SPE 63262
A Mechanistic Model Based Approach to Evaluate Oil/Water Slip at Horizontal or
Highly-Deviated Wells
Liang-Biao Ouyang, SPE, Chevron Petroleum Technology Company
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are
subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-
952-9435.
Abstract
Slip velocity between phases is an important factor in
interpreting production logging survey, however, no much
work has been done for determining the slip velocity when oil
and water flow simultaneously in a horizontal or highly-
deviated well.
There are several correlations and models that may be used
to determine the slip velocity, nevertheless, they were
developed for vertical wells and can not be applied for
horizontal or highly-deviated wells due to the different
mechanisms dominating the fluid flow.
An approach has been taken to develop a flow pattern-based
method to evaluate the slip velocity for oil and water flow in
horizontal or highly-deviated wells. More testing of the new
approach will be conducted once experimental data is available.
Introduction
Excessive water production is a common problem necessary to
be taken care of by many oilfield engineers. For improving the
production of a problem well and for general reservoir
management purposes, it is crucial to determine the location
and amount of water entries in a specific well. Production
logging is normally served for this purpose.
Horizontal and multilateral wells have become the standard
practice in the oil industry. Oil and water flow in a horizontal
or highly-deviated well is quite different from that in a vertical
well. For example, gravity plays a very important role for oil
and water flow in a vertical or slightly deviated well. Because
oil is usually lighter than water, oil tends to move faster than
water for upward flow, but slower for downward flow. This is
not true for oil and water flow in a horizontal or highly-
deviated well.
For oil and water flow in a horizontal well, many different
flow patterns have been observed (Govier & Aziz1, Travello2).
These flow patterns may be classified into two categories:
segregated flow and dispersed flow. Six typical flow patterns
observed in horizontal pipes are listed as follows2.
• Stratified flow (ST)
• Stratified flow with mixing at the interface (ST & MI)
• Dispersion of oil in water and water (D/o w & w)
• Oil in water emulsion (O/w)
• Dispersion of water in oil and oil in water (Dw/o & Do/w)
• Water in oil emulsion (W/o)
As a rule of thumb, the first three flow patterns can be
considered as segregated flow, while the last three can be
approximately handled as dispersed flow. Flow characteristics
are different in different flow patterns. So is true for the slip
between phases.
Unfortunately, it is not easy to accurately measure or
determine slip velocity. A mechanistic model based approach to
evaluate the slip between oil and water phases is presented in
this paper.
Flow Pattern Identification
Travello model2 is applied for flow pattern identification in the
present approach. There are two key factors dominating the
flow pattern transition. One is the Kelvin-Helmholtz stability
and the other is the relative force amplitude between turbulent
force and gravity. Both inviscous Kelvin-Helmholtz analysis
(IKH) and viscous Kelvin-Helmholtz analysis (VKH) need to
be accounted for. IKH and VKH are the major criteria to
identify a segregated flow region. If segregated flow does not
exist, oil and water can disperse in the following three different
formats,
2 L.-B. OUYANG
• Water-dominated flow – Water is continuous while oil is
disconnected.
• Oil-dominated flow – Oil is continuous while water is
disconnected.
• Well-mixed flow – Oil and water dispersed with each
other.
Flow pattern can be identified by the following procedure,
• If the viscous Kelvin-Helmholtz stability condition is
satisfied, stratified flow (ST) exists;
• If the inviscous Kelvin-Helmholtz stability condition is
satisfied, water moves slower than oil, and water phase
velocity is low enough such that a droplet is larger than the
minimum size determined by the Levich relationship,
stratified flow with mixing at the interface (ST & MI)
exists;
• If the inviscous Kelvin-Helmholtz stability condition is
not satisfied, water velocity is higher than oil velocity but
low enough such that the maximum droplet size based on
mixture velocity is not reached, dispersed oil in water and
water flow (Do/w&w) exists;
• If the inviscous Kelvin-Helmholtz stability condition is
not satisfied, water velocity is higher than oil velocity and
high enough such that the maximum droplet size based on
mixture velocity is reached, Oil in water emulsion (o/w)
exists;
• If oil velocity is high such that the maximum droplet size
based on the oil velocity is reached and water velocity is
also high enough that the maximum droplet size based on
water velocity is reached, Dispersion of water in oil and
oil in water (Dw/o & Do/w) exists;
• Water in oil emulsion may happen under following two
cases,
1. The inviscous Kelvin-Helmholtz stability
condition is satisfied and oil velocity is high such
that the maximum droplet size based on mixture
velocity is achieved.
2. The inviscous Kelvin-Helmholtz stability
condition is not satisfied, water flows slower
than oil, and oil velocity is high such that the
maximum droplet size based on mixture velocity
is achieved.
A sample flow pattern map is given in Fig. 1 where it can
be seen that for horizontal wells, stratified flow normally
occurs at low oil and water velocities, oil in water emulsion at
high water rates, while water emulsion in oil exists at high oil
rates.
Mechanistic Approach to Determine Liquid Holdup
Even with identical water cut, the in-situ water fraction (water
holdup) can be very different dependent on the flow pattern
existing in a pipe. Correct determination of flow pattern is thus
an important key for accurate prediction of water holdup. In the
present paper, a mechanistic model based approach is applied to
SPE 63262
determine the water holdup. The procedure is shown as
follows,
• Apply the approach detailed in the “Flow Pattern
Identification” section to identify the flow pattern existing
in a pipe for given flow conditions;
• Compute the water holdup based on the flow pattern
identified,
1. If a segregated flow pattern, such as stratified flow
(ST), stratified flow with mixing at the interface
(ST&MI), dispersion of oil in water and water
(DO/W&W), is predicted, simultaneous consideration
of mass and momentum balances for both oil and
water provides the value for the water holdup;
2. If a non-segregated flow pattern, including oil in water
emulsion (O/W), dispersions of water in oil and oil in
water (DW/O&O/W), and water in oil emulsion
(W/O), is identified, oil and water are expected to be
well mixed and homogenization degree is high.
Therefore, water holdup can be computed through the
water cut.
Mechanistic Approach to Determine Slip Velocity
Similar to the in-situ water fraction or water holdup, slip
between oil and water phases is also primarily dependent on
flow pattern. It is expected that slip velocity can be large for
segregated flow, whereas it should be trivial for well-
mixed/dispersed flow. Pipe inclination plays a significant role
in the oil-water slip velocity. As we know, slip is almost
always positive (i.e., oil moves faster than water) for oil-water
production in vertical wells. This is not true anymore for
horizontal or highly-deviated wells. For oil-water flow in
horizontal wells, both positive and negative slip can be
expected. For upward flow, water phase is generally heavier
than oil, hence, oil tends to move faster than water and slip
velocity can be positive. In contrast, for oil and water
downward flow, water tends to move faster than oil due to
gravity and negative slip is anticipated
A flow pattern-based approach is also applied in our
determination of slip velocity. Again, flow pattern is first
identified, following by the calculation of slip. If flow pattern
is identified as segregated, water holdup is calaculated by using
a stratified flow model3, average oil and water velocities are
computed and then the slip velocity. On the other hand, if non-
segregated flow pattern is found, then it is known that oil and
water are well mixed and there is trivial slip between the two
phases.
Results and Discussions
The current mechanistic model based approach has been
applied to evaluate water holdup and the slip between oil and
water. Results and major observations are given and discussed
below.
SPE 63262 A MECHANISTIC MODEL BASED APPROACH TO EVALUATE OIL/WATER SLIP AT HIGHLY-DEVIATED WELLS
General Features of Water Holdup and Oil-Water Slip
Simultaneous oil and water flows in 4" and 6" ID
horizontal wells are investigated. Standard values are assumed
for water density and viscosity. Two types of oil are
considered,
•Less viscous oil
− Density: 750 kg/m3, or 46.8 lbm/ft3
− Viscosity: 2.3 centipoise
•Very viscous oil
− Density: 850 kg/m3, or 53.0 lbm/ft3
− Viscosity: 29.6 centipoise
Figs. 2 and 3 show variation of water holdup with mixture
velocity for both types of oil. Six different superficial water
velocities or water flow rates are considered, 9.84, 29.53,
49.21, 78.74, 98.43 and 147.64 ft/min, equivalent to 220,
660, 1101, 1762, 2202 and 3304 B/D for a well with 4" ID
tubing.
For a specific water flow rate, water holdup decreases with
mixture velocity and oil velocity. With a fixed mixture or oil
velocity, the higher the water flow rate, the higher the water
holdup. For low oil viscosity case (Fig. 2), no significant flow
pattern change occurs, therefore, all the water holdup curves
are smooth. For very viscous oil case, flow pattern changes
from stratified flow (ST) to stratified flow with mixing at
interface (ST&MI) and then to dispersion of water in oil and oil
in water (Dw/o&o/w), with the increasing of oil velocity and
mixture velocity. Transition from ST&MI pattern to
Dw/o&o/w pattern is symbolized by a sudden drop in water
holdup curve (Fig. 3).
Change of slip between phases with water holdup for both
types of oil is displayed in Figs. 4 and 5 that indicate the
following,
• Both positive and negative slip velocities are possible
depending on the flow rates. In other words, oil can
move both faster and slower than water. This is quite
different from oil-water flow in a vertical production
well where oil tends to move faster than water due to
gravity.
• Generally speaking, for a fixed water flow rate,
decreasing oil flow rate lead to increase in water
holdup, resulting in lower slip between phases. The
higher the water flow rate, the smaller the slip between
phases. However, for very viscous oil, very high oil
flow velocity leads to very small water holdup and
dispersed flow tends to take place, resulting in no slip
between phases. This is the case shown in Fig. 5. As
3
can be seen there for superficial water velocities at
9.84, 29.53 and 49.21 ft/min, slip velocity increases
with the decrease in water holdup until water holdup is
such low that oil and water are well mixed, dispersed
flow occurs, and slip becomes zero.
For less viscous oil cases where difference in densities and
viscosities of oil and water is not very significant, whenever
water holdup is close to 0.5, no or trivial slip between phases is
found (Fig. 4). Zero or trivial slip is also seen for very viscous
oil case (Fig. 5), but at a different water holdup.
Performance of Available Slip Velocity Correlations
Several empirical correlations have been reported in the
literature for evaluating the slip between oil and water for oil-
water flow in pipes, including,
•Nicolas-Witterholt4
•Choquette5
•Schlumberger (1986, see Schnorr6)
•Halliburton (1979, see Cmelik7)
Note that Schlumberger correlation is very similar to the
Halliburton one with only difference in the correlation
coefficient.
Hasan and Kabir8 proposed a mechanistic model for oil-
water flow in vertical or slightly-deviated pipes. Their model
may also be applied to determine the slip velocity. Because of
significant difference in the dominant physics for oil-water
flow in a vertical well and in a horizontal well, some of the
transition criteria proposed for vertical well are expected to be
invalid for horizontal well, therefore, it is not justified to apply
this model for our comparison purpose here.
All the four above-mentioned correlations are used in
different industrial applications. By comparing with vertical
flow loop data gathered by Davarzani and Miller9, Hill10 found
that the Nicolas-Witterholt4 correlation predicts the best results
for oil-water slip velocity in vertical wells. However, it is not
well awared that all the four correlations mentioned above
were developed for vertical wells and it is absolutely necessary
to clarify whether these correlations can also be used for
horizontal or highly-deviated wells.
Figs. 6 and 7 compare the prediction of oil-water slip
velocity by our approach and by the above four correlations for
superficial water flow velocities at 9.84 ft/min (220 B/D) and
49.21 ft/min (1101 B/D). It is clearly seen that the prediction
of oil-water slip velocity by available correlations is
completely wrong, in both value and trend, although all the
four correlations give close results. Based on the four
correlations, oil-water slip velocity is always positive and
increases with water holdup. This is contradictory to what we
have found and discussed in the previous section. The major
reason contributing to this inconsistency is gravity. For oil-
4 L.-B. OUYANG
water flow in a vertical production well, oil is generally lighter
than water so it tends to move faster, hence the slip is always
positive. For oil-water flow in horizontal or highly-deviated
wells, gravity mainly affect the distribution of oil and water,
not their relative velocity. Slip between phases depends on the
flow condition. Both positive and negative slip scenarios are
possible, either oil moves faster than water (positive slip),
resulting in positive slip, or water moves faster than oil,
resulting in negative slip.
Impact of Fluid Property
Pressure, temperature and oil gravity (API) under well flow
condition can vary substantially from one well to the other, as a
result, oil and water density, viscosity and interfacial surface
tension can be quite different. How the property change affects
flow pattern, water holdup and slip between phases is of great
practical importance to the oil industry. Note that the model
discussed in this paper can handle most of the changes in fluid
property. In this section, viscosity change will be explored to
demonstrate the impact of fluid property change on slip
velocity.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the variation of water holdup with
mixture velocity and slip velocity for a horizontal well with 6"
ID tubing. Both less viscous oil and very viscous oil,
superficial water velocities at 9.84 ft/min and 98.43 ft/min are
considered. With increasing of oil viscosity, water holdup tends
to be lower (Fig. 8), resulting in a little bit higher slip between
two phases. For the very viscous oil case, flow pattern
transition is also observed under the flow velocity range
investigated.
For downward flow at 5 degrees, the effect of oil viscosity
goes to the opposite comparing to the horizontal well case. At
the same mixture velocity, the higher the oil viscosity, the
higher the water holdup, the lower the slip velocity (but the
absolute value becomes larger if the slip is negative). Pipe size
does not show significant impact on the oil-water flow
behavior.
Impact of Pipe Size
Pipe size (tubing ID) is another important factor that may
affect the oil-water flow behavior in a pipe flow. With low
viscosity oil and water flowing in a horizontal well, almost no
difference is observed for the water holdup and slip with the
changing pipe size from 4" to 6" ID (Figs. 10 and 11). But for
downward flow at 5 degrees, it is seen that the larger the pipe,
the lower the water holdup at the same mixture velocity and the
higher the slip between oil and water. For very viscous oil case,
pipe size may have more significant effect on the flow
behavior.
Impact of Pipe Inclination
It has been implied in the above discussion that pipe
inclination can have significant effect on oil-water pipe flow.
This is certainly true if we study the results shown in Figs. 12 –
SPE 63262
13. For less viscous oil, when oil and water flow in a 4" ID
well at 40.16 ft/min and 9.84 ft/min (superficial velocity),
water holdup is around 35% for horizontal well, while it drops
to about 18% for downward flow at 5 degrees (Fig. 12).
Potential Application
The new approach presented in this paper may be applied to
evaluate in-situ gas and liquid flow rates using the measured
in-situ mixture flow rate and liquid holdup. The procedure for
this application is demonstrated by the following three
examples.
Example A.
Determination of oil and water flow rates and slip velocity
based on measured mixture velocity and water holdup (Fig. 14)
a) From the types curves of Water Holdup – Mixture
Velocity (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3), find the curve that passes
through the data point corresponding to water holdup
and mixture velocity. The curve should be identified as
a value of the superficial water velocity;
b) Calculate the superficial oil velocity by subtracting the
superficial water velocity from the mixture velocity;
c) Compute the oil and water flow rates by multiplying
superficial phase velocity with the pipe cross-sectional
area;
d) Compute the average oil and water velocity by dividing
the superficial velocity by phase holdup;
e) Compute oil-water slip by subtracting average water
velocity from average oil velocity.
Example B.
Determination of oil and water flow rates based on
measured oil-water slip and water holdup (Fig. 15)
a) From the types curves of Water Holdup – Slip
Velocity (e.g., Figs. 4 and 5), find the curve that passes
through the data point corresponding to water holdup
and slip velocity. The curve should be identified as a
value of the superficial water velocity;
b) Calculate the average water velocity by dividing the
superficial water velocity by water holdup;
c) Calculate the average oil velocity by adding slip to the
average water velocity;
d) Calculate the superficial oil velocity by multiplying the
average oil velocity by pipe cross-section;
e) Compute the oil and water flow rates by multiplying
superficial phase velocity with the pipe cross-sectional
area.
Example C.
Determination of oil flow rate and water holdup based on
measured slip and water rate (Fig. 16)
a) Compute the superficial water velocity by dividing the
water flow rate by pipe cross-section;
SPE 63262 A MECHANISTIC MODEL BASED APPROACH TO EVALUATE OIL/WATER SLIP AT HIGHLY-DEVIATED WELLS 5

b) From the Water Holdup – Slip Velocity curves (e.g.,

Figs. 4 and 5), find the one that corresponds to the
superficial water velocity. Read the water holdup value
from the curve;
c) Calculate the average water velocity;
d) Calculate the average oil velocity;
e) Compute the oil flow rate by multiplying superficial
phase velocity with the pipe cross-sectional area.
8. Hasan, A. R. and Kabir, C. S.: A New Model for Two-Phase
Oil/Water Flow: Production Log Interpretation and Tubular
Calculations. SPE Production Engineering, vol. 5 (1990), no. 2,
193 –199
9. Davarzani, M. J. and Miller, A. A.: Investigation of the Flow of Oil
and Water Mixtures in Large Diameter Vertical Pipes. The 14th
SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Calgary, Canada, 1983

Summary and Conclusion 10. Hill, A. D.: A Comparison of Oil-Water Slip Velocity Models Used
Existing correlations can not predict reasonable results of oil- for Production Log Interpretation. J of Petroleum Science and
water slip velocity for horizontal or highly-deviated wells. Engineering, vol. 8 (1992), no. 3, 181 – 189

Impact of different parameters for oil-water slip in

horizontal or highly-deviated wells is strongly interrelated.
Always try to investigate the influence of all the parameters
simultaneously. This can be achieved by using a mechanistic
model based approach, such as the one described in this paper.

It is highly recommended that more research be pursued to

investigate oil and water flow in horizontal wells. Focus
should be set on the determination of water holdup and slip
between phases. Both theoretical and experimental work
should be further conducted.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the management of Chevron
Petroleum Technology Company for permission to publish this
paper. Thanks are also due to Mr. Chuck Magnani and Mr.
David Belanger of Chevron for their helpful suggestion and
discussion.

Reference
1. Govier, G. W. and K. Aziz: The Flow of Complex Mixtures in
Pipes. Van Norstrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY, 1972.
792pp

2. Trallero, J. L.: Oil-Water Flow Patterns in Horizontal Pipes. Ph D

thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, 1995

3. Ouyang, L.-B. and K. Aziz: A Mechanistic Model for Gas-Liquid

Flow in Pipes with Radial Influx or Outflux. SPE paper 56525,
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 1999.

4. Nicolas, Y. and Witterholt, E. J.: Measurements of Multiphase

Flow. SPE paper 4023, presented at the 47th SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Houston, 1972

5. Choquette, S. P.: Vertical Two-Phase Flow Systems. MS thesis,

Stanford University, Stanford, May 1975.

6. Schnorr, D. R.: Production Logging. Schlumberger Offshore

Services, 1986

7. Cmelik, H.: Quantitative Analysis of Production Logs in Two-

Phase Liquid-Gas Systems. SPE paper 8761, presented at the
1979 Production Technology Symposium, Lubbock, Texas, Nov
1979
 6 L.-B. OUYANG SPE 63262

10 1

Vsw = 9.84 ft/min

Vsw = 29.53 ft/min
Superficial Water Velocity (m/sec)

Oil in Water Emulsion

Vsw = 49.21 ft/min
0.8 Vsw = 78.74 ft/min
1.0 Dispersed Oil/Water Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
and Water Dispersions: Vsw = 147.64 ft/min
Water in Oil
Stratified Flow with Interface Mixing Oil in Water
0.6

Water Holdup
0.1

Stratified Flow 0.4

Emulsion
Water in Oil

0.01
0.01 0.1 1.0 10
0.2
Superficial Oil Velocity (m/sec)

Figure 1. Flow pattern map for oil-water flow in horizontal wells 0

(after Trallero1) 0 50 100 150 200 250

Mixture Velocity (ft/min)

Figure 3. Water holdup variation with mixture velocity for very

viscous oil

120

100
0.8
Vsw = 9.84 ft/min
80 Vsw = 29.53 ft/min
Vsw = 49.21 ft/min

60 Vsw = 78.74 ft/min

0.6 Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
Water Holdup

Slip Velocity (ft/min)

Vsw = 147.64 ft/min

40

20
0.4
0

Vsw = 9.84 ft/min

-20
Vsw = 29.53 ft/min
0.2
Vsw = 49.21 ft/min
Vsw = 78.74 ft/min
-40
Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
Vsw = 147.64 ft/min -60
0
0 50 100 150 200 -80
Mixture Velocity (ft/min) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Water Holdup

Figure 2. Water holdup variation with mixture velocity for less Figure 4. Variation of slip velocity with the water holdup fraction
viscous oil for less viscous oil
 SPE 63262 A MECHANISTIC MODEL BASED APPROACH TO EVALUATE OIL/WATER SLIP AT HIGHLY-DEVIATED WELLS 7

80
80

60
Vsw = 9.84 ft/min 60 New Model
Vsw = 29.53 ft/min Nicolas-Witterholt
40
Vsw = 49.21 ft/min Choquette
Vsw = 78.74 ft/min Schlumberger
40
Slip Velocity (ft/min)

20 Vsw = 98.43 ft/min Haliburton

Slip Velocity (ft/min)

Vsw = 147.64 ft/min

0 20

-20
0

-40
-20

-60

-40
-80 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Water Holdup

Water Holdup

Figure 5. Variation of slip velocity with the water holdup fraction Figure 7. Comparison of slip velocity predictions by new model
for very viscous oil and existing correlations (Vsw = 49.21 ft/min)

100 1

80 Less Viscous Oil, Vsw = 9,84 ft/min

New Model
0.8 Less Viscous Oil, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
Nicolas-Witterholt
Choquette Very Viscous Oil, Vsw = 9.84 ft/min
60 Schlumberger Very Viscous Oil, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
Slip Velocity (ft/min)

Haliburton
0.6
Water Holdup

40

0.4
20

0.2
0

-20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Water Holdup Mixture Velocity (ft/min)

Figure 6. Comparison of slip velocity predictions by new model Figure 8. Impact of fluid property on water holdup – mixture
and existing correlations (Vsw = 9.84 ft/min) velocity relationship (0 deg, 6” ID)
 8 L.-B. OUYANG SPE 63262

100
100

Less Viscous Oil, Vsw = 9,84 ft/min

Less Viscous Oil, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
50 Very Viscous Oil, Vsw = 9.84 ft/min
Very Viscous Oil, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min 50
Slip Velocity (ft/min)

Slip Velocity (ft/min)

0
0

-50
4 inch ID, Vsw = 9,84 ft/min
-50
4 inch ID, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
6 inch ID, Vsw = 9.84 ft/min
6 inch ID, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
-100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -100
Water Holdup 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Holdup

Figure 9. Impact of fluid property on slip – water holdup

relationship (0 dge, 6” ID) Figure 11. Impact of pipe size on water holdup – mixture velocity
relationship (0 deg, less viscous oil)

1 1

4 inch ID, Vsw = 9,84 ft/min 0 deg, Vsw = 9,84 ft/min

4 inch ID, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min 0 deg, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
0.8 0.8
6 inch ID, Vsw = 9.84 ft/min -5 deg, Vsw = 9.84 ft/min
6 inch ID, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min -5 deg, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min

0.6 0.6
Water Holdup
Water Holdup

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Mixture Velocity (ft/min) Mixture Velocity (ft/min)

Figure 10. Impact of pipe size on water holdup – mixture velocity

relationship (0 deg, less viscous oil) Figure 12. Impact of pipe angle on water holdup – mixture velocity
relationship (4” ID, less viscous oil)
 SPE 63262 A MECHANISTIC MODEL BASED APPROACH TO EVALUATE OIL/WATER SLIP AT HIGHLY-DEVIATED WELLS 9

100
U sw

50

Slip Velocity
0
Slip Velocity (ft/min)

-50

-100 Vs
0 deg, Vsw = 9,84 ft/min
0 deg, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min
-150
-5 deg, Vsw = 9.84 ft/min
-5 deg, Vsw = 98.43 ft/min

-200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Holdup

Figure 13. Impact of pipe angle on slip – water holdup relationship

Ew Water Holdup
(4” ID, less viscous oil)
Figure 15. Evaluation of oil and water rates from measured water
holdup and measured slip velocity

U sw
Water Holdup

Slip Velocity

Ew Vs

U sw

VM Mixture Velocity Ew Water Holdup

Figure 14. Evaluation of oil and water rates from measured water
holdup and mixture velocity Figure 16. Evaluation of oil and total rates from measured water
rate and slip velocity