You are on page 1of 33

# Oil and Gas Well

Performance
Presented By:

## RIPI January 2007

Agenda

Introduction
2. Fandamentals
3. Oil Well Performance
4. Gas Well Performance
5. Tubing Flow Performance
6. Artificial Lift Systems
7. Gas Lift Design
1.

## Qg = gas flow rate, Mscf/day

k = permeability, md
= average reservoir real gas pseudo-pressure, psi2/cp
T = temperature, R
s = skin factor
h = thickness
4

## Gas Well Performance

Region I. High-Pressure Region
When both pwf and pr are higher than 3000 psi, the pressure functions (2p/gz)
and (1/gBg) are nearly constants.

## The gas viscosity g and formation volume factor Bg should be evaluated at

the average pressure pavg as given by:

This method of determining the gas flow rate is commonly called the
pressure-approximation method.
7

## Gas Well Performance

Region III. Low-Pressure Region
At low pressures, usually less than 2000 psi, the pressure functions (2p/gz)
and (1/gBg) exhibit a linear relationship with pressure.

## It is recommended that the z-factor and gas viscosity be evaluated at the

average pressure pavg as defined by:

This method of determining the gas flow rate is commonly called the
pressure-squared approximation method.
8

## Gas Well Performance

During radial flow, the flow velocity increases as the wellbore is
approached. This increase of the gas velocity might cause the
development of a turbulent flow around the wellbore. If turbulent
flow does exist, it causes an additional pressure drop similar to that
caused by the mechanical skin effect.

## Gas Well Performance

where F is the non-Darcy flow coefficient:

## F = non-Darcy flow coefficient

k = permeability, md
T = temperature, R
g = gas gravity
h = thickness, ft
= turbulence parameter as given by: = 1.88 (1010) k1.47 0.53
10

## Gas Well Performance

This equation is essentially quadratic relationship in Qg
and, thus, it does not represent explicit expression for
calculating the gas flow rate. There are two separate
empirical treatments that can be used to represent the
turbulent flow problem in gas wells:
Simplified treatment approach
Laminar-inertial-turbulent (LIT) treatment

11

## Gas Well Performance

The Simplified Treatment Approach
Based on the analysis for flow data obtained from a large member
of gas wells, Rawlins and Schellhardt (1936) postulated that the
relationship between the gas flow rate and pressure can be
expressed as:

## Qg = gas flow rate, Mscf/day

pr = average reservoir pressure, psi
n = exponent
C = performance coefficient, Mscf/day/psi2
12

## Gas Well Performance

The exponent n is intended to account for the additional pressure
drop caused by the high-velocity gas flow, i.e., turbulence.

## Depending on the flowing conditions, the exponent n may vary

from 1.0 for completely laminar flow to 0.5 for fully turbulent
flow.

## The performance coefficient C in Equation 8-20 is included to

account for:
9 Reservoir rock properties
9 Fluid properties
9 Reservoir flow geometry

13

## RIPI January 2007

Deliverability Tests
The coefficients of the back-pressure equation or any of the other
empirical equations are traditionally determined from analyzing gas
well testing data.
Deliverability testing has been used for more than sixty years by the
petroleum industry to characterize and determine the flow potential of
gas wells.
There are essentially three types of deliverability tests:
9 Conventional deliverability (back-pressure) test
9 Isochronal test
9 Modified isochronal test
These tests basically consist of flowing wells at multiple rates and
measuring the bottom-hole flowing pressure as a function of time.
14

## RIPI January 2007

Outflow Performance

15

## RIPI January 2007

Outflow Performance

## Pressure Loss along the Tubing

Single-phase Flow
Multiphase Flow
Natural Flow

16

## Pressure Loss along the Tubing

The pressure drop required to lift a fluid through the production
tubing at a given flow rate is one of the main factors determining
the deliverability of a well.

## If wellhead pressure is specified, then a gradient curve can be used

to determine the wellbore flowing pressure at several different oil
rates. The resulting relation between bottomhole flowing pressure
and oil rate is called Tubing Performance Relation (TPR).

17

## RIPI January 2007

Single-Phase Flow
The pressure drop in the tubing due to flow of single-phase
fluid (gas and highly undersaturated oil) can be calculated by
conventional pipe flow equations.
A simple and accurate equation for vertical flow of gas in dry gas
wells is Smiths equation:
qg = gas flow rate, scf/d
z = average gas compressibility factor
T = average temperature, R
fM = Moody friction factor
g = gas gravity, air=1
D = tubing diameter, in.
pin = flowing tubing intake pressure, psia
H = vertical depth, ft
s = 0.0375gH/Tz
e = absolute pipe roughness, in.
18

## RIPI January 2007

Multi-Phase Flow
Smiths TPR can be used only for dry gas. It can not be applied
to gas condensate wells or water-producing gas wells with a
GLR of less than about 7000 scf/STB.
Gradient curves or multiphase correlations must be used.

19

## RIPI January 2007

Multi-Phase Flow
The pressure elements constituting the total pressure at the
bottom of the tubing:
1. Backpressure exerted at the surface from the choke and the
2. Hydrostatic pressure due to gravity and the elevation
change between the wellhead and the intake to the tubing
3. Friction losses, which include irreversible pressure losses
due to viscous drag and slippage
Additional pressure loss due to accelaration of an expanding fluid
is usually insignificant when compared with the other losses and
therefore neglected in most design calculations.

20

## RIPI January 2007

Multi-Phase Flow
single-phase liquid:

density is constant
friction loss is rate-dependent (laminar flow-turbulent flow)

21

Multi-Phase Flow
gas wells:

pressure

## in general increasing gas rate results in increasing Friction loss is

rate-dependent (laminar flow-turbulent flow)

22

## RIPI January 2007

Multi-Phase Flow
multi-phase flow:

## friction-related and hydrostatic pressure losses vary with rate in a

much more complicated manner than for gas.

## the governing pressure loss mechanism change from predominantly

gravitational to predominantly friction

23

## RIPI January 2007

Multi-Phase Flow
single-phase liquid:

the tubing

24

Multi-Phase Flow
gas wells:

## the friction and hydrostatic gradients vary significantly with depth

the overall trend is nearly linear

25

## RIPI January 2007

Multi-Phase Flow
multi-phase flow:

## the pressure traverse curve is non-linear

general trend is increasing pressure gradient with depth

26

Exercise 9

## An oil well produces from a reservoir at a depth of

8000 ft. Solution gas oil rato is 600 scf/STB. Use of
3.5 in nominal tubing is suggested by the
production engineer. Construct the present tubing
performance curve, assuming a wellhead pressure
of 200 psia.

27

## RIPI January 2007

Natural Flow
9 When at a specific rate, wellbore flowing pressure and tubing intake
pressure are equal, the flow system is in equilibrium and flow is stable.
9 The intersection of IPR and TPR curves determines the rate of stable
flow.
9 For multiphase mixtures there may be two points of intersection.

28

## RIPI January 2007

Exercise 10
An oil well has been tested at a rate of 202 STB/D during a threeday period. Stabilized wellbore flowing pressure measured 3248
psia. Two adjacent wells were previously tested with a multirate
sequence, which indicated the exponent in the IPR equation
ranges from 0.77 to 0.81. A value of 0.8 is assumed to apply to
this well. Average reservoir pressure pR is 4000 psia. The resulting
IPR equation, then, is:
qo=480 [1-(pwf/pR)2]0.8
qo=0.000828 [pR2-pwf2]0.8
Determine the rate of natural flow assuming pwh=200 psia,
GLR=600 scf/STB, depth=8000 ft, tubing nominal diameter=3.5 in.
29

## RIPI January 2007

Natural Flow
Effect of wellhead pressure on natural flow:

30

## RIPI January 2007

Natural Flow
Effect of Wells GLR on Natural Flow:

31

## RIPI January 2007

Natural Flow
Effect of Tubing Diameter on Natural Flow:

32