GAS FLOW IN WELLBORES 73

6Pr • P, - Pwts • LOSS IN POROUS MEDIUM

óP7• .OPz • f>wt5-Pwt • LOSS ACROSS COMPLETION
P,.r-Pwh .OP3 • PuR -POR RESTRICTION
6P4 • Pusv-Posv • SAf"(TY W.LVE
.OP5 • P..,h- P05c " SURFACE CHOl<E
.OPs : Posc·Pstp • IN FLOWLINE
6P7 • Pwf ·Pwh • TOTAL LOSS IN TllSING
6Pe • Pwh-Ps.ep • • FLOWLINE

Fig. 4.13-Schematlc showlng pressure losses in a gas-well production system (after Ker-
mlt E. Brown's The Technology of Artificial Líft Methods, Volume 4, Copyright Pennwell Books,
1984).

Example 4.7-Calculating BHFP With Pressure Traverse
Curves.
'Yg = 0.65.
Ptf = 160 psia.
L = 12,000 ft.
q0 = 500 STBID.
qw = 500 STB/D.
q8 = 400 Mscf/D.
(J = Oº (vertical well),
d = 2.441 inches (flow through tubing).
T = !50ºF. . marize deliverability test analysis, especially for developing inflow
Solution (see Fig. 4.12).
1. Find the equivalent depth corresponding to 160-psia wellhead
pressure. To do this, proceed vertically downward from 160 psia
at z.ero depth until intersectmg the 400 scflbbl line. This is at a depth
of 1,400 ft.
2. Add the equivalent depth of 1,400 ft to the well depth of 12,000
ft and obtain 13,400 ft.
3. From 13,400 ft on the vertical scale, proceed horizontally to
the 400 scf/bbl line and read a BHFP of 3,360 psia.
4.4 Evaluatlng Gas-Well Productlon Performance
In this section, we discuss factors affecting the production perform-
ance of gas wells. The performance characteristics of a gas well
can be analyzed as two components, inflow and outflow perform-
ance. The inflow performance, or deliverability, is a measure of
the reservoir's abilíty to produce gas to the wellbore. The injlow
performance relasion (IPR) is used to describe the relationship be-
tween gas production rate and BHFP. The IPR is controlled by reser-
voir rock and fluid properties, including near-wellbore effects and
heterogeneities in the drainage area of the well, average reservoir
pressure, and field development practices. Chap. 7 gives methods
for determining the IPR of gas wells from field tests. In this chap-
ter, only stabilized, or pseudo-steady-state, flow is considered, not
transient flow.
Toe outflow performance involves flow from bottomhole condi-
tions to the surface, usually through tubing. As shown in Fig. 4.13,
a schematic of a gas-well production system, outflow performance
may include various wellbore restrictions and surface equipment.
The presence of Iiquids in the wellbore increases not only the frie-
tion losses but also the flowing pressure gradient required to lift •
the denser liquids. In this chapter, only outflow performance through
the tubing is considered.
4.4.1 Four-Point Deliverability Test. A number of testing tech-
niques have been developed to assess gas-well delíverability or in·
flow performance characteristics. Although detailed discussíons of
these techniques are presented in Chap. 7. here we briefly sum-
performance curves. The most common well test, the convention-
al backpressure test, was proposed by Rawlins and Schellhardt+'
in 1935. They observed that, when gas production rates are plot-
ted vs. the square ofthe difference between the average reservoir
pressure and the BHFP on log-log coordinates, the relationship is
represented by a straight líne gíven by
qg =(1,000C)(p2 -p�¡)", (4.100)
where C is the stabilized performance constant and n is the reciprocai
of the slope of the line when log( p2 -p'!.f) is ploned vs. log q8. Ex-
trapolation of the straight Iine to the square of the pressure différence
evaluated at Pwt= 14.7 psia defines the absolute open-flow (AOF)
potential of the well. Fig. 4.14 shows an example of a four-point
deliverability test. Theoretically, the AOF is the rate at which the
well could produce ifthe BHFP were maintained at atmospheric pres-
sure. In practiee, the well cannot produce at this pressure. However,
the AOF is a common measure of well deliverabiliry and often is
used by U .S. regulatory agencies to establish field proration schedules
and to set maximum allowable production cates for individual wells.
Rawlins and Scbellhardt+' dealt with relatively shallow and sim-
ple wells in 1935. Their simplified theory indicated that slope, n,
was direcdy related to turbulence, or non-Darcy flow. Toe inverse
of the slope, n, may range in value from 0.5, indicating fully nir-
bulent flow, to 1.0, indicating laminar flow. However, current the-
ory and field experience show that Eq. 4.100 is not adequate for
many actual wells. Corbett and Wattenbarger35 showed that the
log-log plot is nota straight line and the values of C and II depend,
in part, on gas properties that change with time as the reservoir
74 GAS RESERVOIR ENG1NEERING

... . .
. - - -·" . - -¡ ...........
..........

... - -
1 ,•
_,,,.. ·.;
<;

--
r-,
o.
,, <, / le

.
... � ...._,......\"_" - V /lt
� <,

-
r-,
ll'::
t-......._,, 00
<,

"". -
1 e

)
·¡
r-,
·- .
lY
)(
1
.2

'"
,,
"
,
1
l
1
o
J:.

g
e -- ... ""' .�- �\
-,
�
c8
V
l
J ... ,1
/ f
1
1

/V °\ ...
-
1
Gu Flow Rate, Mscf/D x I o'

.... .......
V
,.-, � �· 1 i,. ..
�'" l Fig. 4.15-Example of gas inflow performance curves in a
tight gas formation (after Greene36) •
...
Gas Flow Rate, MscOD" 10'
TABLE 4.2-RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE 4.8
Fig. 4.14-Example plot 01 a gas 1our-point test (a1ter
Greene36). Pwt qg
(psia) (Mscf/0)
14.65 13,199
depletes. Although the four-point deliverability test is common and
500 13,024
can be uscd for interpolation in the range of rates used en a reoent test. 1,000 12,220
this method should not be uscd for detailcd analysis or for forecasting 1,500 10,828
futurc perfonnancc. Rather, the following methods are more accurate. 2,000 8,848
2,500 6,199
4.4.2 Gas-WeH IPR Curves. As mentioncd, Eq. 4.100 is not suffi- 3,000 2,858
cíently accurate for most wells. lt is necessary to account for vari- 3,360 o
ation of tluid properties and non-Darcy flow. This must he done
by going to the fundamentals of gas flow. Theoretical develop-
and b= (l ,422zjiTlk8h)D (4:109)
meras, 36-39 descrihed in Chap. 7, have shown that a better analy-
sis can he made with the following improved equation, Typícally. the inflow reservoir performance is presented as a plot
of gas production rate vs. BHFP. Thís is called the inflow perform-
P,,(p)-p,,(pw¡)=aq8 +bqJ, (4.101)
ance curve (sometimes called the TPR curve). Fig. 4.15 gives an
where Pp( p) ís the real-gas pseudopressure at pressure p. This is example. Curve C is calcuJated from Eqs. 4.105 through 4.109.
an integral function defined by The gas flow rate at p..,¡=Pairn is the AOF potential of the well.
Note that the AOF is 5.5 MMscf/D compared with 5.3 MMscf/D
<p p
p,,(p)=2\ -dp (4.102) for Curve B, which is calculated by Eq. 4.100. (Actually,
Greene36 did not include the non-Darcy flow term, Dq8, in his ex·
¡,º l'-gz
ample but this does not detraer from the generality of his paper.)
Thc cocfficierus a and b are givcn by Toe IPR curve applies to only one reservoir pressure. Toe average
reservoir pressure is read at q8 =O. As the reservoir dep!etes, an
log ( -- --+s l
l ,422T 1 1.151
a=-- 3 I0.06A)
(4.103) IPR curve must he developed for each new reservoir pressure. Re-
kgh .. CAra 4 mernber that the equations used here apply only to single-phase gas
flowing in the reservoir. Jf signíficant liquids do tlow in the rescr-
and b=(l,422Tlkgh)D, (4.104)
voir, a more complicated method rnust be used to develop IPR
2.715 X 10-1513kxMPsc curves.
wherc D= (4.105)
hµ.g(p,.¡)rwTsc
Note that the viscosity in the denominator of D is taken at the Example 4.8-Calculating Gas-Well InOow Performance, Using
BHFP and givcn as µ g( Pwf ). The val u e of /3 can be cmpiricaJly the following data, develop the gas-well inllow performance curve.
estirnated from fJ = 3,360 psia.
/3=1.88XLO!Ok-l.474>-0.53 (4.106) 'r« = 0.65.
T = 150ºF.
Thc parameter CA ís the Dietz shape factor. A valué of 31.62 k$ :'. 1.0 md.
should be used for a circular drainage area with the well in the '/1 - 0.13.
center, See Appendix C for other shapes. h = 170 ft.
Essentially the sarne result can he obtainedwith a simpler equa- r .... = 0.3 ft.
tíon involving p2 rather than pseudopressure. By rnaking an ap- s = 1.1.
proximation of the integral equation, we can wríte A = 3.4848x J06 ft (80 acres).
p2 -p':.,¡=aq8 +bqJ, (4.107) Solution. Eqs. 4.105 through 4.109 were used to calculatep,.¡
at various rates. With these equations, the coefficient a is constant
l .422JJi.T[
where a=
kgh
1.151 log -- - -
CA r!
3
4
( 10.06A)
+s J ... (4.108) but the coefficient b must be updated for the changing wellbore
viscosity. For p,ef= 14.65 psía, a=793.0589 and b=0.004716.
 GAS FLOW IN WELLBOAES 75

.-
·s. r-,

-�
r-, <, r-,
<,
r-,

�
/
-

-- .. .. ..
i
J:...
:s
-
. ....
- <, r-;

'<
. , ___ -
-
...
<, <,
r-, ·=� -,
-c
<, r-,
··- -

,,�
."\._ C ilffLO
,;
........
-. -, ......
� ,"' ,�
r-,
-, --"
"""-.....
<, '/ �-., - D.-- �
"'""""' ....
\_
l' '<; \ / <, � .......
/ \
i
\
"" \
"'�
r
� ��
1
' \ \ \
\ \'
Gu Flow Rale, MscflD • l01
Gas F1ow Rale, Ms.cm> k 10'

Fig. 4.16-Example of gas-well outflow performance curve Flg. 4.17-Effect of tublng slze on gas-well outflow perform-
(after Greene35), ance (atter Greene3').

Table 4.2 gives the rates and pressures. The resulting IPR curve
will be used later in Exarnple 4.9.
4.4.3 Gas-Well Outnow Performance Curves, We now have the
rools to calculare the pressure drop in the formation and flow string
simultaneously. For a given flow rate, we can calculare P ..f with
Eqs. 4.101 through 4.109. Then we can calculate the surface pres-
sure, p rf• with one of the pipe flow methods discussed prev iously.
The pressure in the pipe is calculated from the borrom up.
GreeneJ6 described the "outflow performance" of a gas well.
Thís relationship describes the variation of flowing wellhead pres-
sure rate wíth flow rate. Fig. 4.16 shows a typical outflow per-
formance curve for a well producing liquids. He called the maximum
p rf the jlow point. This corresponds to the mínimum sustainable
flow rate possible. Lower rates are unstable (the well will die be-
cause the gas velocity will not remove sufficiern Jiquids from the
well). A dry gas well does not have a flow point and c�l!_produce
at any rate on the curve.
The gas outílow performance depends on tubing size. Fig. 4.17
illustrates the varíation of well outtlow performance for four tub-
ing sizes, Note that the smaller tubing strings have better flow ef-
ficiencies at lower gas production rates, while the larger tubing
strings are more efficient at higher gas production rates.
4.4.4 Tubing Performance Curves. Another approach to the prob-
lem is lo deveJop tubing performance curves. These curves show
the variation of BHFP with rate while the surface pressure is held
constant, These curves are plotted with IPR curves to determine
the BHFP and rate for the given wellhead pressure. Fig. 4.18 shows
an exampJe36 of a tubing performance curve. With the IPR curve
for a reservoir pressure oí 2,000 psia, Point P shows the intersec-
tion. This is sornetimes called the naturalflow point. The flow rate
is 3.6 MMscf/D and tbe BHFP is 1,060 psia. However, when the
reservoir pressure depletes to 1,300 psia, the well is barely flow-
ing at l. l MMscf/D. At reservoir pressures below 1,300 psia, the
well is dead. Artificial lift or a change in tubing size is required
to continue production.
The tubing performance curve represents the BHFP performance
for a given wellhead pressure and tubing size. When the wellhead
pressure or tubing size is changed, the tubíng performance curve
also changes.
When liquíús are bcing produced, thesc curves typically are J-shapcd
and may cross the IPR curve at two points. In Fig. 4.18, Point P rep-
resents a .�table rate when lhe reservoir pressure is 2,000 psia. Al-
though the two lines may also intersect at about 0.3 MMscf/D, this
intersection does not represent a stable condition and is meaníngless.

- -- .. �
-
<, !"-,
<, «: ......
<, I',....

\ r-....._ [7
• CI 1 \
.. / .,.
.......

'\ <,
-
\ .... ..........
/

" -
' v-
<,
\ r'\.
V
', r-, ,/ .........
..,.,. /
I .........
...�
......._ -� � � ',...," <.: _v lJI
..., \ -- .
-,

..
� i'\. 1111
-...
r-, \_
-
�
'' r\ ,,.,.e ....... l/j\

-
'
\
'•
\
\ - \
Gu Flow R..te, MacOD >< 1 o-' Gas Flow R..te. Macm> >< 10'

Flg. 4.18-Example of II tublng performance curve (alter Fig. 4.19-ENect of tubing size on tubing performance curves
Greene38J. (after Greene36J.
76 GAS RESERVOJR ENGINEERING

Example 4.9-Calculating Tublng Performance Curve and Na-

TABLE 4.3-RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE 4.9
tural Flow Point for a Gas WeU. For the following data, develop
a tubtng performance curve using Eq. 4.39. In addition, plot the Pwt Qg
tubing performance curve with the IPR curve developed in Exarn- (psia) (Mscf/D)
ple 4.8 and determine the natural flow point. 1, 162 o
1,200 1,889
P,¡ = 1,000 psia. 1.300 3,610
T,¡ = 75ºF. 1,500 5,877
L = 6,000 ft. 2.000 10, 179
T.., = ISOºF.
b = Oº (vertical well).
d = 1.995 in. pressure were specífied, along with the GLR for the well. Tbese
values change with time for any particular well. The reservoir pres-
Solution. Because this is a dry gas well and is not very deep, sure declines as the reservoir is depleted. The GLR may change
the average temperaturc and z-facror rnethod was used to compute with time. The tlow stríng (tubing) and the flowing tubing pres-
Pwf at various rates, Remember, the surface pressure is fixed al sure may change owing to operaring conditions. We often need a
!,000 psia. Table 4.3 gives the results, This tubing performance method of making (on a time scale) forecasts that account for thesc
curve is ploued in Fíg. 4.20, along with the IPR curve from Ex- changing conditions.
ample 4.8. The intersection is the natural flow point rhat gives valúes In addítion to forecasting rates, we also forecast the average reser-
of q11 =9,333 Mscf/D (9.333 MMscf/D) and Pwí 1,896 psia. voir pressure and BHFP. The forecast of flow rates and abandon-
ment time are then used to calculate reserves (remaining econornical
4.5 Forecastlng Gas-Well Performance production).
The rnost common reason for making forecasrs is to estímate the For the following procedure, the usual case is assumed. That is,
reserves (future production) of wells. lt is also necessary to fore- the IPR curve shiñs downward as the reservoir depletes, while the
cast cash flow in many cases and to compare cash flows for alter- tubing performance curve remains the same throughout time. This
native producing decisions. Here, we discuss a rnethod for predicting is true only if the tubing diameter, tlowing tubing pressure, and
well performance for a single well producing from a volumetric GLR are constant throughout the producing life. lf thcse change,
reservoir. This combines the well flow methods we have just dis- then thc procedure must be modified to reflect the changing flow
cussed with the material-balance methods (p/z curves) from Chap. conditions,
W. This can easily be generalized to multiple wells producing from Catculation Procedure.
a volumetric reservo ir. l. Select a sequcnce of average reservoir prcssures. For each
The preceding sections discussed well performance at a particu- average reservoir pressure, develop an IPR curve in a manner simi-
lar time. The flowing tubing pressure and the average reservoir lar to Exarnple 4.8.

3.SOO
<,
r-i, -
·&c:i..! 3000 <,
'¡-....... r-,
r-,
i 2500
4Í
r--.....
.....
"'-
¡-..... Í'-.
r-, r-, r-, �
J:
·� 2000
r--.....

-\
-�
<,
Í'-.
r-;
r-, v K r-,
r-, _,,,.. [> r-,
¡¡: I.SOO r-,
., -� <, -, '\ � ¡\
J
'\
�
"
i8
1000

soo
\
i\... � \ \ \
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
o
O 1
'
2 3 4 .S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
\ \ l
Gas Flow Rate, MMsdi'D Gas Pl,ow Rate, MMsá/D

Flg. 4.20-Determlnlng a gas-well natural flow polnt,

Examples 4.8 and 4.9. Fig. 4.21-IPR and tubing performance curves, Example 4.10.

TABLE 4.4-RESUL TS OF STEP-WISE CALCULATlONS FOR EXAMPLE 4.10

p Gp ll.Gp Qg q .lt t Pwt

(psia) plz (Bel) (Bcf) (Mscf/D) (Mscf/0) (days) (days) (psi a)
3,360 3,895.7 o 9,333 o 1,896
1.1283 8,566 131.2
3,000 3,529.4 1.1283 7,800 131.2 1,729
1.7041 6.916 246.4
2,500 2,976.2 2.8324 6,033 377.6 1.542
1.8768 4,883 384.4
2,000 2,366.9 4.7092 3,733 762.0 1.333
1.9492 2,566.5 759.5
1,500 1,734.1 6.6584 1,400 1,521.2 1,208
GAS FLOW IN WELLBORES
4000
�
<,
3000
f. 2000 !"-.
t
� .
1000
r-. -,
o ��� � o
o 2.S s 1.S 10 12.S IS
Cu.mulativc Gas Produclion, BCF
Fig. 4.22-plz plot, Example 4.10.
2. Develop a iubing performance curve for the tubing conditions
specified. The intersections with the IPR curves rcprescnt the na-
tural flow points at the various average reservoir pressures.
3. Find the cumulative production, GP. that corresponds to each
average reservoir pressure. This can easily be done with a pt: plot
for a closcd reservo ir.
4. Now pul thc rcsults on a time basis. Find an average rate be-
tween each pair of average reservoir pressurcs. Divide the changc in
cumulative production between reservoir pressures by the corre-
sponding average rates. This gives the elapsed time bctween average
rescrvoir pressures, Ali the results can now be pul on a time basis.
This procedure is general. It can be modified to handle multiple
weUs producing from the same reservoír. Toe p/z plot can be modified
to account for formation and water cornpressibility (see Chap. 10).
Example 4.10-Forecasting Flow Rates, Abandonment, and
Reserves. We are going to forecast the performance of the dry gas
well described in Exarnples 4.8 and 4.9. We will assume that the
well flows ata constan! p1¡and that the tubing is not changcd dur-
ing the production life. Toe well is producíng from a reservoir origi-
nally containing 12 Bscf at an initial rcservoir pressure of 3,360
psia. Ali other data are the same as in Examples 4.8 and 4.9. Stop
the forecast when production rate drops below an economic limit
of 400 Mscf/D or at 4 years, whichever occurs first.
Solution. The procedures of Examples 4.8 and 4.9 wcrc rcpeat-
ed for average reservoir pressures of 3 ,000, 2 .500. 2 ,000, and 1,500
psia. The rcsulting plots ofthe IPR curves aod the tubing perform-
ance curve are.shown in Fig. 4.21. The BHFP and flow rateare
taken ar each intersection. Thesc are tabulated in Table 4.4.
The cumulative production at each average rescrvoir pressure is
found from material balance, as Fig. 4.22 shows. Incremental cu-
mulative productions are then calculated between average rescr-
voir pressures. Average production rates are found for each interval.
Then the elapsed time during each interval is simply found by divid-
ing the incremental production by the average rate. Table 4.4 shows
the complete spreadshcct results.
The last line shows a cumulative production of 6.6584 Bscf at
a time of 1 ,521. 2 days. This is 61. 2 days past the 4-year limít (1,460
days). The reserves for this well would then be 6.6584 Bscf
-{2.566.S MscffDx6l.2 days x 10-6 Bscf/Mscf}=6.501 Bscf.
Fig. 4.23 shows the time schedule for che natural flow rate.
4.6 Summary
Thís chapter covered various aspects of the wellbore effects on a
gas well. There were severa! hand methods given for static pres-
sure and flowing prcssure of a dry gas well, For a shaUow well,
77
10
-. r-,
8 \
6 -,
4
<,
2
r-,
. . . . . ..
. .
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Time, Days
Flg. 4.23-Forecast of natural flow rate with time, Example
4.10.
these methods may be adequatc. For a decp well, these rnethods
should be adapted to a computer program or spreadsheet that breaks
the wellbore down into small incrernents.
The problem becornes more cornpíicatcd when liquids are pres-
ent. We have shown various types of corrclations for the two-phase
cases. The Beggs-Brill method is thc most common, mainly be-
cause it is appropriate for nonhorizontal segrnents. Many directional
wclls havc dcviation angles that change with depth. It is then re-
quíred to break the wellbore down into smaller segrnents with differ-
ent angles for these segments. The Hagedorn-Brown method should
be adequate for nearly vertical wells.
The final sectíon of this chapter tied reservoir performance to.
tubing performance. This technology is a combination of reservo ir
engineering and production engineering. The IPR curve rcprescnts
thc reservoir performance at a particular time but must be tied to
the tubing performance to determine actual flowing conditions, Thc
IPR curve changes with time owing to changes in average reser-
voir pressure. In practice, the relative perrneability to gas may also
change with time. It is typical for a well to produce more water
as the average reservoir pressurc declines.
A complete understanding of the relationship between reservoir
flow and tubing tlow is oftén Jacking in practice. It is common íor
incfficient operations to occur simply becausc the production engi-
neer or the reservoir cngineer does not have a complete understand-
ing or does not look at the complete situation. A common problem
is to have the wrong tubing size, which either has too much fric-
tion loss or does not adequatcly flow liquids out of the well.
Exerclses
4.1 Cakulate Pw1 for the following data using:
A. The average temperature and z-factor method.
B. The Poettmann method.
C. The Cullender-Smith mcthod.
Data:
L = 12,000 ft.
'Yg = 0.6.
Tws = 190ºF.
T,s = IOºF.
8= 10°.
Pws = 2,000 psia.
4.2 Example 4.1 shows the calculation of Pws using the average
temperature and z-factor method.
A. Modify this method to divide the wcllbore into two seg·
ments (first calculatc the rnidpoint pressure, then the bot·
tomhole pressure (BHP)). Remernber to take the average
temperaturc for cach segment, using linear interpolation.
78 GAS RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

B. Repeat wíth four segmenrs, then eight segments, etc. 4 .11 Make a production rate forecast of the well described in Ex-
C. Tabulate each ca\cu\ated BHP and corresponding number ercises 4. 8 through 4 .10. Follow the procedure of Example
of segments. Comment on the number of segments required 4. JO. Assume that PtJ remains constant at 750 psia,
to give good accuracy. 4.12 Suppose the well in Exercises 4.8 and 4.9 hada l-mile {5,280-
4.3 We can modify the average temperature and z-factor rnethod ft) horizontal flowline with d = 1. 50 in. Rather than the well-
so mar no iteration is required for f. Repeat Exercise 4.2 but head pressure beíng held constant at 750 psia, the downstream
use va\ues of7'1 and z1 at top of each interval, Use Eqs. 4.10 end of the pipeline is held constant at 750 psia. A simple equa-
and 4. 11 but replace p,..s and Pu by P: and p 1, respectively, tion for horizontal pipeline flow is Wehmouth 's equation:
as follows:
T [(
P2"=P¡esl2, Qg[i.000/24]= 18.062�
2 _
Pt _ Pi
2)d5.333
Jo.s .
Ps,· 'YgTfl/5,280
. 0.0375-yg(Z2-Z1) (The numbers 1,000, 24, and 5,280 are included here to
with s= .
Z¡T¡ convert to our usual units where q8 is in Mscf/D and l is in
ft. The average values, of course, are averages for the horizon·
The temperature profile ís stíll linear. Ali values will be tal pipeline flow). Now, make a production rate forecast of
k:nown from the previous segment, so you can work down this well. Note that the IPR curves do not have to be redone.
me flnw strmg witnout iteration. This rnethod may be slight- The "tubing performance curve" will now include the effect
ly less accurate than in Exercise 4.2 for a given number of of the horizontal flowline.
segmenrs but requires Iess work. It should converge toan ex- 4.13 Repeat Exercise 4.12 with the same conditions. except that
act solution. Hint: For two segments, (22-21)=5,000 ft, the well is producing at a gas/water ratio of 5,000 scf/STB.
p1 -=2,500 psia, 7'1 =(35+460)ºR, z1 is taken at p1• 7'1. Assume that the IPR curves are the same as above and that
4.4 Exarnple 4.4 shows tne calculation of BHFP using the aver- the water is not removed from the flow string until it reaches
age temperature and z-factor method. a separator at the end of the horizontal flowline. (Use the Beggs
A. Modífy chis rnethod to divide the wellbore into two seg- and Brill method.)
rnents (first calculare the rnidpoint pressure, then the BHP).
Remember to take the average temperature for each seg- Nomenclature
ment using linear interpolation. a = stabilized deliverability coefficient defmed by
B. Repeat with four segments, then eight segmenrs, etc. Eq. 4.103 or 4.108; mfL4t2,
C. Tabulate each catculated BHP and corresponding number (psia2/cp)/(MMscf/D) for Eq. 4.103;
of segments. Comment on the nurnber of segments required m2/LSt3. psia2/(MMscf/D) for Eq. 4.108
to give good accuracy. A = area. L2, ft2
4.5 Modify Eq. 4.21 to solve for p,.¡, using a finite-difference b = deliverability equation coefticient defined by
approach without iterarion. Replace dp by { p2 =» 1 ), dZ by Eq. 4.104 or 4.109; m/L7t,
(Z2-Z1), and dL by {L2-L1) in Eq. 4.21 as follows: (psia2/cp)/(MMscffD)2 for Eq. 4.104;
m2/L8t2, psia2/(MMscf/0)2 for Eq. 4.109
P¡ g
[
(pz-p¡)=-- -(Z2-Z1)+--(L2-L1) .
Jvf ] 8 = Beggs and Brill parameter defined by Eq.·
\44 8c 2g,d' 4.87
The right side is evaluated entirely at Point 1-i.e., the top B8 = gas FVF at flowing conditions, dímensionless,
RB/ST.B
of the current segrnent. Repeat Exercise 4 .4 using the above
equation to find pz for cach segmcnt.
B11 = oil FVF at flowing conditions, dímensionless,
4.6 Derive Eq. 4.76, which is rhe holdup fraction, HL ( the RB/ST.B
vol u me fraction of the liquid in the flow strearn). Hint: Begin Dw = water FVF at flowing conditions,
with q;,.,q/_+q;. You will use substitutions such as dimensionless, RB/STB
ql =vLAHL. C = Beggs and Brill parameter defmed by Eq. 4.91
4. 7 Example 4.9 shows the estimation of two-phase BHFP gra- C= stabilizcd performance coefficient used ín Eq.
dient using the Poettmann-Carpenter correlation. Repeat the 4.100, L5t2/m, (MMscf/D)/psia2
exarnple problem using: CNL = Hagedorn and Brown viscosity number
A. Hagedorn-Brown rnethod. coefficient (Fig. 4.6)
B. Beggs-Brill method. d = pipe diameter, L, in.
4.8 Calculare and plot the IPR curve for the following data. d1 == casing ID, L, in.
d1 = tubing 00, L. in.
p = 4.100 psia.
d' = pipe diameter. L, ft
k = 5 rnd.
D ; non-Darcy flow coefficient defined by Eq.
re = 1,000 ft.
4.105, t/L3. {Mscf/D)·I
T..,¡ = 210ºF.
h ""42 ft. deq = equivalent diameter, L, in.
rw = 0.25. e = natural logarithmíc base
<J>""0.14. f= Moody friction factor, dimensionless
'Yg = 0.71.
UF )m = Fanning friction factor of fluid mixture (Fig.
s = l.5. 4.5), dimensíonless
fm = Moody friction factor of fluid mixture,
4.9 Calculate and plot the tubing performance curve for the well dimensionless
in Exercise 4.8, given the following.
fns = no-slip friction factor, dimensionless
8 = Oº (vertical well). l,p = two-phase friction factor, dimensionless
Ptf = 750 psia. F -= energy loss resulting from friction, L2/c2,
l = )1,000 ft. ft-lbf/lbm
1�¡ = 80ºF. g = local gravitational acce!eration, Ut2, ft/sec2
d = 1.995 in. g, = gravitational acceleratíon constant,
4.10 Plot the IPR curve and tubing performance curve from Bxer- dimensionless, 32.2 ft-lbm/lbf-sec2
cises 4.8 and 4.9. Determine the natural flow point. g¡ = friction-loss gradient, m!UtZ, lbf/ft2.ft
GAS FLOW IN WELLBOAES 79

h = net formation thickness, L. ft Ppr.rf = pseudoreduced pressure evaluated at p =p,¡,

Hi = liquid holdup factor, dimensionless dimensionless
HUJ,in1emiit1enr = liquid holdup for interrnittent flow regime cor- Ppr,ts = pseudoreduced pressure evaluated at p =p,3,
rected for inclination angíe, dimensionless dimensionless
Hu,segregated -=- liquíd holdup for segregated flow regime cor- Ppr.wf = pseudoreduced pressure evaluated at p=pw¡,
rected for inclination angle, dimensionless dimensionless
Hu.m=iiion = liquíd holdup for transinon flow regime cor- Pp,,ws = pseudoreduced pressure evaluated at p=Pws,
rected for inclination angle, dimensionless dímensionless
1mp = modified Cullender and Smith integral evaluat- P,c = standard pressure, m/Lt2, psia
ed at midpoint of production string and used Ptf = tlowing tubing-head pressure, mJLt2, psia
in static (Eq. 4.33) and flowing (Eq. 4.90) Pis = static tubing-head prcssure, m/Lt2, psia
BHP calculations, ºR/psia p.,.,f = BHFP, m/Lt2, psia
I,¡ = modified Cullender and Smith integral evaluar- Pws '"' BHSP, m/Lt2, psia
ed at top of production string and used in Ap!Al = pressure gradient, m/L2t2, psi/ft
BHFP calculations (Eq. 4.85), ºR/psia q = gas flow rate, L3ft, ft3Jsec
l,s = modified Cullender and Smith integral evaluar- q' = volumetric fluid flow ratc, L3/t, ft3/sec
ed at top of production string and used in q8 = gas flow rate, L3/t, Mscf/D
static pressure calculations (Eq. 4.28), q' = gas flow rate, L 3 /t, ft3 /sec
ºR/psia q1 ,. liquid flow rate, L3/t, ft3/sec
fw¡ = modified Cullender and Smith integral evaluat- q¡) == oíl tlow cate, L3 /t, STB/D
ed at bottom of production string and used q, = total flow rate of well stream, L3/t, Mscf/D
in BHFP calculations (Eq. 4.94), ºR/psia q; = total flow rate of well stream, L3/t, ft3/D
lws = modified Cullender and Srnith integral evaluar- q.., = water flow rate, L3 /t, BID
ed at bottom of production string and used rh = hydraulic radius defined by Eqs. 4.53 and
in BHSP calculations (Eq. 4.37), ºR/psia 4.54, L, ft
k8 = effective permeability to gas, L2, md R =< universal gas constant = 10. 73 ft 3-psia/lbm-
K= Poettmann gravity term mol-0 R, L2/t2mT
L = vertical direction along flow string, posítive Rs = solution GOR at flowing conditions, dimen-
upward, L, ft sioruess, scf/STB
L = flow-string length (absolute value), L, ft s = average temperature and z:-factor method pa-
L8 = parameter defining boundary between bubble rameter defined by Eq. 4 .11, m/L 2 T
and slug flow regimes, dirnensionless s = skin factor, dimensionless
Ltf = equivalent depth corresponding to the well- S = Beggs and Brill parameter defined by Eq.
head flowíng pressure, L, ft 4.97 or 4.98, dimensionless
Lw¡ = equivalen! depth corresponding to the BHFP, T = absolute temperature, T, ºR
L, ft f= average temperature, T, ºR
L1 -L4 = Beggs and Brill boundary parameters for flow !J,c = pseudocritical temperature, T, ºR
regime determínation defined by Eqs. 4.82 Tp, = average pseudoreduced temperature,
through 4.85 dimensionless
M = molecular weight of gas mixture, m, Tp,,ts = pseudoreduced tubing-bead static temperature,
lbm/íbm-mol dimensionless
n. = inverse slope (exponent) of deliverability Tsc = standard tempera tu re, T, ºR
curve used in Eq. 4.100, dimensiooless Ttf == tubing-head flowing temperature, T, ºR
Nd' = pipe diameter number defined by Eq. 4.65, T15 = tubing-head static temperature, T, ºR
dimensionless Tw¡ == BHFT, T, ºR
NFR = Froude number, dimensionless v = bulk flow velocity of fluid, Lit, ft/sec
N8v = gas velocity nurnber defined by Eq. 4.64, vl = liquid velocity, Lit, ft/sec
dimensíonless vm = bulk flow velocity of fluid mixture, Lit, ft/sec
Ni = liquid viscosiey number defined by Eq. 4.66, vs == slip velosity, Lit, ft/sec
dimensionless vSL = superficial liqui<l velocity, Llt, ft/sec
Ni,, = liquid velocity number defined by Eq. 4.63, vs8 = superficial gas velocity, Llt, ft/sec
dimensionless wg = gas mass flow rate, m/t, lbm/sec
NRe = Reynolds number, dirnensionless wi = liquid mass flow rate, m/t, lbm/sec
NRem = Reynolds number of the mixture, dimen- ws = shaft work done by the system per unit mass,
sionless L2ft2, ft-lbf/lbm
NR.ens = no-slip Reynolds number, dimensionless w1 = total mass flow rate, m/t, lbm/sec
p = absolute pressure, m/Lt2, psia y = Beggs and Brill parameter defined by Eq.
p = average reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia 4.96
Pmp = pressure at production-string midpoint, m/l.t>, z = gas deviation factor, dimensionless
psi a z == gas deviatíon factor evaluated at p, dimen-
Pp( p) = average reservoír pseudopressure, m/Lt3, sionless
psía2/cp z:,c = gas deviation factor at standard conditions,
pp( Pwt) = flowing sandface pseudopressure, m/Lt3, dimensionless
psía2/cp Z = true vertical depth of flow string (absolute
ppe = pseudocntícal pressure of gas mixture, m/Lt 2, value), L, ft
psia Z = vertical direction (elevation) positive upward,
Pp, = pseudoreduced pressure, plPpc• dimensionless L, ft
80
a "" flow anglo rneasurcd frorn horizontal =(90-0),
degr ces
a = modified Cullcnder ano Smith tcrm defined by
either Eq. 4.27 or 4.84. ºR-lbm/lbf
f3 = non-Darcy flow coefficient dcfined by Eq.
4.106, 1/L, ft·I
'Y 11 = specific gravíty of gas mixture (air = 1.0),
dimensionless
'Yo = speciñc gravity of oil (water= 1.0),
dimensionless
'Yw = specific gravity of water (pure water= 1.0),
dimensionless
e = wcll deviation anglc mcasured from vertical,
degrees
e = absofute pipe-wall roughness, L, in.
eld = relativo roughness ratio. dimensionless
't--.i = liquid holdup factor for no-slip conditions
(Eq. 4.74), dimensionless
¡¡ = gas viscosity cvaluated at p, m/Lt, cp
µ8 = gas viscosity, m/Lt, cp
µ.¡_ = Iiquid-phase viscosity, rn/Lt, cp
µ0 = oil or condensare viscosity, m/Lt, cp
µ.w = water viscosity, rn/Lt, cp
p =- fluid densíty. m/L3, lbm/ft3
Pg = gas density, m/L3, lbm/ft3
P1. = \iquid densiíy, m/L3, lbm/ft3
Pm = fluid mixture density, m/L3, lbm/ft3
p" = oíl or condensate density, m/L3. lbm/ü?
Pw = water density, m/L3, lbm/ft '
íJ0 = oíl surface tensión. m/t2, dyne/cm
IJf. = surfacc tensión of liquid/gas interface, m/t2,
dyne/cm
íJ,. = water surfacc tension, m/12, dync/cm
1/, = Hagedorn and Brown secondary correction
factor (Fig. 4.8)
f = Beggs and Brill pararneter defined by Eq.
4.90
íl = rnodified Cullender and Smith friction factor
term defined by Eq. 4.83, LJt2
References
1. Smith, R. V.: "Determining Friction Factors for Measuring Produc-
tivity of Gas Wells," Trans., AIME (1955) 189, 73-82.
2. Karz, D.L. et al.: Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-
Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1959).
3. Theory ond Practice of the Testing o/Gas We//s, third edition, Energy
Resources and Conservation Board, Calgary (1978).
4. Poettmann, F.H.: "Tbe Calculation of Pressure Drop in the Flow of
Natural Gas Through Pipe," Trans., AIME (1951) 192, 317-24.
5. Fowler, F.C.: "Calculations of Bottom Hole Pressures," Pet. Eng.
(1947) 19, No. 3.
6. Cullender, M.H. and Smith. R.V.: "Practica! Solutioo of Gas-Flow
Equations or Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients,"
Trans., AIME, (1956) 207.
7. Young, K. L;. "Effect of Assumptions Used to Caícuiate Bonom-Hole
Pressures in Gas Wells." Gas Technology; Reprint Series, SPE, Richard·
son, TX (1977) 13, 7-10.
8. Bertuzzi, A.F. et al.: "Wellbore Hydraulics," Petroleum Engineer-
ing Handbook, first edition, SPE, Richardson, TX (1987) 34-1-34-56.
9. Streeter, V.L. and Wylíe, E.B.: Fluid Mecbanics, seventh edition,
McGráw-Hill Book Co. lnc., New York City (1979).
10. Colebrook, C.F.: "Turbulent Flow in Pipes With Particular Reference
to rhe Transition Región Between the Smooth and Rough Pipe Laws."
lnst, Civil Eng. J., 11, 133.
11. Nikuradse, J.: "VD[ Forschungsbeft." r«. Eng., 11 No. 6, 164.
GAS RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
12. Moody, L.F.: .. Friction Factors for Pipe Flow," Trans., AIME, (1944)
66. 671.
13. Jain, A.K. and Swamee, P.K.: "Explicít Equations ÍOt' Pipe-Flow Prob-
lems," J. Hydraulics Div., ASCE (1976) 102, 657.
14. Smith, R.V .. Williams. R.H., and Dewees, R.R: "Measurement of
Resisiance To Flow of Ftuids in Natural Gas Wells. ·' 1)-ans., AIME
(1954) 201, 279.
15. Smith, .R.V .. Miller, J.S., and Ferguson, J.W.: Flow o/Natural Gas
Through Experimental Pipe Unes and Transmission Une.,, Monograph
9, C.S. Bureau of Mines.
16. Veliverabiliry Testlng ofNarural Ga., Wells, prepared for rbe Texas Raíl·
road Commlssion, Texas A&M U .. College Station, TX (1989).
17. Suk�ar. Y.K. and C.omell, D.: "Direct Calculation ofBonomhole Pres·
sures in Natural Gas Wells.'' Tran.r., AIME, (1955) 204.
18. Messer, P.H., Raghaven, R .. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: "Calculation of
Bottom-Hole Pressures for Deep, Hot, Sour Gas Wells." JPT (Jan.
1974) 85-94.
19. Beggs, H.D.: Gas Production Operation.r, OGCI Publications. Tulsa,
OK (1984).
20. Orlciszewski. J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical
Pipes," JPT (June 1967) 829-38.
21. PoectmaM, F.H. and Carpcnter, P.O.: "The Mulliphase Row o(Gas,
Oíl. and Water Through Vertical Flow Strings .. , Drill. & Prod. Prac.,
API (!952).
22. Baxendell, P.B. and Thomas. R.: "The Catculation of Pressure Gra-
dienl� in High-Rate Flowing Wells,'' JPT(Oct. 1%1) !023-28; Trans.,
AIME, 222.
23. Tek, M.R.: "MultiphaSe Flow of Water, Oil, and Natural Gas Through
Vertical Flow Strings," JPT(Oct. 1961) 1029-36; Tram .• AIME, 222.
24. Fancher, G.H. and Brown. K.F.: ''Prediction of Pressure Gradients
for Mi¡ltiphase Flow in Tubing, '' SPEJ (March 1963) 59-69; Trans.,
AIME, 228.
25. Hagedom, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: "Experimental S1udy of Pressure
Gradients Occuring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-
Diameter Vertical Conduits," JPT (April 1965) 475-84: Trans., AIME,
234.
26. Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, PennWell
Publishing Co., Tulsa. OK. (1977) l.
27. Griffith, P.: "Two-Phase Flow in Pipes," Special Summer Program,
Massachuselts Inst. of Technology. Cambridge, MA (1962).
28. Griffith, P. and Wallis, G.B.: ''Two-Phase Slug Flow." J. Heat Tronsfer
(Aug. 1961) 307-20, Trans., ASME.
29. Aziz. K .. Govier, G.W., and Fogarasi, M.: ''Pressure Drop in Welh
Producing Oil and Gas." J. Cdn. Pe.t. Tech. (July-Sept. 19n) 38-48.
30. Beggs, H.D. and Bríll, J .P.: ''A Study ofTwo-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes," JPT(May 1973) 607-17; TranJ., AIME, 255.
31. Duns, H. Jr. and Ros. 1''.C.J.: "Venical FlowofGasand Llquíd Mix·
tures from Boreholes," Proc., Sixth World Pet. Cong., Frankfurt (June
19-26, !963) Sec. U, Paper 22-PD6.
32. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D., andEhlig-Economides, C.: Petroleum
Production Systems, Prentice-Hall, Inc .. Englewood Ciiffs. NJ ( 1993).
33. Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods. PennWell
Publishing Co .• Tulsa, OK. (1984) 4.
34. Rawlíos, E.L. and Schellhardt. M.A.: Baclcpressure Dala on Natural
Gas We/ls and Their App/ic.a1ion 10 Production Practices, Monograpb
Series, USBM (1935) 7.
35. CorbetÍ, T. G. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: ''An Aoalysis of and Cor-
rectíon Method for Gas Deliverabilíty Curves," SPE 14208, 60th An·
nual Fall Meeting oftheSPE held in Las Vegas. Nevada. Sept. 22-25.
1985.
36. Greene, W.R.: "Analy7.ing the Performance of Gas Wells," Proc.,
25 Annual Southwestem Petrole.um Short Course, Lubbock, TX (1978)
129-35.
37. Al·Hussaíny, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Medía," JPT (May 1966) 624-36.
38. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Investigation of Well·
bore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Aow: JI. Fínite Differ-
ence Treatment,'' SPEJ (Sept. 1970) 291-97; Tran.1., AIME 249.
39. Wanenbarger, R.A.: ''Effects of Turbulern:e, Wellbore Damage, Well-
bore Storage, and Vertical Fractures on Gas Well Testing," PhD Dis-
sertation, Stanford U .• Stanford, CA ( 1967).