Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Perform 4.50: Well Performance Analysis™ Technical Reference Manual
Perform 4.50: Well Performance Analysis™ Technical Reference Manual
50
Well PERFORMance Analysis
Technical Reference Manual
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights
reserved. The accompanying software may incorporate certain programs or applications, which
are the copyrighted property of third parties.
Except as specifically authorized in the accompanying documentation, the software and this
documentation may not be copied, reproduced, displayed, translated, transferred to any
electronic medium or machine-readable format, transcribed, or stored in a retrieval system, in
any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical, manual or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of IHS Energy Group. IHS ENERGY GROUP
MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONTENTS OF THE SOFTWARE AND/OR DOCUMENTATION, WHICH ARE
PROVIDED "AS IS." IHS ENERGY GROUP SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS AND
NEGATES ANY AND ALL EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING
THE WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
MERCHANTABILITY AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
Well PERFORMance Analysis is a trademark of Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC. (Certain
product names used herein are the trade names of trademarks of their respective companies.
Mention of these products is for informational purposes and constitutes neither an endorsement
nor recommendation by IHS Energy Group. It is not IHS Energy Group's intent to use any of
these trade names or trademarks generically and the reader is cautioned to investigate all
claimed trademark rights before using any of such names or marks.)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................iii
Table of Figures .................................................................................................................vi
1
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
iii
Table of Contents
Completion Component.............................................................................................69
Open Hole Completion.....................................................................................................69
Open Perforation Completion............................................................................................70
Stable Perforation Completion...........................................................................................73
Collapsed Perforation Completion.....................................................................................76
Gravel Pack Completion...................................................................................................79
Gravel Pack Beta Turbulence Factor ..............................................................................81
Gravel Pack Open Hole Completion .................................................................................82
Gravel Pack Open Perforation Completion........................................................................83
Gravel Pack Stable Perforation Completion.......................................................................83
Gravel Pack Collapsed Perforation Completion.................................................................83
iv
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Table of Contents
Wellbore Deviation.........................................................................................................107
Example 1....................................................................................................................108
Example 2....................................................................................................................109
Example 3....................................................................................................................109
6
Downhole Network..................................................................................................111
References ......................................................................................................................115
Index................................................................................................................................121
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Producing System....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2: Nodal Plot..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1: System Analysis Plot with Multiple Conditions.................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.2: Gradient Curves........................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.3: Effect of Formation Skin............................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2.4: Inflow Sensitivity on Skin........................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2.5: Differential Graph...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.6: Effect of Perforation Shot Density (SPF)............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.7: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Shot Density (SPF)......................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.8: Effect of Perforation Interval................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.9: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Interval............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.10: Effect of Tubing Size .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.11: Outflow Sensitivity on Tubing Size ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.12: Effect of Wellhead Pressure .................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.13: Outflow Sensitivity on Wellhead Pressure ......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.1: Reservoir Component............................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.2: User Enters PI............................................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 3.3: Vogel Solution Gas Drive with Flow Efficiency.................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.4: Square Reservoir....................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.5: Horizontally Completed Well .................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 3.6: Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations ...................................................... 49
Figure 3.7: Schema for Kuchuk and Babu & Odeh correlations............................................................................................ 59
Figure 3.8: Schema for Goode & Thambynaya correlation .................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.1: Open Hole Completion............................................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 4.2: Open Perforation Completion.................................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 4.3: Open Perforation....................................................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.4: Collapsed Perforation (Spherical Flow Model)..................................................................................................... 76
Figure 4.5: Gravel Pack Schematic.............................................................................................................................................. 79
Figure 6.1: Multilayer................................................................................................................................................................. 111
Figure 6.2: Multilateral............................................................................................................................................................... 112
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
vi
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
As system analysis simulates the entire system, it models each component within the system
using equations or correlations to determine the pressure loss through the component as a
function of flow rate. The total pressure loss through the system for a given flow rate is the
summation of the pressure losses through all components. Minimizing pressure loss in individual
components within the system results in less overall pressure loss and increased flow rate from a
well.
The total pressure loss is ultimately realized as the overall difference between average reservoir
pressure, Pr, and the wellhead or separator pressure, Pwh or Psep. The average reservoir
pressure and wellhead or separator pressure constitute the endpoints of the system (inlet and
outlet), and are the only pressures in the system that do not vary with flow rate.
Nodal Analysis
System analysis analyzes the entire system by focusing on one point within the series of
components. This point generally is referred to as a node, hence the term nodal analysis. The
final solution is independent of the location of the node.
For manual calculations, the primary interest of the application generally dictates the location of
the node. For example, if the main interest is an investigation of the effects of the components
near the surface (such as flowline or surface choke), then the node is chosen at the wellhead or
separator. If the effects of the downhole components are the primary interest (such as the
bottomhole flowing pressure), then the node is chosen at downhole.
In PERFORM, you can use a sensitization technique that allows you to see the effects of
changing parameters. In this way, you can usually choose the node at a point inside the wellbore
directly adjacent to the perforations. This point is designated as wellbore flowing bottomhole
pressure, Pwf.
The producing system is divided into two segments at the node. The upstream, or inflow,
segment is comprised of all components between the node and the reservoir boundary. The
downstream, or outflow, segment consists of the components between the node and the
separator.
After isolating the node in the system, both of the following fundamental requirements at the
node must be met:
Only one pressure exists at the node at any given flow rate (Pinflow = Poutflow)
Only one flow rate exists through the node (Qinflow = Qoutflow)
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Because the producing system consists of interacting components that each contributes pressure
loss independently as a function of flow rate, the procedure necessary to find the unique flow
rate that satisfies the two requirements at the node is iterative. To simplify the procedure, the
system analysis approach uses a graphical solution in which the pressure at the node is shown as
a function of the producing rate for both the inflow and outflow segments. The system analysis
plot, or nodal plot, illustrated in Figure 1.2 contains both the inflow and outflow relationships.
The inflow curve bends downward. This illustrates that as flow rate increases through the inflow
segment, pressure loss increases so that there is less pressure available at the node (or the
downstream side of the inflow segment).
The outflow curve bends upward. This illustrates that for a fixed separator pressure, the
pressure required at the node (inlet to the outflow segment) increases as flow rate increases.
Although each segment is exclusive of the other at varying flow rates, the two requirements
listed previously (only one pressure and flow rate exist at the node) dictate that only one solution
exists for the system at a particular set of conditions. On the nodal plot, this solution is the
intersection of the inflow and outflow curves. This intersection indicates the producing capacity
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
of the system and provides both the flow rate, Q, and the corresponding bottomhole pressure,
Pwf.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Make a specific objective for the case, such as determining the size of tubing to use in a
well.
Determine the type of analysis needed to solve the problem, such as a Systems
Analysis.
Determine the components needed (reservoir, wellbore, completion, and flowline) and
the correlations desired.
Find all required data, make educated guesses for unknown values, and enter the data
for each component.
Interpret the output based on the type of case. Test the results for confidence by
comparing the results with the data you have found.
Adjust the input and calculate again to improve the output results as needed.
You can use a general analysis procedure to determine the producing capacity of a well system
for a set of well conditions. More importantly, you can use the procedure to determine the
quantitative effect and importance of each variable within the system on the overall system
performance. The system components use the variables in either equations or correlations.
Although some values generally do not change during the well's life (for example, reservoir
thickness, permeability, and total depth), many values are variable. The ability to change the
values that directly affect system performance and well productivity allows you to achieve
complete well optimization.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
One of the underlying advantages of system analysis is its ability to predict the result caused by
changes in the design variables. The alteration in well performance is seen directly on the
systems plot through multiple inflow or outflow curves (each at a different set of conditions) and
multiple intersection points. The Q and Pwf values at each intersection represent the producing
status at that particular condition. The simplified systems plot in Figure 2.1 illustrates a typical
scenario with multiple inflow curves at different reservoir pressures and multiple outflow curves
at various tubing diameters.
As mentioned, the primary node used in most system analysis applications is the node at the
bottom of the wellbore. Furthermore, although the system is comprised of many interacting
components, it usually is simplified to four primary components:
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
In addition to correlation selection, the gradient match is also helpful in confirming input data that
may not be exact. Figure 2.2 is an example illustrating the use of the gradient curve to match
actual well data for an oil well by varying wellhead pressure.
As mentioned earlier, the system analysis approach can be understood as simulation of the
producing system. Once the data is entered to create a base case of the well system (and
confirmed through matching, if possible), the technique can be used to simulate varied conditions
and solve a "what if" scenario. The effect of design and completion variables on total system
performance can be predicted. Many variables can be simulated and optimized. The importance
of each depends on specific well conditions. The items used most often in system analysis to
optimize oil and gas wells include the following:
Reservoir Skin
Completion Effects
Tubing Size
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Skin
The reservoir skin is a deviation from Darcy flow generally caused by damage near the wellbore
from drilling and completion fluids or from enhancement through stimulation. The effect of
altering skin is really the effect of removing damage through stimulation. In system analysis, you
can do this by reviewing several inflow cases, each at an improved skin value. Figures 2.3 and
2.4 illustrate this case, where a highly damaged formation with a skin of 32 is analyzed after
stimulation with skins of 20, 5, 0, -3, and -6.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Effects
The following items induce a similar response in the system performance and are variables in the
completion design that are generally subject to change and optimize:
10
Perforation size
Perforation diameter
Perforation length
Perforation interval
Perforated interval
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Differential Graph
The differential graph, Figure 2.5, is especially helpful in emphasizing the completion effects of a
well. The differential graph has two main curve types. The first type, shown bending downward
to the left, represents the difference between the pressure remaining after flowing through the
reservoir (Pws) and the pressure needed to flow through the outflow segment. The difference is
the pressure available to produce through the completion. The curves shown bending upward to
the left are the actual pressure losses through the completion as a function of rate.
Similar to the standard system analysis graph, the intersection of these two curves dictates the
producing capacity of a well for a given set of conditions. Although both example plots in this
section illustrate the effect of varied perforation shot density, you can vary and display any of the
completion variables listed in the same manner.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
11
12
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Perforation Interval
The perforation interval is the measured length of formation interval that is actually perforated. In
many completions, the perforation interval is somewhat less than the formation thickness. This
can be the result of:
Well problems that result in the inability to completely penetrate the producing formation
A reduced perforation interval affects the inflow segment in two ways. First, if reservoir
turbulence is taken into account (i.e., Jones equation), the reduced interval increases the
pressure loss encountered as the flow converges in the reservoir into the perforation interval.
Second, the reduced perforation interval reduces the number of actual perforations available for
flow into the wellbore, thereby increasing pressure loss through the completion. Both of these
effects result in less productivity from a well, as illustrated in Figures 2.8 and 2.9.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
13
Tubing Size
Properly sized tubing is very important in an efficiently designed well system. In an oil well,
pressure loss through the tubing can constitute the majority of the pressure loss through the
entire system. If the tubing size is too small, friction loss will become excessive. If the tubing size
is too large, additional pressure loss will be encountered due to liquid loading. In some cases,
this loading can prevent the well from flowing at all. Incorrectly sized tubing can result in less
available production from a well and possibly reduced flowing periods.
14
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show the effect of tubing size in an oil well. The reversal effect in the
largest diameter as it actually crosses the next smaller diameter indicates less available
production due to liquid loading. The tubing sizes sensitized are 2 3/8", 2 7/8", 3 1/2", 4", and 4
1/2" respectively.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
15
16
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
17
18
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
The reservoir component, illustrated in Figure 3.1, of the system is composed of the flow
between the reservoir boundary and the sandface. This component is always upstream of the
node and, in this discussion, is combined with the completion component to form the entire
inflow segment.
The flow through the reservoir is often referred to as the inflow performance relationship (IPR)
of a well. It is a measure of the reservoir's ability to produce fluid as a result of a pressure
differential. This ability depends on many factors, including reservoir type, producing drive
mechanism, reservoir pressure, formation permeability, and fluid properties.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
19
Reservoir Component
PI =
Q
Pr Pwf
where:
PI
Pr
Pwf
The constant productivity index is expressed on the system analysis plot as a straight line
between Pr and Qmax (at Pwf = 0) with a slope of 1/PI. The Vogel equation can be used to
correct the flow below the bubblepoint pressure with the user-entered PI to calculate the IPR
above the bubblepoint pressure.
20
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Vogel/Harrison (1968)
The productivity index concept relies on the assumptions that reservoir and fluid properties
remain constant and are not a function of pressure. Although these assumptions are true in some
cases, especially in single-phase liquid flow, wells that produce both oil and gas will be
overestimated below the bubblepoint if you use the user-entered PI relationship.
In 1968, Vogel presented an IPR solution for wells producing both oil and gas from saturated
reservoirs.5 Using the reservoir model proposed by Weller,35 Vogel used a computer to
calculate IPR curves for several fictitious solution gas drive reservoirs that covered a wide range
of oil PVT properties and reservoir permeability characteristics. He plotted these IPR curves as
dimensionless IPR curves with each pressure value divided by the maximum shut-in pressure,
and each flow rate divided by the maximum rate (Qmax at Pwf = 0). He combined these
dimensionless curves into a general reference curve in the following form.
Vogel equation
P
Q
= 1.0 0.2 wf
Q max
Pr
P
0.8 wf
Pr
where:
Q
Qmax
Pwf
Pr
The Vogel relationship can be regarded as a general equation for solution gas drive reservoirs
producing below the bubblepoint. Above the bubblepoint, the standard Darcy equation or userentered straight line PI is considered adequate. In cases of undersaturated reservoirs where
wellbore pressure may be above or below the bubblepoint, the Vogel equation can be used as a
correction below the bubblepoint pressure in combination with the user-entered PI, Darcy,
transient, and fractured well correlations. In this case, the selected correlation is used between
reservoir pressure (Pr) and bubblepoint pressure (Pb), followed by the Vogel relationship below
the bubblepoint pressure.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
21
Reservoir Component
The Vogel equation is differentiated with respect to Pwf to give a secondary equation for Qmax.
Vogel equation
Q max = Q b +
PI Pb
1.8
where:
Qmax
Qb
PI
Pb
The final form of the Vogel equation for wells producing above the bubblepoint is:
Combination Vogel equation Pwf > Pb
Q = PI (Pr Pwf )
where:
Q
PI
Pr
Pwf
The final form of the Vogel equation for wells producing below the bubblepoint is:
Combination Vogel equation Pwf < Pb
22
Q'
Qb
Qmax
Pb
P'wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
The Vogel equation was developed with the assumption that there is no skin effect or that flow
efficiency (FE) equals one. Standing6,7 proposed a method to correct the Vogel relationship to
account for non-unity flow efficiencies. In this correction, test pressures used in the Vogel
equation are first modified as follows:
P ' wf = Pwf + (1 FE)(Pr Pwf )
where:
P'wf
FE
This correction alters the bottomhole flowing pressure due to additional pressure loss through
the damaged area around the wellbore. Note that a higher flow efficiency value reduces the well
productivity.
The previous equation presents a problem with high flow efficiencies and low flowing
bottomhole pressures. The value of P'wf can calculate as a negative value, which cannot be used
in the Vogel equation. A correction to the Vogel solution is to account for either positive or
negative values of P'wf in the following equation.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
23
Reservoir Component
Darcy
The basic equation used to describe the flow of fluid through a reservoir is the radial form of the
Darcy equation. Henry Darcy originally developed the equation in 1856 to describe the flow
through sand filter beds used in water purification. The basic Darcy concept describes flow
through porous media as a function of pressure differential, cross-sectional area, fluid viscosity,
flow distance, and permeability (the measure of the media's ability to transmit fluid). He
developed the equation under the assumptions that only single-phase, laminar flow existed, and
the fluid was essentially incompressible.
Although the original Darcy equation was developed for linear flow in the vertical direction, the
equation has been modified to predict radial flow. The general Darcy equation for an oil well is:
Darcy equationoil well
Q=
B ln (x) + S + DQ
4
where:
24
Pr
Pws
= Skin effect
re
rw
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
The Darcy equation for a gas well is slightly different because of the dynamic behavior of gas
properties as a function of rate and pressure, where pseudopressure, , is used and is:
Darcy equationgas well
Qg =
(0.000703) kg h ( r ws )
3
T ln ( x ) + S + DQg
4
where:
Qg
kg
ws
= Skin effect
re
rw
The Vogel equation can be used to correct the Darcy equation below the bubblepoint pressure.
PI is calculated from the following equation and is used in the Vogel equation described earlier.
Productivity IndexDarcy
PI =
(0.00708) k h
3
B ln (x ) + S
4
where:
PI
= Skin effect
re
rw
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
25
Reservoir Component
where:
S'
= Total skin
S(q,t)
= Rate- and time- dependent skin, generally caused by permeability alteration due
to changing gas saturation near the wellbore
DQ
26
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
System analysis accounts for the total skin effect in several ways. Most inflow equations allow
for a skin entry, which generally is the physical skin, S. If the skin entry is positive, it indicates
damage. If the skin entry is negative, it indicates stimulation. The rate-dependent non-Darcy
term is available for use in the Darcy equation. Because system analysis is an isochronal
procedure, the rate- and time-dependent skin, S(q,t), becomes a function of rate only and
logically can be included with the non-Darcy skin.
Note: In a system analysis solution, be sure not to include turbulent or physical skin more
than once. If the skin effect is measured including the completion by transient testing
within the wellbore, this skin takes into account completion effects. If this skin is used
subsequently in the reservoir segment as a physical skin, S, or as a rate-dependent
skin, DQ, or as both, additional pressure loss through the completion segment will
cause an underestimated inflow curve. This situation exists for the four-point test
(Jones and back pressure) for oil wells and gas wells and Vogel for oil wells.
Drainage Area and Shape Factor
The previous Darcy equations are actually slight modifications of the original equation. The ln(x)
term is a modification of the standard ln(re/rw), which is a representation of the area of flow in
the radial form of the equation. The ln(re/rw) value is applicable only for a well producing in the
center of a circular drainage area. In the cases where the well is located in an irregularly shaped
drainage area, ln(re/rw) is replaced by ln(x), where x is a reservoir size and shape factor that
describes the actual drainage shape and well position. 22
x=
Sfactor S0.5
area
rw
where:
X
Sfacto
Sarea
rw
The following table of shape factors are available for use in the Darcy and Jones equations.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
27
Reservoir Component
SHAPE
FACTOR
0.564
SHAPE
SHAPE FACTOR
0.966
0.571
1.444
0.565
2.206
28
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
SHAPE
Reservoir Component
SHAPE
FACTOR
0.605
SHAPE
SHAPE FACTOR
1.925
0.610
6.590
0.678
9.360
4
1
1/3
0.668
2
1
1.368
4
1
1.724
1.794
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
29
Reservoir Component
SHAPE
SHAPE
FACTOR
2.066
SHAPE
4.072
.884
SHAPE FACTOR
9.523
1.485
10.135
30
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
An equation suggested by Jones, Blount, and Glaze8 in 1976 accounts for turbulence in a
producing oil or gas well. The equation, referred to as the Jones equation, is written in the
following forms:
Jones equationoil well
Pr Pws = aQ2 + bQ
where:
a =
b=
h 2p r w
B[ln (0.472x ) + S]
; laminar term
(0.00708 )kh
and where:
Pr
Pws
hp
rw
= Skin effect
re
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
31
Reservoir Component
r ws = aQ 2g + bQg
where:
(3.16 10 )
-12
a =
b=
h r g
2
p w
; turbulent term
(1424)T[ln (0.472x ) + S]
k gh
; laminar term
and where:
r
ws
Qg
hp
rw
Skin effect
kg
re
For oil wells, you can also obtain the turbulent term, a, and the laminar term, b, by plotting (Pr Pwf)/Q versus Q. For gas wells, plot (Pr2 - Pwf2) / Qg versus Qg. The resulting slope will be the
turbulent term and the intercept will be the laminar term.
The laminar term is simply the Darcy equation. The turbulent term is the turbulent portion of the
Jones equation and is shown as a function of rate. The contribution of this turbulent term tends
to reduce the available flow rate from a well as rate increases. The term accounts for additional
wellbore convergence effects caused by partial penetration or a limited perforated interval. This
is accomplished with the use of the perforated interval, hp, instead of the gross formation
interval, h, in the denominator of the turbulent term.
The turbulence coefficient, , is a function of reservoir permeability.
32
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
2.33 1010
k1.201
where:
P r P ws = aQg + bQg
2
Note: For gas wells, do not use the resulting a and b terms from the four-point test IPR
method in the Jones user-entered a and b IPR method because the Jones userentered a and b terms are based on pressure squared and the Jones four-point test is
based on pseudopressure. For oil wells, you can use the calculated Jones coefficients
in the Jones a and b user-entered IPR because both IPR methods use the same
equation.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
33
Reservoir Component
Q = C (P2r P2ws)
where:
= Backpressure coefficient
Pr
Pws
= Turbulence coefficient
The turbulence coefficient, n, can be obtained from stabilized test data where (Pr2 - Pws2) is
plotted versus Q on a log-log scale. This method requires at least three and usually four flowing
bottomhole pressure and flow rate data pairs (thus called a four-point test). The turbulence
coefficient is determined from the inverse slope of the line, and is a measurement of the turbulent
condition of the well.
Turbulent flow yields values of n between 0.5 (completely turbulent flow) and 1.0 (completely
laminar flow). In some solution gas drive reservoirs, the 'n' value can be larger than 1.0.45 The
backpressure equation is considered a valid inflow representation if turbulence is a factor and
test data are available and suitable for confident prediction of n. Solve for the backpressure
coefficient, C, using a point on the backpressure line. The Backpressure Four-Point Test
method calculates the best fit of the four-point test data points to arrive at the n and C values.
The Backpressure equation is used to calculate the IPR from a known n and C value based on
the results of a plot of (Pr2 - Pws2) versus Q for both oil and gas wells. The Backpressure 4-Pt
Test IPR method involves the computer calculation of the backpressure n and C values based
on user-entered test data. The results for oil wells and gas wells will be very different because
pseudopressure is used in the gas well cases so that the equation becomes:
34
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Q = C ( r ws )
where:
Q
Backpressure coefficient
ws
Turbulence coefficient
Note: For gas wells, do not use the resulting n and C values from this equation in the userentered Backpressure equation. This restriction does not apply to oil wells because
both methods use the difference in the pressure squared and not pseudopressure.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
35
Reservoir Component
Q=
kh (Pr Pws )
kt
3.2275 + 0.87S
162.6 B log
2
ct rw
where:
36
Pr
Pws
= Porosity
ct
rw
= Skin effect
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Qg =
k g h( r ws )
kg t
3.2275 + 0.87S
1638 T log
2
g c t rw
where:
Qg
kg
ws
Porosity
ct
rw
Skin effect
The pressure behavior of a reservoir during the transient period is essentially the same as that of
an infinite acting reservoir. Use the following equation to estimate the length of time required to
surpass this transient period and reach pseudosteady state:
Time to pseudosteady state
Time (hrs) =
ct r 2e
(0.001005 )k
where:
Porosity
Viscosity (cp)
ct
re
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
37
Reservoir Component
Fractured Well
PERFORM uses a digitized, constant rate, finite-conductivity, closed square, fractured well
type-curve to calculate the effect of a vertically drilled well that has been hydraulically fractured.
The type curve requires a dimensionless time, dimensionless fracture conductivity, and fracture
penetration ratio to calculate a dimensionless pressure drop for a known wellbore pressure and
time. The well is assumed to be in the center of a square reservoir with an aspect ratio 1:1.
R ct =
0.00708 k h
B
Gas well
R ct =
0.000703 k h
T + 460
where:
38
Rct
= Reservoir conductivity
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
The fracture penetration ratio is determined by the following formula and must evaluate to
between 0.0 and 1.0 or an error message appears. Note that re is normally evaluated as a
reservoir radius but in this case, it is the length of one side of a square reservoir divided by 2.
Fracture penetration ratio
Fpr =
xf
re
where:
Fpr
xf
re
The dimensionless fracture conductivity is calculated as follows and must evaluate between 0.01
and 500.0 or PERFORM displays an error message:
Dimensionless fracture conductivity
Fcd =
kf w
k xf
where:
Fcd
kf
xf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
39
Reservoir Component
The dimensionless time is calculated as follows and must be between 0.00001 and 1000.0 or
PERFORM displays an error message:
Dimensionless time
t Dxf =
0.000264 k t
ct x f
where:
tDxf
= Dimensionless time
ct
xf
The type curve function interpolates the type curve to arrive at the dimensionless pressure drop
in the fracture and reservoir as:
p D = f (t Dx f , Fcd , Fpr )
Q =
R ct (Pr Pwf )
pD
Qg =
R ct (r wf )
pD
where:
40
Rct
Pr
Pwf
pD
= Dimensionless pressure
wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
The flow rate above assumes that the well is in non-turbulent flow. To account for turbulence in
the fracture that may occur, a non-Darcy flow rate adjustment is made to the flow rate
according to the size of the proppant in the fracture itself as follows:
NON-DARCY FLOW FACTORS
PROPPANT SIZE
a-TERM
b-TERM
8 - 12 mesh
1.24
17423.61
10 - 20 mesh
1.34
27539.48
20 - 40 mesh
1.54
110470.39
40 - 60 mesh
1.60
69405.31
3.088386 10 7 b
kf
where:
= Turbulence factor
kf
A flow velocity and Reynold's number is determined to calculate a revised fracture conductivity
as follows:
Oil well velocity
V=
3.249 x 10 5 Qo B o
hw
V=
5.787 x 10 3 Qg Bg
hw
Reynold's number
N RE =
1.5808 10 -11 V k f
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
41
Reservoir Component
Fcd =
kf w
k x f (1 + N RE )
where:
V
Bo
Qg
Bg
NRE
= Reynold's number
kf
An iteration technique is used to converge on a dimensionless pressure and flow rate using the
type curve to arrive at a final non-Darcy flow rate at a given wellbore pressure. The same
equations used above to calculate Q and Rct are used in the iteration until a convergence with
the flow rate, Q, used in the above velocity equations gives the same flow rate from the type
curve calculation. PERFORM allows a maximum of 20 iterations and displays an error message
if unable to converge.
Oil well cases can also be adjusted for the Vogel relationship below the bubblepoint pressure
using the Vogel equations. An instantaneous productivity index is calculated for the Vogel
equation as:
Productivity Index
PI =
Qo
Pr Pwf
where:
42
PI
Qo
Pr
Pwf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
43
Reservoir Component
Pressure and flow rate calculations in horizontally completed wells are done in much the same
ways as vertically drilled wells, with the added reservoir and wellbore geometry of the horizontal
completion. Several IPR options are available for modeling the horizontal reservoir. The effects
of the horizontal tunnel are determined by pressure drop calculations by Dikken. 47
The basic assumptions for the reservoir IPR are a horizontal well with single phase (or a single
mixed phase) and the well is in turbulent flow in the horizontal tunnel. The models are used for
open hole or cased hole conditions depending on the completion type. Vertical and horizontal
reservoir permeability and horizontal tunnel length play an important role in the IPR estimate.
Figure 3.5 shows a typical horizontal well configuration including the vertical and horizontal
wellbore and reservoir. The kickoff point (KOP) is designated at any depth above the end of
the tubing where an angle will be calculated. It is assumed that KOP-TMD/TVD value
calculates an angle of the well from the surface to the KOP depth, therefore, KOP-TMD is
entered the same as KOP-TVD to calculate a vertical well (angle of 0 degrees) from the surface
to the KOP depth.
All angles and TMD/TVD pairs are entered in the Directional Survey dialog box. TBGTMD/TVD is the depth of the end of the tubing string. This is used to calculate the well angle
and determine the total length of the tubing for pressure profile and gradient calculations.
If the completion type is open hole, then CS-TMD/TVD designates the depth of the casing shoe
and is the total length of the casing segment and the location of the bottomhole node. This depth
must be between the well total depth including the tunnel length and tubing end. The horizontal
tunnel length will be the distance from the casing shoe to the end of the horizontal tunnel.
44
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
If the completion is a cased hole type, then TOP-TMD/TVD is the depth of the topmost
perforation and is the location of the bottomhole node. The horizontal tunnel length is the
distance from the top perforation to the last perforation.
You must match the values you enter between the reservoir and completion. For example, if you
have a cased hole completion in a horizontal well, then you should enter the same value for the
horizontal tunnel length in the Reservoir dialog box as the perforated interval in the Completion
dialog box. The perforated interval actually determines the horizontal tunnel length in cased holes
but the two values are not linked together in the calculations. If you want to sensitize the
horizontal tunnel length, you should also sensitize the perforated interval at the same values as
the horizontal tunnel length.
The special reservoir IPR types for horizontal wells include the User Enters PI and Vogel for oil
wells, and Backpressure Equation and Datafile for oil and gas wells. The three correlations and
the datafile option operate the same as discussed earlier for the vertical well type. However, an
extra pressure loss is included for losses in the horizontal tunnel according to the value specified
by the alpha term. This term is casing alpha for cased hole completions and open hole alpha for
open hole completions.
The alpha term is used to judge the amount of turbulence induced in the horizontal tunnel. Alpha
ranges from a value of zero (completely turbulent flow) to 0.25 (completely laminar flow). For
most open hole completions, the roughness of the wellbore wall suggests that the alpha term be
close to zero.
Cased hole completions require the casing ID and casing alpha term. In addition to the
roughness of the casing surface, the effect of perpendicular inflow through the perforations in the
cased hole suggests that turbulence will be dominant even in this situation so an alpha value
close to zero is also suggested.
Dikken discusses the effect of total well rate as a function of horizontal tunnel length and shows
that the total well rate increases with increasing well length for various values of well diameter.
Regardless of diameter, all wells must produce at the same critical rate per foot and converge
on a single rate versus length profile at low horizontal tunnel lengths. With increasing well length,
the total rate levels off earlier for smaller diameter wellbores. By sensitizing on various values of
horizontal length at different wellbore diameters, you can judge the optimum tunnel length for
well completions during their design. The production performance is also sensitive to the alpha
value.
Dikken also suggests using 80 percent of the infinite well length as an engineering criterion for
the optimal length of the horizontal tunnel. By sensitizing on horizontal tunnel length and looking
at the inflow sensitivity graph, you can estimate the optimum tunnel length from the graph at 80
percent of the maximum rate obtainable. This should ensure a sufficient flow rate to minimize the
horizontal completion loss and help control the expense of the well.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
45
Reservoir Component
For open hole completions, the outflow results are calculated from the surface to the node as in
a deviated vertical well using the tubing ID and roughness down to the tubing end depth, TbgTMD/TVD, and then through the casing segment using the casing ID, roughness, and casing
shoe depth. The casing segment length is the distance from the tubing end depth to the casing
shoe depth. The open hole ID designates the diameter of the horizontal tunnel below the casing
shoe.
In cased hole completions, the casing ID is used for the ID of the casing segment above the
node position and for the ID of the horizontal tunnel. The casing roughness is only used in the
casing segment above the node. Casing roughness is accounted for with the casing alpha term in
the horizontal tunnel.
The special horizontal IPR types require vertical and horizontal reservoir permeability. Many
reservoirs have a vertical permeability that is 10 percent of the horizontal permeability. You can
sensitize the horizontal permeability and/or vertical permeability. To keep the same permeability
ratio, sensitize both permeabilities using multiple sensitivity lines.
If a completion is included, then the pressure loss in the completion is calculated at the flow rate
of the IPR and subtracted from the sandface pressure to arrive at a nominal wellbore pressure.
This result is then modified by the pressure loss calculation for the horizontal tunnel to arrive at a
flow rate and pressure value at the node. In the output, the horizontal tunnel effects and
completion pressure loss are combined into a total completion pressure loss. The horizontal
tunnel effect is calculated from the equations given by Dikken as:
Rw
2.259 10 8 1.495 10 5 d
=
5
where:
46
Rw
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
(3 ) J so 3
K = 5.434 10 5 5.491 10 7 ( Pr Pws )
Rw
(3 ) J sg
K = 3.051 10 3 7.329 10 6 ( Pr Pws )
Rw
where:
Jso
Jsg
x D = 9.105 105 L
1 J so R w
K
3
x D = 6.823 10 4 L
1
K
J sg R w
3
The dimensionless tunnel length, xD, and the alpha term are used in a digitized type curve to
calculate a dimensionless total flow rate, qD. The final flow rate, Q, is calculated as:
Flow rateoil well
Q = 5.434 10
qD
(1.840 10 6 K ) 1
Flow rategas well
Q g = 3.051 10
qD
2
(3.277 10 4 K ) 1
Two additional well parameters are necessary to calculate the horizontal tunnel effects
depending on the type of completion. For open hole completions, you must enter an open hole
ID that is an average drilled ID from the bit records or a caliper survey. Also required is the
open hole alpha term.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
47
Reservoir Component
Joshi (1988)
Pseudosteady-State Flow
Kuchuk (1988)
Transient Flow
Other
48
No Inflow Calculated
User Enters PI
Vogel/Harrison (1968)
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Figure 3.6: Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations
N vert =
k avg
k horz
k avg
k vert
L eq = L N horz
h eq = h N vert
req = re N horz
Note: PERFORM displays an error message if the reservoir radius entered is less than half
the horizontal tunnel length. This prevents the horizontal tunnel from extending past
the reservoir boundary.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
49
Reservoir Component
1 + 1 L eq
2r
eq
= ln
L eq
2req
D horz
L
eq
h eq
h eq
D vert = ln
2 rw
Reservoir storage term
Ws = D horz + D vert + S
Reservoir rate calculation without Ramey D turbulent flow included
Oil well
Q=
Gas well
Qg =
0.000703k avgL eq ( r wf )
(T + 460) Ws
Q=
Gas well
Qg =
50
0.000703k avgL eq ( r wf )
( T + 460)( Ws + DQ g )
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
where:
k avg
k horz
k vert
Nhorz
Nvert
Leq
heq
req
re
Dhorz
Dvert
rw
Ws
Bo
Qg
rwf
Pr
Pwf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
51
Reservoir Component
re
L
a = 0.5 + 0.25 +
L
2
2
Anisotropic factor
I ani =
kh
kv
L
a + a2
2
= ln
D horz
I ani h
h
= I ani ln
rw
L
( I ani + 1) 12
D vert
Ws = D horz + D vert + S
Reservoir rate calculation without Ramey D turbulent flow included
Oil well
Q=
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Bo l Ws
Gas well
Qg =
52
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
( T + 460) Ws
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Q=
0.00708k h h( Pr Pwf )
h
B o l Ws + I ani DQ
L
Gas well
Qg =
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
h
( T + 460) Ws + I ani DQ g
L
where:
a
re
Iani
Anisotropic factor
kh
kv
Dhorz
Dvert
rw
Ws
Pr
Pwf
Bo
Qg
wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
53
Reservoir Component
Joshi (1988)
The Joshi53,54 method is very similar to Economides with a different form of the Dvert equation for
steady-state flow. The gas well reservoir storage term calculation considers an effective
wellbore radius for skin effect. This IPR type is not suggested if half the tunnel length is greater
than 0.9 times the effective drainage radius.
Half of major axis of ellipse
re
L
a = 0.5 + 0.25 +
L
2
2
Anisotropic factor
kh
kv
D horz
L
2
a + a
2
= ln
D vert
54
h
h
= ln
rw
L
2 12
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
h
Ws = D horz + D vert + S
L
Gas well
L
re
2
r we =
h / L
2
h
L
a 1 + 1
2a 2rw / 12
r
Ws = ln e + S
r we
Reservoir rate calculation without Ramey D turbulent flow included
Oil well
Q=
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Bo l Ws
Gas well
Qg =
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
( T + 460) Ws
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
55
Reservoir Component
Q=
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
h
Bo l Ws + DQ
L
Gas well
Qg =
0.000703k h h( r wf )
h
( T + 460) Ws + DQ g
L
where:
56
re
= Anisotropic factor
kh
kv
Dhorz
Dvert
rw
Ws
rwe
Pr
Pwf
Bo
Qg
wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
r
L
e
a = 0.5 + 0.25 +
L
2
2
2a
L
kh
kv
D horz = cosh 1 ( )
Drainage factorvertical plane
2 h
h
= ln
2 rw
L
( + 1) 12
D vert
Ws = D horz + D vert +
h
S
L
Q=
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Bo l Ws
Gas well
Qg =
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
( T + 460) Ws
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
57
Reservoir Component
Q=
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
h
Bo l Ws + DQ
L
Gas well
Qg =
0.000703k h h( r wf )
h
( T + 460) Ws + DQ g
L
where:
58
re
= Anisotropic factor
kh
kv
Dhorz
Dvert
rw
Ws
Pr
Pwf
Bo
Qg
wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Figure 3.7: Schema for Kuchuk and Babu & Odeh correlations
Kuchuk (1988)
Kuchuk57 makes an evaluation of a horizontal well performance where the position of the
wellbore in the reservoir can be designated for pseudosteady-state flow. The Kuckuk IPR type
assumes that the distance from the well to any lateral boundary must be large relative to the
distance from the well to the top and bottom of the reservoir.
Distance and permeability ratios
dL =
L
2d par
Kr =
d per
d par
kx
ky
The above ratios are used in a dimensionless drainage calculation routine of tables to calculate a
dimensionless fd term.
f d = f (d x , d y , d L , K r )
Effective horizontal permeability
kh = kx k y
Anisotropic factor
kh
kv
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
59
Reservoir Component
r 1
d
D horz = ln w 1 + sin bot
h
12h
D vert
Ws = f d +
2h
[( D horz D vert ) + S]
L
Q=
k h h( Pr Pwf )
70.6Bo l Ws
Gas well
Qg =
60
k h h ( r wf )
711(T + 460) Ws
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
where:
dL
= Distance ratio
dpar
Kr
dper
kx
ky
fd
dx
= Distance ratio to X
dy
= Distance ratio to Y
kh
= Anisotropic factor
kv
Dhorz
rw
dbot
Ws
Dvert
Pr
Pwf
Bo
wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
61
Reservoir Component
b)
Ly
ky
Lx
0.75L x
>
kx
kx
>>
0.75h
>>
1.33L y
ky
kv
kz
k ' per =
d per
k ' par =
d par
k ' ver =
h
kv
k hy
k hx
d
d par
12 h
k
+ 0.25 ln hx ln sin bot
Pxyz =
1ln
L
r w
kv
h
1.84
Calculate P'xy
Fo =
2d 2 par
kv
hL
k hx
F1 = 0.5
62
L
d par
F2 = 2 v x + 0.5
L
d par
F3 = 2v x 0.5
L
d par
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Otherwise
Py = k hy k v
Pxy
6.28d 2 par
hd per k x
1 vx v x
3 d + d
par
par
kv
6.28d per
k hy
d par
=
1
h
L
L
3
d
+ par
24d par
1
2
v y + v y
P ' xy = Py + Pxy
Sr = Pxyz + P' xy +S
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
63
Reservoir Component
Shape factor, CH
CH ml =
d per
h
kr =
kv
k hy
CH 1 =
1
v y + v2 y
3
d bot
CH 2 = ln sin
CH 3 = 0.5 ln (CH ml k r )
CH = 6.28CH ml k r CH1 CH 2 CH 3 1.088
Effective horizontal permeability
k he = k hy k v
Drainage areavertical plane
D vert = h d par
64
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Calculate rate
Oil well
Q=
+ CH 0.75 + Sr
l B l ln
rw
12
Gas well
Qg =
k hr rpar ( r wf )
+ CH 0.75 + S r
1422(T + 460) ln
rw
12
where:
h
kv
dper
k hy
dpar
k hx
rw
dbot
vx
vy
Pr
Pwf
Bl
Qg
wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
65
Reservoir Component
The Goode and Thambynaya58 IPR type uses a transient model for use in horizontal wells and
takes into account the position of the wellbore.
Calculate anisotropy and position effect
r k
r' w = w v
12 k hy
1/ 4
vx =
r' w
k hx
d par
k hy
vz =
r' w
kv
h
k hy
zs =
td =
0.000264k hy t
lc t r ' w
Gas well
td =
66
0.000264k hy t 24
g c t r ' w 2
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Reservoir Component
Position factors
X nl =
(L + d sd )
d par
X n2 =
d sd
d par
X ml =
(d bot + 2r ' w )
h
X m2 =
(d bot 2r 'w )
h
E 1 = v x t d
E 2 = v z t d
Summation terms
1
2
S1 = erf (E1 )x in
i
i =1
1
S2 = erf (E 2 )x im cos(i z x )
i =1 i
where:
x in =
sin (i X nl ) sin (i X n 2 )
iL
x im =
sin (i X ml ) sin (i X m 2 )
i 4 r' w
Summation multipliers
Sm1 =
d 2 par
2v x
Sm 2 =
d par h
Lv z
Skin term
hd par
Sh =
k hy
kv
2r ' w L
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
67
Reservoir Component
Rate
Oil well
Q=
282.4 Bo l r ' w
Gas well
Qg =
t d + S1S m1 + S 2S m 2 + Sh
d par hk hy ( r wf )
where:
68
rw
kv
k hy
vx
X position factor
dpar
k hx
vz
Z position factor
zs
dbot
r'w
Reservoir porosity
ct
dsd
Formation skin
Pr
Pwf
Qg
wf
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
The completion component is a critical part of an efficient producing system, yet it often is taken
lightly. In the past, it has been found that many wells have produced at less than optimum levels
due to inadequacies in the completion design.
There are five primary completion types for an oil or gas well. The well depth, well type and
formation characteristics generally govern the decision of which completion method is used.
In system analysis, the open hole is generally regarded with no pressure loss between the
sandface and the wellbore. If any damage is incurred at the formation face, it can be accounted
for as an additional skin effect within the reservoir. In the open hole completion, the sandface
pressure, Pws, is considered equal to the wellbore pressure, Pwf.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
69
Completion Component
The variables that determine the efficiency of this completion method include the size and
number of perforations, the distribution of perforations, and the integrity of the reservoir rock
directly adjacent to the perforated tunnel. In 1983, Harry McLeod98 published a paper that
provided a practical solution to the effects of a perforation on the well productivity. The
approach was to treat each perforation as a miniature, horizontal wellbore surrounded by a
crushed or compacted zone of reduced permeability, as shown in Figure 4.3.
70
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
The perforation crushed or compacted zone is generally assumed to be 0.5 inches thick, with a
permeability of 20 percent of formation permeability if shot over-balanced, and 60 percent of
formation permeability if shot under-balanced. In order to predict the pressure loss through the
perforation, the miniature wellbore is assumed to be infinite acting, and the Jones equation
(discussed previously in the reservoir section) is modified as follows:
Open Perforated Completionoil well
P ws P wf = aQ p + bQp
2
where:
(2.30 10 ) B [1 / r
14
a=
b=
1 / rc
2
p
B ln (rc / rp )
(0.00708 )L p k c
where:
Pws
Pwf
Qp
rp
rc
Lp
kc
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
71
Completion Component
P ws P wf = aQ p + bQp
2
where:
(3.16 10 ) TZ [1 / r
12
a=
b=
1 / rc
2
p
where:
Pws
Pwf
Qp
rp
rc
Lp
kc
It is suggested that the majority of pressure loss through a perforation is incurred as a result of
the turbulent flow through the crushed or compacted zone.
72
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
P ws P wf =
141.4B
[S
tot
kr hp
Qp + DQ2P
where:
(1.63 10 ) B k h
-16
D=
N rp L
2
2
p
and:
Stot = Sp + Sd + Sdp
][
Sdp = h p / (L p N) ln (rc / rp ) [k r / k c k r / k d ]
Sd = ln (r d / r w )[k r / k d 1]
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
73
Completion Component
and where:
74
Pws
Pwf
kr
hp
Qp
rp
Lp
Sp
rc
kc
kd
rd
rw
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
Pws Pwf =
2
1424g ZT
[S
tot
kr hp
Qp + DQ2p
where:
(2.22 10 )
-15
D=
g k r h p
N r p g L2p
2
and:
Stot = Sp + Sd + Sdp
Sd = ln (r d / r w )[k r / k d 1]
where:
Pws
Pwf
kr
hp
Qp
rp
Lp
Sp
rc
kc
kd
rd
rw
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
75
Completion Component
76
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
Pws Pwf =
141.2B
(S
tot
kr hp
Q + DQ2
where:
(5.42 10 ) B k h
-17
D=
N2 r3p
and:
Stot = Ss + Ssd
2.60 1010
kd
rc = rp +
1.2
1
12
where:
Pws
Pwf
kr
hp
rp
rc
kc
kd
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
77
Completion Component
P 2 ws P 2 wf =
1424g ZT
krhp
(S
tot
Qg + DQg
where:
(7.37 x 10 )
-16
D=
g k r h p
2 3
N r p g
and:
Stot = Ss + Ssd
2.60 1010
kd1.2
rc = r p +
1
12
and where:
78
Pws
Pwf
kr
hp
Qg
rp
rc
kc
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
In system analysis, the technique used to predict completion effects through a gravel pack is
simply the pressure loss due to linear flow through the gravel. The flow of fluid is assumed to be
linear through the perforation tunnel, through the gravel pack, and into the perforated or slotted
liner. The effect of flow through a perforation-damaged zone is considered negligible due to the
high permeability and unconsolidated nature of wells that are typically gravel packed. However,
the effect of linear flow through the gravel filled perforation tunnel can cause significant nonDarcy pressure drop as shown by McLeod.41 The distance of linear flow generally is assumed
to be from the outside of the cement sheath to the outside edge of the liner or screen.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
79
Completion Component
The effect of the perforation tunnel itself is not considered in the gravel pack equation, however,
it can be considered by simply adding the pressure loss of the open perforation equation to the
gravel pack pressure loss to arrive at a total completion loss. The same method is used with the
gravel pack stable perforation and gravel pack collapsed perforation completion models. It must
be realized that in all cases the perforation tunnel past the cement sheath is NOT considered
filled with sand with the exception of the collapsed perforation model. If you want to consider
sand in the perforation tunnel, it is suggested that the gravel packed collapsed perforation model
be used.
The gravel pack equation uses the Jones equation modified to predict the pressure loss through
the completion in a gravel packed well. The equation is used in the linear form.
Gravel Pack Completionoil well
2
Pws Pwf = aQ + bQ
where:
(9.08 10 ) B L
-13
a=
A
B Lg
b=
(0.001127) kg A
and where:
80
Pws
Pwf
Lg
kg
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
where:
(1.24710 ) TZ L
-10
a=
A
(8930) g TZ Lg
b=
kg A
and where:
Pws
Pwf
Lg
kg
g =
10,000,000
(k gravel )0.5
where:
g
k grave
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
81
Completion Component
Cooke equation
g =
30,920,000 E
(k gravel /1000 )F
8-12
3.32
1.24
10-12
2.63
1.34
20-40
2.65
1.54
40-60
1.10
1.60
Saucier equation
g = 10
g =
1 4,700,000
(k gravel )0 .55
g = 10
Unless company policy or field experience dictates otherwise, the Firoozabadi and Katz
equation is recommended for use in determining the gravel pack turbulence factor.
Pws Pwf
rw
Q B log
rs
=
0.00708 kg h
r s = rw
82
Lg
12
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Completion Component
2
Pws
Pwf2
rw
Q g T Z log
rs
=
-4
7.03 10 kg h
r s = rw
Lg
12
where:
Pws
Pwf
rw
rs
kg
Lg
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
83
Completion Component
84
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
In most producing well systems, flow up the tubing constitutes the majority of pressure loss in
the outflow segment, if not the entire system. In fact, in some oil wells more than 80 percent of
the pressure loss in the entire system occurs in the tubing as fluids are moved vertically from
downhole to the surface.
The flowline component is usually the second most predominant pressure loss component in the
outflow segment followed by the valves, chokes and other restrictions. In general, pressure loss
through restrictions is minimal unless an obvious undersizing or similar abnormality is present.
For this reason, the majority of this discussion will concentrate on the effects of the vertical flow
(tubing) component of the outflow segment.
In a typical oil or gas well, predicting the pressure loss through the tubing (and flowline) is
complicated by the fact that more than one fluid phase generally exists in the producing stream.
This multiphase behavior causes a problem in determining the fluid characteristics necessary for
the pressure drop calculation. Because of the complexity, the remainder of the discussion on the
outflow segment will avoid theory and will concentrate on the results of the work done to date
on the subject.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
85
dP
dP
dP
dP
=
+
Slip is defined as the movement of the gas phase by the liquid phase when the two phases are
flowing independently at different velocities. Flow regimes have been suggested to describe
these different types of flow patterns that can exist in multiphase flow. These include bubble,
slug, transition, and mist flow.13
There have been many multiphase flow correlations developed to date. Yet, all of the
investigators maintain that no correlation has been found to be superior to all others for all flow
conditions. Individual well test data and experience in an area can be used to obtain the
correlation that will best fit each well's characteristics. In lieu of having data to validate a
particular correlation type, the Hagedorn and Brown correlation is suggested as the initial
correlation to use in oil wells and the Orkiszewski correlation for gas wells with GLR's above
50,000 scf/bbl. Use the Gray correlation for gas condensate wells. The following sections
describe some of the more predominant correlations by category type.
86
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Category A
CORRELATION
EXPLANATION
Poettmann &
Carpenter25
Baxendell &
Thomas 26
Category B
CORRELATION
EXPLANATION
12
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
87
Category C
CORRELATION
EXPLANATION
Orkiszewski14
Developed using work from both Duns & Ros and Hagedorn &
Brown. Used Griffith and Wallis30 method for bubble flow, a new
method for slug flow, and Duns and Ros for transition and mist
flow. The Triggia liquid distribution coefficient can be used if desired
when the mixture velocity is greater than 10 ft/sec. It was
developed to eliminate pressure discontinuities.
The result of laboratory work where liquid holdup and flow regime
were observed. Utilized a flow pattern map to determine the slip
velocity (and consequently liquid holdup) and friction factor. This
correlation is recommended for wells where high gas-liquid ratios
and flow velocities have induced flow regime behavior.
Aziz, et al. 29
Presented new correlations for bubble and slug flow. Used Duns &
Ros for transition and mist flow. Also revised the flow regime map.
This correlation was developed experimentally using 1-in. and 1.5in. pipe, inclined at several angles. Correlations were made to
account for inclined flow. The correlation is recommended for
deviated wells or horizontal flow. The correlation is recommended
for deviated wells or horizontal flow. You can use the Palmer
correlation to correct for liquid holdup effects. Note that the Palmer
correlation is unsuitable for single phase flow and should be used
with caution.
MONA 49
MONA Modified49
88
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
CORRELATION
EXPLANATION
Ansari Mechanistic74
In vertical multiphase flow calculations, the pipe is divided into small increments based either on
a set length or pressure amount. The pressure loss in each increment is determined in a trialand-error process using average pressure and temperature values to calculate fluid properties.
The iterative procedure is necessary as flow regime and subsequent fluid and flow properties
change continually through the pipe. As a result, computer solution is almost mandatory;
however, curves have been prepared and published to aid hand calculations.
The pressure loss calculated over the entire pipe interval is related in part to the size and number
of increments chosen. Each of the correlations listed relates to certain wells and well conditions.
The determination of the best-suited correlation for a particular well is accomplished by first
using the preliminary guidelines listed earlier, followed by testing and comparison to actual field
results.
Many of the correlations presented actually use the methods of other authors in certain instances
or flow regimes where the other author describes the pressure traverse in that environment.
These correlation switches are documented by the author in his original or subsequent work.
This manual does not document when or where these correlation switches are done, but they
are done according to the correlation author's method.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
89
90
CORRELATION
EXPLANATION
Gray 17
Modified Gray
The result of laboratory work where liquid holdup and flow regime
were observed. Utilized a flow pattern map to determine the slip
velocity (and consequently liquid holdup) and friction factor. This
correlation is recommended for wells where high gas-liquid ratios
and flow velocities have induced flow regime behavior.
Combines the Duns & Ros flow regime maps for niist flow with
the Gray correlation for wet gas wells that produce condensate.
Used for dry gas well calculations only for predicting dry gas
pressure losses in vertical flow. Suggested for wells where the
GLR is 100,000 scf/bbl or higher.
Fundamental Flow4
Fundamental Flow
Adjusted
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
EXPLANATION
76
Xiao Mechanistic
Comprehensive mechanistic model developed for gas-liquid twophase flow in horizontal and near horizontal pipelines. The model
first detects the existing flow pattern, predicts the flow
characteristics (liquid holdup and pressure drop) for stratified,
intermittent, annular, or dispersed bubble flow patterns.
Dukler15
MONA 49
MONA Modified49
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
91
q g 1000
PD = P 2 U
a2
TSC + 460 1
a1f
e PSC
a4
a5
d
1/ a 3
( T + 460 )zL
5280
where:
92
PD
Pu
qg
= Coefficients
fe
= Flow efficiency
Tsc
Psc
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
CORRELATION
EXPLANATION
IGT
a1=337.90
a2=1.1110
a3=0.5560
a4=0.4000
a5=2.667
a1=737.00
Panhandle A
a1=435.87
a2=1.0200
a3=0.5100
a4=0.4901
a5=2.530
a3=0.5394
a4=0.4604
a5=2.618
Recommended for smaller diameter pipelines less than 16-in. ID. Use
the Panhandle Eastern correlation for larger diameter pipelines.
Weymouth
a1=433.50
a2=1.0000
a3=0.5000
a4=0.5000
a5=2.667
Used for dry gas well calculations only for predicting dry gas pressure
loses in vertical flow. Suggested for wells where the GLR is 100,000
scf/bbl or higher. Use in vertical sections of pipeline only.
Fundamental
Flow
Fundamental
Flow Adjusted
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
93
Critical Flow
Pressure drops are highly dependent on the flow velocity through the restriction. If the velocity is
at the speed of sound, a compressional wave is generated. This compressional wave prevents
fluids from traveling faster than the wave generated. The flow rate at which this occurs is called
the critical flow rate. At the critical flow rate, any adjustment to the pressure on the downstream
side of the restriction does not affect the pressure distribution of the upstream side of the
restriction. Various investigators have used a similar technique for predicting the upstream
pressure for flow rates above or at the critical flow rate.20, 37-39 All take the form of:
Pu =
A GLR B Qliq
Dc
where A, B, and C depend on the investigator. Pu is the upstream pressure at the liquid flow
rate, Qliq, in bbls/day. D is the choke size in 64ths-in. and GLR is in Mscf/bbl or scf/bbl
depending on the 'A' constant used. These methods are only valid if the node is at the bottom of
the well. The following table summarize the coefficients.
INVESTIGATOR
Gilbert 20
10.00
0.546
1.89
17.40
0.500
2.00
9.56
0.546
1.93
3.82
0.650
1.88
Ros
66
Baxendell
39
Achong
Subcritical Flow
Under subcritical flow, the mass flow rate of a stream will be a function of the pressure
downstream of the choke when the upstream pressure is held constant. If the pressure drop
across the choke becomes sufficiently large, the flow regime will become critical and the mass
flow rate will be independent of the downstream pressure when the upstream pressure is held
constant.
94
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
API 14B
For subcritical flow (flow that is below the critical flow rate), the method used is API 14B (used
in the API Subsurface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve Design Program). It is used when
specific restriction information is unavailable. This method uses an iterative technique that
estimates a Y term based on an assumed gas pressure drop. A new gas pressure drop is
calculated and compared to the previous estimation. If the difference between the two values is
within a tolerable range, a liquid pressure drop is calculated based on the Bernoulli equation for
incompressible flow. A two-phase pressure drop is then calculated. The equations used in this
method are:33
d
PL = 1 c
d t
Q
2
80083 d c C DL
d
Y = 1 0.41 + 0.35 c
dt
C
PG = PL DL
YC DG
(q
(q
C
V
C P
PG
PU
C
P = PL 1 + f DL
YC DG
f=
R s q o )Bg
R s q o )Bg + q o B o + q w B w
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
95
where:
96
PL
dc
dt
Cv/Cp
Ratio of specific heats for gas at constant pressure Cp and constant volume Cv
CDL
PG
PU
CDG
qg
Rs
qo
Bg
Bo
qw
Bw
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
f g FC vg + f o C vo + f w C vw
f g C vg + f o C vo + f w C vw
p=
p1 + p 2
2
T=
p1 + p 2
2
Recalculate the polytropic expansion factor exponent, n, at the average pressure and temperature
Iterate on pr until the following equation is satisfied
{2[1 p
( n1) / n
r
+ 21 (1 p r ) 1 2
A 1
A
= 1 2
A1
f g + 1
1 / n
+ 1
f g p r
f g + 1
f p 1/ n +
1
g r
f g p r 1/ n + 1
2
2
(1+ n ) / n
f
f (f + 1 ) p r
g p r (1+ n ) / n + A 2 g g
1 / n
n
A1 n f g p r
+
) n n 1 p
1 / n
r
+ 1
p 3 = p1
(p1 p 4 )
d
1 c
dd
1. 85
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
97
If pr>p3, the flow is critical then use pr=p2/p1 in the following equations.
If pr<p3, the flow is sub-critical and pr=p3/p1 in the following equations for calculating isentropic
velocity and mass flow rate.
Calculate lambda () term
= fg +
(f C
g
vg
+ f oC vo + f w C vw )M
zR
f
f
1 = l o + w
o w
Calculate isentropic velocity in the choke throat
V2 =
f f
(n 1) / n
288g c p1v 1 1 p r
+ o + w
o w
2
A 2 f g + 1
1
1 / n
+ 1
A1 f g p r
wi = A2
288g c p 1
v1
1 p r
1 A 2
A 1
( n 1 ) / n
p 1 (1 p r )
] + (1 p )
1
2
f g + 1
f g p r 1 / n + 1
f g p r 1 / n + 1
If the actual mass flow rate is not known, calculate the actual mass flow rate with a discharge
coefficient (default is 0.826).
wa = 0.826 wi
98
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
p3=pr pl
where:
T2
T1
pr
Pressure ratio
fg
Cp /Cv
Cvg
fo
Cvo
fw
Cvw
p1
p2
Calculation factor
A2
A1
p3
p4
dc
dd
Molecular weight
V2
gc
Gravity acceleration
vl
wi
wa
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
99
Rn
1 / n n + n
c (n + 1) + R c
=
2(n 1) n 1
The total flow rate is iterated until the critical ratio is minimized
q tf = q o + q g + q w
Thus
R R s p sc T1z 1
+ Fwo
q tf = q o Bo +
5.615 p1Tsc
q o = 3.51Cd e 1010
2
where
10 = (B o + Fwo )
1/ 2
and
n 1
n
10 =
Tl z l
(R R s ) 1/ n o + 0.000217 g R + Fwo w
198.6 +
pl
100
1/2
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
where:
c
= Cp /Cv
qtf
qo
qg
qw
Bo
Rs
psc
Tl
zl
pl
Tsc
Fwo
= Water-oil ratio
= Orifice coefficient
de
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
101
Q ma =
where:
Q ma
Pwh
Veros
Psc
Twh
Tsc
The erosional velocity, Veros, can be designated or calculated from a common industry
correlation.
Veros =
C
m
where
C
The C constant for erosional limit ranges from 100 to 110. This constant is arbitrarily set by
engineers for keeping production velocities below the erosional limit. A higher value of C will
cause a higher erosional limit, thus increasing the maximum erosional rate.
102
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
q unl =
These equations assume a gas gravity of 0.6, surface tension of condensate at 40 dynes/cm, and
a surface tension of water of 60 dynes/cm.
5.3( w 0.00279Pwh )
0 .25
Vunl ( water ) =
4.03( c 0.00279Pwh )
0 .25
Vunl (condensate ) =
(0.00279Pwh )0.5
where:
qunl
Vunl
Pwh
Twh
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
103
Heat Transfer
Flowing temperature distribution or heat transfer is used to model the changes in temperature of
the produced flow stream along the path of flow. The fluid temperature is normally a constant in
the reservoir, however, when the fluid starts up the wellbore toward the surface, the
temperature decreases. The produced fluid heat is dissipated from the fluid to the surrounding
environment as it flows to the surface. For gases, the reduction in pressure as the fluid reaches
the surface will also cause a reduction in temperature.
Rigorous prediction of wellbore and pipeline temperature distribution is a complex issue. It
requires solutions for momentum, continuity, and energy balance. The solution is further
complicated by thermal environmental reactions, especially from the reservoir. For this reason,
rigorous analytical solutions are impossible, therefore, numerical algorithms or approximate
analytical solutions have been developed.
Linear Temperature Gradient
The linear temperature gradient is a simple method of calculating the temperature at any point
along the flow stream by determining a temperature gradient between two known points a
known distance apart. For the wellbore, a bottomhole and surface temperature is given along
with the depth of the well. The temperature gradient is calculated as:
gt =
100(Tbh Twh )
M tvd
Td =
g t M tvd
+ Twh
100
where:
gt
Tbh
Twh
Mtvd
Td
The flowline linear temperature gradient uses the same equations by substituting the flowline
length for the Mtvd value and temperature at the separator for Twh and temperature of the
wellhead for Tbh.
104
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Temperature Survey
The temperature survey is used to indicate the temperature or temperature gradient for the
flowline or wellbore. Straight line interpolation is used along the temperature path to calculate a
temperature at any wellbore depth or distance from the wellhead for the flowline. The first
temperature point in the wellbore is at the wellhead and does not need to be entered in the
survey because it was entered on the Wellbore dialog box. The last point in the wellbore is the
bottomhole temperature also not entered into the table because it was entered in the Reservoir
dialog box. The first temperature point in the flowline is the separator temperature and the last
point is the wellhead temperature. Neither of these values needs to be entered into the survey
table but are carried over from the Flowline and Wellbore dialog boxes.
Heat Transfer Correlation
The heat transfer correlations use environmental data to determine the amount of heat transfer
using either empirical or numerical solutions.
CORRELATION
EXPLANATION
60
A simple temperature profile model for wellbores only for twophase flow. The model, developed with measured temperature
data from 392 wells, assumes that the heat transfer with the
wellbore is steady state. The average absolute error is suggested
to be 2.4F when the mass flow rate is greater than 5 Ibm/sec and
3.9F otherwise.
Ramey 61
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
105
Flow Assurance
Scale: Oddo-Tomson method
Scales are solids deposited in wellbores and pipelines due to precipitation of minerals from
produced brines or injected water. These solids may cause formation damage and pipe
blockage, with a subsequent loss of production.
The most common scales found in oil and gas fields are calcium carbonate (CaCO3), calcium
sulfates (CaSO4), barium sulfate (BaSO4) and strontium sulfate (SrSO4). Carbonate scales are
formed mainly after pressure and temperature changes in the system, which causes the escape
of CO2 and H2S from the gas and an increase in the pH of the water. Sulfates are formed
basically after breakthrough of injected incompatible waters or mixing of different brines from
diverse zones in the formation.
Scale minerals tend to precipitate after pressure drops in the system. As for temperature, an
increase will cause calcite deposition, whereas a decrease will cause barite deposition.
Scales are generally predicted with saturation indexes, which compare the amount of scaling
constituents in solution to the solubility. Oddo and Tomsom developed a prediction model that
is based on the produced water chemistry and production data such us pressure and
temperature, flow rate and percentage of CO2 in the gas at surface. In this method, the degree
of saturation of a scale is related to the saturation index, SI, and is defined as the log of the
product of the concentrations of the scaling minerals divided by the conditional solubility product
of the particular scale, Kc.
For instance, for calcium sulfate, the saturation index is:
SI = log
[ Ca 2+ ][ SO4 2 ]
Kc (T , p, Is )
Kc was derived from literature data and is a function of temperature, pressure and ionic
strength, Is. The use of this parameter avoids the calculation of the activity coefficients for the
metal ions and the anions in the scales. The resulting equations are of the form:
106
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Oilfield waters may have an important concentration of carboxylic acids, normally represented
as equivalent concentration of acetic acid. When this happens, the HCO3 concentration is
corrected to adjust the total alkalinity of the water.
Even though a theoretical value of saturation index above zero indicates a tendency of scale
deposition, Oddo and Tomson suggest a value above 0.4 for actual deposition to take place.
For calcium sulfate this number may be lower, about 0.2.
Wellbore Deviation
You can use PERFORM to analyze deviated wells using the wellbore profile. The directional
survey dialog from the wellbore dialog has entries for entering the directional data as either a
TVD (true vertical depth) and MD (measured depth) data pair or an MD and angle. For
vertical wells, the directional survey is not needed. For deviated wells however, the MD to the
top-perf depth will be larger than the TVD of the well. The directional survey is used to tell
PERFORM how much to deviate the well by either entering MD/TVD depth pairs or angles at
MD.
There is a difference in how this information is used by PERFORM.
PERFORM assumes that the well is vertical if no directional survey data is entered.
If you want to deviate the wellbore, you can select type of data to enter in the
directional survey as either "Measured vs. Vertical Depth" or "Measured Depth vs.
Angles."
If you choose "Measured Depth vs. Vertical Depth," then PERFORM will calculate the
angle of the wellbore for the segments listed when calculations are done. The listing of
data pairs should be completed all the way to the top perforation depth as the final data
entry. If the first segment of the wellbore near the surface is vertical, you should enter
the first data pair as the kickoff point with the MD and TVD values equal.
If you choose "Measured Depth vs. Angles," the angles entered are used in the segment
below the measured depth entered. If the first segment of the wellbore is vertical, you
should enter the first data element as a measured depth of the kickoff point with an
angle greater than zero degrees from vertical to start deviating the wellbore from that
depth and below.
PERFORM uses angles in the calculation of the wellbore segments whether entered directly or
calculated from the MD/TVD pairs. You must enter the deviation information correctly. The
following examples show how PERFORM interprets the wellbore deviation to model a deviated
well.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
107
Example 1
Example 1 demonstrates using the directional survey and
an angle to deviate the well. Note that the TVD and MD in
the wellbore segment are set to the same value to allow
PERFORM to calculate the TVD itself. The kickoff point is
3000 ft.
The Directional Survey dialog box contains the following
information:
MD
TVD
ANGLE
3000
12
kickoff depth
6270
( )
108
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Example 2
Example 2 demonstrates what happens if the kickoff depth
segment is not entered using the MD and TVD data entry
option.
The Directional Survey dialog box contains the following
information:
MD
TVD
6270
6199
ANGLE
Top perforation measured depth
6199 5
= cos-1
= 8.63
6270 5
Example 3
Example 3 demonstrates how to correctly enter the directional
data using a kickoff point.
The Directional Survey dialog box contains the following
information:
MD
3000
TVD
3000
6270
6199
ANGLE
Kickoff depth
Top perforation measured depth
= cos-1
(6199 3000) = 12
(6270 3000)
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
109
110
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Downhole Network
Use the Downhole Network dialog box to optimize the performance of multilayers and
multilaterals for oil and gas wells. Multilayers, Figure 6.1, are the wells with a single wellbore
penetrating several production zones. Multilaterals, Figure 6.2, are the wells with several
wellbores penetrating a single or multiple production zones or reservoirs.
The Downhole Network dialog box makes reference to nodes and links. A node is a reference
point where flow enters, leaves, or merges. A link is a connection between two nodes in which
a single stream flows.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
111
Downhole Network
112
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Downhole Network
In general, the calculation procedure is the same for both multilayer and multilateral. It starts
from the reservoir, continues for the links, and ends at the bottom of the main wellbore. From
the wellbore to the surface, the calculation is similar to that for a single wellbore and has the
same options. You can change the node position for calculation from separator, to wellhead,
and to the bottomhole, which in this case is the bottom of the main wellbore.
The following procedure is used to perform the calculation for downhole network.
1
For each individual reservoir, the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) is calculated
by considering the fluid, reservoir, and completion. The calculation procedure for each
reservoir is similar to the calculation for single reservoir. These IPR curves present the
inflow performance at the node closest to the reservoir, the reservoir node. These IPR
curves for the reservoirs are presented in the Inflow Graph by Reservoir.
If there is a link between the reservoir node and the next node, the pressure drop for
each rate is calculated. The IPR at the reservoir node is adjusted to present a new IPR
at the next node, link IPR. The link IPR presents the pressure and flow rate immediately
before the flow enters the next node. This procedure is similar to calculating the
pressure drop in the single wellbore and setting the node at the wellhead or top of the
link for downhole network. If there is no link, then the new IPR will be the same as the
IPR for the reservoir node. These IPR curves are presented in Inflow Graph by Node.
Flow is merged at the node, and three simultaneous calculations are performed:
The fluid property of the mixed fluid is determined as a function of individual fluid
properties, temperature, and flow rate at in-situ condition.
The temperature at the node is calculated based on oil, gas, and water flow rates
and temperature gradient.
The composite IPR curve is calculated from individual IPR of step 2. The
composite IPR is different than IPR for single reservoir because the temperature
and/or fluid properties may vary with each rate. Therefore, each rate may have
different fluid properties and temperature.
Note: If you selected the option to handle crossflow in the Analysis Settings dialog
box, PERFORM determines which link or layer has the highest pressure. Each of the
other links joined at the node is assumed to be experiencing injection until pressure
drops to the pressure of that link or layer. For the same case, if you have not selected
crossflow instead of injection, PERFORM assumes zero rate.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
113
Downhole Network
Steps 2 and 3 are repeated to establish the final composite IPR at the bottom of the
main wellbore. The final composite IPR curve is presented in System Graph for Total
System.
The rest of the calculation is for the wellbore and flowline and is the same for single
wellbore and downhole network.
To illustrate these steps, consider the bilateral case in Figure 6.2. In step 1, the IPR curves for
reservoirs R1 and R2 at the nodes n1 and n2 are calculated. In step 2, the pressure losses for the
links from n1 and n2 to n3 are calculated and included in new IPR curves for each link at n3. In
step 3, the fluid properties for the mixture, temperature, and composite IPR for n3 is calculated.
The composite IPR is the combination of IPR curves for Link1 and Link2.
114
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
References
1. Brown, K. E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 1, PennWell Publishing
Co., Tulsa, OK (1980).
2. Brown, K. E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 4, PennWell Publishing
Co., Tulsa, OK (1980).
3. Brill, J. P. and Beggs, H. D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, University of Tulsa, Tulsa,
OK (1978).
4. Beggs, H. D.: Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX.
5. Vogel, J. V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution Gas Drive Wells,"
JPT, (January 1968) 83-93.
6. Standing, M. B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells Producing
by Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT (November 1970) 1399-1400.
7. Standing, M. B.: "Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Performance of Wells
Producing from Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT (September 1971) 11411142.
8. Jones, Loyd G., Blount, E. M., and Glaze, O. H.: "Use of Short Term Multiple Rate
Flow Test to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence," SPE 6133, SPE of
AIME, (1976).
9. McLeod, H. O., Jr.: "The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance,"
JPT (January 1983).
10. Crouch, E. C. and Pack, K. J.: "System Analysis Use for the Design and Evaluation
of High-Rate Gas Wells," SPE 9424, SPE of AIME (September 21-24, 1980).
11. Saucier, R. J.: "Gravel Pack Design Considerations," SPE 4030, SPE of AIME
(October 8-11, 1972).
12. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: "Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients
Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical
Conduits," JPT (April 1965) 475.
13. Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N. C. J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in
Wells," 6th World Petroleum Congress, Frankfurt, Germany.
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
115
References
14. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe," JPT
(June 1967).
15. Dukler, A. E. et al.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines," Research Results, vol. 1.
American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, (May 1969).
16. Eaton, B. A. et al.: "The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup and Pressure
Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines,"
Trans., AIME (1966).
17. Gray, H. E.: "Vertical Flow Correlations for Gas Wells," User Manual 14B
Subsurface Controlled Safety Valve Sizing Computer Program, (June 1974).
18. Flanigan, O.: "Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of Two-Phase
Gathering Systems," Oil & Gas J. (10 March 1958) 132.
19. Cullender, M. H. and Smith, R. V.: "Practical Solution of Gas Flow Equations for
Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients," Trans., AIME (1956).
20. Gilbert, W. E.: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance," API Drilling and
Production Practice, (1954) 126.
21. Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P.: "A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes," JPT
(May 1973) 607.
22. Odeh, A. S.: "Pseudosteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity Index for a Well
with Noncircular Drainage Area," SPE-AIME, Mobil Research Development
Corp., Dallas, TX.
23. Lescarboura, J. A.: "Handheld Calculator Program Finds Minimum Gas Flow For
Continuous Liquids Removal," Oil & Gas J. (16 April 1984) 68-70.
24. Bradburn, J. B.: "Velocity in Gas Lines Erosional Velocity," internal
correspondence, Tenneco Oil Company, (7 November 1980).
25. Poettmann, F. H.: "The Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through Vertical
Flow Strings with Application to the Design of Gas Lift Installations," Drill. &
Prod. Prac. (1952) 257.
26. Baxendell, P. B. and Thomas, R.: "The Calculation of Pressure Gradients in HighRate Flowing Wells," JPT (October 1961) 1023.
27. Fancher, G. H., Jr. and Brown, K. E.: "Prediction of Pressure Gradients for
Multiphase Flow in Tubing," SPEJ (March 1963) 59.
28. Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: "Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two-Phase
Flow," JPT (May 1983) 1003.
116
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
References
29. Aziz, K., Govier, G. W. and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil
and Gas," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-September 1972) 38.
30. Griffith, P. and Wallis, G. B.: "Two-Phase Slug Flow," J. of Heat Transfer (August
1961) 307.
31. Lawson, J. D. and Brill, J. P.: "A Statistical Evaluation of Methods Used to Predict
Pressure Loses for Multiphase Flow in Vertical Oil Well Tubing," JPT (August
1974) 903.
32. Vohra, I. R., Robinson, J. R. and Brill, J. P.: "Evaluation of Three New Methods
for Prediction Pressure Losses in Vertical Oil Well Tubing," JPT (August 1974)
829.
33. "API Users Manual for API 14B-Subsurface Controlled Safety Valve Sizing
Program," API Manual 14BM Second Edition, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D. C. (January 1978).
34. Turner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G., and Dukler, A. E.: "Analysis of Prediction of
Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells," JPT
(November 1969) 1475.
35. Weller, W. T.: "Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow," JPT (September
1973) 210-246.
36. Cooke, C. E. Jr., "Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers," JPT
(September 1973) 1101-1107.
37. Firoozabadi, A. and Katz, D. L.: "An Analysis of High-Velocity Gas Flow Through
Porous Media," JPT (February 1973) 211-216.
38. Ros, N. C. J.: "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid as Encountered in Well
Tubing," JPT (October 1961) 1037.
39. Achong, I. B.: "Revised Bean and Performance Formula For Lake Maracaibo
Wells," University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela.
40. Beggs, H. D.: "Gas Production Operations," O. G. C. I. Publications, Tulsa, OK
(1984).
41. McLeod, H. O., Jr. and Crawford, H. R.: "Gravel Packing for High Rate
Completions," SPE 11008, SPE of AIME (26-29 September 1982).
42. Brown, K.E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 2A, PennWell
Publishing Co.: Tulsa, OK (1980).
43. Winkler, H. W. and Smith, S. S.: CAMCO Gas Lift Manual, Houston, TX
(1962).
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
117
References
44. Brown, K. E.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa,
OK (1973).
45. Camacho, R.G.V. and Raghavan, R.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for
Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," SPE 16204, JPT (May 1989) 54.
46. Mukherjee, H. and Economides, Michael J.: "A Parametric Comparison of
Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance," SPE 18303, Proceedings for 63rd
Annual Technical Conference of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas
(2-5 October 1988).
47. Dikken, B. J.: "Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect on Production
Performance," JPT (November 1990) 1426-1433.
48. Cinco-Ley, Heber: "Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing by Transient Pressure
Analysis Methods," SPE 10043, SPE of AIME (1982).
49. Ascheim: "MONA Correlation: An Accurate Two-Phase Well Flow Model Based
on Slippage," Transactions for SPE European Conference.
50. Cullender, M. H. and Smith, R. V.: "Practical Solution of Gas Flow Equations for
Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients," Trans., AIME (1956).
51. Economides et al.: "Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance,"
SPEFE (December 1991), 418-421.
52. Economides et al.: Petroleum Production Systems, PTR Prentice Hall (1994)
Chap. 2 and 4.
53. Joshi, S. D.: "Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and Horizontal Wells,"
JPT (June 1988) 729-739.
54. Joshi, S. D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Book Publishing Co. (1991)
75, 91, 224-226, 344.
55. Giger, F. M. et al.: "The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Horizontal Drilling,"
paper SPE 13024, presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition , Houston, TX, 16-19 September 1984.
56. Renard, G. and Dupuy, J. M.: "Formation Damage Effects on Horizontal Well Flow
Efficiency," JPT (July 1991) 786-869.
57. Kuchuk, F. J. et al: "Pressure Transient Analysis and Inflow Performance for
Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 18300, Houston, TX, 2-5 October 1988.
58. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup
Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media," May 1987.
118
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
References
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
119
References
120
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Index
A
a - term Jones equation, 32
Alves et al. unified model, 105
Ansari Mechanistic, 89
API 14B, 95
Ashford & Pierce, 100
Aziz, et al, 88
B
b - term Jones equation, 32
Babu and Odeh, 62
back pressure 4 pt test, 34
back pressure equation, 34
Baxendell & Thomas, 87
Beggs & Brill, 88, 91
Beggs, Brill, & Minami, 91
Bernoulli, 95
beta factor gravel pack, 81
C
C - term back pressure equation, 34
chokes, 93
collapsed perforation, 76
compacted zone perforation, 70
completion component, 69
completion effects, 10
completion models
collapsed perforation, 76
gravel pack, 79
gravel pack collapsed perforation, 83
gravel pack open hole, 82
gravel pack stable perforation, 83
gravel-pack open perforation, 83
open hole completion, 69
open perforation completion, 70
constant productivity index, 20
constant productivity index (PI), 20
Cooke equation, 82
Coulter & Bardon, 105
critical flow, 94
crushed zone perforation, 70
Cullender & Smith, 90
D
D - Ramey D term, 26
damaged zone, 73
Darcy equation, 24
datafile inflow, 43
deviated well, 107
differential graph, 11
dimensionless fracture conductivity, 39
dimensionless pressure drop in the fracture and
reservoir, 40
dimensionless time, 40
dimensionless wellbore tunnel length, 47
directional survey, 107
downhole network, 111
calculation, 113
drainage area and shape factor, 27
drainage ellipsoid, 52
drainage shape factor, 57
Dukler, 91
Duns & Ros, 88, 90
E
Economides, 52
elevation, 86
erosion, 101
erosional velocity, 102
F
Fancher & Brown, 87
Firoozabadi and Katz equation, 82
Flow Assurance, 106
flow rate, 40
flow through restrictions, 93
flow velocity, 41
flowing temperature distribution, 104
flowline, 85
four point test
back pressure equation, 34
Jones equation, 33
fracture penetration ratio, 39
fractured well, 38
fractured well non-Darcy flow, 41
Fundamental Flow, 90
Fundamental Flow Adjusted, 90
G
general, 5
Giger, 49
Goode and Thambynaya, 66
gradient, 8
gravel pack beta turbulence factor, 81
gravel pack completion, 79
gravel pack open perforation, 83
gravel pack stable perforation, 83
gravel-pack collapsed perf, 83
gravel-pack open hole completion, 82
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
121
Index
Gray, 90
Muskat, 49
I
inflow, 2
inflow performance
back pressure equation and 4 pt test, 34
constant productivity index, 20
Darcy equation, 24
datafile, 43
drainage area and shape factor, 27
fractured well analysis, 38
Jones 'a' and 'b' term and 4-pt. test, 33
Jones equation, 30
transient equation, 36
Vogel equation, 21
inflow performance relationship (IPR), 19
integration constant, 47
IPR (inflow performance relationship), 19
J
Jones 'a' and 'b' user-entered, 33
Jones equation, 30
Jones four-point test, 33
Joshi, 54
K
kickoff point, 44
Kuchuk, 59
P
perforated completion, 70
perforation crushed zone, 70
perforation interval, 13
perforation shot density, 12
Perkins, 93, 97
PI (productivity index), 20
Poettmann & Carpenter, 87
productivity index (PI), 20
constant, 20
R
Ramey, 105
Ramey D term, 26
references, 115
Renard and Dupuy, 57
reservoir, 19
reservoir skin, 9
restrictions, 93
Reynold's number, 41
Ros & Gray, 90
L
linear temperature gradient, 104
link, 111
M
Modified Gray, 90
MONA, 88, 91
MONA Modified, 88, 91
Mukherjee & Brill, 88, 91
multilateral, 111
multilayer, 111
multiphase flow calculations
vertical, 89
multiphase flow correlations, 86
122
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
applying, 7
defined, 1
T
temperature survey, 105
Tenneco beta equation for resin packs, 82
time to pseudosteady state, 37
transient flow equation, 36
transient time to pseudosteady state, 37
tubing flow component, 85
tubing size effect, 14
turbulence beta factor, 41
turbulence coefficient beta, 81
Turner, 103
U
unloading, 103
Index
V
vertical flow
gas well, 90
oil well, 86
vertical flow component, 85
Vogel equation, 21
combination, 22
W
wellbore damaged zone, 73
wellbore deviation, 107
wellbore flowing bottomhole pressure
defined, 2
wellhead pressure, 16
X
Xiao Mechanistic, 91
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
123