
33
PTPR 6096
Module Self-Test
1. The conventional backpressure test requires each flow be done
a.
b.
c.
d.
until pressure has stabilized and does not decline any further
until pressure is observed to decline at a constant rate
for several equal time intervals followed by a shut-in to stabilized pressure
for equal time intervals each of which is followed by a shut-in of equal
time
2. When a pressure transient reaches an external reservoir boundary, all

pressures in the reservoir begin to decrease at a constant rate.
a. True
b. False
3. The modified isochronal test is the most theoretically rigorous test and can be
completed in the shortest amount of time.
a. True
b. False
4. The Laminar-Inertial-Turbulent method of gas well deliverability test analysis
is the best method to use for wells where turbulence dominates well inflow.
a. True
b. False
5. Under some conditions, the p2 approach and the p approach are just as
accurate as the (pseudo-pressure) approach to well test analysis.
a. True
b. False
6. The transient flow period
a. is also called the steady state period
b. is characterized by a well transient that has reached the external boundary
of the reservoir
c. means the well is infinite acting
d. all of the above
7. When the radius of the well pressure transient, the radius of investigation and
the drainage radius all have values equal to the radius of a circular reservoir,
pseudo steady-state flow begins.
a. True
b. False
34
PTPR 6096
8. If the flow capacity of a reservoir is small, then laminar flow becomes more
likely.
a. True
b. False
9. Which of the following is not true?
a. Well bore storage flow is followed by transient flow which is followed by
steady state flow.
b. Early time flow is followed by steady state flow which is followed by
pseudo steady-state flow.
c. Early time flow is followed by transient flow which is followed by pseudo
steady-state flow.
d. There may be a transition period between well bore storage flow and
transient flow as well as between transient flow and pseudo steady-state
flow.
10. If a well is in pseudo steady-state flow, the external boundary of the reservoir
is a no-flow boundary
a. True
b. False
11. On the log-log plot of an LIT analysis of a deliverability test for a gas well
with significant turbulence,
a. the slope of the laminar deliverability line is always 1 and the slope of the
inertial-turbulent deliverability line is always 2
b. the laminar and inertial-turbulent deliverability lines are always straight
but the overall well deliverability line is curved
c. the overall well deliverability curve is the sum of the laminar and inertialturbulent deliverability lines.
d) all of the above
12. For a gas well tested at different rates during the transient flow period the
non-Darcy skin will not change even if turbulence is significant.
a. True
b. False
13. For wells that are not in the center of circular reservoirs, flow equations must
be modified with appropriate shape factors.
a. True
b. False
35
PTPR 6096

1. b
2. a
3. b
4. a
5. a
6. a
7. b
8. a
9. a
10. a
11. d
12. b
13. a
36
PTPR 6096
Assignment
1. Identify the main types of well deliverability tests and describe how each is
unique.
2. Identify the main types of flow conditions in a reservoir and describe the
distinguishing characteristics of each.
3. Discuss the differences between a stabilized deliverability line and a transient
deliverability line.
4. Discuss the difference between a laminar deliverability line, an inertialturbulent deliverability line and an overall well deliverability line.
5. Discuss the different values that the deliverability exponent, n, can have
depending on whether flow is laminar or turbulent and depending on what
position on an LIT deliverability line it is measured at.
37
PTPR 6096
References
1. Rawlins, E.L., Schellhardt, M.A., Backpressure Data on Natural Gas Wells
and their Application to Production Operations, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Monograph 7, 1936.
2. ERCB Guide G-3, Gas Well Testing, 4th Ed, 1979.
3. Aziz, K., Mattar, L., Ko, S. and Brar, G.S., Use of Pressure, PressureSquared or Pseudo-Pressure in the Analysis of Gas Well Data, J. Can. Pet.
Tech., 1975.
5. Systems Nodal Analysis, Engineering Reference I-23, Amoco Production
Company, 1984.
6.
Aronofsky, J.S., Jenkins, R., A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady Radial Gas

Flow, Trans. AIME, 201, 149-154, (1954).
7.
Fetkovich, M.J., Multipoint Testing of Gas Wells, SPE Well Test Analysis
Course, March 17, 1975.
8.
Ramey, H.J.. Jr., Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in the Presence of
Skin Effect and Well Bore Storage, J. Pet. Tech.., 23, 14093-1505. 1970).
9.
Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., An Investigation of

Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow, Soc. Pet. Eng. J.,
10, 279-290. (1970).
38
PTPR 6096
Appendix
Table 1
39
PTPR 6096
40
PTPR 6096
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Advanced Production Engineering - PTPR 465
Flow in Tubulars
(Outflow Performance
Relationship)
PTPR 6097
Module 5
Revised: November 2007
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Flow in Tubulars (Outflow

Performance Relationship)
Rationale
Well bore tubulars are one of the key components of the Outflow Performance
Relationship that determines production rate together with the Inflow
Performance Relationship.
Understanding the factors that affect flow in tubulars and knowledge of the
computation tools to determine pressure drops in them are critical to being able to
optimize the hydrocarbon production system.
Learning Outcome
Calculate the relationship between the pressure drop up a well bore tubular and
the flow rate.
Learning Objectives
1. Understand and calculate the relationship (including friction factor) between
flow rate and pressure drop for single-phase flow.
2. Understand the difficulties caused by two- and three-phase flow when
calculating the relationship between flow rate and pressure drop.
3. Estimate the flow rate and pressure drop relationship for two- and three-phase
flow using pressure traverse curves.
1
PTPR 6097
OBJECTIVE ONE
Understand and calculate the relationship (including friction factor) between flow
rate and pressure drop for single-phase flow.
Learning Activity
Learning Material
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW IN TUBULARS
Well bore tubulars are one of the main components of the hydrocarbon production
system. They usually consist of one or more strings of tubing run inside the well
bore casing pipe. Flow of reservoir fluids is up the tubular(s) or up the annulus
between the tubular(s) and the casing, or sometimes both.
Packers are sometimes used to isolate some of the available flow paths up the well
bore while production equipment or tubing attachments can assist, or interfere,
with flow. Some tubing attachments (for example, sliding sleeves) permit
changing the flow path between a tubular and the annulus with a simple operation
on the wire line.
Although some wells produce single-phase oil, gas or water, most wells have twophase flow, (gas and oil, gas and water, oil and water) or three-phase flow (oil,
gas and water).
Depending on many factors such as fluid type and properties, pressures and flow
rates and mechanical properties such as tubular diameters and lengths, friction
factors and inclination, the characteristics of multi-phase fluid flow can be very
complex and can vary widely. Determining the pressure drop and flow rate
sometimes requires the ability to determine the specific flow regime and always
requires knowledge of the appropriate specific multi-phase correlation to estimate
flow rate and pressure drop with reasonable accuracy.
2
PTPR 6097
This module will focus on an understanding of single and multi-phase flow and
the use of published pressure traverses to estimate the performance of the tubulars
component of the hydrocarbon production system.
Single-Phase Incompressible Flow
As illustrated in Figure 1, the single-phase flow of an incompressible fluid can be
characterized as either laminar or turbulent depending on the value of a
dimensionless quantity called the Reynolds number.
Laminar flow, also called streamline flow, is characteristic of lower fluid
velocities. It has only a longitudinal component of velocity with no radial
component. Turbulent flow on the other hand has randomly fluctuating flow
velocity in all directions, that is, eddies. Turbulent flow, sometimes called plug
flow, has a flatter profile of fluid velocity across the pipe diameter - hence the
name plug flow than does laminar flow. The flatter velocity profile across a
pipe section containing turbulent flow is due to radial mixing.
Laminar flow has a larger variation in fluid velocity across the pipe diameter with
maximum velocity at the center of the pipe and a minimum velocity near the well
of the pipe due to a lack of radial mixing. For either type of flow, there is always a
thin layer of fluid at the pipe wall, the boundary layer or laminar sub-layer,
which is always moving in laminar flow.
Figure 1
Laminar and Turbulent Flow in Pipe
Crane Co. This material has been copied under license from Access Copyright.
There is a narrow zone between laminar and turbulent flow, called the critical
zone, where flow can be either laminar or turbulent depending on factors such as
changes in pipe section, changes in direction of flow and hindrances to flow such
as valves. This zone starts at the Reynolds lower critical number of about 2000
and generally extends up to the Reynolds upper critical number of about 4000.
Above the Reynolds upper critical number there is a transition zone to fully
turbulent flow.
3
PTPR 6097
The Reynolds number, NRE, is a dimensionless combination of fluid variables

that can be thought of as the ratio of inertial forces, that is, those caused by
acceleration or deceleration of fluids, to the forces of viscous shear.
For single-phase incompressible flow in a circular pipe the dimensionless
Reynolds number is given by:
NRE =
where v
D
=
=
=
=
vD
average velocity, m/s

diameter, m
density, kgm/m3
viscosity, Pa-s (kgm/m-s)
Discussion of Units of Dynamic Viscosity

Dynamic viscosity, , is defined as shear stress on a fluid, , divided by the
resulting rate of change of the fluids velocity with distance, dv/dx.
The resulting units of viscosity are N-sec m-2. Since by definition 1 newton, N, is
the force required to accelerate 1 kgm by 1 m sec-1 per sec, then:
= N-sec m-2 = kgm m sec-2 sec m-2 = kgm m-1 sec-1
By modern definition:
1 Pa-s = 1 kgm m-1 sec-1
where Pa-s is a Pascal-second.
In the past, 1 Poiseuille was the name given to 1 kgm m-1 sec-1 and 1 Poise was the
name given to 1 gmm cm-1 sec-1. It should be apparent that 1 Poise is 1/10th of a
Poiseuille and that 1/100th of a Poise, or 1 cP, is 1/1000th of a Poiseuille, or, today,
1/1000th of a Pa-sec. It is easy to be confused about units of dynamic viscosity.
Fortunately, this module does not require discussion of kinematic viscosity and its
conversion to dynamic viscosity!
Convention in the oil patch is to use cP (1/1000th of a Pa-s) for both gas and liquid
viscosities. Liquid viscosities are generally a few cP or higher while gas
viscosities are a small fraction of a cP. Obviously, when using any flow
equations, attention to the correct units is critical to obtaining the correct answer.
PTPR 6097
Definitions of Reynolds Numbers for the Oilpatch

By substituting q/A = v and A = D2/4 for circular pipe in the expression for the
Reynolds number, we get the general expression of the Reynolds number for flow
in a circular pipe:
NRE =
4q
D
Then, by converting seconds to days and m to mm we get the dimensionless

expression for the Reynolds number for single-phase incompressible flow in a
circular pipe in metric units of m3/d, kgm/m3, mm, and Pas:
NRE =
0.0147 q
D
In oilfield units of bbl/d, lbm/ft3, in. and cP, the dimensionless expression for the
Reynolds number for single-phase incompressible flow in a circular pipe is:
NRE =
1.48 q
D
Pressure Drop in Single-Phase Flow

To determine the pressure drop in pipe, a mechanical energy balance approach is
used. The total pressure drop, p, is the sum of all gains or losses due to any
changes in potential energy, pPE, kinetic energy, pKE, and flowing friction, pF
In other words:
p = pPE + pKE + pF
Integration of the differential form of the above mechanical energy balance

equation, which assumes incompressible flow and no work energy added or
removed from the fluid, gives the following expression for the total pressure drop
in a pipe of total length L:
p = p1 p2 =
2f f u 2 L
g
z +
u2 +
gc D
2g c
gc
Eq. 1
where g/gc = a term to convert oilfield (and imperial engineering system) units
between force and mass and to adjust equations when gravitational
force differs significantly from the value at mean sea level (at sea
level, g = 32.2 ft sec-2; gc, the constant of proportionality = 32.2 ft
lbm lbf-1 sec-2; therefore, g/gc = 1lbf/lbm at sea level
= density of incompressible fluid, lbm/ft3
z = change in elevation, ft
u = change in flow velocity, ft/sec
ff = Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
L = length of pipe between points 1 and 2, ft
D = internal pipe diameter, ft
5
PTPR 6097
To calculate the change in pressure due to change in elevation (potential energy,

PE) for flow in a straight pipe of length L and inclination angle , as measured
from the horizontal, where flow is upward (point 1 lower than point 2):
pPE =
g
L sin
gc
Note that for horizontal flow, the sin of 0 deg is 0 (no potential energy change).
For vertical flow, the sin of 90 deg is 1.
To calculate the change in pressure due to a change in the velocity of the fluid
(kinetic energy, KE) as a result of a change in pipe diameter between points 1 and
2:
8q
pKE = 2
(D2-4 D1-4)
gc
To calculate the frictional pressure drop (always positive) the Fanning equation is
used:
2f f u 2 L
pF =
gc D
For laminar flow, the Fanning friction factor is a simple function of the Reynolds
number:
ff, lam = 16/NRE
PTPR 6097
For turbulent flow, the Fanning friction factor depends on both the Reynolds
number and the pipe roughness. The Moody friction factor diagram (Figure 2)
relates relative surface roughness, defined as /D, where is the height of the
protrusions from the nominal pipe internal diameter, D. Note that the Moody
friction factor, f, is 64/NRE.
Figure 2
Moody Friction Factor Diagram
Crane Co. This material has been copied under license from Access Copyright. Resale
or further copying of this material is strictly prohibited.
Figure 3 gives relative roughness values for different types and sizes of clean
pipe. Note in Figure 3 the increase in relative roughness, and therefore friction
factor, with a decrease in diameter for each type of pipe. It is common for the
roughness of pipe to increase over time due to scale, corrosion and other deposits.
It is possible to calculate friction factors using the following correlation for
smooth wall pipe developed by Drew, Koo and McAdams (Reference 10);
f = 0.0056 + 0.5NRE -0.32
(3000 < NRE < 1,000,000)
For fully rough pipe, the correlation of Nikuradze (Reference 11) can be used;
f--2 = 1.74 2 log (2
/D)
7
PTPR 6097
Figure 3
Relative Roughness of Pipe
or further copying of this material is strictly prohibited
Reference 2 (Ex. 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4) provides examples of the use of the above
equations to calculate the pressure drops for single-phase incompressible flow.
PTPR 6097
Single-Phase Compressible Flow
In a gas well, because the fluid is compressible, fluid density and fluid velocity
are not constant along the tubular.
The mechanical energy balance for gas in a tubular can be written without the
kinetic energy term as the diameter of tubulars in a well bore does not usually
change significantly and because the change in kinetic energy due to changes in
temperature and pressure are small compared to changes in potential energy and
losses due to friction. Thus, for gas flow in well bore tubulars with no work
energy mechanically extracted or added from the gas stream:
p = pPE + pF
In differential form and slightly re-arranged, Eq. 1is:
2f u 2 L
d g
=
dz + f
gc
gc D
Substituting dz = sin dL allows combining the two terms on the right as
follows:
2f u 2
d g
=
sin + f
dL
gc
gc D
Re-arranging the real gas law to calculate density and using = MWg/28.97 in
terms of fluid density gives an expression for gas density:
=
28.97 g p
ZRT
The gas velocity, u, is given by u = q/A = q/(d2/4) as follows:

u=
T psc
4
q sc Z
2
D
Tsc p
By making the substitutions for and u in the differential form of the mechanical
energy equation and re-arranging the result, ready for integration, is:
ZRT
dp +
28.97 g p
2
T psc
32 f f
g
sin +
q sc Z
dL = 0
g c 2 D5
Tsc p
g c
Eq. 2
9
PTPR 6097
If average values for the temperature and for the real gas deviation
(compressibility) factor are used, Eq. 2 can be integrated to give:
2
q sc Zavg Tavg psc s

32f f
p =e p +
( e - 1)
2
5
Tsc
g c D sin
2
2
2
1
Eq. 3
where:
s=
-(2)(28.97)g (g/g c ) sin L

Zavg R Tavg
Eq. 4
In order to obtain the friction factor, the Reynolds number for compressible flow
must first be calculated as follows:
N RE =
4(28.97) q psc
D avg R Tsc
Eq. 5
Combining the constants and conversion factors in equations (3), (4) and (5)
gives, in oilfield units:
2
Zavg Tavg s
p = e p + 2.685 10
( e - 1)
D5 sin
2
2
s=
2
1
-3
-0.0375 g sin L
Zavg Tavg
N RE = 20.09
g q
D avg
Eq. 6
Eq. 7
Eq. 8
Equations (6), (7) and (8) are the working equations in oilfield units for
compressible flow in circular pipe.
10
PTPR 6097
Exercise One
1) Given:
Fluid velocity, 0.0914 m/s
Fluid specific gravity, 0.82
Pipe ID, 101.6 mm
Fluid viscosity, 3 cP
a) Calculate the Reynolds number.
b) Prove in your calculation that the units cancel so the result is a
dimensionless number.
c) Is the flow laminar or turbulent?
2) Given:
Flow rate, 403 bopd
Oil density, 51.07 lb/ft3
Pipe ID, 4 in.
a) Calculate the Reynolds number.
b) Calculate the average fluid velocity in ft/sec.
c) Illustrate with a hand movement the average fluid velocity in 4 in. pipe of
a well producing 400 bopd.
3) For new oil field well bore tubing with an internal diameter of 1.995 in. at a
Reynolds number of 150,000:
a) Determine the friction factor using Figures 2 and 3.
b) If /D is 0.0009, determine the friction factor using the correlation of
Nikuradze.
11
PTPR 6097
OBJECTIVE TWO
Understand the difficulties caused by two- and three-phase flow when calculating
the relationship between flow rate and pressure drop.
Learning Material
INTRODUCTION TO MULTI-PHASE FLOW
Multi-phase flow occurs whenever there is simultaneous flow of free gas and
liquid. Some applications of vertical multi-phase flow analysis include:
Flowing wells
Annular vertical flow
Dewatering gas wells/siphon strings
Artificial lift design
Gas lift design
Design of tubulars in deviated wells
Many correlations have been developed to determine the pressure drop in vertical,
inclined and horizontal multi-phase flow (horizontal multi-phase flow will be
covered in Module 6). Care has to be taken to ensure the best multi-phase flow
correlation is used for the particular conditions. Since the multi-phase flow
correlations were developed largely based on field or lab tests, many provide
reasonable accuracy only over limited ranges of such factors as flow pattern, pipe
diameter, fluid velocity, fluid viscosity and gas-liquid ratio, among others.
Flow Regimes
Figure 4 shows the main vertical multi-phase flow regimes, or patterns, as

categorized by Orkiszewski (Reference 2). Note that many multi-phase flow
correlations utilize their own categorization of multi-phase flow regimes. Flow
regimes for horizontal flow (Module 6) differ substantially from flow regimes for
vertical or inclined multi-phase flow.
During bubble flow, small gas bubbles form and move at different velocities
within a continuous liquid phase.
12
PTPR 6097
Figure 4
Vertical Multi-Phase Flow Patterns
Amoco Production Co. This material has been copied under license from Access
In slug flow, the gas phase is more pronounced. The bubbles have enlarged and
coalesced to form plugs or slugs. The liquid phase is still continuous but the gas
bubbles move at a higher velocity than the liquid.
The change from a continuous liquid phase to a continuous gas phase occurs in
the slug-annular transition flow pattern. In this flow pattern, gas phase effects
dominate. Liquid may be entrained in the gas bubbles which may join together.
In the annular-mist flow pattern, the gas phase is continuous. Liquid is entrained
as small droplets in the gas phase and also coats the pipe wall with a film.
Liquid Holdup
An important concept when dealing with multi-phase flow is liquid holdup. In

upward multi-phase flow, the lightest phase, because of density, viscosity and/or
surface tension effects, will tend to move faster than the heavier phases. This
results in the pipe having a greater quantity of the heavier phase(s) than is
entering the pipe.
Holdup, y, is simply defined, for the denser phase , as y = V /V where y is a
fraction and V is the volume occupied by the denser phase in a given volume of
pipe, V. The holdup of the lighter phase, , is given by y = 1-y.
Correlations for liquid holdup are important components of most multi-phase flow
correlations.
13
PTPR 6097
Multi-Phase Flow Equations
The mechanical energy balance equation for compressible flow can be applied to
multi-phase flow with adjustments to account for the presence of two phases (gas
and liquid) with often two liquids (oil and water) being present.
The variables in the mechanical energy balance that must be adjusted for gasliquid flow include:
= m, density of gas-liquid mixture
v = vm, velocity of mixture
f = fm, friction factor for flow of gas-liquid mixture
and the Reynolds number for flow of a gas-liquid mixture:

(N RE ) m =
vm D m
m
In order to calculate the density of the gas-liquid mixture, it is necessary to know

the fraction of the pipe that contains liquid. This is known as liquid holdup,
denoted as HL. The expression for mixture density is therefore:
m = L (HL) + g (1 - HL)
Because of slippage, the tendency for gas to flow faster than liquid, a holdup
correlation is required to accurately assess the density of the mixture.
If two liquids are present in the liquid phase, properties of the liquid mixture must
be determined as follows:
Liquid phase density,
L = o Fo + w Fw
where Fo and Fw are oil and water fractions

Liquid phase viscosity,
L = o Fo + wFw
Other fluid properties of the two-phase mixture can be determined as follows:

Gas-liquid mixture viscosity,
m = L (HL) + g (1 - HL)
14
PTPR 6097
Figure 5 illustrates the change with gas flow rate in the relative contribution of
pPE and pF toward total p (with = pKE assumed negligible) in multi-phase
flow.
Figure 5
Relative Contributions to Total Pressure Drop in Multi-Phase Flow
Amoco Production Co. This material has been copied under license from Access
Multi-Phase Flow Correlations
One of the best and most popular multi-phase flow correlations is that of
Hagedorn and Brown. It was developed using data from a 1500 ft deep
instrumented well with 1 in. to 2 in. tubing. It uses a correlation, rather than
actual measurements, for liquid holdup.
Another well-known correlation is that of Beggs and Brill. It is based on
horizontal flow regimes with corrections to liquid holdup for non-horizontal
situations and is applicable to any pipe inclination, including horizontal and
downward flow. It was developed using air and water flowing in 1 in. and 1.5 in.
acrylic pipe 90 ft long that could be inclined at any angle. Test rates were less
than 300 mscfd and 1000 bbl/d while pressures were between 35 and 95 psia.
Other good multi-phase correlations include those of Dun and Ros, Orkiszewski
and Govier and Aziz. There are many others - some good, some not so good and
most with limited applicability in terms of rates, pressures, fluids and flow
regimes.
15
PTPR 6097
Special Cases of Multi-Phase Flow

Heading
Heading is the main cause of irregular behaviour during the latter stages of a
wells flowing life when rates have fallen off significantly. It can also be found in
new oil wells that have low gas-liquid ratios.
A well that has reached the heading stage will flow longer with communication
between the annulus and tubing than if a packer isolating them is installed. This is
because the accumulation of gas in the annulus cyclically blows around and acts
to gas lift the liquid out of the well bore at a high rate. When the lift cycle is
complete and most of the liquid in the annulus and tubing has been blown out,
the bottom hole pressure is at its lowest possible value and inflow of oil and gas
resumes. Some of the gas bypasses the tubing string and builds up again in the
annulus until the cycle repeats.
This method of production is inefficient as it produces out the last liquid volumes
from the well bore with an excess of gas.
Using packers will reduce or eliminate heading in a well but the well will
normally die sooner than if a packer was installed.
More efficient production systems to control heading in a well and use it to
advantage include regulators activated by casing pressure to control flow out of
the tubing, gas valves in the annulus and plunger lift in the tubing.
Directional Wells
Directional wells often have a vertical or slanted straight section near surface, a
section where angle is built to the final angle and a more or less straight final
section at the final angle to reach the downhole target depth. Such wells can be
analyzed for vertical and/or inclined multi-phase flow if the well trajectory is
divided into sections having reasonably constant angles.
Another way to tackle multi-phase flow in directional wells was presented by Ney
(Reference 8) and Fuentes (Reference 9). In summary, a vertical multi-phase flow
correlation is used assuming a length of tubing equal to the true vertical depth
(TVD) of the well and a horizontal multi-phase flow correlation is used assuming
a length of tubing equal to the difference between the actual length of the tubulars
and a length equal to the TVD.
16
PTPR 6097
Annular Flow
Sometimes well flow is up the annular space between the tubing and casing. An
example of this is a dual completion (two separate reservoirs producing) having a
packer and only one tubing string.
For the case of annular flow, the hydraulic radius concept allows the use of multiphase flow correlations. Hydraulic radius is defined as the cross-sectional flow
area divided by the wetted perimeter. When applied to an annulus, the hydraulic
radius, rh, can be shown to be equal to (Di Do)/4. Since for circular pipe, rh = D/4
then for an annulus, the hydraulic diameter, Dh = Di Do. If the hydraulic diameter
of the annulus is used, then any multi-phase flow correlation for circular pipe can
be used.
17
PTPR 6097
OBJECTIVE THREE
Estimate the flow rate and pressure drop relationship for two- and three-phase
Learning Material
PRESSURE TRAVERSE CURVES
A pressure traverse, or gradient curve, is a plot of the flowing pressure in a

tubular versus depth. Usually, the curves start at atmospheric pressure so that the
pressure traverse indicates the total flowing pressure loss, p, at any depth.
There are two types of pressure traverse curves. Field pressure traverse curves are
generated by computer using the best vertical multi-phase correlation for a
particular field and formation. These are then used by field engineers and
technicians to help analyze producing wells and solve production problems.
General pressure traverses are also prepared by computer but can utilize any of
several multi-phase correlations each of which was developed from a different
sample of wells, fields, fluids and tubulars. General pressure traverse curves may
or may not work well for any particular field. Whether field or general pressure
traverse curves are used, either should be proved against actual field data to
ensure their accuracy is acceptable for that application.
Pressure traverses are calculated by a trial and error procedure. The tubular is
divided into a number of increments, usually by length. The unknown pressure at
the end of the first increment is estimated and fluid properties are evaluated at
average conditions of pressure in the increment. The pressure at the end of the
increment is then calculated using the appropriate multi-phase flow correlation
and compared to the estimate. If the two figures do not agree well enough, the
fluid properties are recalculated using a new estimate of pressure to determine
average pressure until the estimated and calculated pressures agree sufficiently.
This trial and error procedure is repeated for each of the remaining increments
until the end of the tubulars is reached. The shorter the increments the better the
accuracy as the fluid properties will vary less between the ends of the segment
If temperature is not sufficiently constant along the length of the tubulars being
evaluated, an estimate for temperature will also have to be made for the end of the
increment and used, along with an estimate for pressure, to determine average
temperature and pressure in the increment in order to determine fluid properties.
18
Figure 6 is an example of a general pressure traverse curve for three-phase flow.

References 5, 6 and 7 provide additional sources of prepared. general pressure
traverse curves.
PTPR 6097
Some applications of pressure traverse curves include:

1. Estimation of flowing bottom hole pressure when surface pressure is
known.
2. Estimation of flowing pressure drop in tubulars when either surface or
bottom hole pressure is known.
3. Estimation of maximum surface pressure for a desired flow rate if a
bottom hole IPR curve is available for the well.
4. Estimation of the minimum production rate that will prevent a well from
loading up and dying when surface pressure is fixed. This is done by
making a plot of flowing bottom hole pressure versus production rate. The
plotted curve will show a minimum value of flowing bottom hole pressure,
at which the well will not flow on its own but load up and die.
Exercise Two
1. A well is producing at a rate of 1200 stbbl/d. Determine the flowing bottom
hole pressure and the flowing pressure drop in the tubing given the following
conditions:
Gas-liquid ratio, 600 scf/stbbl
Oil API, 35
Water specific gravity, 1.07
Water cut, 50%
Tubing size, 1.991-in i.d.
Tubing length, 9400 ft
Separator pressure, 400 psi
Procedure:
a) Find the flowing pressure traverse curve which most closely approximates
the given conditions (sometimes, though not in this case, it may be
necessary to interpolate between two or more sets of pressure traverse
curves).
b) Determine the equivalent depth corresponding to the well head pressure
(this represents the surface) and add the tubing length (the sum represents
the equivalent well bottom).
c) Intersect the appropriate GLR curve at the depth representing the
equivalent well bottom and read the flowing bottom hole pressure.
d) Calculate the flowing pressure drop in the tubing.
19
PTPR 6097
Figure 6
Sample General Pressure Traverse Curves
Pennwell Publishing Co. This material has been copied under license from Access
20
PTPR 6097

1. a)
Given:
Fluid velocity, 0.0914 m/s
Fluid specific gravity, 0.82
Pipe ID, 101.6 mm
N RE =
Use
vd
0.0914 m s -1 0.1016 m 820 kg m m -3

0.003 kg m m -1s -1
= 2,538
b) Units in the above equation cancel out so the answer is dimensionless
c) Flow is in the critical zone where it is changing from laminar to turbulent
and may be either or both.
2. a) Given:
Flow rate, 403 bopd
Oil density, 51.07 lb/ft3
Pipe ID, 4 in.
q
d
403 51.07
= 1.48
43
= 2,538
N RE = 1.48
Use
b) Calculate the average fluid velocity in ft/sec
V=
q
A
403
Use
= 0.3
1 d
5.615 ft 3
bbl
86,400 sec
d
bbl
1 ft
4 in .
4
12 in .
ft
sec
21
PTPR 6097
c) A fluid velocity of 0.3 ft/sec or 18 ft/min is not very fast!

3. a) First, determine the relative roughness, /D , for commercial steel pipe
from figure
1.995 in = 50.67 mm
/D = 0.0009
From figure at /D = 0.0009 and NRE= 150,000. The friction factor is
0.021.
b) Using the correlation of Nikuradze for fully rough pipe: with /D =0.0009;
f -2 =
= 1.74-2 log(2 /D)

f
= 7.229
f = 0.019
Exercise Two Solutions

1. a) Using Figure 3, equivalent depth of separator (surface) pressure of 400 psi
is 2200 ft.
b) Adding the equivalent depth of 2200 ft for surface pressure to the tubular
length of 9400 ft gives an equivalent well bottom at 11, 600 ft.
c) Moving horizontally from the well bottom depth of 11, 600 ft to the
pressure traverse curve for a GLR of 600 scf/stbbl yields a flowing bottom
hole pressure of 2920 psi
The flowing pressure drop in the tubing is 2520 psi.
22
PTPR 6097
Module Self-Test
Directions:
Answer the following questions.

Compare your answers to the enclosed answer key.
If you disagree with any of the answers, review learning activities and/or check with your instructor.
If no problems arise, continue on to the next objective or next examination.
Flow in Tubulars
1. A laminar boundary layer always exists next to the pipe wall whether flow is
laminar or turbulent.
a) True
b) False
2. The Reynolds number
a) indicates whether flow will be laminar, turbulent or in between.
b) is a dimensionless quantity in both metric and oilfield units.
c) is a function of fluid properties, fluid velocity and a length that depends on
the particular cross-section of the flow conduit.
d) all of the above.
3. One hundred cP (centipoise) are equal to 1 Pas.
a) True
b) False
4. In a typical flowing oil well of 7000 ft depth producing 400 bopd up 2 -in.
tubing, which would you expect to be the dominant pressure loss?
a) pPE
b) pKE
c) pF
5. The units of all the pressure loss terms in the mechanical energy balance
equation are lbf ft-2 in the lbm, lbf, ft, sec. system of units.
a) True
b) False
23
PTPR 6097
6. For incompressible flow,

a) the Fanning friction factor is a function of the Reynolds number under
laminar conditions.
b) the Fanning friction depends on both the Reynolds number and the pipe
roughness under turbulent flow.
c) The Fanning friction factor is indeterminate or undefined in the critical
zone between laminar and turbulent flow.
7. In a flowing gas well. which of the following does not change along the
tubular?
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
flowing pressure
fluid density
fluid viscosity
temperature
none of the above
8. There are many multi-phase flow correlations, each of which were developed
using different samples of well types, fluid properties, tubular diameters and
flow regimes.
a) True
b) False
9. Which of the following is not true?
a) Hydraulic radius is cross-sectional flow area divided by wetted perimeter.
b) Heading describes irregular flow late in the life of a flowing well when
rates have declined.
c) In the bubble flow regime, small bubbles of liquid form and move at
different velocities in a continuous gas phase.
d) In the annular-mist flow pattern, the gas phase is continuous and the liquid
is entrained as small droplets in the gas phase.
10. Liquid holdup means that the heavier liquid phase in the tubulars holds up the
lighter gas phase so that the gas phase moves slower than the heavier liquid
phase.
a) True
b) False
11. Any set of pressure traverse curves being contemplated for use in a well
analysis should be proven against actual field data.
a) True
b) False
24
PTPR 6097

1. a
2. d
3. b
4. a
5. a
6. d
7. e
8. a
9. c
10. b
11. a
25
PTPR 6097
Assignment
1) Describe the velocity profiles for laminar and turbulent flow across a section
of circular pipe.
2) Compare the flow regimes as presented by at least two investigators of multiphase flow correlations other than Govier and Aziz.
3) List at least four different multi-phase correlations for vertical flow and
describe, with sources, the conditions the correlations are reputed to be best
for in the opinion of the reviewer.
26
PTPR 6097
References
1. Flow of Fluids, Technical Paper No. 410M, Crane Co., 1977.
2. Orkiszewski, J., Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe, JPT,
June 1967.
3. Systems Nodal Analysis, Engineering Reference I-23, Amoco Production Co.,
Feb.1 1984.
PennWell Publ. Co., 1977.
5. Handbook of Gas-Lift, U.S. Industries Petr. Equip. Div., 1960.
6. Brown, K.E., Gas-Lift Theory and Practice, Petr. Publ. Co., 1965.
7. Gradient Curves for Well Analysis and Design, CIM Special Vol. 20 (SI
Units).
8. Ney, C., A Laboratory Investigation of Holdup and Pressure Loss in
Directional Multiphase Flow, M.S. Thesis, University of Tulsa, 1968.
9. Fuentes, A.J., A Study of the Multiphase Flow Phenomena in the Directional
Well, M.S. Thesis, University of Tulsa, 1968.
10. Drew, T.B., Koo, E.C., McAdams, W.H., Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs., 28,
1930.
11. Nikuradze, J., Forschungsheft, p. 301, 1933.
27
PTPR 6097
Appendix
Table 1
28
PTPR 6097
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Flow in Surface
Pipelines and
Facilities (Outflow
Performance
Relationship)
PTPR 6098
Module 6
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Flow in Surface Pipelines and

Facilities (Outflow Performance
Relationship)
Rationale
The surface flow lines and facilities are the second key component (the first being
the well bore tubulars) of the Outflow Performance Relationship that together
with the Inflow Performance Relationship determines production rate.
Understanding the factors that affect flow in surface pipelines and facilities and
knowledge of the computation tools to determine pressure drops in them are
critical to being able to optimize the hydrocarbon production system.
Learning Outcome
Calculate the relationship between pressure drop in the surface flow lines and
equipment and the flow rate.
Learning Objectives
1. Understand and calculate the flow rate-pressure drop relationship for singlephase flow (including friction factor).
2. Understand the difficulties caused by multi-phase flow on calculating the flow
rate-pressure drop relationship.
3. Estimate the flow rate-pressure drop relationship for two- and three- phase
1
PTPR 6098
OBJECTIVE ONE
Understand and calculate the flow rate-pressure drop relationship for single-phase
flow (including friction factor).
Learning Activity
4. Research outside sources (that is, Internet, library materials, reference texts,
and so on) for additional information.
Learning Material
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW IN SURFACE LINES AND FACILITIES
The surface flow lines and facilities are the second key component of the Outflow
Performance Relationship in the hydrocarbon production system. As with vertical
well bore tubulars, flow in surface flow lines may be single-phase gas or liquid, or
two-phase (gas and oil or water, or oil and water), or three phase (gas, oil and
water).
Module 5 focused on vertical single- and multi-phase flow and touched on
inclined and directional multi-phase flow. This module will focus on horizontal
single- and multi-phase flow and will touch on inclined multi-phase flow as
encountered in hilly terrain.
As usual, the knowledge and ability to convert back and forth from oil field to
metric units and to ensure equations are consistent in units is expected and
required.
PTPR 6098
Single-Phase Incompressible Flow

The review of laminar and turbulent flow provided in Module 5, including the
equations to calculate the Reynolds number and the means to determine friction
factors, are also applicable to horizontal flow in surface lines and equipment.
To determine the pressure drop in horizontal pipe, the mechanical energy balance
approach is used as usual.
The total pressure drop, p, is the sum of all gains or losses due to any changes in
potential energy, pPE, kinetic energy, pKE, and flowing friction, pF, as follows:
p = pPE + pKE + pF
Integration of the differential form of the above mechanical energy balance
equation, with these assumptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
incompressible flow
no work energy added or removed from the fluid
no significant changes in elevation due to topography (pPE = 0)
no change in pipe diameter (pKE = 0)
gives the following expression for the total frictional pressure drop in a pipe of
total length L:
2 ff u 2 L
p = p1 p2 =
gc D
where:
gc
u
ff
L
D
=
=
=
=
=
=
32.17 ft lbm lbf-1 sec-2

density of incompressible fluid, lbm/ft3
flow velocity, ft/sec
Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
length of pipe between points 1 and 2, ft
internal pipe diameter, ft
Note that if the slope of the laminar line on a friction factor diagram is 16/NRE, the
friction factor presented is the Fanning friction factor, denoted as ff in this course.
If it is 64/NRE then it is the Moody (or Darcy-Weisbach) friction factor denoted
here as f.
In other words, ff = f/4
3
PTPR 6098
Single-Phase Compressible Flow (after Reference 1)

For single phase compressible flow (gas), fluid density and fluid velocity are not
constant along a horizontal surface flow line.
The mechanical energy balance for gas in a surface flow line which is very nearly
horizontal can be written without the potential energy term. However, the kinetic
energy term may be significant for some cases of compressible flow. Thus, for
gas flow in a horizontal surface flow line:
p = pKE + pF
In differential form, slightly re-arranged, this equation is:
2f u 2 dL
Dp
u
=
du + f
gc
gc D
Eq. 1
Re-arranging the real gas law to calculate density and using g = MWg/28.97,
where g is gas gravity, gives an expression for gas density:
=
28.97 g p
ZRT
The gas velocity, u, at the temperature and pressure under flowing conditions is
given by u = q/A = q/(d2/4) as follows:
u=
4q sc Z T psc
D 2 Tsc p
The differential form of the kinetic energy term for a gas is therefore:
4 q sc Z psc
u du =
2
p
D
dp
p3
By making the substitutions for and u du in equation (1) and re-arranging, the
result, after integration, assuming average values for the temperature and for the
real gas deviation (compressibility) factor Z, is:
2
p
32 28.97 g Zavg Tavg q sc psc 2f f L
p -p = 2
+ 1n 1 Eq. 2

4
p2
R gc D
Tsc D
2
1
2
2
PTPR 6098
Combining the constants and conversion factors in equation (2) gives, in oilfield
units:
4.195 10-7 g Zavg Tavg q sc2 24 f f L
p
p -p =
+ 1n 1
4
p2
D
D
2
1
2
2
Eq. 3
where: p1, p2 = inlet and outlet pressures, psi
g =
Zavg =
Tavg =
qsc =
D =
ff =
L =
gas gravity
average real gas deviation factor
average gas temperature, oR
flow rate in mscfd
pipe internal diameter, in.
Fanning friction factor
surface line length, ft
Equation (3) is the working equation in oilfield units for gas flow in horizontal
surface lines having no significant changes in elevation.
The friction factor can be determined from a Moody friction factor chart with the
Reynolds number, in oil field units, calculated as follows:
N RE = 20.09
g q sc
D avg
5
PTPR 6098
Exercise One
1. Given:
Produced water injection pump discharge pressure, 450 psig
Length of cement-lined injection line, 5500 ft
Absolute roughness of cement, 0.005 ft
ID of cement liner, 2.4 in.
Produced water specific gravity, 1.05
Produced water viscosity, 1.1 cP
a) Calculate the relative roughness.
b) Calculate the Reynolds number. Is the flow laminar or turbulent?
c) Determine the Moody and Fanning friction factors using Fig. 2, Module 5
(Moody diagram).
d) Determine the pressure drop in the injection pipe line.
2. Given:
Minimum compressor suction pressure 20 psia to avoid overloading driver
Maximum gas rate at maximum available horsepower, 4,400 mscfd
Length of gas flow line from well head to compressor, 4000 ft
Gas specific gravity, 0.7
Pipe ID, 3-in.
Fluid viscosity, 0.013 cP
a) Determine the friction factor assuming fully turbulent flow in a new, clean
steel flow line.
b) Calculate the required well head pressure to flow the desired gas flow rate
assuming Zavg is 1.0 for this gas at low pressure and the kinetic energy
term is negligible.
PTPR 6098
OBJECTIVE TWO
Understand the difficulties caused by multi-phase flow on calculating the flow

rate-pressure drop relationship.
Learning Material
MULTI-PHASE FLOW IN SURFACE LINES
Two-phase flow occurs whenever there is simultaneous flow of free gas and
liquid. Multi-phase flow occurs whenever there is simultaneous flow of free gas,
oil and water.
The main applications of horizontal multi-phase flow analysis in the oil patch are:
1. Sizing of transmission lines and pipelines for various mixtures of gas, oil
and water.
2. Sizing of production flow lines from well heads to batteries.
3. Determining the pressure loss in production flow lines in order to calculate
well production rates.
4. Determination of flow regime/pattern to optimize sizing of surface vessels
such as separators and slug catchers.
Horizontal Multi-Phase Flow Correlations
Many correlations have been developed to determine the pressure drop in vertical,
inclined and horizontal multi-phase flow (vertical multi-phase flow was covered
in Module 5). Care has to be taken to ensure the most appropriate multi-phase
flow correlation is used for the particular conditions. Since the multi-phase flow
correlations were developed largely based on field or lab tests, many provide
reasonable accuracy only over limited ranges of such factors as flow pattern, pipe
diameter, fluid velocity, fluid viscosity and gas-liquid ratio, among others.
Table 1 below summarizes the better horizontal multi-phase flow correlations
according to Reference 4.
7
PTPR 6098
Table 1
Horizontal Multi-Phase Flow Correlations Summary
PennWell Publishing Co. This material has been copied under license from Access
Horizontal Flow Regimes
The well-known correlation of Beggs and Brill is based on horizontal flow

regimes with corrections to liquid hold-up for non-horizontal situations. It is
applicable to any pipe inclination, including horizontal and downward flow. This
gives it an advantage over other correlations. It was developed using air and water
flowing in 1-inch and 1.5-inch acrylic pipe 90 ft long that could be inclined at any
angle. Test rates were less than 300 mscfd and 1000 bbl/d while pressures were
between 35 and 95 psia.
Figure 1 shows the main horizontal multi-phase flow regimes and patterns as
categorized by Beggs and Brill (Reference 2). Note that the flow regimes for
horizontal flow differ substantially from the flow regimes for vertical or inclined
multi-phase flow (see Module 5).
In the horizontal segregated flow regime, the two phases are more or less
separate. There are three flow patterns in the segregated regime. In the stratified
flow pattern, the liquid is moving along the bottom of the pipe while gas occupies
the upper part. There is a well defined smooth interface between the phases. At
higher gas rates, the interface is no longer smooth but wavy. This is called
stratified wavy or ripple flow. At high gas and liquid rates, an annular flow
pattern results with liquid surrounding a central core of gas that contains entrained
liquid droplets.
8
PTPR 6098
Plug flow, in which elongated gas bubbles flow along the top of the pipe, and slug
flow, in which large slugs of liquid alternate with high-velocity gas bubbles that
fill most of the pipe, are the two patterns that comprise the intermittent flow
regime.
Bubble flow and mist flow are the two patterns in the distributive flow regime. In
horizontal flow, bubbles will flow in the upper part of the pipe and not be equally
distributed as in vertical flow. The mist flow pattern occurs when high gas rates
accompany low liquid rates. The liquid becomes entrained as droplets in the gas.
It should be noted that if the flow pipe is inclined upward only a few degrees,
stratified or wave flow can not exist because the liquid is held back by gravity and
slug flow results instead. Conversely, if the pipe is inclined downward only a few
degrees, stratified flow predominates because of gravity and slug flow will not
occur where predicted.
Figure 1
Horizontal Multi-Phase Flow Patterns per Beggs and Brill
Journal of Petroleum Technology. This material has been copied under license from
Access Copyright. Resale or further copying of this material is strictly prohibited.
PTPR 6098
Flow Regime Mapping
There are many different correlations to predict the flow regime and pattern. The
Beggs and Brill correlation uses a plot of the mixture Froude number, NFR,
defined below, versus the liquid input fraction, l, also defined below, to
determine the flow regime:
N FR =
and
where:
1 =
um
us
usg
g
D
=
=
=
=
=
u 2m
gD
u sl
u sl + u sg
usl + usg
superficial liquid velocity, ft/sec
superficial gas velocity, ft/sec
32.17 ft/sec2
internal pipe diameter, ft
Superficial velocity is simply the volumetric flow rate at flowing conditions

divided by the pipe cross-sectional area.
Figure 2
Horizontal Flow Regime Map, Beggs and Brill Correlation
Journal of Petroleum Technology. This material has been copied under license from
10
PTPR 6098
Another widely used correlation to determine flow regime and pattern is that of
Baker, Figure 3, as modified by Scott (Reference 3). Note that transitions between
zones are not abrupt as indicated by the wide boundaries on the Baker flow
regime map.
The dimensionless quantities plotted on the axes of the Baker flow regime map
are essentially gas velocity versus liquid velocity and are defined below:
Gg = gas flow rate, lbm/hr-ft2
Gl = liquid flow rate, lbm/hr-ft2
= [(g/0.075)(l/62.4)]0.5
= (73/l)[l(62.4/l)2]0.333
Figure 3
Horizontal Flow Regime Map, Baker Correlation
Academic Press. This material has been copied under license from Access Copyright.
11
PTPR 6098
Selected Topics in Horizontal Multi-Phase Flow

Inclined Multi-Phase Flow
Inclined multi-phase flow in surface flow lines is caused by hilly terrain or by the
flow line crossing river valleys. Short flow lines contained on a lease tend to be
very nearly horizontal while longer ones, especially those tying in wells to a
central battery tend not to be strictly horizontal and in some cases traverse steep
hills and valleys.
It should be noted that most investigators recognize some recovery on the down
slope side of the pressure loss suffered on the upslope side. However, most multiphase correlations assume no recovery on the down slope side.
As mentioned previously, the Beggs and Brill correlation is applicable to vertical,
horizontal and inclined multi-phase flow. They derived the following equation for
multi-phase flow from the general mechanical energy balance equation:
( g/g c )( m sin ) + {2 f TP m u 2m / ( g c D )}
p1 p2 = z1 z2
1 - m v m vsg / ( g c p )
where: (g/gc) (m sin ) = the potential energy term

2 fTP m u 2 /(gc D) = the friction loss term
m
m vm vsg /(gc p) = the kinetic energy term

The Beggs and Brill correlation requires determining whether flow is segregated,
transition, intermittent or distributed (see Figure 2) in order to calculate the liquid
hold-up (see pp. 162-163, Reference 1). The Beggs and Brill correlation also
requires calculation of a two-phase friction factor, fTP.
Another widely used correlation to predict liquid hold-up in inclined flow pipes is
that of Flanigan. In studying a 16-inch pipeline with multi-phase flow he noted
the following:
1. For lower gas velocities, the largest portion of the total pressure drop
occurred in the up slope sections.
2. The elevation component of the pressure drop is directly proportional to
the sum of the elevation increases in the pipeline.
3. The slope of the inclined sections is not important, only the total rise.
4. The difference in elevation between the start and end of the pipeline is
immaterial.
5. The pressure drop in the up slope section is inversely proportional to the
gas velocity.
12
PTPR 6098
Flanigan treated the up slope sections as though the pressure drop in them was
proportional to their vertical height. The equation he used to calculate the pressure
drop solely due to elevation rises is:
p =
where:
p
L
HF
hi
=
=
=
=
L g H F h i
g c 144
pressure drop due to elevation increase, psi

liquid density, lbm/ft3
elevation factor, dimensionless
sum of elevation increases in the flow direction, ft
Flanigans correlation for HF, with vsg being superficial gas velocity in ft/sec at
conditions of average flowing pressure and temperature, is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Flanigan Correlation for Inclined Multi-Phase Flow
13
PTPR 6098
Single-Phase Flow through Chokes
A choke is simply a mechanical restriction with an interchangeable insert, called

the bean, available in various size openings measured in 64ths of an inch.
A common application of chokes is to control flow during gas well tests. Some
reasons to control flow during well production include:
Protect surface equipment from erosion
Prevent gas or water coning
Prevent sand production resulting from excessive rate
Produce reservoir at most efficient rate
Maintain rate at well allowable
When the ratio of the upstream and downstream pressures across a choke exceeds
the critical pressure ratio, pc, the choke is in critical flow. This means the fluid has
been accelerated to the speed of sound for that fluid through the reduced diameter
of the choke bean. The flow rate through the choke is then no longer a function of
downstream pressure because any downstream pressure disturbances can not
travel faster than the sonic velocity for that fluid.
In other words, the relationship between flow rate and well head pressure is
controlled by the choke when it is in critical flow and not by whatever the
downstream pressure happens to be as a result of any change in flow rate or for
any other reason.
The critical pressure ratio, pc, for single-phase gas flow through a choke is given
by:
(p2/p1)c = [2/( + 1)] /(-1)
where:
= heat capacity ratio of the gas
For air and other diatomic gases is approximately 1.4 and the critical pressure
ratio is 0.53. Thus the rule of thumb that flow through a choke in single-phase gas
flow is critical when the downstream pressure is less than half the upstream
pressure.
Single-phase flow of an incompressible fluid through a choke or orifice nozzle is
described by:
q = C A (2 gc 144 p/)0.5
where:
14
C
A
gc
p
=
=
=
=
=
flow coefficient
cross-sectional area of the choke
32.17 ft lbm lbf -1sec-2
pressure drop across choke or orifice nozzle, psi
fluid density, lbm/ft3
PTPR 6098
In oilfield units of bbl/d, choke size in inches, pressure in psi and density in
lbm/ft3, the above equation becomes:
q = 22,800 C D2 (p/)0.5
For single phase flow of a compressible fluid (that is, gases), a net expansion
factor, Y, is added to the above equation:
q = Y C A (2 gc 144 p/)0.5
The flow coefficient, C, and the net expansion factor, Y, can be obtained from
Figures 5 and 6 as follows:
Figure 5
Orifice Flow Coefficient C
15
PTPR 6098
Figure 6
Net Expansion Factor Y
Multi-Phase Flow through a Choke
Often, the flowing fluid is a multi-phase mixture of gas and liquid. Most
correlations for multi-phase flow through a choke are valid only for critical flow.
One of the better multi-phase methods of analyzing flow for a well flowing gas
with liquid through a well head choke is that of Gilbert (Reference 7). It can be
shown theoretically, with some assumptions, that:
pwh = C R0.5 q / S2
where:
16
pwh
R
q
S
C
=
=
=
=
=
flowing tubing head pressure, psia

gas/liquid ratio, mscf/bbl
liquid rate, bbl/d
bean size, 64ths in.
constant
PTPR 6098
Gilbert showed from analysis of data from a specific field that the following
equation would serve as a good first approximation if pwh is in psig:
pwh = 435 R0.546 q / S1.89
This is the same equation as equation 10-75 given in the course text, Reference 1
but in different form. Further details and capabilities on Gilberts method and on
other multi-phase flow correlations for choke flow can be found in Reference 4.
Emulsified Flow
Whenever there is three-phase flow of gas, oil and water, there is the possibility of
an emulsion forming. An emulsion is a dispersal of oil droplets in the water phase,
or vice-versa, aided by a surfactant. This is not a well understood phenomena and
generally can not be predicted. The viscosity of emulsions is high and so,
therefore, is the attendant pressure drop. If an emulsion is formed, one treatment
option is adding chemical demulsifiers. Since each emulsion is unique, the
treatment must be determined with lab testing of actual emulsion samples.
Equivalent Lengths of Pipe Fittings
The turbulence caused by any fittings such as elbows, tees, valves, sudden
contractions or enlargements, results in additional pressure drop in surface lines.
This pressure drop is accounted for by using an equivalent length for each fitting
that is added to the surface line length in order to calculate the total flowing
pressure drop. An excellent discussion of equivalent lengths of fittings can be
found in Reference 6 and sample equivalent lengths can be found in Reference 1.
17
PTPR 6098
Exercise Two
1. Determine the flow pattern using the Baker flow pattern map (Figure 3) given:
1500 bbl/d of oil
3
o Density, 800 kg/m
o Viscosity, 4 cP
flowing with 1000 mscfd of gas
o Specific gravity, 0.71
o Viscosity, 0.018 cP
o d Zavg, 0.91
In a 3.5-in. ID pipeline at 120F and 800 psi
Oil/gas interfacial tension, 30 dynes/cm
Procedure:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Calculate the gas mass flux Gg.

Calculate the liquid mass flux GL.
Calculate the x- and y-axis values for the Baker flow pattern map.
Determine the flow pattern using Figure 3.
2. Given:
Flow line ID, 3.0 in.
Flow line length, 2,000 ft
Flow rate, 2,000 bwpd
Specific gravity of water, 1.07
Gas/liquid ratio, 100 scf/bbl
Gas gravity, 0.65
Gas Z-factor, 0.95
Water/gas interfacial tension, 66.7 dynes/cm
Water viscosity, 1.0 cP
Average flowing temperature, 120F
Average flowing pressure, 750 psi
The following hill heights:
Hill
1
2
3
4
5
Height
20
15
160
100
55
a) Determine the multi-phase pressure drop in the flow line due to hilly
terrain using Flanigans correlation.
b) How would you determine the total multi-phase pressure drop in the flow
line?
18
PTPR 6098
3. Given:
Well head pressure, 800 psia
Gas/liquid ratio, 1000 scf/bbl
Oil gravity, 40API
Choke size, 14/64ths
Downstream pressure, 100 psia
a) Determine if the choke is in critical flow.
b) Calculate the flow rate through the choke using Gilberts multi-phase flow
correlation.
19
PTPR 6098
OBJECTIVE THREE
Estimate the flow rate-pressure drop relationship for two- and three-phase flow
using pressure traverse curves.
Learning Activities
HORIZONTAL PRESSURE TRAVERSE CURVES
Pressure traverses, or gradient curves, are available for horizontal multi-phase

flow just as they are for vertical multi-phase flow. A horizontal pressure gradient
curve is a plot of the flowing pressure in a horizontal flow line versus length.
Figure 7 shows a sample set of horizontal general pressure traverse curves.
Just as with vertical flow, field pressure traverse curves can be generated by
computer using the best horizontal multi-phase correlation for a particular field
and formation. General pressure traverses are also prepared by computer but can
utilize any of several multi-phase correlations each of which was developed from
a different sample of wells, fields, fluids and tubulars. General pressure traverse
curves may or may not work well for any particular field. Whether field or
general pressure traverse curves are used, either should be proved against actual
field data to ensure their accuracy is acceptable for that application.
References 4 and 5 are sources of published general pressure traverses for
horizontal multi-phase flow. They are prepared from the Eaton correlation, as is
the set of curves in Figure 7, and are good except for very low pressure, low rate
and low gas-oil ratios and when liquid viscosity is greater than 10 cP.
As with vertical pressure traverses, horizontal pressure traverses are calculated in
short increments in order to maximize accuracy. Using increments that are too
long, or not enough increments, results in average fluid properties that depart too
much from end conditions in such increments. These errors accumulate from the
first increment of the pressure traverse to the last increment.
Some applications of horizontal pressure traverse curves include:
1. Estimation of flowing well head pressure to determine well productivity.
2. Determination of optimum size of surface flow line.
20
PTPR 6098
Figure 7
Horizontal Multi-Phase Flow General Pressure Traverse
21
PTPR 6098
Exercise Three
1. A well is tied into a separator operating at 100 psi with a 5000 ft flow line of
2-in. ID. What well head pressure is required to move 1000 bblpd at 95%
water cut and 1,000 scf/bbl gas/liquid ratio with a gas gravity of 0.65?
Procedure:
a) Find the horizontal flowing pressure gradient curve which most closely
approximates the given conditions (sometimes, though not in this case, it
may be necessary to interpolate between two or more sets of pressure
traverse curves).
b) Determine the equivalent length corresponding to the separator pressure.
Add this length to the length of the flow line to get the total equivalent
flow line length.
c) Intersect the appropriate GLR curve at the length representing the total
equivalent flow line length and read the required flowing well head
pressure.
22
PTPR 6098
0.005 ft
1 ft
1. a) Relative roughness D 2.4 in.
12 in.
= 0.025
=
b) Reynolds number;
N Re =
1.48 q
DM
1.48 1500 bbld -1 1.05 62.4 16 lb m ft -3

2.4 in. 1.1 cP
= 55,100 (Turbulent)
=
c) Friction factor, ft, using Figure 2, Module 5 (Moody diagram) f= 0.053

since scope of laminar line is 64/NRF. Figure 2, Module 5 gives the Moody
friction factor, f.
f
The Fanning friction factor, f f =
4
ff =
0.053
= 0.0133
4
d)
p = P1 - P2 =
q
=
A
z ff 2 L
gc D
1500 bbld -1
1d
5.615 ft 3
86,400 sec
bbl
2.4 in. 1 ft
4
12 in.
0.0975 ft 3 sec-1
0.314 ft 2
= 3.105 ft sec-1
=
2 0.0133 1.05 62.416 lb m ft -3 (3.105) 2 ft 2 sec-2 5500 ft

p =
32.174 ftlb m lb-1f sec-2 0.2 ft
= 14360 lb f ft -2
ft 2
144 in.2
= 99.7 lbf in.-2

= 99.7 psi
23
PTPR 6098
2. a) From Figure 3, Module5, relative roughness
= 0.0006 for complete

D
turbulence and the friction factor, f = 0.0175 (f is Moody friction factor)
f
Fanning friction factor, ff = = 0.00438
4
b)
4.195 10-7 g Zavg Tavg q sc 2 ft L
P
P -P =
+ ln 1
24
4
D
P2
D
4.195 10-7 0.7 1.0 560 (4400) 2 24 0.00438 4000

=
3
(3) 4
3184(140.16)
=
81
= 5510 psi 2
2
1
2
2
P1 = 5510 + (2o )2 = 77 psia
Exercise Two Solutions

1. a) Calculate gas mass flux Gg
Gg = u sg g lb m hr -1 ft -2
Gas superficial velocity at pipeline conditions

T Psc
q
4
=
q sc Z
2
A
D
Tsc p
4
1d
580 14.7
=
1 106 0.91
2
460 814.7 86,400 sec
3.5
12
= 2.95 ft sec-1
28.97 g P
g =
ZRT
28.97 lb m (lb-mol)-1 0.71 814.7 lbf in.-2
=
0.91 10.73 lbf in.-2 ft 3 (lb mol)-1 R -1 580R
u sg =
= 2.37 1b m ft -3
G g = 2.95 ft sec-1 2.37 lb m ft -3
3600 sec
hr
= 25,139 lb m hr -1 ft -2
24
PTPR 6098
b) Calculate the liquid flux

G L = USL L
Liquid superficial velocity
u SL =
q
=
A
1500 bbl d -1 5.65 ft 3 bbl

3.5
4 12
1d
86,400 sec
= 1.45 ft sec-1
G L = 1.46 ft sec-1 0.8 62.4 lb m ft -3
3600 sec
hr
= 262,200 lb m hr -1 ft -2
d) Calculate the y- axis parameter
g L
=
0.075 62.4
0.5
2.37 49.9
=
0.075 62.4
= 5.03
0.5
Calculate the y-axis parameter
73 62.4
=
4
30 49.9
2 1/3
= 5.20
y-axis value for baker map is:
Gg
25,139
= 5000
5.03
x-axis value is
G g
Gg
262,200 5.03 5.20

= 273
25,139
d) Predicted flow pattern is slug flow.

25
PTPR 6098
2. a) Flanigans correlation for pressure drop for inclined flow is:

p =
L gH F h i
g c 144
h i = 20 + 15 + 160 + 100 + 55
= 350 ft
HF =
1
or from Figure 4
1 + 0.3264 v1.006
sg
vsg = superficial gas velocity

=
=
qg
A
Tavg
A
q sc Zavg
2
D
Tsc
1 ft
3 in.
12
in.
= 5.89 ft sec -1
Pse

Pavg
100 scf
2000 bbl
5.615 ft 3
0.95
bbl
d
bbl
1d
560R 14.7 psia
460R 764.7 psia 86,400 sec
From Figure 4 at Vsg= 5.89 ft sec-1

H F = 0.35
and
p =
=
L g H F h i
g c 144
1.07 62.4 lb m ft -3 32 ft sec-2 0.35 350 ft
32.174 ft lb m lb f -1sec-2 144 in.2 ft -2
= 56.8 lbf in.-2

= 56.8 psi
b) Use a horizontal multi-phase correlation such as Beggs and Brill (with

sin = 0 for = 0 for horizontal flow) to determine the frictional and
kinetic energy losses and add them to the pressure loss due to hilly terrain.
3. a)
P2
100
=
= 0.125
P1
800
Since
26
P2
<0.5, flow is critical
P1
PTPR 6098
b) Using Gilberts correlation:

435 R 0.546 q
Pwh =
S1.89
P S1.89
q = wh 0.546
435 R
800 (14)1.89
=
435(1)0.546
= 270 bbl/d
Exercise Three Solutions

1. a) Use Figure 7 which is for conditions very close to the problem conditions.
b) Equivalent length of 100 ps separator pressure is 200 ft.
Total equivalent length of flowline is 5200 ft.
c) The required flowing well head pressure at a length of 5200 ft and a GLR
of 1000 scf/bbl is 545 psi.
27
PTPR 6098
Module Self-Test
Directions:

1. On a Moody diagram, the friction factor is a function of Reynolds number and

the relative roughness of the pipe being evaluated.
a) True
b) False
2. The mechanical energy balance approach to determine pressure drop in
horizontal flow:
a) indicates whether flow will be laminar, turbulent or inbetween.
b) is the sum of all gains or losses in potential energy, kinetic energy and
friction if no work is added to the system.
c) is a function of fluid properties, fluid velocity and length that depends on
the particular cross-section of the flow conduit.
3. The Darcy-Weisbach friction factor is four times the Moody friction factor.
a) True
b) False
4. In single-phase compressible flow in a horizontal flow line:
a) Fluid velocity and density are not constant along the length
b) Fluid velocity, density and pressure are not constant along the length
c) Fluid velocity, density, temperature and pressure are not constant along
the length
d) Fluid velocity, density, temperature, pressure and mass flow rate are not
constant along the length
5. In single-phase flow of a compressible fluid the velocity changes when the
pressure changes.
a) True
b) False
28
PTPR 6098
6. The Beggs and Brill multi-phase flow correlation for vertical flow is based on
the flow patterns of horizontal multi-phase flow.
a) True
b) False
7. Which is true?
a) Short flow lines tend to be very nearly horizontal and tend to vary little in
fluid temperature along their length.
b) Long flow lines tend to encounter more variations in terrain and have a
significant change in fluid temperature along their length.
c) Long transmission lines tend to encounter many variations in terrain but
have little change in temperature along most of their length.
d) All of the above.
8. In inclined multi-phase flow, liquid hold-up is higher in the up slope sections
at low gas velocities.
a) True
b) False
9. In inclined multi-phase flow, liquid hold-up in the up slope sections can be
reduced by increasing gas velocities.
a) True
b) False
10. For sections of inclined multi-phase flow in a long flow line:
a) The slope of the inclined sections is important, not the total rise.
b) The largest portion of the total pressure drop occurs in the down slope
sections.
c) The pressure drop is proportional to gas velocity in the up slope sections.
d) The difference in elevation between the start and end of the flow line is
immaterial.
11. When the ratio of the upstream and downstream pressures across a choke is
greater than about 0.5, the choke is said to be in critical flow.
a) True
b) False
12. The flow rate from a gas well in critical flow through a choke can be adjusted
by reducing the pressure downstream of the choke.
a) True
b) False
29
PTPR 6098

1. a
2. b
3. b
4. c
5. a
6. a
7. d
8. a
9. a
10. d
11. b
12. b
30
PTPR 6098
Assignment
1. Describe the effect of changes in line size, flow rate, viscosity, gas/liquid
ratio, and water/oil ratio on the pressure drop during horizontal multi-phase
flow.
2. List at least four different mappings of flow regime and describe what appears
to be the main difference distinguishing each mapping from the others.
3. List at least six different multi-phase correlations for horizontal flow and
provide at least one feature of each that distinguishes it from the others.
31
PTPR 6098
References
2. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P., A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,
J.Pet. Tech., (May 1973), 607.
3. Scott, D.S., Properties of Cocurrent Gas-Liquid Flow, Advances in Chem.
Eng., Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, pp. 200-278, 1963.
5. Brown, K.E., Gas-Lift Theory and Practice, Petr. Publ. Co., 1965.
6. Flow of Fluids, Technical Paper No. 410M, Crane Co., 1977.
7. Gilbert, W.E., Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance Drilling and
Production Practice, 1954, API, P.143.
32
PTPR 6098
Appendix
Table 2
33
PTPR 6098
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Production
Optimization Using
Graphical NODAL
Analysis
PTPR 6099
Module 7
Revised: December 2007
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Production Optimization Using

Graphical NODAL Analysis
Rationale
In order to optimize production, it is necessary to be able to graphically analyze
the hydrocarbon production system using System NODAL Analysis to determine
the effect of the variables that affect well production rate.
Learning Outcome
Calculate the best production possible from a well given enforced constraints.
Learning Objectives
1. Combine the Inflow and Outflow Performance Relationships for a reservoir
and well to determine the production rate for the system.
2. Calculate the effect of changing constraints on either the reservoir or the well
on the production rate (production optimization).
1
PTPR 6099
INTRODUCTION
This module brings together all you have learned so far about the reservoir and
the other components of the hydrocarbon production system and about the
technique of System NODAL Analysis.
You will learn how to do the traditional graphical solution method of System
NODAL Analysis to determine the production rate of a hydrocarbon production
system.
You will also learn to identify and determine the effects of the key parameters that
affect production rate so that production can be efficiently and economically
optimized for a particular well.
2
PTPR 6099
OBJECTIVE ONE
Combine the Inflow and Outflow Performance Relationships for a reservoir and
well to determine the production rate for the system.
Learning Activity
Learning Material
PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING GRAPHICAL SYSTEM NODAL
ANALYSIS
As discussed in Module 1, if it is desired to determine the production rate from a
well, a common selection of solution node for the production system is at bottom
hole. At that node, the intersection of the wells IPR curve and the intake curve
for the remainder of the production system (comprised of the tubulars, any choke,
a flow line, separator, and so on) provides the system operating point. At bottom
hole, the system operating point is the production rate and producing bottom hole
pressure.
If the well head pressure is fixed, as is often the case, the intersection of the wells
IPR curve and the vertical lift performance curve (the intake curve for the tubulars
only) provides the system operating point (see Figure 1). Fixed well head pressure
is common in wells with short flow lines to separators.
It is to be noted for vertical flow that as the gas/liquid ratio, GLR, increases there
may be a point in the vertical lift performance curve where the producing bottom
hole pressure reaches a minimum. To that minimum point, an increasing GLR
reduces the hydrostatic pressure drop in the vertical tubulars because of the
difference in density between gas and liquid and because the proportion of gas
increases with increasing GLR. However, as the gas/liquid ratio continues to
increase beyond that point, flowing friction starts to increase faster than the
decrease in hydrostatic pressure and bottom hole pressure starts to increase with
increasing flow rate.
3
PTPR 6099
The tubing intake curve in Figure 1 illustrates what a well-defined minimum in

tubing intake pressure looks like. This means the producing bottom hole pressure
is also at a minimum at that point.
Figure 1
Solution to System Production Rate with Fixed Well Head Pressure (after Reference 1)
Figure 2 is a sample graphical analysis of the entire hydrocarbon production

system for a producing well.
The fixed system pressures that do not vary with flow rate are the end conditions
of static reservoir pressure and stock tank pressure (which is usually atmospheric
pressure). Obviously the graphical representation of the fixed end pressures is a
straight line on a pressure versus flow rate chart such as Figure 2.
The other system pressure that is usually considered not to change with flow rate
is separator pressure. A typical horizontal separator is shown in Figure 3. It
provides mechanical means such as gravitational segregation, baffles, contact
plates, and level control to separate gas from liquid and the residence time, as a
result of the vessels volume, to do it efficiently. There is little in it to restrict
flow. Two- or three-phase fluid enters at one end and gas and liquids are removed
at the other. Separators designed to separate gas, oil and water are called threephase separators and will therefore have three outlets.
If the production system discharges into a gas or liquid pipeline or a facility such
as a battery or gas plant, it must be determined whether or not the end pressure
will remain constant or is affected by any changes in the flow rate from the
production system under analysis into the pipeline or facility.
4
PTPR 6099
Figure 2
Graphical Representation of the Total Hydrocarbon Production System for a Well
(Reference 3)
When the performance curves of all the available system components are plotted
on a chart such as Figure 2, it is possible to see at a glance which components
produce the largest pressure drop at the systems operating point which is at the
wells production rate, qL. This provides a guide to prioritizing the components to
evaluate for the effect of any change in their operating conditions on production
rate.
Figure 3
Typical Horizontal Separator (Reference 4)
5
PTPR 6099
For example, in the graphical representation of the sample well shown in Figure
2, the largest pressure drop of any component at the wells production rate occurs
in the tubing (p tubing). The tubing intake curve (that is, the outflow
performance curve at the bottom hole) represents the pressure losses in the tubing,
the choke (if there is one), the flow line and the separator.
Because together they contribute the largest pressure drop in the sample
production system, the tubing string, the choke, the flow line and separator would
likely be the first components evaluated for any possible increase in production
rate from changes in their operating conditions.
For example, if the choke bean size can be increased, or the choke removed
altogether, the choke pressure drop can be reduced or eliminated and the tubing
intake curve moves downward shifting its intersection with the bottom hole IPR
curve to the right. This indicates increased production is possible with the choke
bean size increased or with the choke itself removed.
In Figure 2, the pressure drop in the flow line is also relatively significant. Some
methods to reducing pressure drop in a horizontal flow line are:
using larger diameter pipe
twinning an existing line
removing any significant impediments to flow in the line such as a hill by

re-routing the pipeline right-of-way around it
pulling a smooth plastic liner through rough or corroded pipe
regularly pigging the line to remove wax, scale, sand or, for gas flow,
liquids in low spots
injecting diluent or heating the liquid to reduce friction if flowing viscous

crude
Reducing the pressure drop in the flow line moves the flow line performance
curve down which in turn moves the tubing intake curve down. As before, this
downward shift in the tubing intake curve shifts its intersection with the bottom
hole IPR curve to the right indicating the potential for increased production.
If a separator can be run at a significantly different pressure, the result of a change
in separator pressure on the pressure drops in the flow line and tubing may need
to be evaluated.
The indicated pressure drop between the sand face IPR and the bottom hole IPR
in Figure 2 also indicates a significant loss in production rate. This is because of
the relatively flat IPR curves. This indicates that for the sample well in Figure 2,
completion efficiency is worthy of an evaluation for any possible improvement.
For each tubing size there is a critical gas rate to lift well bore liquids. This rate is
in the range of 200 to 800 mscfd depending on the tubing size and other factors.
6
PTPR 6099
Exercise One
1) Given:
Oil well depth, 7500 ft
Gas/oil ratio, 400 scf/bbl
Productivity index, 1.2
Static reservoir pressure, 2800 psi
Fixed well head pressure, 200 psi
Oil cut, 100%
a. Determine the difference in producing rate between 2.5-inch and 3-inch
tubing for this well.
Procedure:
i. On a Cartesian chart of pressure versus flow rate, plot a straight line PI
of 1.2.
ii. Using vertical pressure traverse plots (C-104, C-105, C-106 and C112, C-113 from Reference 1), calculate several points of a VLP curve
for each tubing size and plot the resulting curves to determine the
difference in producing rate.
b. If oil netback for this well is $50/bbl, what is the incremental net cash
flow for this well with 3-inch ID tubing?
c. If this well is currently producing with 2.5-inch ID tubing and the cost of a
workover to change the tubing to 3-inch ID is $45,000, would you
recommend the workover?
2) Determine the production rate from a well given:
Tubing length, 5000 ft
Tubing size, 2.5-inch ID
Flow line size, 2.5-inch
Flow line length, 4400 ft
Static reservoir pressure, 2600 psi
PI = 1.5
Oil gravity, 35 oAPI
Water-cut, 90%
Gas/liquid ratio 200 scf/bbl
Separator pressure, 140 psi.
7
PTPR 6099
Procedure:
i. On a Cartesian chart of pressure versus flow rate, plot a straight line IPR
with a PI of 1.5.
ii. Calculate the well head pressures using horizontal pressure traverse
curves D.107, D.108, and D.109 from Reference 1 and plot them on the
chart.
iii. Using the same flow rates as in step ii., and the resulting well head
pressures, calculate the tubing intake (bottom hole) pressures using
vertical pressure traverse curves C.109, C.110 and C.111 from
Reference 1.
iv. Plot the tubing intake curve on the chart and determine the system
operating point; that is, the well production rate, from its intersection
with the IPR curve.
3) For the well in 2), if static reservoir pressure is 2600 psi, bubble point pressure
of the reservoir fluid is 2600 psi and a test for the well showed 700 bblpd at a
producing bottom hole pressure of 1800 psi;
a. Determine the production rate.
b. Explain why it is permissible to use the tubing intake curve as calculated
for Problem 2) above.
Procedure:
i. Use the Vogel relationship to calculate qL, max using the test data and to
calculate several points of the IPR curve. Plot the IPR curve on a
Cartesian chart.
ii. Use the tubing intake curve calculated in Problem 2) to determine the
operating point (production rate and producing bottom hole pressure)
of this system.
8
PTPR 6099
OBJECTIVE TWO
Understand and calculate the effect of changing constraints on either the reservoir
or the well on the production (production optimization).
Learning Material
Recall from Module 1 that System NODAL Analysis can be done at any one of
many available nodes between components, or at a functional node, in the
hydrocarbon production system. The node or functional node that is selected
depends upon which component or functional node is desired to be analyzed for
its effect on production. The node selected should isolate the component to be
analyzed as much as possible.
Recall also that the inflow or outflow performance curves at a solution node are
not affected by changes in the other. Only the system operating point changes
when a change is made in either the inflow or outflow curve.
For example, in order to evaluate the effect of changes in a flow line such as
larger diameter pipe or twinning an existing line or removing significant
restrictions to flow in the line such as a hill by re-routing the pipeline right-ofway, an appropriate solution node selection is likely to be at the well head. Once
an inflow curve (IPR and VLP curves) is established for the flow line at the well
head, it will serve no matter what changes are evaluated or made downstream
from the well head in the flow line performance (outflow) curve.
In the case of functional nodes such as chokes, inflow and outflow curves are both
required. Once the inflow and outflow curves are established, the system
operating point is determined by the available range of changes in pressure or
flow rate that the functional node can provide.
9
PTPR 6099
A table of some common solution nodes, performance curves analyzed, system

constraints and expected results follows.
Table 1
Common Solution Nodes
NODE
Bottom
hole
PERFORMANCE
CURVES
ANALYZED
IPR and Vertical Lift
Performance
Bottom
hole
IPR and Tubing

Intake System
Fixed system
delivery/sales pressure
*Submersible
pump
Well
head
IPR, Pump and

Vertical Lift
Performance
Inflow and Outflow
System
Fixed well head pressure
*Choke
Inflow, Outflow and

Choke
Well head IPR,
Compressor curve
and pipeline curve
Inflow System and
Compressor curve
Pressure drop through

choke
Fixed system
*Compressor,
well head
*Compressor,
field
CONSTRAINT(S)
MAIN RESULT(S)
Fixed well head pressure
Production rate
(reservoir/completion
capability), tubing size,.
Production rate,
Reservoir capability.
Fixed delivery/sales
pressure
Fixed system
Submersible pump
capacity and head,
tubing size.
Flow line size,
separator pressure.
Choke size and well
production rate.
Compressor size,
horsepower, minimum
inlet pressure
Compressor size,
horsepower, minimum
inlet pressure
*denotes functional node
When all possible components of a particular production system (see Figure 2)

have been evaluated and all practical changes that are economic have been
implemented, then it can be said that production from the system has been
optimized and the well is producing at its maximum practical economic rate.
10
PTPR 6099
EFFECT OF PRODUCING GAS/LIQUID RATIO

For very low GLR production, hydrostatic pressure is dominant and the Vertical
Lift Performance (VLP) curve tends to be relatively straight and flat. For very
high GLR production, including gas wells, friction dominates as flow rate
increases and the VLP curve is relatively curved and steep.
Figure 4 shows bottom hole pressure as a function of flow rate for the same size
tubing for production at low and high GLR.
Figure 4
Effect of Gas/Liquid Ratio on Vertical Lift Performance Curves
The effect of GLR on bottom hole pressure is easily seen on all vertical pressure
traverse charts which show pressure as a function of both depth and GLR. The
higher the GLR, the lower the bottom hole pressure for a given tubing size and
flow rate.
Sometimes gas is injected into wells in order to provide assist in lifting liquids.
Figure 4 indicates that for high GLR wells there exists a point where injecting too
much gas actually increases bottom hole pressure. This reduces liquid production
from the well.
PTPR 6099
11
EFFECT OF TUBING SIZE

In order to determine the effect of tubing size on production rate, typical VLP
curves are calculated and plotted for different tubing sizes in Figure 5. The
intersection of the VLP curve for each tubing size with the wells IPR curve
determines the system production rate as shown for the example well in Figure 2.
Figure 5
Solutions to System Production Rate with Various Tubing Sizes (after Reference 2)
The VLP curve for each tubing size can be obtained from published vertical
pressure traverse curves by plotting the well bottom pressure versus flow rate for
each tubing size or it can be calculated for the specific well.
If the tubing string selected is too large there is the possibility of premature
loading of the well with liquids, which will reduce production, and the subsequent
expense of lost production along with the cost of a workover to replace the tubing
with a smaller string. Those costs and the higher cost of a larger tubing string
must be weighed against a higher initial production rate for a larger tubing string.
12
Occasionally, tapered tubing strings are required if a smaller diameter liner has
been run into the production casing. A tapered tubing string consists of a length of
smaller diameter tubing run below a larger diameter length of tubing. In this case,
a logical selection for the solution node is the point where the tubing changes
diameter. The inflow system then consists of the reservoir and the lower string of
tubing while the outflow system consists of the upper string of tubing to either a
fixed well head pressure or to a flow line with a fixed endpoint pressure.
PTPR 6099
EFFECT OF INCREASING WATER CUT

In many reservoirs, particularly those with underlying water or those with water
injection, a well may initially produce clean oil (<1% water), or oil at a relatively
low water cut, and then at some point, either gradually or rapidly, start to produce
increasing amounts of water. The effect of increasing water cut on well
production is shown in Figure 10 below.
The increase in water cut results in a higher flowing bottom hole pressure due to
the increase in hydrostatic pressure. As a result, total liquid production from the
well decreases. Frequently, the increased bottom hole pressure, along with the
frictional pressure drop and well head pressure, is enough to cause the well to
flow erratically or to stop flowing. The installation of artificial lift is then required
to produce the well.
Figure 6
Solutions to System Production Rate with Increasing Water Cut (after Reference 1)
The VLP curves at different water cuts are determined in the usual way from
published vertical pressure traverse curves or calculated by hand or computer.
PTPR 6099
13
EFFECT OF FLOW LINE SIZE AND SEPARATOR PRESSURE

The effect of a change in the flow line size from 2.5-inch ID to 3.5-inch ID and
for a change in separator pressure from 100 psi to 50 psi for the 2.5-inch ID flow
line is shown for a specific well and conditions in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Solutions to System Production Rate with Larger Flow Line Diameter
and with Reduced Separator Pressure (after Reference 2)
The solution node selected is the well head where the inflow curve represents the
well IPR and VLP curves while the outflow curve represents the flow line curve
with the separator pressure as the fixed constraint at the end of the flow line.
The specific well conditions (Reference 2) are:
14
reservoir pressure = reservoir fluid bubble point pressure = 2400 psi

well test data, 710 stbd at 2000 psi well head pressure
oil cut, 100 %
GLR, 800 scf/bbl
flow line length, 3000 ft
The Vogel relationship can be used to calculate the inflow relationship at bottom
hole and vertical pressure traverse curves are used to calculate the VLP curve to
determine the flowing pressure at the well head. Horizontal pressure traverse
curves can be used to calculate the flowing pressure at the well head node for
each flow line size and separator pressure evaluated.
PTPR 6099
For this well and this specific set of conditions, a larger diameter flow line has a
much larger effect on production rate than a reduction in separator pressure.
EFFECT OF RESERVOIR PRESSURE
The effect of depletion indicated by declining static reservoir pressure over time is
shown by the IPR curves and their intersection with the tubing intake curve in
Figure 8. The effect on production rate is substantial for relatively small declines
in static reservoir pressure due to the shape of the IPR curve.
Figure 8
Effect of Declining Reservoir Pressure on Well Production (after Reference 3)
Static reservoir pressure as a result of depletion can be determined by

mathematical material balance methods (Reference 5, pp167-202), by Standings
extension of Vogels work to predict future IPR curves (Reference 1, pp. 22-23),
by graphical methods for gas wells (Reference 5, pp 203-204) and by graphical
methods for oil wells (Reference 1, pp 25-31).
One method for calculating a future IPR curve for a gas well is that of Fetkovich
(SPE 4529) as follows:
qg = Ci (pr/pi) (p2r p2wf)n
where:
qg
Ci
pr
pi
n
pi
=
=
=
=
=
=
gas production rate at a future time

initial deliverability coefficient
average reservoir pressure at a future time
initial average reservoir pressure
initial deliverability exponent
initial average reservoir pressure
The above equation to calculate future gas well IPRs is a simple modification to
the backpressure deliverability equation.
PTPR 6099
15
Fetkovich (Reference 6) also found empirically that a similar backpressure

deliverability curve was also applicable to flowing oil wells as follows:
qo = Jo (pR2 pwf2)n
and that future oil IPRs could be calculated in the same simple way as future IPRs
for gas as follows:
qo = Joi (pr/pi) (pr2 pwf2)n
Note that the deliverability exponent n for flowing oil wells also ranges
between 0.5 and 1. The deliverability coefficient for oil, Jo, is a form of
productivity index analogous to the gas well deliverability coefficient C. Both n
and Jo for oil wells are determined from tests just as n and C are for gas wells.
EFFECT OF SKIN FACTOR
The effect of a positive skin factor on well production is indicated by the
intersection of the IPR curves for flow efficiencies of 1.0 (undamaged) and 0.54
with a sample tubing intake curve in Figure 9.
Figure 9
Effect of Skin Factor on Well Production (after Reference 3)
As with declining reservoir pressure, the effect of flow efficiency on a wells

production is substantial because of the shape of the IPR curve and is greatest at
maximum drawdown.
16
PTPR 6099
EFFECT OF WELL HEAD COMPRESSION

A well in Northern Alberta was tested resulting in the following stabilized
deliverability data:
Table 2
Flow Test
Flowing pressure, psi
1950
1789
1475
900
Flow rate, mscfd
5000
10000
15000
20000
It is desired to determine the additional production possible from two different

well head compressors, A and B, capable of lowering well head pressure to 750
and 500 psi, respectively, from the current line pressure of 1000 psi.
To analyze the effect of a well head compressor that is installed on the well lease,
select the well head as the solution node. The stabilized well head deliverability
line (inflow performance relationship at the well head solution node) is shown in
Figure 10.
Example 1
10000000
pts2 - ptf2, psi 2
Stabilized well head data
1000000
100000
1000
10000
100000
Flow Rate, mscfd
Figure 10
Stabilized Well Head Deliverability Line for Example 1 (after Reference 2)
17
PTPR 6099
From Figure 11 it can be seen that well head deliverability at the current line
pressure of 1000 psi is 19,200 mscfd and that the incremental production expected
from the well head compressors is 1,500 mscfd and 2,300 mscfd respectively.
Example 1
Flowing Well Head Pressure, psi
2500
2000
Stabilized well performance curve
1500
No compression
1000
Compressor A
Compressor B
500
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Flow rate, mscfd
Figure 11
Stabilized Well Head Performance Curve for Example 1 (after Reference 2)
An economic evaluation is required to determine whether the well head

compression modeled is economic in this case and, if so, which of the two
available compressors provides the better economics.
If it is desired to do a detailed compression valuation, the compressors
performance curve would be compared to the wells performance curve. Some of
the variables that will affect the compressors performance curve include gas
temperature and composition, compression ratio and the number of stages
required, and minimum compressor inlet pressure based on available horsepower
and compressor design. Service factors to be considered would include type of
service (sweet or sour gas) and whether reciprocating or rotary compression
would be best. Economic factors to be considered include a forecast of
incremental production from compression, installation and maintenance costs and
whether terms of purchase, rent or lease to own provide the best economics.
18
Sometimes new shallow, low pressure gas wells producing into an older highpressure gas gathering system require compression from day one. In other cases,
compression is required later in the life of a gas well due to depletion of reservoir
pressure, if gas prices have increased or if gathering system pressures have
increased due to the tie-in of additional wells.
PTPR 6099
DISCUSSION OF LIQUID LOADING IN GAS WELLS

In a volumetric or depletion-drive type natural gas reservoir, the energy (reservoir
pressure) available to lift produced fluids to surface declines with production of
reserves. At some point, fluid flow rates decline enough that all of the liquids
produced with the gas are no longer lifted to surface. The sources of these well
bore liquids are the liquids condensed from the gas (usually mostly condensate)
due to reduction in pressure and free liquids (usually mostly water) produced into
the well bore with the gas.
These liquids accumulate in the well bore over time and result in increased
hydrostatic backpressure on the formation. This results in a further decrease in the
energy available to lift fluids to surface. If this continues, enough liquid
accumulates in the well bore to counterbalance the available reservoir pressure
and the well will cease to flow, or die. This process is called gas well loading-up.
Various means are available to deal with gas well loading up including:
Blowing down the tubing to atmosphere (the increased flow rate clears the
liquids from the well bore not a good environmental or resource
conservation practice)
Installing plunger lift (uses buildup of reservoir energy beneath a

mechanical plunger in the tubing to lift liquids a cyclical process that
must be carefully fine-tuned to each specific well)
Installing a smaller diameter tubing string (the higher velocity to lift

liquids comes at a price of increased friction pressure loss)
Dropping soap sticks in the annulus to foam the liquid and reduce the
hydrostatic head on the formation ( a home-brew remedy much loved by
field personnel as a last ditch effort to resuscitate a dead well)
Injecting gas into the annulus to reverse circulate well bore liquids out
up the tubing
Installing artificial lift and occasionally pumping out the accumulated

liquids
Running a portable small diameter coiled tubing string temporarily into

the production tubing and injecting gas to lift out the well bore liquids
(this needs to be repeated regularly and tends to be pricey)
19
PTPR 6099
Exercise Two
1. An oil wells production is represented by a Fetkovich backpressure
equation in oil field units as follows:
qo = 0.00025 (4 x 106 pwf2)1.0
Determine the production rate for this well at average reservoir pressures of
2000, 1600 and 1200 psia given:
Fixed well head pressure, 120 psi
GOR, 500 scf/bbl
Oil cut, 100%
Tubing size, 2-inch ID
Well depth, 7000 ft
Procedure:
i. Assume a series of pwf values and calculate qo to determine an IPR
curve for each reservoir pressure.
ii. Use a vertical multi-phase pressure traverse to calculate the VLP curve
for the tubing.
iii. Determine the oil production rate at each future reservoir pressure
from the intersections of the tubing intake curve and the IPR curves.
20
PTPR 6099

1. a)
i. For PI=1.2:
Pwf , Psi
2800
2000
1200
750
q 0 , Stbd
960
1920
2460
See chart below:
Module 7 - Exercise One

Problem 1
Bottom Hole Pressure, p wf, psi
3000
PI = 1.2
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Oil rate, stbd
ii.
Tubing ID, in
Well Head Pressure, psi
2.5
200
3.0
200
q0
Pwf
q0
Pwf
stbd
800
psi
1700
stbd
1000
psi
1610
1000
1750
2000
1770
1500
1940
Incremental production with 3-in ID tubing is 180 stbd

PTPR 6099
21

Problem 1
3000
Bottom Hole Pressure, p wf, psi
IPR, PI = 1.2
VLP, 2.5-in id tubing
2500
VLP, 3-in id tubing

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Oil rate, stbd
b) At an oil netback of $50/bbl incremental income with 3-inch ID tubing is

$9000/ day.
c) If the cost of a workover to replace 2.5 inch ID tubing with 3-inch tubing is
$45 000, pay out is 5 days (plus 2 days deferred revenue due to downtime).
Therefore, this tubing change-out is highly attractive economically.
2. Calculate and plot the straight line IPR as for A P.I. = 1.5 as follows:
2600
2000
Pwf, psi
qL, stbd
0
72
Using appropriate horizontal pressure traverse curse (0.107, 0.108, 0.109)
from reference 1, calculate the wellhead pressures:
qL, stbd
ptf, psi
800
186
1000
205
1500
250
Calculate the tubing intake (bottom hole) pressures using vertical pressure
traverse charts 0.109, 0.110, 0.111 from reference 1
qL, stbbl
Ptf, psi
Tubing intake, psi
800
186
1540
1000
205
1585
1500
250
1750
22
PTPR 6099

Problem 2
3000
IPR, PI = 1.5
2.5-in id Flow Line Performance
2.5-in Tubing Intake Curve
Pressure, psi
2500
2000
Tubing intake curve
1500
1000
Tubing pressure drop
500
Flow line pressure drop
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Liquid Rate, stbd
From the intersection of the tubing intake performance curve and the IPR
curve, the system operating point is 1160 stbd at a bottom hole pressure of
1620 psi.
3. a)
Since flow is below the bubble point, assume Vogel relationship is valid
for 90% water cut and use it to determine the wells IPR as follows:
Vogel:
qL
q L, max
P
P
= 1 - 0.2 wf -0.8 wf
PR
PR
Detemine q L, max :
q L, max =
7.00
1800
1800
1 - 0.2
-0.8
2600
2600
= 1464 blpd
Calculate several points on the IPR curve:
Pwf , psi
2600
0
2000
546
1400
967
800
1263
200
1435
0
1464
23
PTPR 6099
b) The tubing intake curve is unaffected by the change in the IPR curve as
the solution node is the bottom hole and fluid properties have not changed.
This will produce 1550 bblpd at a bottom hole pressure of 870 psi.
Problem 3
3000
IPR, Vogel
2.5-in id Flow Line Performance
2.5-in Tubing Intake Curve
Pressure, psi
2500
2000
Tubing intake curve
1500
Tubing
pressure
drop
1000
500
Flow line performance curve
Flow line pressure drop
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Liquid Rate, stbd

1. Assume a series of Pwf values and calculate a qo to determine an IPR curve for
each reservoir pressure as follows:
1.0
P
qo = J oi r ( Pr 2 Pwf 2 )
Pi
P
= 0.00025 r ( Pr 2 Pwf 2 )
2000
24
PTPR 6099
Table 3
PR,
psia
2000
1600
1200
pwf
qo
pwf
qo
pwf
qo
psia
stbpd
psia
stbpd
psia
stbpd
2000
1600
1200
800
600
400
200
0
0
360
640
840
910
960
990
1000
1600
1400
1200
800
600
400
200
0
0
120
224
384
440
480
504
512
1200
800
600
400
200
0
0
120
162
192
210
216
Using vertical pressure traverse charts

From reference 5
qo
Pwf
200
1170
400
1220
600
1300
Exercise Two, Problem 1

2500
IPR, 2000 psia
IPR, 1600 psia
IPR, 1200 psia
VLP Curve, 2-in i.d. tubing
Pressure, psia
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000 1100
Oil Rate, stbpd
Oil rates are 590, 230 and 10 stbpf at 2000, 1600 and 1200 psia average
reservoir pressures, respectively.
25
PTPR 6099
Assignment
1) Research choke manufacturers and describe the main types, features and basic
operation of chokes used to control gas flow.
2) Research plunger lift systems. Briefly describe the main mechanical
components, a typical production cycle and how such systems increase
production.
3) Research the Fetkovich back-pressure deliverability equation for oil and
describe how a value for the deliverability coefficient jo is determined.
26
PTPR 6099
Module Self-Test
1. Well head pressure can be safely assumed to be fixed when calculating a VLP
curve.
a) True
b) False
2. There may be a minimum pressure between the ends of a tubing intake curve
on a plot of pressure versus flow rate for multi-phase flow when:
a) a well produces at maximum rate
b) hydrostatic pressure decreases with increasing flow rate
c) friction pressure starts to increase faster than hydrostatic pressure is
decreasing
d) hydrostatic pressure is decreasing faster than friction pressure is
decreasing
3. The hydrocarbon production systems operating point is often determined by
the intersection of the bottom hole IPR curve and the tubing intake curve.
a) True
b) False
4. In a hydrocarbon production system, the fixed pressures that are considered
not to change with flow rate are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Static reservoir pressure, well head pressure and stock tank pressure
Tubing intake pressure, stock tank pressure and separator pressure
Static reservoir pressure, separator pressure and stock tank pressure
Tubing intake pressure, well head pressure and separator pressure
5. If a hydrocarbon production system discharges into a pipeline or a gas plant it

can be safely assumed that the system discharge pressure will not vary with
system flow rate.
a) True
b) False
6. Inflow and outflow performance curves at a solution node are not affected by
a change in the other.
a) True
b) False
27
PTPR 6099
7. Which is true?
a) If a tubing string diameter is too large, a well may load up with liquids and
cease flowing efficiently or altogether.
b) Tapered tubing strings are installed to decrease pressure drop in the
tubing.
c) Decreasing water cut may cause a well to stop flowing efficiently or cease
flowing altogether.
d) All of the above.
8. If a tubing string diameter is too small, a well may load up with liquids and
cease flowing efficiently or altogether.
a) True
b) False
9. A relatively small decline in reservoir pressure can result in a relatively large
decrease in production from a flowing well.
a) True
b) False
10. Gas is sometimes injected into a well to:
a) increase the GLR and reduce the flowing friction pressure in the tubing;
b) provide assistance to lift liquids by reducing the flowing friction pressure
in the tubing;
c) provide assistance to lift liquids by reducing the hydrostatic pressure in the
tubing;
d) all of the above
28
PTPR 6099

1. b
2. c
3. a
4. c
5. b
6. a
7. a
8. a
9. a
10. c
29
PTPR 6099
References
2. Systems NODAL Analysis, Engineering Reference I-23, Amoco Production
Co., Feb.1 1984.
3. Brown, K.E., Mach, J. and Proano, E., Systems Analysis as Applied to
Producing Wells Johnston-Macco/Schlumberger training material, undated.
4. Fundamentals of Petroleum, Petroleum Extension Service, University of
Texas, Austin, 2nd Ed., 1981.
6. Fetkovich, M.J., The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells SPE 4529, 1973.
30
PTPR 6099
Appendix
31
PTPR 6099
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Hydraulic Fracturing and

Production
PTPR 6100
Module 8
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Hydraulic Fracturing and Production

Rationale
Hydraulic fracture stimulation to overcome near-well bore damage is often used
to increase well production rates. An increase in production rate can lead to an
increase in reserves if there is a competitive drainage situation or if there is an
increase in the wells economic life. An increase in well production rate can also
improve economics by accelerating cash flow from the well (time value of money
or net present value). Hydraulic fracture stimulation is also commonly used in
tight formations to provide production rates large enough to be economic.
This module will show you how to analyze performance and condition of a
vertical well, estimate production after a propped hydraulic fracture stimulation
and optimize propped hydraulic fracture stimulation design.
Learning Outcome
Estimate production of a vertical well after a hydraulic fracture stimulation with
the Darcy radial flow equation using equivalent well bore diameter and
understand the parameters that affect hydraulic fracture stimulation effectiveness.
Learning Objectives
1. Understand and use several versions of the Darcy radial flow equation
modified for analysis of damaged and stimulated wells.
2. Describe the difference between true formation skin (damage or
improvement amenable to stimulation or damage), other skins not
amenable to stimulation and pseudo-skin.
3. Explain and use the concepts of well bore radius equivalent to skin factor
and of dimensionless fracture conductivity when estimating well
productivity after a propped hydraulic fracture stimulation.
4. Learn how to optimize the design of a hydraulic fracture stimulation of a
vertical well.
1
PTPR 6100
Introduction
The ultimate goal of this module is to provide you with an understanding of the
factors which affect the productivity of hydraulically fractured vertical wells. We
will use a slightly modified version of the standard Darcy steady-state radial flow
equation to illustrate the effect of those factors.
The equation is modified such that it separates the true formation damage (or
stimulation) skin from all the other skins which can affect productivity. This is
done by replacing the nominal well bore radius in the radial flow equation with a
well bore radius that is equivalent to true formation damage (or stimulation) only.
This allows the effect of a propped vertical fracture to be incorporated directly
into the equation to gauge the effect of different hydraulic fracture designs on
well productivity. Thus, easy optimization of hydraulic fracture design parameters
is possible.
The remaining skins which can affect well productivity are handled by a skin
factor term as normal. This works because the remaining skins are not amenable
to normal stimulation or damage and will remain constant under different
conditions of true formation damage or stimulation.
2
PTPR 6100
OBJECTIVE ONE
Understand and use several versions of the Darcy radial flow equation modified
for analysis of damaged and stimulated wells.
Learning Activity
Learning Material
DARCY STEADY-STATE RADIAL FLOW EQUATIONS
The standard form of the Darcy steady-state radial flow equation in oilfield units
for a compressible liquid such as oil is:
qo =
7.08 k o h (p e - p wfs )
bopd
Bo u o [ ln (re /rw ) + S']
However, a slightly modified form of the Darcy steady-state radial flow equation
will be used in this module, and in Module 9, to better illustrate the effect of a
propped hydraulic fracture stimulation of a well with formation damage. This
modified form will allow a better understanding of the various down hole skin
factors which can affect well productivity. The two types of skin factors are those
which are amenable to stimulation and those which are not. It does this by
showing the magnitude of the two types of skins, when present; to better gauge
their effect on well productivity. It also reduces confusion when estimating
production from wells with formation damage which are not vertical or have only
some of the pay penetrated or have excessive losses through the perforations or
have non-laminar inflow.
3
PTPR 6100
The radial flow equation is modified by the following two changes:

1. The nominal well bore radius, rw, is replaced with an effective, or
equivalent, well bore radius, r'w, defined here as that equivalent well bore
radius which is solely due to true formation damage (or improvement)
amenable to improvement (or damage) by fracturing, acidizing or other
chemical and mechanical treatments to overcome near-well bore formation
damage.
2. The total apparent skin factor, S', is replaced by the sum of the remaining
skin factors, s, which are not amenable to improvement or damage by
stimulation activities but are the result of drilling and completion practices
or non-laminar (turbulent) or phase flow in the reservoir.
The remaining four skin factors not amenable to stimulation treatments down the
well bore include:
inclination of the well bore through the pay zone

partial penetration or partial completion of the pay zone
perforation entry losses
non-laminar (turbulent) flow or phase flow in the reservoir
Non-laminar (turbulent) flow is usually called a pseudo-skin because, while it

results in a pressure drop from the reservoir to the well bore - in effect a less
permeable skin around the well bore as do all the other skins - it is not
amenable to any improvement by any means in the near-well bore area. This is
because it is a rate-dependent skin.
Of course, excessive perforation entry losses can be remedied by re-perforating to
higher shot density and/or to bigger hole sizes. This is in fact often done prior to
hydraulic fracture stimulation particularly in older wells or in newer wells which
were carelessly shot or shot in a manner to minimize cost. These wells were often
shot with small diameter hole sizes and/or at low shot density. In order to
minimize friction pressure loss through the perforations when pumping a viscous
gel or other fluid at high rate during a fracture stimulation treatment in order to
carry sand at high concentration into the formation, such wells are routinely reperforated with big hole charges and increased shot density.
For the purposes of this module, all the skins other than the true formation skin,
sd, are assumed to be zero. This is usually the case for a typical vertical oil well
with all the pay perforated and with no unusual perforation losses. Module 9 will
show you how to calculate the remaining skins including the rate-dependent and
phase flow pseudo-skins and to determine their effect on production rates.
The modified Darcy steady-state radial flow equation for a compressible liquid
(oil) in a bounded drainage area can be written in oilfield units as:
qo =
7.08 k o h (p e - p wfs )
bopd
Bo u o [ ln (re /r'w ) + s ]
PTPR 6100
and in metric units as:

qo =
0.5352 k o h (pe - p wfs ) 3

m /d
Bo u o [ ln (re /r'w ) + s ]
Similarly, the Darcy steady-state radial flow equation for gases in a bounded
drainage area can be written in oilfield units as:
qg =
0.703 k g h (p e 2 - p wfs 2 )
g z T [ ln (re /r'w ) + s ]
mscfd
and in metric units as:

qg =
where:
qo
qg
ko
kg
h
pe
=
=
=
=
=
=
pwfs =
Bo =
o =
g =
re =
rw =
r'w =
z =
s =
0.000763 k g h (p e 2 - p wfs 2 )
g z T [ ln (re /r'w ) + s ]
103 m3 /d
oil rate, bopd or m3/d

gas rate, mscfd or E3m3/d
effective permeability to oil, darcys or m2
effective permeability to gas, darcys or m2
net pay, ft or m
reservoir pressure at drainage radius, psia or kPa(a)
producing bottom hole pressure, psia or kPa(a)
oil formation volume factor, res vol/st vol
oil viscosity at producing bottom hole pressure, cp or mPas
gas viscosity at producing bottom hole pressure, cp or mPas
drainage radius, ft or m
nominal bore hole radius, ft or m
equivalent or effective well bore radius, ft or m
real gas deviation factor, dimensionless
total of skins other than sd, dimensionless
The foregoing Darcy steady-state radial flow equation for a compressible liquid
(oil) can easily be applied to an incompressible fluid (water) by assuming a water
formation volume factor of 1.0. While some gas can be in solution in formation
water, this simplifying assumption provides adequate accuracy for production
engineering estimating purposes.
5
PTPR 6100
For gas wells, note the following guidelines for the correct pressure function to
use in any gas flow equations:
Static Reservoir Pressure
0 > 2500 psi; 0-17,500 kPa(a)
2500 > 3500 psi; 17,500-24,500 kPa(a)
> 3500 psi; >24,500 kPa(a)
Pressure
Function
p2
m(p) or
p
The pressure function guidelines show that it is not always necessary to use the
real gas pseudo-pressure function, m(p) or , to obtain practical engineering
accuracy when using the Darcy radial flow equations. This is because there is
always a degree of inaccuracy in the real life value of most of the other variables
in the equations and because real gas properties do not vary significantly within
the ranges of the guidelines.
For a more rigorous approach to the use of the real gas pseudo-pressure function
and its applicability, the Alberta EUB Guide G-3, Gas Well Testing - Theory and
Practice, 4th Ed., 1979 is a recommended reference.
The steady state equation is applicable when reservoir pressure at the drainage
radius is constant and not changing due to depletion of reserves or (offset)
injection. Thus, it can apply to reservoirs with fully active aquifers. It is also
applicable before the well drainage radius has reached a no-flow boundary in the
reservoir. In other words, when a new well is still infinite acting and has not yet
felt the reservoir no-flow boundaries, it is considered to be in steady-state. The
only requirement is that the readjustment time to any change in the system from
the well to the reservoir is small. This is usually, but not always, the case.
Pseudo-steady state occurs when the pressure at a wells drainage radius is not
constant but changing at a constant rate due to depletion of reserves or offset
production or unbalanced injection, this is called. In this state, a wells drainage
radius has extended out to the reservoirs no-flow boundaries and it feels the
changing pressure at the boundary. A slightly different form of the Darcy radial
flow equation using average reservoir pressure applies in the pseudo-steady state.
Many wells that are hydraulic fracture stimulated are new wells in new pools and
are therefore infinite-acting. During this period, the wells drainage radius is timedependent. However, the standard Darcy radial flow equation is not very sensitive
to the value for the wells drainage radius. Table 1 shows the difference in
calculated oil rate using different typical values for well drainage radius. The
difference between assuming 40-acre and 640-acre drainage areas is only 15%.
6
PTPR 6100
Table 1
Effect of Well Drainage Radius on Calculated Production Rate
Furthermore, the modified Darcy radial flow equation used in this module to
illustrate the effect of formation damage and stimulation is even less sensitive to
well drainage radius. This is because in most cases, as shown in Table 1, the
wells drainage radius spans only about one order of magnitude while the
equivalent well bore radius can vary by many orders of magnitude between a
damaged well and a stimulated well.
In order to convert between true formation skin and equivalent well bore radius,
the following relationship defining effective or equivalent well bore radius is used
(Reference 7):
r' = rw e(-sd )
or, re-arranging:
s d = ln (rw /r'w )
7
PTPR 6100
Exercise One
1. A new oil well has been determined to have:
An effective permeability to oil of 100 mD
A net perforated pay thickness of 1.5 m
A reservoir pressure of 9000 kPa(a)
An oil formation volume factor of 1.073
An oil viscosity at bottom hole temperature and pressure of 3.0 cP
A drainage radius of 227 m
A nominal bore hole diameter of 200 mm
The well is vertical, all the pay is perforated, there are no significant
perforation losses and inflow is laminar.
a) If the bottom hole flowing pressure will be 2000 kPa(a), estimate the
production rate from this well using the modified steady-state radial flow
equation assuming no formation skin.
b) If the well is subsequently damaged to a true formation skin of +5 as a
result of (perhaps clumsy or incompetent) operations to equip the well
bore,
i. Calculate the damaged wells equivalent well bore radius.
ii. Calculate the damaged wells productivity.
c) If it is expected that the well can then be hydraulically fracture stimulated
to a true formation skin of -3 based on similar offset wells,
i. Calculate the stimulated wells equivalent well bore radius.
ii. Calculate the stimulated wells productivity.
8
PTPR 6100
OBJECTIVE TWO
Describe the difference between true formation skin (damage or improvement

amenable to stimulation or damage), other skins not amenable to stimulation and
pseudo-skin.
Learning Material
SKIN FACTORS
The modified Darcy steady-state radial flow equations previously shown in this
module include two types of skin.
The first type of skin is true formation skin, denoted as sd, which is amenable to
stimulation or damage. Its magnitude is indicated by a positive number for
damage and by a negative number for improvement or stimulation.
Negative true formation skins of magnitude larger than -5 are rarely achieved with
stimulation, however, positive true formation skins with magnitudes of +10 or
greater are common. In other words, it is easier to damage a well to the point
where it produces little or nothing than it is to stimulate a well much beyond what
amounts to a two- to four-fold improvement in production rate.
The second type of skin includes all the remaining skins, the sum of which is
denoted as s. The common property of all the remaining skin factors is that they
are not amenable to improvement (by stimulation) or damage (by other means) of
the formation in the near well bore area. These remaining skin factors are well
bore angle of inclination through the pay interval, partial penetration or partial
completion of the pay interval, perforation entry losses and losses due to nonlaminar (turbulent) or phase flow in the reservoir. Their magnitude is also denoted
by positive (damage) or negative (improvement) numbers in the same as true
formation skin.
Productivity loss due to non-laminar (turbulent) or phase flow in the reservoir is
termed a pseudo-skin because, although it can be quantified as a pressure loss and
have an affect on production like the other skin factors, it is not physically
connected to the well bore but to the reservoir and is rate (or phase) dependent. As
such it can not be treated from, or be changed by, operations from the well bore as
it occurs in the reservoir.
9
PTPR 6100
The relationships between the different skin factors are summarized below:
The total apparent skin factor, S', obtained from normal pressure transient test
analysis or from production performance matching, is the sum of the
following true formation damage skin factor and other skin factors:
S' = sd + sa+pc+ sperf + sDq
or:
S' = sd + s
where:
sd = true formation damage (or improvement) skin factor

amenable to, or a result of, stimulation
s = sum of remaining skin factors including pseudo-skin
= sa+pc + sperf + sDq
where: sa+pc = inclination angle and partial completion skin factor

sperf = perforation entry loss skin factor
sDq = turbulent or phase flow pseudo-skin factor
By separating out the true formation damage skin factor and the total of the
remaining skin factors including the pseudo-skin factor, it is easier to determine
what the major problem(s) is (are) in an underperforming well and what the best
approach is to remedy it (them).
Note that the effective, or equivalent, well bore radius will be larger than the
nominal well bore radius for an improved/stimulated well and will be smaller than
the nominal well bore radius for a damaged well.
The nominal well bore radius is the bore hole diameter/2 or the diameter/2 of the
drill bit used to penetrate the pay zone. Sometimes, for formations which are not
competent such as poorly consolidated sands or sloughing shales, well bore
radius can be obtained from a caliper survey. For the case of a well with a total
apparent skin of zero, (neither damaged nor improved) the effective or equivalent
well bore radius will be equal to the nominal well bore radius.
The total apparent skin S' can be obtained from pressure transient test analysis or
from production performance matching. Production performance matching allows
you to estimate the total apparent skin of a well if values for all the other variables
in the Darcy radial flow equation are known or can be guessed at with sufficient
engineering accuracy.
10
PTPR 6100
The individual remaining skin factors take into account the effect on production
of any bore hole angle of penetration different than 90 (deviated/inclined)
through the pay zone, partial penetration of the pay interval (TD above bottom of
pay or only part of the pay perforated), any significant pressure drop through the
perforations in the steel casing/cement sheath and any losses due to non-laminar,
or turbulent, flow or phase flow in the reservoir. Their estimation will be
discussed in detail in Module 9.
Note that the Darcy radial flow equation applies only to laminar flow in the
reservoir. This is generally the case except for very high rate gas wells or highly
restricted entry into the well bore. If there is any significant pressure loss into the
well bore due to non-laminar (turbulent) or phase flow, it must be accounted for
separately by means of a pseudo-skin factor.
Exercise Two
1. A vertical oil well drilled with a 168 mm diameter bit is estimated to have:
An effective permeability to oil of 20 mD based on nearby wells in the
same formation
A net perforated pay thickness of 2 m
A reservoir pressure of 6000 kPa(a)
An oil formation volume factor of 1.04
An oil viscosity at bottom hole temperature and pressure of 2.0 10 3 m2
A drainage radius of 227 m
At a producing bottom hole pressure of 1500 kPa(a) it makes 3 m3/d of oil.
There are no significant perforation losses, all the pay is perforated, inflow is
laminar and the well is infinite acting.
a) What is the nominal well bore radius, rw, for this well?
b) What is the estimated equivalent well bore radius for this well?
c) What is estimated true formation skin factor for this well?
11
PTPR 6100
OBJECTIVE THREE
Explain and use the concepts of well bore radius equivalent to skin factor and of
dimensionless fracture conductivity when estimating well productivity after a
propped hydraulic fracture stimulation.
Learning Material
DIMENSIONLESS FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY
Dimensionless fracture conductivity is defined as:

FCD =
where:
FCD
kf
wf
k
xf
=
=
=
=
=
kf w
k xf
dimensionless fracture conductivity

retained fracture permeability in darcies, D
average propped fracture width in millimetres, mm
effective reservoir permeability in millidarcies, mD
propped fracture half length in metres, m
Using the units indicated in the above definitions will result in the correct
numerical value for FCD without having to convert kf to millidarcies or wf to
metres.
In oilfield units, using millidarcies and feet throughout results in the correct
numerical values for FCD. The numerical value will be the same in either system
because it is a dimensionless value.
Fracture conductivity, Cf, is sometimes referred to and is defined as follows:
Cf = kf wf
where:
Cf = fracture conductivity, md-m (same as darcy-m) or md-ft

kf = retained fracture permeability in d or md
wf = average propped fracture width, mm or ft
Fracture conductivity is a measure of the flow capacity of a propped hydraulic

fracture. Dimensionless fracture conductivity is a measure of the flow capacity of
a propped fracture relative to the formation.
12
PTPR 6100
Fracture conductivity is directly proportional to retained fracture permeability and

to fracture width. Retained fracture permeability reflects the final characteristics
of a specific proppant in-situ, that is, after the treatment is over and the well starts
to produce. It is significantly different than the permeability of the bulk proppant
as measured at surface conditions. Retained fracture permeability is influenced
by:
1. The type of frac fluid used to carry the proppant into the fracture and how
much of its residue remains between the proppant grains after the frac
fluid gel breaks.
2. The concentration of proppant, in kg/m3, actually achieved in the
hydraulic fracture.
3. Whether any fines have been generated during handling and pumping and
whether any crushing of the proppant occurs after closure or healing of
the induced hydraulic fracture once the treatment pumps are stopped.
4. Whether any embedment of the proppant in the fracture faces occurs after
the fracture closes once the treatment pumps are stopped.
Average propped fracture width and propped frac half length depend upon the
amount of proppant used, reservoir rock stresses and mechanical properties,
assumptions or knowledge of fracture geometry, and fracture treatment
parameters such as fracture fluid viscosity, pump rate, fluid volumes, and
schedule of fluid and proppant stages.
A symmetrical, vertical penny-shaped fracture as shown in Figure 1 can be
assumed as a good first approximation when estimating performance of a well
stimulated with a propped hydraulic fracture.
13
PTPR 6100
Figure 1
Hydraulic Fracture Orientation
When Overburden Stress is the Dominant Tri-axial Rock Stress
An induced hydraulic fracture will proceed in the direction of the maximum

horizontal stress, that is, the reservoir rock will split apart against the minimum
horizontal stress. In Alberta, in a wide belt near the foothills, the maximum
horizontal stress frozen into the subsurface is a result of the compression forces
from the ancient collision of tectonic plates which gave rise to the Rocky
Mountain chain which runs approximately NW/SE. In that wide belt, the
maximum horizontal stress can be expected to point towards the mountains and
you can expect typical induced hydraulic fracture orientation to be approximately
NE/SW.
Studies of well bore rugosity, or the degree and direction of departure from a
circular bore hole to one that is oval, within a wide belt near the Alberta
foothills, confirms the direction of maximum horizontal stress. Well bores that
tend to spall in this area tend to have a slightly larger diameter in an
approximate NE/SW direction than in the NW/SE direction. The spalling of
material from the well bore face is increased in the direction of the maximum
horizontal stress.
14
PTPR 6100
Because overburden stress is generally the dominant stress below 300-600 m,

fractures are vertical below those depths. At shallower depths, fractures may be
horizontal. We will concern ourselves only with vertical propped hydraulic
fractures in this module.
While hydraulic fracture treatments can create long fractures in the reservoir rock,
only the length of the fracture that remains propped open with a significant sand
pack after the treatment is over counts as effective propped frac length.
Stimulation service companies often have sophisticated 3-D rock-mechanics
software which models and predicts fracture size and shape. These may or may
not provide a more accurate estimate for propped fracture half-length depending
upon how much is known about in-situ rock properties (often very little) and
reservoir fluid properties.
The sophisticated 3-D rock-mechanics software for fracture simulation requires
specific and detailed information on rock and fluid properties. This information is
rarely all available and is usually costly to obtain. Values for the following rock
and fluid properties are generally required as input for a 3-D fracture simulator:
Poissons ratio
Static Youngs modulus
Closure stress
Pore pressure
Permeability
Bulk compressibility
Fracture toughness
Porosity
Water saturation
15
PTPR 6100
Exercise Three
1. A fractured oil well has:
A retained fracture permeability of 580 darcies
Fracture width of 2 mm
Reservoir permeability to oil of 100 mD
A frac half-length of 17.275 m
a) Calculate the dimensionless fracture conductivity using the above values
and units.
b) Calculate the dimensionless fracture conductivity converting the numbers
in a) to mD and ft as necessary.
c) Calculate the dimensionless fracture conductivity using units of darcies
and metres.
16
PTPR 6100
OBJECTIVE FOUR
Understand and use several versions of the Darcy radial flow equation modified
for analysis of damaged and stimulated wells.
Learning Material
EQUIVALENT OR EFFECTIVE WELL BORE RADIUS
The production behaviour of a homogeneous cylindrical reservoir producing a

single fluid through a centrally located vertical fracture of limited lateral extent
(and high FCD) can be represented by an equivalent radial flow reservoir of equal
volume. The effective well bore radius of this equivalent reservoir is equal to onefourth of the total effective fracture length (or one-half of the effective fracture
half-length, xf). The behaviour of vertically fractured reservoirs can be interpreted
in terms of simple radial flow reservoirs of large well bore. (Reference 1)
In other words, it can be shown that for a high dimensionless conductivity
fracture, the effective well bore radius can be given by:
r'w =
where:
xf
2
rw = effective or equivalent well bore radius, m

xf = effective fracture half-length, m
Note that in a well stimulated by a hydraulic fracture, the well behaves as if the
effective, or equivalent, well bore radius is much larger than the nominal well
bore radius.
If the effective fracture half-length of a hydraulic fracture stimulation can be
determined, then the effective well bore radius, and hence productivity, of the
stimulated well can be easily determined.
The effective fracture half-length, xf, is approximately, but always a little less
than, the propped fracture half-length. This is because there is usually deceasing
sand concentration in the propped fracture as the tip of the fracture is approached.
This is because of sand dilution effects and because proppant is introduced into
the well bore in stages during treatment with the early stages at low proppant
concentration and the last stages at high proppant concentration in the frac fluid.
17
PTPR 6100
It can be assumed, within typical engineering accuracy, that the effective propped
fracture half-length is the same as the propped fracture half-length. It can be
estimated using simple geometry if the amount of sand placed in the reservoir, the
bulk density of the sand and the average frac width are known as follows:
SP x 1000
xf =
s w f
where:
0.5
SP = sand placed, tonnes

s = sand bulk density, g/cm3
wf = fracture average propped width, mm
The above assumes a symmetrical penny-shaped frac that intersects a vertical well
bore. Typically, in Alberta, you will find propped fracture half-lengths for most
fracs in conventional formations to be in the range of 10 to 100 m.
It should be emphasized that the above relation only holds true for wells with
dimensionless fracture conductivity, FCD, larger than about 30. For propped
fractures with an FCD less than about 1, the following relationship has been found
to hold:
r'w = 0.28
Cf
k
For most values of dimensionless fracture conductivity, the equivalent well bore
radius may also be determined graphically by using Figure 2, which is based on
the work in Reference 3. Alternatively, a mathematical relationship from a best-fit
curve to the data in Figure 21 may be used, particularly for the region where
1< FCD < 30.
18
PTPR 6100
EQUIVALENT WELLBORE RADIUS vs

DIMENSIONLESS FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY
1
r'w / xf
FCD > 30, r'w = x f / 2 and well

performance is x f limited
0.1
FCD < 1, r'w = 0.28 Cf / k and well

performance is Cf limited
0.01
0.1
10
100
FCD
Figure 2
Equivalent Well Bore Radius vs. Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
There are some important observations to be made from Figure 2 above.

1. For low FCD fractures, post-fracture productivity is dominated by fracture
conductivity (fracture flow capacity). Low FCD fractures typically are those
in high permeability reservoirs. In these reservoirs, productivity of wells
stimulated with propped fractures is insensitive to fracture length.
2. For high FCD fractures, post-fracture productivity is dominated by
effective fracture half-length. High FCD fractures typically are those in low
permeability formations. In these reservoirs, fracture conductivity is
relatively unimportant because the reservoir is incapable of delivering
high fluid rates into the propped hydraulic fracture.
Thus, to stimulate a high permeability (high productivity) formation, the goal in
hydraulic fracture design and placement is to create a high conductivity fracture
with a high FCD. In this case fracture length does not control well productivity and
is not important. It is only necessary to get fracture length past any true formation
damage which is typically very close to the well-bore and does not extend very far
into the reservoir.
19
PTPR 6100
Conversely, to stimulate a low permeability (tight) formation, the goal in

hydraulic fracture design and placement is to create a long propped fracture. In
this case, fracture conductivity does not control well productivity because the
reservoir will never have the capability to deliver high fluid rates into the propped
fracture. Compensation for a tight reservoir is made by providing a large fracture
face area to conduct fluid into the propped fracture. Because the formation is tight
relative to the conductivity of the propped fracture, fracture conductivity and FCD
will be high relative to the formation. Since the pay height will be more or less
constant, increasing fracture length is thus the primary means to improve well
productivity in tight reservoirs.
Sample values for retained fracture permeability, assuming 60% of proppant
permeability is retained in-situ (retained permeability factor) and typical values of
sand proppant bulk density are shown below for common sand sizes.
Table 2
Sample Retained Fracture Permeability Values
Sand
Size
Mesh
20/40
16/30
12/20
8/10
Proppant In-situ Permeability Bulk Density

at 0.6 Retained Factor
Darcies
g/cm3
200
1.59
390
1.57
580
1.63
770
1.60
Values of proppant in-situ permeability should be obtained from fracturing

service providers or obtained empirically from treatment results. Different types
of frac fluids, gel quality and treatment parameters will result in different values
for the retained permeability factor. Also, the type, quality or source of proppants
may result in different values of bulk density than shown above.
A final consideration is the crushing of proppant that is subjected to stresses
beyond its capability to withstand due to high formation stresses. Generally,
stresses on proppants increase with depth and rock hardness. Beyond a certain
depth sand is no longer a suitable proppant due to excessive crushing and fines
generation. The crushing will produce fines that will reduce in-situ proppant pack
porosity and permeability.
Frac width will depend partly on rock properties such as horizontal stress profile
and proppant embedment. Sometimes, embedment of proppant into softer
formations when the hydraulically-induced fracture closes after the pumps stop
can reduce fracture width and, hence, fracture conductivity. Frac fluid properties
such as viscosity and leak-off from the fracture during treatment and treatment
parameters such as pump rate and sand/frac fluid pumping schedule, among other
factors, can also affect achieved frac width.
20
PTPR 6100
There is a technique called tip-screen-out (TSO) which is often applied to high

permeability formations to maximize fracture width by ballooning the fracture.
This technique is designed to dramatically increase propped fracture width
without increasing its length and packing it full of high permeability proppant.
This maximizes fracture conductivity and, in high permeability formations,
provides a higher value for FCD. Detailed discussion of this technique is beyond
the scope of this course. Just be aware that it exists and where it applies best.
Frac height growth is controlled by in-situ horizontal stress profiles and fracture
treatment mechanics. High horizontal stress contrasts in formations tend to act as
barriers to fracturing out-of zone. Because overburden stress, the dominant
stress below 300-600 m depth, increases with depth, fracture growth out of zone
(frac height growth) tends to be upward as in Figure 3.
Figure 3
3-D Frac Simulator Result Showing, Frac Width, Frac Shape and Half-length
The sample 3-D frac simulator output shown in Figure 3 is typical for an Alberta
well. Note the maximum propped fracture width of only 4 mm at the well bore
and the effective propped fracture half-length of about 40 m. This was a 24 ton
frac. Note in particular the preferential height growth of the propped fracture into
formations above the pay zone. This is common due to the way rock stresses
normally increase with depth and where no significant geological barrier to
fracture height growth exists. Obviously, longer propped fractures can be obtained
for a given treatment size if the fracture can be contained entirely within the pay
zone.
Now you have all the tools needed to estimate the productivity of a well for
different treatment size (tonnes of sand), sand size, retained frac fluid/proppant
pack permeability and frac width.
PTPR 6100
21
With the tools presented in this module you can estimate productivity of
stimulated wells with reasonable accuracy with a minimum of expensive data
gathering. Note that the best estimates are obtained when any assumptions or
guesses can be fine-tuned from the results of similar nearby wells producing from
the same formation, from the results of pressure transient analysis and from
stimulation service company data for the same formation in the area.
The procedure to estimate productivity of a hydraulically fractured vertical well is
as follows;
1. Obtain values for all variables in the appropriate Darcy radial flow
equation except equivalent well bore radius.
2. Obtain a value for effective propped fracture half-length.
3. Calculate dimensionless fracture conductivity.
4. Determine equivalent well bore radius.
5. Calculate expected well production rate using the Darcy radial flow
equation.
By repeating the calculations for various tonnages and types of proppant, for insitu retained fracture permeability (which depends upon the type of frac gel used
and the sand concentration achieved in the fracture) and achieved fracture width,
different hydraulic fracture designs can be identified and production forecasts can
be generated.
By determining the cost of the different hydraulic fracture designs, a net present
value can be calculated for each and the hydraulic fracture design with the best
practical economic return can be found.
22
PTPR 6100
Exercise Four
1. A new oil well drilled with a 200 mm diameter bit will be stimulated with a
hydraulic fracture using 20 tonnes of 20/40 sand.
Expected average fracture width, 3 mm
Reservoir permeability to oil, 40 md
Net pay, 3 m
Reservoir pressure, 5000 kPa(a)
Bottom hole pump intake pressure, 1000 kPa(a)
Oil formation volume factor, 1.05
Oil viscosity at bottom hole conditions, 2.5 Cp
Drainage radius, 227 m
Assuming a vertical well with all the pay perforated, no significant perforation
losses and laminar flow:
a) Calculate the effective fracture half-length for this well.
b) Calculate the dimensionless fracture conductivity.
c) Determine the equivalent well bore radius using Figure 3.
d) Calculate the expected production rate.
e) Determine the expected true formation skin after the stimulation.
23
PTPR 6100

1. a. Use Darcy radial flow equation for oil modified for equivalant wee bore radius
qo =
0.5352 k o h ( pe -p wfs )
Bo [ lm(re /rw )+s ]
Substituting
qo =
0.5352i0.100i1.5 ( 9000-2000 )
1.073i3.0 [ lm(227/0.100)+0]
= 22.6 m3 /d
b. i Determine Equivalent well bore radius of true formation skin
r1w = e-Sd
Substituting,
r1w = 0.100 e-S = 0.000674 m
ii
Substituting in Darcy Radial flow equation:
qo =
0.5352i0.100i1.5 ( 9000-2000 )
1.073i30 [ lm (227/0.000674)+0]
= 13.7 m3 /d
c. i Determine equivalent well bore radius of true formation skin
r1w = e-Sd
Substituting
r1w = 0.100 e
-(-3)
= 2.0086 m
ii Substituting in Darcy radial flow equation
qo =
0.5352i0.100i1.5i(9000-2000)
1.073i3.0 [ lm (227 / 2.0086) + 0]
= 36.9 m3 /d
24
PTPR 6100

168 mm
= 84 mm = 0.084 m
2
b. Re-arranging the darcy radial flow equation to solve for equivalent well bore radius
0.5352 k o h(pe -p wfs )
ln(re /rw ) =
q o Bo o
1. a. rw =
Substituting
ln(227/rw ) =
0.5352i0.02i2.0(6000-1500)
3.0i1.04i 2.0
= 15.439
227/rw = e15.439
rw =0.00004477 m
c. Re-arranging the equation to convert equivalent well bore radius to skin
Sd = f m (rw /rw )
Substituting
Sd = ln(0.004/0.00004477)
= 7.54

1. a. Using the equating calculator dimensionless fracture conductivity
FCD =
kf wf
kx f
substituting
FCD =
580 Di2 mm
100 mDi17.275 m
= 0.671
b. FCD =
580 000 mDi0.0065644

100 mDi56.67 ft
= 0.671
c. FCD =
580Di0.002 m
0.100Di17.275 m
= 0.671
25
PTPR 6100
Exercise Four Answers

1. a . Use the equation to calculate effective fracture half length:
SPi1000
xf =
ps w f
Subsituting
20i1000
xf =
i1.59i3
= 36.5m
0.5
0.5
kfwf
k xf
200i3
=
40i36.5
= 0.411
c. From the figure 3 for FCD =0.411
b. FCD =
r 1w
= 0.093
xf
and rw = 0.093i36.5 m
= 3.39 m
d. Using the modified darcy radial flow equation for steady state:
qo =
0.5352k o h(pe-pwf)
Bo o ln(re/rw1 ) + s
Substituting
qo =
0.5352i0.040i3.0 ( 5000 1000 )
227
1.05i2.5 ln
+ 0
3.39
= 23.3 m3 /d
e. Using the equation to convert equivalent well bore radius to skin factor
rw = rw c-sd
re-arranging
rw
sd = ln 1
rw
subsituting
0.100
sd = l n
= 1.22
3.39
26
PTPR 6100
Module Self-Test
1. Total apparent skin is the sum of all the skins less any pseudo-skins.
a. True
b. False
2. A well with a total apparent skin factor of zero
a.
b.
c.
d.
is damaged
is stimulated
is neither damaged nor stimulated
could be somewhat stimulated (negative true formation skin) but have an
offsetting non-laminar pseudo-skin
3. The effective propped fracture half-length is usually a little more than the
propped facture half-length.
a. True
b. False
4. If a well completed in a conventional lower permeability formation is
stimulated with an average hydraulic fracture treatment you would expect
high dimensionless fracture conductivity.
a. True
b. False
5. Faced with a tight (low permeability) reservoir, would you be looking at
a. a fracture stimulation that provides a short effective fracture half-length
and high fracture conductivity?
b. a fracture stimulation that provides a long effective fracture half-length
and lower fracture conductivity?
c. a fracture stimulation that provides a short effective fracture half-length
and lower fracture conductivity?
d. a fracture stimulation that provides a long effective fracture half-length
and high fracture conductivity?
6. Retained in-situ propped fracture permeability
a.
b.
c.
d.
is a fraction of the permeability of that proppant as measured at surface

partially depends on the mesh size of the sand used
partially depends on how much frac fluid residue remains
all of the above
27
PTPR 6100
7. Fracture conductivity is proportional to

a.
b.
c.
d.
fracture length
tonnes of sand placed in the formation
reservoir permeability
none of the above
8. In a damaged well with a true formation skin of +4, the equivalent well bore
radius is smaller than the nominal well bore radius.
a. True
b. False
9. Propped hydraulic fractures are often not contained within the pay zone.
a. True
b. False
10. Induced hydraulic fractures in formations less than less than 300-600 m tend
to be horizontal
a. True
b. False
11. If a propped hydraulic fracture has broken out of the pay zone, you would
expect the tendency is to preferentially grow down.
a. True
b. False
12. In a wide belt close to the foothills in Alberta and paralleling the Rocky
Mountain chain, in what azimuthal direction would you expect an induced
hydraulic fracture to extend in a well deeper than 200-600 m?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Approximately horizontally.
Approximately NW/SE.
Approximately NE/SW.
Approximately vertically.
28
PTPR 6100

1. b
2. d
3. a
4. b
5. b
6. d
7. d
8. b
9. a
10. a
11. b
12. c
29
PTPR 6100
Assignment
1. What are three reasons that wells are stimulated with propped hydraulic
fractures?
2. Assuming a symmetrical penny-shaped frac, what factors determine the
effective propped fracture half-length?
3. Explain the concept of equivalent well bore radius.
4. What is the difference between steady-state and pseudo-steady state
conditions in a reservoir surrounding a producing well?
5. List six skin factors which are not true formation skin.
6. Obviously, it is possible to stimulate a damaged well. Describe how it is
possible to damage a new well that has just been successfully stimulated with
a propped hydraulic fracture and is waiting to be equipped for production?
Under what condition(s) would the use of a high-strength proppant be
considered?
30
PTPR 6100
References
1. Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., Strickler, W.R.; Effect of Vertical Fractures on
Reservoir Behavior - Compressible Fluid Case, SPEJ (June 1962), pp. 87-94.
2. Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey Jr., H.J., et al; Behaviour of Wells with LowConductivity Vertical Fractures, SPE 16776, Sept. 1987.
3. Smith, M.B., Hannah, R.R., High Permeability Fracturing: The Evolution of a
Technology, JPT, July 1996, pp. 628-33.
4. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D., Ehlig-Economides, C., Petroleum Production
Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1994.
5. Economides. M.J., Nolte, K.G., Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd Ed. Prentice-Hall,
1989.
6. Marcinew, R, MacFarlane, C., Hydraulic Fracture Optimization,
Schlumberger, undated presentation ca. 1999.
7. Mathews, C.S., Russell, D.G., Pressure Build-up and Flow Tests in Wells,
AIME, Monograph Vol. 1, SPE-AIME, 1967.
31
PTPR 6100
Appendix
Table 2
32
PTPR 6100
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper
Course Module
Skin Factors Other

than True
Formation Damage
PTPR 6101
Module 9
redefine yourself
www.sait.ca
Skin Factors Other than True

Formation Damage
Rationale
In order to better understand all the variables that can affect well productivity, it is
necessary to understand and be able to evaluate skin factors other than the true
formation damage skin factor (covered in Module 8).
The material in this module will enable you to understand and estimate the
magnitude of the skin effects that are due to an inclined well bore through the pay
zone, partial completion in the pay zone, perforation friction losses and nonlaminar (turbulent) flow in the reservoir.
This knowledge will help with decisions on how best to develop and exploit those
reservoirs which have, or may require, a well other than the standard vertical well
or those reservoirs which have high flow rates.
Learning Outcome
Understand and calculate the skin factors other than true formation damage, that
is, inclination, partial penetration, turbulent flow and phase flow that affect well
productivity.
Learning Objectives
1. Calculate the effect on skin of partial completion in the reservoir and of
deviation of the well from vertical.
2. Calculate the effect on skin of perforations through the casing.
3. Calculate the effect on skin of the pseudo-skin factors, especially turbulent
flow.
1
PTPR 6101
INTRODUCTION
Because of surface constraints such as dwellings and other structures, topography,
surface water, and the increasing demand to minimize environmental impact and
as a result of improvements in drilling technology to control well trajectory, it has
become more common to drill deviated or directional wells. Usually, these wells
penetrate the formation at an angle other than vertical. A skin factor is used to
quantify the effect on well productivity of penetrating the formation on an angle
other than vertical.
Occasionally, a well reaches total depth before all the pay is penetrated due to
miscalculation, operational problems or lack of knowledge about a reservoir.
Sometimes, only part of the pay is penetrated or perforated to avoid a water leg or
to avoid coning gas in an oil well or to avoid coning oil in a gas well. Sometimes,
for a variety of other reasons, only a fraction of the available pay is perforated. A
skin factor can be calculated to account for partial penetration of the reservoir or
for a limited perforation interval within the pay interval.
Sometimes, wells are perforated with small diameter holes and/or with holes at
low shot density and/or with charges providing only a shallow penetration depth.
This is more common with older wells but is sometimes found in newer wells
completed on shoe-string budgets or having poor completion designs. A
perforation pressure loss skin factor can be calculated to evaluate these situations
for their effect on well productivity or to optimize the re-perforating of old wells
or the perforating of a new well.
Finally, there may be present, most commonly in high rate gas wells, a skin factor
that accounts for non-laminar, that is, turbulent, flow in the reservoir. This skin is
termed a pseudo-skin as it is, unlike all the other skin factors, entirely rate
dependent as well as being dependent on reservoir, not well bore, parameters. In
condensate or gas reservoirs, a phase-flow or multi-phase flow skin factor may
affect well productivity. This is also a pseudo-skin as it is rate dependent and
occurs in the reservoir.
This module will show you how to analyze the magnitude and effect on
production of the skin factors associated with the above drilling and completion
practices and reservoir fluid effects.
PTPR 6101
OBJECTIVE ONE
Calculate the effect on skin of partial completion in the reservoir and of deviation
of the well from vertical.
Learning Activity
Learning Material
INCLINATION OF THE WELL BORE THROUGH THE PAY ZONE
As indicated in the introduction, the drilling of non-vertical wells has become
much more common in the last 10 to 15 years. This has been spurred by new
technology in small diameter and steerable drilling equipment developed for
horizontal wells. Horizontal wells require precise control of trajectories to
intercept what are often thin pay zones deep in the subsurface and at large
horizontal displacements from the surface location. A horizontal reach of 1000 m
or more is not unusual for horizontal wells. In addition, more stringent
environmental regulations and surface land considerations often dictate that a
bottom hole target can only be obtained from a surface location not directly over
it.
Economics also can play a part as some reservoirs can be more efficiently
exploited, with less disturbance of surface land and with better centralization and
economy of surface facilities, by drilling multiple directional wells from a single
surface pad.
Note that the terms slant, inclined, deviated and directional are often, and
sometimes incorrectly, used interchangeably to describe non-vertical wells.
The term slant well should be reserved for wells that start on an angle at surface.
Often, that angle is maintained to the desired bottom hole target resulting in a
straight well bore. Typically, these straight slant wells are to be pumped using rod
strings which benefit greatly from a straight well bore.
3
PTPR 6101
It is possible to rod pump slant wells that have a moderate deviation from being
straight. However, greater than normal tubing and rod wear, as well as
maintenance costs, inevitably crop up in such cases. Other times, slant wells are
required to reach out to shallower bottom hole targets that do not provide enough
depth to build the required curvature of a directionally drilled well. In this case, a
slant well can be used to start a directional well and extend the horizontal reach to
targets at shallower depths. Slant rigs with a superstructure that can be inclined at
the necessary angle are used to drill all slant wells. Slant pump jacks are also
available for such wells which, of course, will have slanted well heads installed whether they are rod pumped or not.
Inclined and deviated mean about the same thing; that is, a well drilled at an angle
other than vertical through the formation. Typically, such wells start out vertical
at surface and then build to a planned trajectory that will bring the well bore into
the pay zone at the desired bottom hole co-ordinates. It is sometimes possible to
drill such wells with an S-shaped trajectory to reduce or eliminate the
inclination or deviation from vertical of the well bore when it penetrates the pay
zone. This may be useful if the well requires a hydraulic fracture stimulation. This
topic will be covered in some detail later in this module.
Directional wells are wells deliberately drilled to a specific azimuth and which
must be precisely controlled to that azimuth in order to hit a target at a precise
depth such as a small pinnacle reef, a narrow channel, the boundary/corner of a
drilling spacing unit or a small drilling spacing unit.
As you will soon discover, the skin factor for an inclined well bore through the
pay zone is always negative due to increased exposure of the well bore to the
formation. It is appears highly uncommon to justify drilling inclined or deviated
wells for this reason but perhaps this should be evaluated more often for its
economic justification and practicality especially where hydraulic fracture
stimulation is not practical.
PARTIAL COMPLETION WITHIN THE PAY ZONE
Occasionally, a well reaches total depth before all the pay is penetrated due to
drilling miscalculation or operational problems, perforating problems or costs,
lack of knowledge about a reservoir, or, deliberately, to avoid a water leg or,
sometimes, an oil leg that the gas owners have no rights to. In the latter two cases,
there would typically be some stand-off above the top of the liquid leg to the first
perforation to achieve isolation. A skin factor, always positive due to a reduced
well exposure to the reservoir, can be calculated to account for these situations.
PTPR 6101
CALCULATION OF INCLINATION AND PARTIAL COMPLETION

SKIN
Cinco-Ley et al (Reference 1) provided the tables that follow of skin factors for
both inclination of the well bore and partial penetration of the reservoir.
In order to use these tables, values for the following variables must be known:
rw
h
hw
zw
=
=
=
=
=
wellbore inclination through pay zone

borehole radius, m
formation (pay) thickness, m
perforated interval length, m
elevation of midpoint of perforated interval, m (above bottom of
pay)
Reference to Figure 1 will explain these variables further.
Figure 1
Inclination and Partial Completion Skin Variables
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). This material has been copied under license
from Access Copyright. Resale or further copying of this material is strictly prohibited.
The following tables from Reference 1 show partial completion skin factors, sp,
inclination skin factors, s and composite, s + p, skin factors for wells that are,
respectively, partially completed, inclined, or both.
5
PTPR 6101
Table 1
Inclination and Partial Completion Skin for hD = 100
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). This material has been copied under license from
Table 2
Inclination and Partial Completion Skin for hD = 1000
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). This material has been copied under license
from Access Copyright. Resale or further copying of this material is strictly prohibited
PTPR 6101
In order to use Tables 1 and 2, the following dimensionless quantities must be

calculated:
h
dimensionless formation (pay) thickness
rw
z
= w dimensionless elevation of midpoint of perforated interval
rw
(above bottom of pay)
z
= w dimensionless perforated interval length
rw
hD =
zwD
hwD
h w D cos
nD
= dimensionless well penetration ratio
7
PTPR 6101
Several observations can be drawn from inspection of Tables 1 and 2:

1. The skin factor due to inclination, s, is always negative indicating an
improvement over a vertical well in the same reservoir. In fact, for higher
inclinations through the reservoir, s becomes very significantly negative.
2. The skin factor due to partial completion or penetration, sp, is always
positive and is usually larger than s. In fact, it can often mask or dwarf the
skin effect due to true formation damage or stimulation. Referring to
module 8, the true formation skin factor ranges from about -5 to +10 or
more.
FRACTURING INCLINED WELLS
There are complex and not very well understood interactions between tri-axial
rock stresses, inclined and/or directional well bores through the reservoir and
fracture mechanics. As a result, the hydraulic fracture stimulation of inclined well
bores tends to be more difficult, provides less improvement in productivity and
has a higher chance of execution failure than hydraulic fracture stimulation of
vertical wells. Premature sanding-off, which is the failure to pump all of the
intended sand tonnage into the hydraulically induced fracture, is a frequent result
of a failed stimulation attempt.
If a slant, inclined or directional well bore is not aligned with the azimuth of the
maximum horizontal rock stress in the target reservoir rock, higher formation
breakdown and treating pressures are observed. In addition, multiple fractures can
be initiated, drastically reducing effective propped fracture length. In the worst
case, only a small fraction of the sand can be injected into the induced hydraulic
fractures due to reduced fracture width.
Ideally, wells that begin as slant, inclined, deviated or directional wells are drilled
with a final trajectory that brings the well bore to vertical through the pay zone. In
this case, the wells are no longer inclined or deviated in the target producing
formation. This will eliminate the problems encountered hydraulically fracture
stimulating wells that are non-vertical.
Often, slant, inclined, deviated or directional wells well can not be drilled
vertically through the target formation due to cost, lack of enough depth to
build to vertical or because a straight well bore is desired for artificial lift. In
this case, the next best option for wells that require stimulation with a propped
hydraulic fracture is to penetrate the formation in the direction of the maximum
horizontal rock stress. In this case, perforating is carried out at 180 phasing and
oriented to the top and bottom of the inclined casing. This ensures the fracture is
initiated along the entire length of the well bore and starts in the direction it will
proceed in.
8
PTPR 6101
In wells drilled at an azimuth other than the maximum horizontal rock stress in
the target formation, more than one fracture may initiate along the perforated
interval. These multiple fractures can cut across the well bore and have only a
restricted access to the well bore as a result. Any fractures initiated along the
inclined well bore will tend to turn vertical causing narrow and restrictive pinchpoints.
Exercise One
1. Determine the partial completion, inclination and composite skin factors for a
well with the following characteristics:
Well bore deviation from vertical through the pay zone, 30 deg
Bore hole diameter, 0.174 m
Pay interval thickness, 8.7 m
Length of perforated interval, 1.0 m
Elevation of mid-point of perforations above bottom of pay interval, 6 m
Interpolate arithmetically or graphically and round off your answers to one
decimal point.
9
PTPR 6101
OBJECTIVE TWO
Calculate the effect on skin of perforations through the casing.
Learning Material
SKIN DUE TO PERFORATIONS
Often, inflow into a well bore is controlled more by completion efficiency than by
reservoir characteristics or artificial lift capability.
The three most common types of completion available for both vertical and
inclined wells are open-hole, perforated casing and cement and gravel pack. Less
commonly, different types of uncemented slotted liners can also be used in either
type of well.
In an open hole completion, the casing is set at the top of the formation to be
produced and is cemented in place. Then the formation is drilled out with a
smaller bit than the main hole and left open to the well bore with no casing or
cement across it. Typically, carbonate formations are the best candidates for an
open hole completion as carbonate rock is often very competent compared to
many sandstones and most shales. In the open hole case, no casing, cement or
perforations are required. Sometimes, however, open hole sections are shot in an
attempt to bypass near-well bore damage.
When a formation contains unconsolidated sands that demonstrate a tendency to
produce into the well bore a gravel pack completion can be used. An uncemented
perforated or slotted liner is set across the formation and the annulus between the
liner and the formation is packed with gravel.
This gravel is usually sand that is larger than the unconsolidated formation sand to
prevent the formation sand moving into the well bore. Sometimes a larger annulus
is deliberately washed out behind the perforated or slotted liner to make room for
a thicker gravel pack. If the liner was perforated, the gravel would also pack into
any perforating tunnels that extended into the formation.
Gravel pack completion is typically used in the high rate gas wells completed into
the soft unconsolidated sands found under the Gulf of Mexico. In Alberta, gravel
packs for the typical low oil rate wells that produce sand are not economic. In
such cases, sand production is usually handled by lift equipment that can tolerate
some sand but maintenance costs are usually high.
10
PTPR 6101
In this module, we will concern ourselves primarily with the friction losses
characteristic of perforated casing and cement which is by far the most common
type of completion.
ESTIMATION OF PERFORATION SKIN
Typically, in Albertas oil patch, decisions on how to perforate a well are too
often not based on science but based on what everyone else is doing in the area,
how things have always been done, and what the service company
representative recommends often to his profit. Often, there is not much more
science involved than picking out of the perforating companys catalog the largest
diameter perforating gun that will fit into the well bore or the guns and charges
providing the biggest hole diameter, highest density of holes and deepest
penetration that you can afford. Usually, larger charges and higher shot density
require a larger perforating gun diameter which is usually limited by casing size
for casing guns and tubing size for through-tubing guns.
The optimum phasing of perforations around the well bore will not be discussed
here as it is beyond the scope of this course. Suffice it to say that certain phasings
of holes around the well bore are believed to be optimum for the hydraulic
fracture stimulation of vertical wells. Optimal phasing of perforations in inclined
well bores aligned with the maximum horizontal stress was discussed earlier in
this module.
In this section, you will be introduced to the procedure developed by Karakas and
Tariq (Reference 2), as outlined in References 3 and 4, to estimate the magnitude
of perforation skin, sp, as a function of phasing, shot density and well bore size.
11
PTPR 6101
They divided the perforation skin effect into three components as follows to allow
for an analytical solution for the calculation of the skin effect:
sp = sH + sV + swb
where:
sH = the plane flow effect

sV = the vertical converging effect
swb = the well bore effect
Figure 2
Variables for Perforation Skin Calculation
12
PTPR 6101
Table 3
Table of Constants for Perforation Skin Calculation
To calculate the plane flow effect, sH:

sH =
ln rw
r'w ()
where: r'w () = lperf/4 for = 0 (or 360)

= a (rw + lperf) for >0
To calculate the vertical converging effect, sV;
sV = 10a hD b-1 rD b
where:
a
b
rD
hD
=
=
=
=
a1 log rD + a2
b1 rD + b2
rperf (1 + (kV/kH)0.5 )/ 2hperf
hperf (kH/kV)0.5 / lperf
To calculate the well bore effect, swb;

swb = c1ec2 rwD
where:
a = a1 log rD + a2
rwD = rw / (lperf + rw )
13
PTPR 6101
Exercise Two
1. A well is perforated at 13 jspf at 90 phasing with charges providing 0.5-in.
diameter holes and 16-in. depth of penetration. Formation horizontal and
vertical permeability are both 20 mD and well bore diameter is 8-in. Convert
all measurements to feet in the equations.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
14
What is the plane flow effect, sH, for this well?

What is vertical converging effect, sV, for this well?
What is the well bore effect, swb, for this well?
What is the perforation skin effect for this well?
If the vertical permeability is only 5 mD, what is the perforation skin
effect for this well?
PTPR 6101
OBJECTIVE THREE
Calculate the effect on skin of the pseudo-skin factors, especially turbulent flow.
Learning Material
PSEUDO-SKIN EFFECTS
The two main pseudo-skin effects are the turbulent flow pseudo-skin effect and
the phase flow pseudo-skin effect.
The turbulent flow pseudo-skin effect occurs primarily in high-rate wells, usually
gas, and is called the turbulent flow skin effect. Its presence can be seen in a
production test on a high rate gas well as in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Determination of Rate-Dependent Pseudo-Skin
Referring to Figure 3, the total apparent skin in a well subject to turbulent flow is
seen to increase at a constant rate directly proportional to flow rate. The slope or
rate of this increase is the turbulent flow coefficient, D. Recall from Module 8 that
the total apparent skin, S', is equal to the sum of the true formation skin, sd, and
the sum of the remaining skin factors, including the rate-dependent pseudo-skin
effect. In other words:
S' = s + Dq
where:
s = the sum of all the skin factors excluding the rate-dependent skin
effect
Dq = the rate-dependent skin effect
15
PTPR 6101
Obviously, none of the other skin factors are subject to the effect of turbulence.
This is because they all pre-suppose laminar flow by definition.
The turbulent flow coefficient D is a constant that can be estimated from an
empirical correlation such as the one suggested by Reference 2:
D =
where:
k
h
rw
hperf
=
=
=
=
=
=
6 x 10-5 k -0.1 h
rw h 2 perf
gas gravity
near-well bore permeability, mD
reservoir (net pay) thickness, ft
gas viscosity, cP
well bore radius, ft
perforated interval length, ft
The turbulent flow coefficient D can also be determined by gathering test data at
two flow rates and applying the appropriate flow equation to each. This allows
determination of the value of the total apparent skin factor S'. It will be seen to
differ at the two different flow rates if turbulent flow is significant. Then the two
unknowns, s (the sum of all the skin factors other than the rate dependent pseudoskin) and D, the turbulent flow coefficient of the rate-dependent skin, can be
determined by simultaneously solving a pair of flow equations one for each
flow rate.
The Darcy radial flow equation for steady state flow of gas modified for nonDarcy effects is as follows in oilfield units;
qg =
0.703 k g h (p 2 avg - p 2 wfs )

g, avg z avg T [ln(re /rw ) + s + Dq g ]
mscfd
The above equation can be re-arranged and then solved simultaneously for s and
Dqg if data from two separate tests is available.
PHASE FLOW SKIN EFFECT
The most common example of phase flow skin effect results from the
condensation of gas liquids in the reservoir surrounding a gas well. This is due to
the reduction in pressure in the zone near the well bore with production. The
resulting liquid condensate reduces the relative permeability to gas flow and
causes an additional resistance to flow which is treated as a skin.
16
PTPR 6101
Fetkovich (1973) in Reference 4 gave an approximate solution for the magnitude

of the condensate skin effect, sc, in metric units as follows:
sc =
where:
(k - k skin )
ln ( 0.0024 q2st Z R'c t / h2 k p Sc r2w)
2 k skin
sc = pseudo-skin due to condensate drop-out in the reservoir

k = reservoir permeability, mD
kskin = effective permeability to gas in the condensate saturated area of
the reservoir
qst = flow rate, 103m3/d
= gas viscosity, cP
R'c = m3 of gas accumulation in the reservoir per m3 of total
(recombined) gas produced per kPa
t = temperature, K
h = reservoir thickness, m
= reservoir porosity, fraction
pavg = average reservoir pressure, kPa(a)
Sc = condensate liquid saturation to reach mobility, fraction of pore
volume
rw = well bore radius, m
It can be observed that the phase flow skin factor is primarily dependent upon the
reduction in permeability in the reservoir surrounding the well bore and,
secondarily, dependent on flow rate.
Referring back, it can also be observed that the skin factors for inclination, limited
perforation interval and perforation friction depend primarily on geometry and are
completely independent of flow rate.
There are other ways to estimate the phase flow pseudo-skin effect such as
substitution of single-phase flow parameters in flow equations with effective
parameters for multi-phase flow. For example, effective total production rate
would be the sum of the gas and condensate flow rates. The most accurate way,
however, is to use reservoir simulation to model multi-phase flow.
17
PTPR 6101
Exercise Three
1. An oil well was flowed at a rate of 7099 mscfd for 36 hrs with a flowing
bottom hole pressure of 1399.6 psia at that time. It was shut-in and the bottom
hole pressure recovered to 2030.5 psia. It was flowed again at 9938 mscfd for
24 hrs at which time the flowing bottom hole pressure was 1595.4 psia. The
bottom hole pressure again recovered to 2030.5 psia after shut-in.
a) Estimate the radius of investigation for each flow period assuming the
well is in the centre of a circular reservoir.
b) Calculate the turbulence coefficient, D, the skin due to turbulent flow
and the normal skin, s, for this well assuming steady-state (infiniteacting) behaviour.
c) Estimate the turbulence coefficient using the empirical correlation
from Reference 2 and compare the result to b above.
18
PTPR 6101

1. Given:
= 30o
rw = 0.087
h w =1.0 m
zw = 6 m
Calculate:h D =
z wD =
h = 8.7 m
h
8.7 m
=
=100
rw 0.087 m
zw
6m
=
= 69
rw
0.087 m
h wD cos 11.5 i 0.866

=
= 0.100
hD
100
z wD
69
=
= 0.69
hD
100
From Table 1:
For w = 30o ,
h wD cos
= 0.100
hD
At
z wD
= 0.8, S + p = 14.185
hD
At
z wD
= 0.6, S + p = 13.636
hD
Interpolating (arithmetically or graphically)

z
At wD = 0.69, s + p
13.9
hD
19
PTPR 6101

= 90o
1. Given: 4 jspf,
lperf = 16
rp = 0.25 in.
rw = 4 in.
k H = 20 mD
k v = 20 mD
a. Calculate
sH =
=
lm rw
ln rw
=
1
r w ()
a ( rw + lperf )
ln (0.33)
= -0.91
0.726(0.33 + 1.33)
b. Calculate s V = 10a h D b-1 rD b

Where h D = h perf (k H /k v )0.5 /lperf
= 0.25 (1)0.5 /1.33 = 0.188
rD = rperf (1+(k v /k H )0.5 )/2h perf
= 0.0208(1 + (1)0.5 )2 i 0.25=0.0833
b = b1 rD + b 2
= 1.5674 i 0.0833 + 1.6935 = 1.824
a = a1log rb + a 2
= -1.905 i log 0.0833 + 0.1038 = 2.160
Therefore s V = 10a h D b-1 rD b
= 102.16 i 0.1880.824 i 0.08331.824
= 144.5 i 0.252 i 0.01075
= 0.39
c. Calculate s wb = c1ec2 rwD
Where
rWD = rw /(lperf + rw )
= 0.33/(1.33 + 0.33) = 0.197
Therefore, s wb =0.0019 e
6.155g0.197
= 0.0019 i 3.36 = 0.06

d. Calculate s p = s + s v + s wb
= -0.91 + 0.39 + 0.06 = -0.46
20
PTPR 6101
e. Given Kv = 5 mD
h D = h perf (k H /k v )0.5 / lperf
= 0.25 (4)0.5 /1.33 = 0.376
rD = rperf (1 + (k v /k H )0.5 ) / 2h perf
= 0.0208 (1 + (0.25)0.5 )/2 i 0.25
= 0.0624
b = b1 rD + b 2
= 1.5674 i 0.0624 + 1.6935 = 1.79
a = a1 log rD + a 2
= -1.905 log 0.0624 + 0.1038 = 3.00
Therefore, s V = 10a h D b-1 rD b
= 103.00 i 0.3760.79 i 0.06241.79
= 1000 i 0.462 i 0.00697 = 3.22

1 a. Calculate rinv1 and rinv2 using:
2.637 i 10-4 k t
rinv =2
M c t
0.5
For rinv re
Given total fluid compressibility, c t , as follows:
c t1 = 5.167 i 104 psi
-1
c t2 = 6.862 i 104 psi -1

rinv1
2.637 i 10-4 i 20 i 24
= 2
4
0.15 i 0.0158 i 5.167 i 10
= 643 ft
0.5
2.637 i 104 i20 i 36

rinv2 = 2
4
0.15 i 0.0146 i 6.862 i 10
= 711 ft
0.5
21
PTPR 6101
b. Given: kg = 0.020 D
T = 579.6R
h = 39.37 ft
rw = 0.410 ft
p R = 2030.5 psia
re = 745
z1 = 0.841
1 = 0.0158
q 2 = 9938 mscfd p wf 2 = 1399.6 psia z 2 = 0.856
2 = 0.0146
q1 = 7099 mscfd p wf 1 = 1595.4 psia

2
Assume: Steady state (infinite acting) p approach

and re-arranging Darcy radia flow equation:
rinv
0.703k g h (p R 2 p wf 2 )
q g ln
+ s + Dq =
g z T
rw
For flow (1):

7099 7.357 + s + Dq = 0.0719(4.123 i 106 - 2.544 i 106 )
52.227 i 103 + 70995 + 50.396 i 106 D = 113.530 i 103
70995 + 50.396 i 106 D = 61.303 i 103
5 + 7099 = 8.64
For flow (2):
9938 7.458 + 5 + Dq = 0.0764(4.123 i 106 - 1.959 i 106 )
74.118 i 103 + 99385 + 98.764 i 106 D = 165.33 i 103
99385 + 98.764 i 106 D = 91.212 i 103
5 + 9938 D = 9.18
Subtracting (2) from (1)
839 D = 0.54
D = 1.90 i 10-4 /mscfd
s = 7.3
c. Using the correlation in references:
D=
6 i 10-5 k -0.1 h
rw h 2 perf
for flow (1)

D1 =
6 i 10-5 i 0.611 i (20)-0.1g39.37

0.0158 i 0.410 i (39.37)2
= 1.07 i 10-4 /mscfd

mw
17.7
use =
=
= 0.611
mw air
28.97
Compare to D = 1.90 i 10-4 /mscfd using the Darcy radial flow equation.
22
PTPR 6101
Module Self-Test
Directions:

1. A slant well can be used to

a. provide a straight well bore for rod pumping
b. provide numerous wells from a single surface lease
c. provide a longer horizontal reach to a shallower formation than a deviated
well started as a vertical well
d. all of the above
2. Which of the following skin factors are always negative?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Partial penetration into the formation

Inclined well bore through the formation
Limited perforation interval
None of the above
3. Which of the following skin factors are never negative?

a.
b.
c.
d.
Formation damage
Turbulent flow
Inclined well bore through the formation
Both a and b
4. Which of the following is true of the skin factor due to partial completion or
partial penetration?
a. It is sometimes negative
b. It is usually smaller in magnitude than the skin factor due to well bore
inclination
c. It is always dwarfed by the skin effect due to formation damage or
stimulation
5. At increasing inclination of a well bore through the formation,
a.
b.
c.
d.
it becomes easier to successfully stimulate by hydraulic fracture

true formation damage increases
perforation friction increases
the well bore inclination skin factor becomes more negative
23
PTPR 6101
6. Ideally, inclined or deviated wells are:

a. turned to penetrate the formation vertically so it is easier to rod pump
them
b. drilled in the direction of minimum horizontal stress so it is easier to
hydraulically fracture stimulate them
c. turned to penetrate the formation vertically so it is easier to hydraulically
fracture stimulate them
d. drilled as vertical wells to start so it is easier to rod pump them
7. Wells can be drilled open hole if
a. formation sand is too unconsolidated and liable to collapse when running
casing
b. a gravel pack completion would be too difficult and expensive
c. it is less expensive when it is not necessary to perforate the pay zone
d. the rock is competent and does not require casing and cement
8. Which of the following perforating gun specifications is the most critical to
the successful execution of a hydraulic fracture stimulation carried out at high
rate with a viscous gel carrying high sand concentration?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Perforating hole diameter

Perforating gun diameter
Depth of penetration (length of perforation tunnel)
Phasing of shots
9. Which is true in regard to perforation skin effect?

a.
b.
c.
d.
Large perforation phasing angles reduce perforation skin

Long perforation tunnels increase perforation skin
High density of perforations increases perforation skin
Low vertical permeability increases perforation skin
10. The magnitude of the turbulent flow skin effect

a.
b.
c.
d.
is higher in highly deviated gas wells

is affected by the diameter of the perforations in the casing
is a constant in high rate gas wells
is directly proportional to flow rate in high rate gas wells
11. The phase-flow skin effect is

a. primarily a function of reduced permeability in the reservoir due to gas
liquid condensation
b. primarily a function of liquid flow rate in the reservoir
c. primarily a function of reservoir permeability
d. primarily a function of gas flow rate in the reservoir
24
PTPR 6101

1. d
2. b
3. b
4. d
5. d
6. c
7. d
8. a
9. d
10. d
11. a
25
PTPR 6101
Assignment
1. Provide as many reasons as you can why it is frequently necessary to drill
wells that are not vertical.
2. Discuss the effect of inclination and of azimuth on the hydraulic fracture
stimulation of non-vertical wells and why a vertical well is the best type of
well to drill if the formation must be hydraulically fracture stimulated for
economic production.
3. Explain how to determine the turbulent flow skin factor from well testing.
4. Describe the cause of the phase-flow skin effect in some gas reservoirs.
26
PTPR 6101
References
1. Cinco-Ley, H., Ramey, H.J., Miller, F.G., Pseudoskin Factors for Partially
Penetrating Directionally Drilled Wells, SPE Paper 5589, 1975.
2. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D., Ehlig-Economides, C., Petroleum Production
Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1994.
3. Economides. M.J., Nolte, K.G., Reservoir Stimulation, 2nd Ed. Prentice-Hall,
1989.
4. Fetkovich, M.J., Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves, SPE Paper 4629,
(1973).
5. ERCB Guide G-3, Gas Well Testing, Fourth Ed., Metric, 1979.
27
PTPR 6101
Appendix
Table 4
28
PTPR 6101
Course Module



Printed in Canada
on Recycled Paper

Advanced Production Engineering - PTPR 465

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Advanced Production Engineering - PTPR 465

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Course Module

Advanced Production Engineering PTPR 465

Revised: September 2007

MacPhail School of Energy

Introduction to System NODAL

NODAL analysis is done at a division point, called a node, in the production

A node is described as a functional node if a pressure differential exists across it

A partial list of applications that can be analyzed utilizing production system

Maximizing rate in competitive reservoirs

Gravel pack design

Artificial lift design

Abnormal flow restrictions

Subsurface safety valve design

Flow line size and length

Figure 4 illustrates the pressure differentials in some of the above listed

Each pressure loss indicated in Figure 4 corresponds to a different component of

Similarly, if the Inflow Performance Relationship can be improved through

b) Determine the flow rate of this production system at a reservoir pressure

Exercise One Solutions

it interacts with other components of the production system

3. Each node in a production system except for the end nodes

a node selected at one end of the production system

5. The inflow response curve is

6. The outflow response curve is

selecting one end of the production system as the solution node

Module Self-Test Answers

SAITs vision is sharply focused to be

SAIT shall be an innovative organization

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED:

Revised: October 2007

MacPhail School of Energy

Liquid Deliverability (Inflow

The Productivity Index, denoted as J, is a commonly used measure of a wells

Vogel published a method in 1968 (Reference 1) to determine the inflow

Vogels reference curve is shown in Figure 2.

V OGEL'S IPR FOR S OLU T ION -GAS D R IV E R E SE R V OIR S

D IME N SION LES S R AT E (q/ q m a x ), Fra ction of Ma ximum

Since p'wf = pwf + pskin, (referring to Figure 4) then:

In order to determine pskin, the following relationship defined by van Everdingen

for a well that is damaged (FE < 1)

Figure 5 can also be used to determine:

In order to use Figure 5 correctly, it is usually necessary to first determine qo(max)

It is preferable to have a test sample of original reservoir fluid taken at bottom

Calculate the constant PI above the bubble point using:

Substituting qx = qo, max - qb , and q2 = q qb, and re-arranging gives:

Note: The expression for qo(max) above is derived by differentiating

Start with the equation to solve for q derived in section 1:

Derive an equation for the PI at the bubble point, pb:

With PI known, qo(max) can be found using qb = PI (pR pb) and;

Exercise One Answers

Re-arranging to solve for q o + q w

Exercise Two Answers

b. Using the Equation For Vogel's Reference IPR Curve:

= 1 - 0.20 [ 0.55] - 0.80 [ 0.55]

Exercise Three Answers

Determine q o(max) At FE = 0.7

From Fig. 2 for FE = 0.7,

From Fig. 2, for FE = 0.7, and for

Therefore a = 0.87(35.6) = 31.0 m3 /d

Therefore, q o = 0.523(q o(max) FE=1.0 )

Determine q o(max) At FE = 1.2

Therefore, q o(max) Fe=1.0 =

Exercise Four Answers

Module Self-Test Questions