Calculation of Bottom-Hole Pressures
For Deep, Hot, Sour Gas Wells
P. H. Messer, SPE-AIME,Chevron Oil Co.
R. Raghavan,* SP%%IME,Stanford U.
H. J. Rarney, Jr., SPE-AIME,Stanford U.
Introduction
Modem trends in gas well drilling have been toward
deep, hot, high-pressure completions. Currently, gas
wells are being drilled to depths of about 25,000 ft
in the southwestern U. S. As would be expected,
bottom-hole pressures for these wells are high (about
] &Q@j psi), and h~tt~rn.-hole temperatures are in
excess of 4000F. The gas produced from many of
these deep wells is sour. To run bottom-hole pressure
‘M nibs is Cost lyj.
.=.J L.-a.,.=
a llu U e w uu-
+ho
u..
.n,zr
. . . .
g= ~-p~d!y
corrodes wirelines it may also be disastrous.
There is often no indication of liquid in these wells,
so it is possible to compute bottom-hole pressures
from measured wellhead data. Of the many methods
of computing bottom-hole pressure, perhaps the best
known are (1) the method for static and flowing gas
columns outlined in the State of Texas backpressure
manual,l and (2) the static and flowing gas column
method described by Cullender and Smith.z
The static method described in Ref. 1 is the Rzasa
and Katzs Method II, related to the older Rawlins
and Schellhardt4 method. The flowing method in Ref.
1 is a motMication of the static column method,
which is based on estimating flowing friction from the
Weymouth gas flow equation.’!’ Although the static
method in Ref. 1 can be used with several depth in-
crements to provide reasonable answers for deep
wells, the flowing method is not recommended for
deep, high-rate wells.
The Cullender and Smith method is based upon a
● N ow w it h Am oc o Produc t ion Co., T ulsa ,
A somewhat neglected method of calculating bottom-hole pressures, that oj Sukkar and
Cornell, does not involve trial and error and is very jast for hand calculation; but ii
does not allow for the severe conditions of modern gas wells. Here the method is refined
to extend the pressures and temperatures, to allow jor sour gas, and to make results ~
readily accessible for hand calculation.
JANUARY, 1974 .Tflf
mechanical energy balance and is generally reliable
for both static and flowing gas columns. But methods
in both Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 involve tedious trial-and-
error solutions. The Cullender and Smith method is
best solved by computer if many determinations are
required. There is a method that does not involve
trial and error, however, that is very fast for hand
calculations; but surprisingly, this method has re-
c ~ive d v~~ little attention and use. This paper is
based on that technique.
A method presented by Fowler7 involves integrated
values of the gas law deviation factor, Z, with pres-
sure, and is a direct method of calculating static
bottom-hole pressure, assuming a constant average
. -_J W1
P-.....118 a“ o-,-la~ 1 7 fiw ldc
t e rn~rit t t i~t % ~iibr WU llG1 lUAtwu”u . w.. AV. .
analysis and presented a general approach to calcu-
lating both static and flowing bottom-hole pressures
for pure natural gas. They derived a pressure integral
for perfectly vertical pipe by assuming negligible ki-
netic energy change, steady-state isothermal flow,
and no work done by the gas in flow. Sukkar and
Cornell evaluated the integral generrdly in terms of
pseudoreduced pressures. The integral contains the
gas law deviation factor as a function of pressure, but
it is assumed that temperature can be treated as an
average over the depth range of interest. This is not
an important weakness in the method because a depth
of interest can be broken into several intervals to pro-
vide accuracy. The integral is based on a mechanical
energy balance for a flowing column and is essentially
Ok I s, identical with the Cullender and Smith result.
85
 Perhaps one reason that the Sukkar-Cornell method
did not achieve wide use is that triple interpolation
within tables of the integral is required unless special
large-scale graphs of the integral are prepared. In
addition, the existing bottom-hole pressure range and
flow-rate range of the Sukkar-Comell approach does
not include the severe conditions of modem gas wells,
nor is there a simple procedure to account for the
possibility of sour gas. The purpose of this study was
to extend the range of the existing method, include
the possibility of sour gas, and present the results in
a readily accessible form for hand calculation.
Theory
A brief derivation of the Sukkar-Comell method is
presented in Appendix A. In essence, the bottom-hole
pressure, p,., is related to the wellhead pressure, Pt,
by the equation
P
0.01875 Y, L COSfl = “‘r
T J
P t.
where
sulfide, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide). Thus it is not
evident that Z can be found as a simple function of
T, and p,. Fortunately, Wlchert and Aziz’O reviewed
the existing methods for determining gas law devia-
tion factors for sour natural gases, and presented a
convenient way of determining the Z factor for a
known fraction of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sul-
fide contaminants. This approach involves an adjust-
ment to the pseudocritical properties that still allows
standard charts for Z to be used (see Ref. 9, Pages
106-107).
Before the extended-range Sukkar-Comell integral
wc. ..” -X., V-----
SI I W+!M--,
I t he z c ha rt s in the high-pressure range
were inspected. It was found that Z is a linear func-
tion ofp, for p, between 10 and 30 for aii T, between
1.1 and 3.0. That is,
z=c+Dpr . . . . . ...(4)
Substitution of Eq. 4 in the Sukkar-Comell integral
(z/pr)dpr leads to a form that can be integrated analytically.
(1) This integration is given in Appendix B. For the
1 + B(z/pr)’ “ “
static column, B is zero and the result of the analytic
integration is
P*

I
P*
~= 667jxq2T’ (Z/pJdp,
(2) = C ln(p,) + Dp. . . (5)
d’pc’(cose) “ “ “ “ “ “ “ f 1 + B(Z/p,)2 [ P ,,
P,,
The integral on the right in Eq. 1 may be evaluated
generally from an arbitrary lower limit, say p, = 0.2, As can be seen in Appendix B, the general form
because of the analytical solution of the integral is complex
and not clearly useful. It would likely be easier to
P m, P 70, P *.
evaluate the integral through numerical integration
I(p,)dp, = I(p,)dp, – I(P,)dP, , than through anrdytical evaluation. As a matter of
J [ f fact, we did evaluate the integral numerically. But
P I. ?).2 i),2
the simple form of the static solution given by Eq. 5
. . . . . . . . . . . . (3) offered a useful possibility. It was apparent from the
and Z is known as a function of P. and T, for pure result of Sukkar and Cornell that a graph of the
natural gases,g and B would be a constant for a given integral vs P7 was similar for all B values zero or
well. Sukkar and Cornell presented tables of integral greater. i“’is suggested that an equation of tile form
values covering a pressure range from reduced pres- of Eq. 5 should be an excellent correlating equation
sures of unity to 12, a range in B from zero (static) for the numerical integration results and might offer
to 20 (flowing), and reduced temperatures of 1.5, a means of condensing the extended-range integral.
1.6, and 1.7. A regression program was written to evaluate the
The Sukkar and Cornell method for computing the coefficients E, F, and G for
bottom-hole pressure is as follows. Constant B and
the reduced temperature for the arithmetic mean gas
~.
column temperature are computed. The integral is u 6, I I I I
then determined for the reduced wellhead pressure.
The left-hand side of Eq. 1 is computed and added to
the integral. The result is the value of the integral
evaluated at the bottom-hole pressure. The table of
integral values is entered to obtain the value of the
reduced pressure corresponding to the integral value.
The reduced bottom-hole pressure, pwr, is converted
to psia by multiplying by the pseudocritical pressure
for the gas. The method does not involve trial and
error, but it can involve graphical interpolation or
interpolation in tables.
1-
To extend the Sukkar-Comell method to higher
pressures and temperatures, simple evaluation of the
integral to higher reduced values appears sufficient. 0
0 10 20 30
The problem is that the Standing and Katz gas law Re duc e d Pre ssure , p,

deviation chart”’ was developed for natural gases

Fig. l—Sukkar and Cornells integral vs
containing small amounts of contaminants (hydrogen reduced pressure.

86 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 p,, ranging from 0.2 to 30,* and B values from zero
““ (z/p,)dpr to 100. Table 1 presents an abbreviated listing of the
J
0.2
1 +B (z / Pr)2
= E + Fp, + G ln(p,) . . (6)
integral for the static case, B = O.** Fig. 1 presents
the integral vs p,, and illustrates the Sukkar-Comell
In summary, means were available for evaluating range of results and the extended information of this
the Sukkar-Comell integral for extended pressure and study. Values for the integral were actually obtained
temperature ranges; the results are shown applicable at 0.05 intervals in p, and T r.
for gases containing large amounts of hydrogen sul-
●T he uppe r lim it s of P, = 30 a nd ‘r = 3 ‘e re c hose n be c a use
fide and carbon dioxide. Z fa c t ora a re a va ila ble only up t o t he sa va lue a .
. .T he pre print of paper spE 3 9 1 3 c ont a ins sim ila r t a ble s for B
Results va lue s of 5 , 1 0 , 1 5 , 2 0 , 2 5 , 3 0 , 3 5 . 4 0 . 4 5 . 5 0 , 6 0 , a nd 7 0 .
Copie s of pre print SPE 3 9 1 3 w it h t he c a rnple t e t a ble a m a y be
The integral on the left-hand side of Eq. 6 was eval- obt a ine d from SPE-AI M E, 6 2 0 0 N. Ce nt ra l EspWY ., Da lla s, T e x .
uated for T~ from 1.1 to 3.0 for reduced-pressures, 75206.
87
JANUARY, 1974
 For a range in p, of zero to 10 or 12, it is conven- in T, and P. as above, the coefficients are given by
ient to plot the Sukkar-Comell integral as a function E = (–O.001594B + 0.297336)Tr”
of P., T,, and B as originally shown in Figs. 1 and 2 + (0.009678B – 1.664290)T,
of Ref. 8. This graph (or graphs) should be about – (0.001963B – 0.429648) . . (10)
11 X 17 in. and should be plotted on a grid for ease
in re~ing. But for the high pressure, tf3~l~~i2i&ii~, F = (–O.000171B + 0.019112) T,’
+ (0.000941B – O.1O7O41)T,
and flow rate ranges covered in this study, the regres-
– (0.001259B – 0.188162) . . (11)
sion equations for the integral coefficients determined
by Eq. 6 appear sufficient. Two sets of coefficients
were determined to cover different B ranges. Both sets
of coefficients cover the same ranges in T, and P,.
For B from zero to 25 (p, between 10 and 30; T. Similarly, the coefficients given by Eqs. 10 through
between 1.1 and 3), the coefficients E, F, and G can 12 employed in Eq. 6 yield less than 2 percent error
be calculated as follows: in determination of the integral for B values between
E = (– O.00262B + O.18011)T,2 20 and 100.
– (–O.01517B + 1.21216)T, Figs. 2 through 4 present the coefficients E, F, and
– (–O.00552B + 0.28026) . . (7) Gas functions of the Sukkar-Comell flow-rate factor,
B. These figures are intended to show the dependence
F = (– O.00043B + 0.02246)Tr’
of the integral coefficients on the parameters Band T..
—(/ —W.
-AAn??kn
VU’ZAUU+ o<~~79~)~r
+ (–0.00274B + 0.21463) . . (8) Finally, we consider modification of pseudocfii~a~
properties for sour natural gases as proposed by
G = – (– 0.00262B + O.17584)T,’ Wichert and Aziz.10 These authors propose that con-
+ (–O.01474B + 1.08235)T, ventional pseudocritical properties, T, and p,, ob-
– (–O.00771B + 0.81075) . . (9) tained from gas composition or from gas gravity, be
The coefficients given by Eqs. 7 through 9 used in adjusted as follows:
Eq. 6 yield less than 2 percent error in determination T:= T,–. . . . . . . . . (13)
of the integral over the ranges listed above.
For B between 20 and 100, and the same ranges T,’

I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I
pc’ = pc
(
T. + Y H ,S(l – Y H 2 S)E ) ‘ “
(14)

where YH2S is the mole fraction of hydrogen sulfide

-3.0 - and the prime indicates the adjusted pseudocritical
properties. The adjustment factor, :, is obtained by
entering Fig. 5 with the proper contaminant percen-
tages of HZS and CO,. With the adjustment Ordy in
-2.0 the pseudocritical properties of the gas, the pseudo-
E reduced properties can be calculated and employed
in the standard procedures for finding the gas law
deviation factors to an accuracy within 1 percent.
+.0 -
Similarly, these modified pseudoreduced properties
are directly applicable to the Sukkar-Comell integral.
Therefore, by modifying the pseudocritical properties
I
1 , , , , , I 1 1
I fq
L“ ~ ~~rt U W_l
ir-ill~r . c
.--. --------
c w lr n a t ]] ra l ~--,
Pa s t he sa m e calculation
01
0 1020W 403060 7om 60100 procedure as that for pure natural gas is employed.
B
Fw. 2-Coefficient E vs Sukkar-Cornell B.

I ! [ 1 r [ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , I ,

J
1

Jo
I
1,

.6-
1
G
F
.6 -
L6

4 -

.2 -

o~
o 10203040 s0 6 0 7 0 s0 6 0 1 0 0 0 !020204050S0 70 S060100
e B

Fig. 3-Coefficient F v s Sukkar-CornelI B. Fig. 4-CoetYicient G vs Sukkar-Corneli B.

88 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 The adjusted pseudocritical pressure is
Sample Calculation
T:
The bottom-hole pressure in a flowing gas well is to
be calculated for the following conditions:
p .’ = PC
( TC+ y~,~(l – y~,s)e )

depth, 20,500 ft = (1010) (518 ~ ~03;;_o ~8)(31))

diameter of the pipe, 2.00 in.
gas gravity, 0.75 PC’ = 936 psia.
flow rate (at 60°F and 14.65 psia), The pseudoreduced properties are
8.82 MMcf/D
Moody friction factor, 0.016 ~r _ P: _ 14,575 = 15.6
—
(Refs. 6,9, 11) Pc 936
reservoir temperature, 900°R T = T,,. + Twh= 900+ 540 = 720°R
wellhead pressure, 14,575 psia 2 2
00, or COS6= 1 (the hole is vertical).
Analysis of gas indicates that the major contami-
nants are CO, (24 percent) and H,S (38 percent), and
the remainder is essentially methane. Eq. 2 for B is

Solution ~ = 667 f~ q’ T’
d5(p:)’
Calculate the pseudocntical properties:
= (667) (0.016) (8.82)2 (720)2
P, = i:l (Y#ci) (2.00)’ (936)2 (1)
B = 15.35.
= (0.24)(1073) + (0.38)(1306) + (0.38)(673)
0.01875 (Yg)(L) COS6 = (0.01875) (0.750) (20,500)
= 1009.5 psia.
T (720)
TC = g (yiTCi) = 0.400.
i=1
= (0.24)(548) -t- (0.38)(673) -1-(0.38)(344)
E = – 1.338
= S18,0 “R.
~ = (j~@
Entering F]g. 5 for e: s = 31.
G= 0.277
The adjusted pseudocritical temperature is
P,r

r
I(prjfipr= E + Fp, + G hi(p,)
T.’ = 487”R. J
0.2
= – 1.338 + (0.069) (15.6)
,
I I I I I I I I I + [0.277) in (15.6)
= 0.499.
Pg,
~(pr)dpr + (0.01875) (y.) L COS 6’
I T
0.2

= 0.499 + 0.400 = 0.899.

0.899 = – 1.338 + (0.069)pr + (0.277) In(p,) .
This equation must be solved for P,, the reduced
bottom-hole pressure. One obvious method is trial
and error. Another procedure involves direct graph-
ical solution. Rearrange the result as follows:
8.08 – 0.249p, = ln(p~).
Each side of this equation is a fmctimi of p.. Each
10 side represents a lime when plotted vs P,. Th e in ter-
section of the two lines yields the value of p, that
satisfies the above equation. Fig. 6 shows this graph-
ical solution. The result is p , = XH 8.
PER CENT H2S If a trial-and-error solution is used, arrange the
.riu
.. . -IS-pSeULIOCrMCa! ft m I pe ra t ure correction result in the form p, = 32.5 – 4.02 ln(p,).
factor, e, “F (Ref. 10). Tine last term on the rigtit changes sknwljj, ‘ti?Lhp,

JANUARY, 1974 89
giving rapid convergence. The flowing bottom-hole tion it is advantageous to break the calculation where
pressure is tubing size changes or at other points of mechanical
change that affect the flowing friction.
p = PrPc’ = (20.38) (936) Although Sukkar and Cornell determined integral
p = 19,076 psia. values for dtierent integration limits (see Ref. 8,
Pages 748-750), it is possible to check values of the
The static bottom-hoie pressure caicuiatioiis Mow integral from this study and that of Ref. 8 by taking
the same procedure with q = O or B = O. differences over pressure ranges. In general, exact
agreement resulted. It is also possible to make a direct
Discussion and Conclusions
comparison with an evaluation of the static integral
Although the Sukkar-Comell method considers the (B = O) made by Poettmann14’1’ (see also Ref. 9,
gas law deviation factor, Z, to be a continuous func- Pages 728-730). In general the comparison is not
tion of pressure, temperature is evaluated at some so good as with the Sukkar-Comell results. The ditler-
average value. Because the Cullender-Smith method ences are not great over the pressure ranges used in
considers both temperature and Z to be functions calculations. Although the reason for the small dif-
of pressure, it might appear that this method is some- ferences is not known, it is believed that values given
what more accurate than the Sukkar-Comell ap- in Table 1 of this study are correct to the number of
proach. This is only an apparent advantage. If tem- places given in the table.
perature is known in the gas column, it is possible to We conclude that the Sukkar-Comell method for
break the depth into several increments, each with calculating bottom-hole pressures is an accurate, fast
an appropriate mean temperature. In practice, the method that avoids trial-and-error calculations. It is
gas column temperature is usually taken as a linear by far the fastest hand calculation method for flow-
function of depth between the measured tubinghead ing conditions. The method has been extended to
temperature and the bottom-hole temperature. This include nonvertical wells, and reduced bottom-hole
simplification is not necessary, although it often yields pressures as high as 30.
a reasonable approximation. Temperature in flowing
columns can be estimated with better accuracy by Nomenclature
using the temperature/depth equation in Ref. 12 as cross-sectional area of pipe, sq ft
a correlating equation with the two known tempera- Sukkar-Comell rate constant, see Eq. 2
tures. constant
Sukkar and Cornell pointed out that a logarithmic diameter of pipe, in.
mean temperature is a better approximation than an constant, diameter, ft
arithrn.etic mean temperature. Although true to a t,,mt.tinm.
LUIL*.X”.L- “.
of n
yr, -T-r (s
\--- Fa. 6)
~~ —-m--/
degree, the difference between log and arithmetic Moody friction factor
mean values is usually negligible because of the large conversion factor, 32.174 (ft-lb mass/
values of absolute temperatures of the gas column. In ft-lb force) (ft/see)’
the same problem, the log mean temperature would function of P,, T, (s ee % @
be (900 – 540)/in (900/540) = 705°R. This com- vertical distance, ft
pares with the arithmetic mean value of 720”R found integrand
~rew:~usiy, (Young13 has presented an interesting ~i.tnme,a
u.. a lnnc r
.*11-V L-”-e ------e, ft
tllhinu --
study of effects of assumptions on calculations.) number of moles
In addition to breaking the weii depth into inter- pressure, psia
ments to improve the mean temperature approxima- pseudocritical pressure, psia
adjusted pseudocritical pressure, psia
standard pressure for scf, psia
pseudoreduced pressure
tubinghead pressure, psia
bottom-hole pressure, psia
pressure, lb force/sq ft
flow rate at 50°F and 14.65 psia,
MMscf/D
gas law constant
average temperature, ‘R
f(pr) pseudocritical temperature, ‘R
adjusted pseudocritical temperature, “R
st~dard temperature for scf, ‘R
T res = reservoir temperature, ‘R
T, = Pseudoreduced temperature
Twh = wellhead temperature, “R
u = velocity, ft/sec
V’ = total volume, cu ft
Reduced Preseure, f+ v. = molar volume, scf/lb-mol (see Eq. A-8)
V = specific volume of flowing fluid, cu ft/
Fig. 6-Graphical solution for reduced bottom-hole lb mass
pressure calculation.

90 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 w= mass flow rate, lb mass/see potentiai energy, potentiai energy of posidcm, ‘Idnetic
Txf = 1-- Uub
erlerg=y1=> ~.,- +-
Lu f& nt :~m
.L.buwu, ft -lh
..–xw fnrm =
.U.ww,/
w..”.~J
m m =ra v , -----------
fric t iona l ne m v loss. , and shaft work done by
----—=,--——
e
rrf
lb mass the system on the surroundings. In the following we
w, = shaft work done by flowing fluid assume the shaft work to be negligible. The fric-
yi = mole fraction of component i tional energy loss is represented by the Moody fric-
~= gas !aw deviation factor tion facto~
Y9 = gas gravity (to air)
j,,fY dL
&= adjustment factor obtained from Fig. 5 dWj=2gcD . . . . . . . . (A-2)
6= afigie Of drift fiGin i%ittd
The vertical elevation is taken as H, and L represents
Acknowledgments distance along the flow path. For vertical flow, H =
Portions of this study were completed by Messer as L. If fluid flows up a well, dH is positive; dH is neg-
partial fulfillment of requirements for the MS degree ative for injection. In both cases, L is taken positive
at Stanford U. Computer time was provided by Stan- in the direction of flow. We consider a producing well
ford U. Messer was awarded an AGA Fellowship in the following.
during his program, and received support from the The velocity U is related to the mass rate of flow, w:
Weaver and McCurdy Funds at Stanford U. Ragha-
van would like to acknowledge financial support from U=y’f —. ..> . . . . (A-3)
the Texaco Foundation.
References From Eqs. A-1 through A-3 for the assumptions
1. Anonymous: “Back-Pressure Test for Natural Gas
stated, and assuming the inclination is constant,
Wells,” Texas Railroad Commission, Oil and Gas Div.
(July 1950) .
2. Cullender, M. H., and Smith, R. V.: “Practical Solu-
tion of Gas-Flow Equations for Wells and Pipelines (A-4)
with Large Temperature Gradients: Trans., AIME . . . . . . . . . . .
( 1956) 207, 281-287.
3. Rzasa, M. J.. and Katz, D. L.: “Calculation of Static Solving for dL:
Pressure Gradients in Gas Wells: Trans., AIME
(1945) 160. 100-113.
–;dP–~dV
4. Rawlins, E.’ L., and Schellhardt, M. A.: “Back Pres- g/.A‘V
sure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their Application dL = j,fw? ~ . . . (A-5)
to Production Practices,” Monograph 7, USBM (1936). — .
5. Weymouth, T. R.: “Problems in Natural Gas Engi- 2gCDAZ + LV’
neering,” Trans., ASME ( 1912) 34, 185.
6. Brown, G. G.: Unit Operations, John Wiley and Sons, At this stage, nothing has been said about the fluid,
Inc., New York (1950) 144. and all pertinent mechanical energy forms are in-
7. Fovdei, F. C.: 4$~a~cti~a~,~~~ & ~“..”,,,-. .“,s &..–
..++.-....U,.1. . ~=--
-’-d-d . ‘XT---”*1--
Lluuc TV G a na uum .
,fv /V fiv X ln V)
u r I r , u. WI ...
t n h-
v I .V --
ne oliuihle
..-B--W ---
sures,” Pet. Eng. ( 1947) 19, No, 3, 88-90.
at this stage. We also introduce the real gas law
8. Sukkar, Y. K., and Cornell, D.: “Direct Calculation of
Bottom-Hole Pressures in Natural Gas Wells,” Trans.,
AIME (19S5) 204, 43-48. PV’= ZnRT, . . . . . . . (A-6)
0,. .--.-,
KntT 1 1 -,,
-. I C%
--- m e..---,
ll -1 1 ., K & a ya s& ., R.:, Poe t t .rn.a ul, F. ...L.-L
w I m ,ll
“,... l.z.
ba ll
.#.l.,a,-l
UG a w l v us
# n*
.“.
m a e ifin
Syww.=w
vnlm m e .
. -......V.
H., Vary, J. A., Elenbaas, J. R., and Weinaug, C. F.:
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York (1959). ZRT
------- v. (A-7)
lU. Wlchert, E., and Aziz, K.: Compressibiiixy Factor of 28.97ygP “ “ “ “ “ “
Sour Natural Gases, Report No. Cer/ 3, U. of Calgary,
Calgary, Alta., Canada (July 1970). The molar volume, Vm scf/lb-mol, is found as follows:
11. Moody, L. F.: “Friction Factors for Pipe Flow:
Trans., ASME (1944) 66, 671.
12. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: “Wellbore Heat Transmission;’ Vim +. . . . . . . . (A-8)
J. Pet. Tech. (April 1962) 427-435; Trans., AIME 255. SC
13. Young, K. L,: “Effect of Assumptions Used to Cal- And the relationship between the mass rate w and
culate Bottom-Hole Pressure in Gas Wells: J. Pet. the standard volumetric rate q(MMscf/D) is
Tech. (April 1967 ) 547-550; Trans., AIME, 240.
14. Poettmann, F. H.: “The Calculation of Pressure Drop
in the Flow of Natural Gas Through Pipe; Trans., (A-9)
~Ax]~~ { ~95~ ) ~~~, 3~7.3~&

15. Poettmann, F. H., and Carpenter, P. G.: “The Multi-

phase Flow of Gas, Oil and Water Through Verticrd Constants have been maintained separately to aid
Flow Strings; Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1952) 257. derivation. Substitution of Eqs. A-6 through A-9,
APPENDIX A conversion of pressure units from psf to psi, conver-
sion of diameter (D) from feet to inches (d), and neg-
Use of the mechanical energy balance for calculating lecting d(ln V) in Eq. A-5, yields
bottom-hole pressures has been presented by many,’-’
so we wtil only summarize usefui equations. The ..4.
pup
rn-echanjCai ener=~ bal~Ce in dtfferential fOrm is @g7) yg z
VdP + dH + ~
UdU (144) (1O.732)T ‘L = – H P 2+ 667j~q2T2 ‘
+ dWf = –dW, . (A-1)
Zz() d5

The five terms represent, in order, pressure-voiume . . . . . . . . . . . (A-i Oj

JANUARY, 1974 91
where standard gas volumes are taken at 14.65 psia Integrating formally, one obtains
and 520°R. Or P*

Zdu C/p, dp,

Al=
.r 1 + B(Z/Pr)2
P,,

fMq’ T’ (A-12)
B = 667 ~. ~e z (-H //~) “ “ “ “ “

The parenthesis are placed around (H/L) to empha-

size that this ratio is constant when Eq. A-11 is inte-
grated. That is
and
(H/L) =cos O , . . . . . . . (A-13)
P*
where 0 is the angle of drift from tme vertical, a
D dpr.
constant. We now convert pressure to pseudoreduced A,=

form: f
1 + B(Z/p,)2
P“

Pr=P/Pc . . . . . . . . (A-14)
1
— D~~(D2B–1) D~~
— – DC@_
Substitution of Eq. A-14 in Eq. A-11, and integra- {[ (D’B– 1)2+4D’B – (D2B+ 1)
tion over the limits p~ at L = O to Pt at L under the
assumption that temperature is constant, yields . In c~z _ 1
P, (1 +D2B) (c@/P,)
P
Zdpr
—
0.01875 v. (H/L)L = “r Pr
z, in [(c/p~ + D)2B + 11
T + (D2B –D1;14D2B
J’
P* ,
l+BZ
()
. . .
The tubing length, L, could ‘becanceiieci in Eq. A-15.
. . . . . . . (A-15)
+ (D2B?~J+14~lj tan-’[(C/p,+D)@l
}1
(B~i;
p”

. . . . . . . . ...
But the term is left because (H/L) will be considered
a constant in the calculation of B. Eq. A-15 is a gen- The following simplifies the above equations:
eralized form of the Sukkar-Comell integral.
APPENDIX B
A1=— c ~nvxx:jl
C*+1 [
+a tm II‘ r’.lx P l’,

Examination of the Z chart (Pages 106-107, Katz et

1
al.o shows that for large values ofp, (10 < p, < 30), A, = – DC~~ Oln(x–a) –
Z is of the form [ (1 +a’)(X–a)

II
P r*
z=c+Dpr . . . . . . . (B-1) + ~ln(x2+ 1) +ytan-’x , . (B-6)
P ,1
The Sukkar-Comell integral can be evaluated ana-
lytically by making use of the above observation. The where
Sukkar-Comell integral is
x = ~~Z/p, = @ (C/Pr + D)
-P,z
z/pr
J 1 + B(Z/Pr)2
dp, . . . . . .. (B-z) a = D~~

6=(ai?-l)*+4a2
a(a2 — 1) ——
a2; l
.

Assuming B >0, the above integral can be separated

using Eq. B-1 as follows:
P,, Pfi
“ = (a* – 1T2
+ 4a2
z/p, dpr c/P, dp, a z—l
J 1 + B(Z/Pr)’ = 1 + B(Z/P,)2 (B-7)
P,, ! ,1
‘=(a*–l)+4a2. . . . . .
P,, If B = O, then we have
D dp,
+ (B-3) P- P-
1 + B(Z/p,)2 . “ .
f
Z/p,dp,
P,,
= Cln(pr)+DPr . (3343)
P~Wr (SPE 3913) w as pra a e nt e d at SPE-AI M E De e p Drillin6 J 1 + B(Z/pr)2
P ,1 Pm
Sym pa sium , he ld in Am a rillo, T e x ., Se pt . 1 1 -1 2 , 1 9 7 2 . @ Copyright
1 9 7 4 Am e ric e n I nst it ut e of M ining, M e t a llurgic a l, a nd Pe t ra le um
Engine e rs, I nc . ~T

92 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY