Primary funding is provided by

The SPE Foundation through member donations

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

The Society is grateful to those companies that allow their

professionals to serve as lecturers

Additional support provided by AIME

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
Understanding Liquid Loading
Will
Improve Well Performance

Rob Sutton
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl
2
 Example of Successful Deliquification
Program
10,000 200
Gas
Water

1,000 150

Water Rate, STBPD

Gas Rate, MCFD

100 100

10 50

1 0
Oct-97 Jun-00 Mar-03 Dec-05 Sep-08
3
 Purpose

Address the following question:

Can complex well geometries affect

liquid loading characteristics and well
performance?

4
How Relevant are Gas Wells?

Top 10 Oil Plays Top 10 Gas Plays

Bakken Shale Barnett Shale
Eagle Ford Shale Marcellus Shale
Austin Chalk Fayetteville Shale
Wolfcamp Eagle Ford Shale
Mississippi Lime Haynesville Shale
Bone Spring Woodford Shale
Niobrara Shale Granite Wash
Cleveland Hartshorne Coal
Red River Austin Chalk
Woodford Shale Cleveland

5
How Relevant are Gas Wells?

6
Lateral Length

7
 Terminology

• Critical velocity
• Critical rate
• Static liquid column
• Terrain slugging
• Severe slugging
• Vertical Flow Performance
– VFP Curves
– Nodal Analysis
8
 Analysis Techniques

• Vertical flow performance curves

• Critical velocity
• Production graphs
– Rate vs Time
– Pressure vs Time
• Flowing pressure surveys
• Acoustic survey

9
 Complications

• Tubing set high above perforations

• Long completion intervals
• Complex well geometries
• Problem recognition

10
 Production Data
Gas Well Loading Example
10,000 800
Onset of Loading

1,000 600
Rate, MCFD or STBPD

Pressure, psig
100 400

10 200

1 0
Apr-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Oct-01

Gas Rate Water Rate Wellhead Pressure

11
 Pressure Data
450
Wellhead Pressure, psig

400

350

300
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time, Min

12
 Critical Rate
Vertical Flow Performance
2,000
Bottomhole Pressure, psia

Unstable Stable Flow

1,500 Flow Region Region

1,000

500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500
Gas Rate, MCFD
13
Tubing on Bottom vs Tubing Set High
2,000
Tubing on Bottom
Tubing 500 ft off Bottom
Bottomhole Pressure, psia

Unstable Stable Flow

1,500 Flow Region Region

1,000

500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Gas Rate, MCFD

14
 Vertical vs Slant Well Geometry
2,000
Vertical
Slant
Bottomhole Pressure, psia

Unstable Stable Flow

1,500 Flow Region Region

1,000

500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Gas Rate, MCFD

15
 Unloading Velocity

• Equation derived for vertical well

• Developed from terminal fall velocity
– Liquid density
– Gas density
– Largest liquid droplet
• Frequently termed “critical velocity”

16
 Turner Unloading Velocity
Without ±20% adjustment
Coleman Equation

where
rg = gas phase density, lbm/ft3
rL = liquid phase density, lbm/ft3
 = surface tension, dynes/cm
vc = critical velocity of liquid droplet, ft/sec
17
 Turner Unloading Velocity

Turner Adjustment Belfroid et al SPE 115567 Angle Correction

where
rg = gas phase density, lbm/ft3
rL = liquid phase density, lbm/ft3
 = surface tension, dynes/cm
Nwe = Weber Number (use 60 for original Turner)
Ө = hole angle (Deg from vertical)
vc = critical velocity of liquid droplet, ft/sec 18
Well Angle Modification to Turner
1.5
Turner Modification

1.0
35% increase at 37°

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Hole Angle, Deg
19
 Evaluation Point
4
Temperature Gradient, Deg/100 Ft

WGR = 0
WGR = 1
WGR = 100
3
Use Wellhead

Use Downhole
1

0
10 100 1,000 10,000
Dtbg = 2.441 in Wellhead Pressure, psia
γg = 0.65
SPE 120625 20
 Assorted Well Profiles
Departure, ft
Vertical
Build & Hold
S-Shaped
Horizontal Complex Profiles
• Vertical
• Build & Hold (Slant)
True Vertical Depth, ft

• S-Shaped
• Horizontal
S-Shaped

Slant • Complexity increases

velocity or rate to
Horizontal
unload well

Vertical
21
 Example Critical Velocity Profiles
Critical Velocity, ft/sec
0 10 20 30
0
Vertical
Slant • Effects on critical velocity
S-Shaped

2,000
Horizontal – Pressure
– Temperature
True Vertical Depth, ft

– PVT
4,000
• Gas gravity
• Water salinity
6,000 – Hole Angle

8,000

10,000 22
 Vertical Well Case
(Variable Tubing Size)
0
Gas Velocity
Critical Velocity

2,000
True Vertical Depth, ft

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000
0 10 20 30
Velocity, ft/sec
23
Liquid Loading
Bottom of Vertical Well

24
Liquid Loading
Bottom of Vertical Well

Gas-cut
Liquid

Droplets
variable
size
distribution

25
Static Liquid Column Pressure Profile

26
Horizontal Well
Ideal Case

27
 Complex Horizontal Well Profiles
10,100
Well 1
Well 2
10,150 Well 3
True Vertical Depth, ft

% of Total Wells
Orientation Well 4
Oil Gas
Up 35 46 Well 5
10,200 Down 37 31
Well 6
Hybrid 28 23
Well 7
10,250 Well 8
Well 9

10,300

10,350

10,400
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
Departure, ft

28
Horizontal Well Profiles

29
Severe Slugging

30
Liquid Loading at 86° from Vertical
4-in Pipe

Stratified
flow
pattern
31
Liquid Loading at 86° from Vertical

Liquid
accumulation
at gas
velocity less
than critical

32
Liquid Loading at 86° from Vertical

Onset of
terrain
slugging

33
 Example Horizontal Well
7,800
Well 1
Completion

7,850
True Vertical Depth, ft

7,900

7,950
Liquid accumulation sites
contribute to terrain and
severe slugging

8,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
Departure, ft
34
 Example Horizontal Well
0
Hole Angle, Deg
50 100
• Velocity profile
0
Gas Velocity • Gas velocity
Critical Velocity

2,000 Hole Angle

EOT
– Comparison with
4,000
critical velocity
Measured Depth, ft

• EOT at 25°
90° - Horizontal
6,000

– Shallow
8,000
– Slugging in curve
10,000
– Slugging in horizontal
12,000

14,000
0 20 40 60
Velocity, ft/sec 35
Factors Affecting Rate-Time Decline
2,000
Tubing Performance
Reservoir Inflow
Bottomhole Pressure, psia

1,500

Time
1,000 Effective
Depletion
Dewatering
Liquid Loading

500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Formation Gas Rate, MCFD
36
 Example of Successful Deliquification
Program
10,000 200
Gas
Water

1,000 150

Water Rate, STBPD

Gas Rate, MCFD

100 100

10 50

1 0
Oct-97 Jun-00 Mar-03 Dec-05 Sep-08

37
 Example of Successful Deliquification
Program
1,500 150
Gas
Water

Water Rate, STBPD

Gas Rate, MCFD

1,000 100

500 50

0 0
Mar-04 Jun-04 Sep-04 Dec-04 Mar-05
38
 Possible Solutions

• Velocity management
• Compression
• Foamers
• Artificial lift

39
 Observations

• Complex Geometries require Higher Critical Velocity

• Proper Liquids Management offers significant benefit
• Liquids Management restores / maintains well productivity
• Liquids Management requires constant attention
• Determine Critical Velocity / Rate thru-out well
• Nodal Analysis offers insight to Long Term Performance

40
Questions?

41
Your Feedback is Important
Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation
Visit SPE.org/dl

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl 42