Chapter 4

W e l l b o r e

P e r f o r m a n c e

4.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 stated that reservoir properties control the inflow performance of wells, or the potential of gas production rate from the well. However, the achievable gas production rate from the well is determined by wellhead pressure and the flow performance of production string, that is, tubing, casing, or both. The flow performance of production string depends on geometries of the production string and properties of fluids being produced. The fluids in gas wells are mainly gases with small fractions of water, condensate, and sand from the productive zones. Wellbore performance analysis involves establishing a relationship between tubular size, wellhead and bottom hole pressure, gas flow rate, and fluid properties. Understanding wellbore flow performance is vitally important to gas engineers for designing gas well equipment and optimizing well production conditions. Gas can be produced through tubing, casing, or both in a gas well, depending on which flow path has a better performance. Producing gas through tubing is a better option in most cases to prevent liquid loading. The term Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR) is used in this chapter. However the mathematical models are also valid for casing flow and casing-tubing annular flow as long as hydraulic diameter is used. This chapter focuses on determination of TPR and its applications to system analysis (Nodal analysis) for prediction of gas production rate from the well. Both single-phase and multi-phase fluids are considered. Flow regime transition and flow stability are analyzed. Liquid loading problems are described and their solutions are discussed. Calculation examples are illustrated with the computer spreadsheets that are provided with this book.

4.2 Single-Phase Gas Well

Tubing Performance Relationship is defined as a relation between tubing size, fluid properties, fluid flow rate, wellhead pressure, and bottom hole pressure. In most engineering analyses, it is desired to know the bottom hole pressure at a given wellhead pressure and gas flow rate in a gas well. The first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) governs gas flow in tubing. The effect of kinetic energy change is negligible due to the fact that the variation in tubing diameter is insignificant in most gas wells. With no shaft work device installed along the tubing string, the first law of thermodynamics yields the following mechanical balance equation:

(4.1)

Because can be rewritten as:

and

Equation (4.1)

(4.2)

which is an ordinary differential equation governing gas flow in tubing. Although the temperature T can be approximately expressed as a linear function of length L through geothermal gradient, the compressibility factor z is a function of pressure P and temperature T. This makes it difficult to solve the equation analytically. Fortunately, the pressure P at length L is not a strong function of temperature and compressibility factor. Approximate solutions to Equation (4.2) have been sought and used in the natural gas industry.

4.2.1 The Average Temperature and Compressibility Factor Method If single, average values of temperature and compressibility factor over the entire tubing length can be assumed, Equation (4.2) becomes:

(4.3)

By separation of variables, Equation (4.3) can be integrated over the full length of tubing to yield:

(4.4)

where

(4.5) Equation (4.4) and Equation (4.5) take the following forms when U.S. field units (qsc in Mscf/d), are used (Katz et al. 1959):

(4.6)

and

(4.7) The Moody friction factor fm can be found in the conventional manner for a given tubing diameter, wall roughness, and Reynolds number. However, if one assumes fully turbulent flow, which is the case for most gas wells, then a simple empirical relation may be used for typical tubing strings (Katz and Lee 1990): (4.8)

(4.9) Guo (2001) used the following Nikuradse friction factor correlation for fully turbulent flow in rough pipes:

(4.10)

Because the average compressibility factor is a function of pressure itself, a numerical technique such as the Newton-Raphson iteration is required to solve Equation (4.6) for bottom hole pressure. This computation can be performed automatically with the spreadsheet program AverageTZ.xls. Users need to input parameter values in the Input Data section and run Macro Solution to get results. Example Problem 4.1 Suppose that a vertical well produces 2 MMscf/d of 0.71 gasspecific gravity gas through a 2 7/8-in tubing set to the top of a gas reservoir at a depth of 10,000 ft. At tubing head, the pressure is 800 psia and the temperature is 150 0F; the bottom hole temperature is 200 0F. The relative roughness of tubing is about 0.0006. Calculate the pressure profile along the tubing length and plot the results. Solution This example problem is solved with the spreadsheet program AverageTZ.xls. Table 4-1 shows the appearance of the spreadsheet for the data input and result sections. Calculated pressure profile is plotted in Figure 4-1.

Click to View Calculation Example

Table 4-1 Input Data and Results Given by AverageTZ.xls 3

Instructions: 1) Input your data In the Input Data section; 2) Run Macro Solution to get results; 3) View results in table and in the Profile graph sheet. Input Data

Solution

Depth (ft) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 a.

T(0R) 610 615 620 625 630 635 640 645 650 655 660

P(psia) 800 827 854 881 909 937 965 994 1,023 1,053 1,082

Zav 0.9028 0.9028 0.9027 0.9027 0.9026 0.9026 0.9026 0.9026 0.9027 0.9027 0.9028

Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR)

P r e s s u r e (psia)

Depth (ft) Figure 4-1

Calculated tubing pressure profile for Example Problem 4.1 .

4.2.2 The Cullender and Smith Method

Equation (4.2) can be solved for bottom hole pressure using a fast numerical algorithm originally developed my Cullender and Smith (Katz et al. 1959). Equation (4.2) can be rearranged as:

(4.11)

that takes an integration form of

(4.12)

In U.S. field units (qmsc in MMscf/d), Equation (4.12) has the following form:

(4.13)

If the integrant is denoted with symbol /, that is,

(4.14)

Equation (4.13) becomes:

(4.15)

In the form of numerical integration, Equation (4.15) can be expressed as:

(4.16) where pmj is the pressure at the mid-depth. The Ihp Imp and Iwf are integrant /s evaluated at php pmp andpwf respectively. Assuming the first and second terms in the right-hand side of Equation (4.16) each represents half of the integration, that is,

(4.17)

(4.18) the following expressions are obtained:

(4.19)

(4.20)

Because /myis a function of pressure pmf itself, a numerical technique such as the Newton-Raphson iteration is required to solve Equation (4.19) for pmf. Once pmf is computed, pwf can be solved numerically from Equation (4.20). These computations can be performed automatically with the spreadsheet program Cullender-Smith.xls. Users need to input parameter values in the Input Data section and run Macro Solution to get results. Example Problem 4.2 Solve the problem in Example Problem 4.1 with the Cullender and Smith Method. Solution This example problem is solved with the spreadsheet program Cullender-Smith.xls. Figure 4-2 shows the appearance of the spreadsheet for the data input and result sections. The pressures at depths of 5,000 ft and 10,000 ft are 937 psia and 1,082 psia, respectively. These results are exactly the same as those given by the Average Temperature and Compressibility Factor Method.

4.3 Mist Flow in Gas Wells In addition to gas, almost all gas wells produce a certain amount of liquids. These liquids are formation water and/or gas condensate (light oil). Depending on pressure and temperature, in some wells gas condensate is

Click to View Calculation Example

Table 4-2 Input Data and Results Given by Cullender-Smith.xls*

Instructions: 1) Input your data in the Input Data section; 2) Run Macro Solution to get results. Input Data

Solution T(0R) 610 635 660

Depth (ft) 0 5,000 10,000 a.

p(psia) 800 937 1,082

Z 0.9028 0.9032 0.9057

p/ZT 1.45263 1.63324 1.80971

I 501.137 472.581 445.349

Tubing Performance Relationship

not seen at surface, but it exists in the wellbore. Some gas wells produce sand and coal particles. These wells are called multiphase-gas wells. The TPR equations presented in the previous section are not valid for multiphase gas wells. To analyze TPR of multiphase gas wells, a gas-oilwater-solid four-phase flow model is presented in this section. It is warned that the four-phase flow model is valid only for gas wells producing multiphase fluid with gas being the main component. Specifically, the model can be used with good accuracy when mist flow exists in the wellbore. When the flow velocity drops to below a critical velocity at which the liquid droplets cannot be carried up to surface by gas, annular flow or even slug flow may develop in the well. TPR equations for annular flow and slug flow are available from literature of oil well performance.

The gas-oil-water-solid four-phase flow model was first presented by Guo (2001) for coal-bed methane production wells. Guo formulated the governing equation assuming homogeneous mixture of the four phases, which may exist in misting flow. Guo also presented an approximate solution to the governing equation by breaking down the solution into three terms. Guo, Sun, and Ghalambor (2004) presented an exact solution to the governing equation and applied the solution to aerated fluid hydraulics. The exact solution is summarized as follows. According to Guo, Sun, and Ghalambor (2004) the following equation can be used for calculating pressure P (in lbf/ft2) at depth L:

(4.21) where the group parameters are defined as

(4-22)

(4.23)

(4.24)

(4.25)

(4.26)

(4.27)

(4.28)

It has been found that the bottom hole pressures given by Equation (4.21) are about 1.5% lower than those given by Equation (4.6) in single-phase wells because ideal gas was assumed in formulation of the four-phase flow model. Example Problem 4.3 Solve the problem in Example Problem 4.1 for bottom hole pressure with the following additional data: Condensate Gas Ratio (CGR): 0.02 bbl/Mscf Water Cut (WC): 50% Oil gravity: 60 0API Water-specific gravity: 1.03 Sand production: 0.1 ft3/d Sand-specific gravity: 2.65 Solution This example problem is solved with the spreadsheet program MistFlow.xls. Table 4-3 shows the appearance of the spreadsheet for the data input and results sections. It indicates a flowing bottom hole pressure of 1,103 psia.

Click to View Calculation Example

Table 4-3 Input Data and Results Sections for MistFlow.xls 3

Instructions: 1) Input your data in the Input Data section; 2) Run Macro Solution to get results. Input Data

Solution

a.

Tubing Performance Relationship

4.4 References

Guo, B. "An Analytical Model for Gas-Water-Coal Particle Flow in Coalbed-Methane Production Wells." Paper SPE 72369, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, Ohio, October 17-19, 2001. Guo, B., K. Sun, and A. Ghalambor. "A Closed Form Hydraulics Equation for Aerated Mud Drilling in Inclined Wells." SPE Drilling & Completion Journal (June 2004). Katz, D. L., D. Cornell, R. Kobayashi, F. H. Poettmann, J. A. Vary, J. R. Elenbaas, and C. F. Weinaug. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1959. Katz, D. L. and R. L. Lee. Natural Gas EngineeringProduction and Storage. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1990.

4.5 Problems 4-1 Suppose 3 MMscf/d of 0.75 specific gravity gas are produced through a 3 1/2-in tubing string set to the top of a gas reservoir at a depth of 8,000 ft. At tubing head, the pressure is 1,000 psia and the temperature is 120 0 F; the bottom hole temperature is 180 0 F. The relative roughness of the tubing is about 0.0006. Calculate the flowing bottom hole pressure with three methods: a) the average temperature and compressibility factor method; b) the Cullender and Smith method; and c) the fourphase flow method. Make comments on your results. Solve Problem 4-1 for gas production through a K-55, 17 lb/ft, 5 1/2-in casing. Suppose 2 MMscf/d of 0.65 specific gravity gas are produced through a 2 7/8-in (2.259-in ID) tubing string set to the top of a gas reservoir at a depth of 5,000 ft. Tubing head pressure is 300 psia and the temperature is 100 0 F; the bottom hole temperature is 150 0 F. The relative roughness of the tubing is about 0.0006. Calculate the flowing bottom pressure with the average temperature and compressibility factor method. Plot TPR for the well data given in Problem 4-3.

4-2 4-3

4-4

4-5

Suppose the data for the well described in Problem 4-3 also produces 20 stb/d of 0.85 specific gravity oil, 10 bbl/d of 1.02 specific gravity water, and 0.05 ft /d of 2.65 specific gravity sand. Calculate the flowing bottom pressure. Plot TPR for the well data given in Problem 4-5. Assume the liquid and sand production rates will remain constant. Develop a spreadsheet program to calculate tubing pressure profile using the data given in Problem 4-5.

4-6 4-7