See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340647786

Determination of Flowing Bottom-Hole Pressure of a Well Using Modified

Guo’s Model

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Science, Computer Science and Engineering & Technology · April 2020
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086

CITATIONS READS

0 151

3 authors, including:

Omotara O. Oluwagbenga Abdulwahab GIWA

Afe Babalola University Afe Babalola University
4 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    121 PUBLICATIONS   866 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sensitivity Analysis of Multiphase Flow Using PROSPER View project

Environmental and Separation Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdulwahab GIWA on 19 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286. E-ISSN: 2278–179X
[DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.]

Journal of Environmental Science, Computer Science and

Engineering & Technology
An International Peer Review E-3 Journal of Sciences and Technology

Available online at www.jecet.org

Section C: Engineering & Technology
Research Article

Determination of Flowing Bottom-Hole Pressure of a Well

Using Modified Guo’s Model
Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE1, Oluwagbenga Olawale OMOTARA2
and Abdulwahab GIWA3*

1,2,3
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Afe Babalola
University, KM. 8.5, Afe Babalola Way, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria

Received: 25 March 2020; Revised: 06 April 2020; Accepted: 15 April 2020

Abstract: Well modelling is very important in efficient management of oil and gas
production. A major factor contributing to this process is accurate estimation of the
flowing bottom-hole pressure at the formation as this helps in various petroleum
production engineering analysis. Some of these analyses include studies on vertical lift
performance (VLP) and inflow performance (IP). The effective determination of
bottom-hole pressure has been a major concern in the oil industry due to several reasons
because it can either be measured or estimated. In the case of measurement, a pressure
gauge is needed down-hole; this is very accurate but expensive and time consuming.
As such, an alternative and accurate method is required. For this reason, this work has
been carried out to focus on determining the flowing bottom-hole pressure from
wellhead data by modifying and, thereafter, simulating the modified Guo’s model with
the aid of MATLAB. The results obtained showed that the model was simple and
effective to use as it required little computing time. The method of bottom-hole
pressure determination developed in this work, using the modified model, was also
found to be relatively accurate when applied to simulation of multiphase flow in
vertical heavy oil wells and high gas-oil ratio wells. However, low gas-oil ratio wells
and water producing wells fell short of the accuracy of the estimation of pressure.
Keywords: Bottom-hole pressure, multiphase flow, modelling, simulation, MATLAB.

270 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

1. INTRODUCTION
In hydrocarbon reservoir exploitation, reservoir fluids (liquid and gases) flow simultaneously in any
direction or pattern, this is generally termed multiphase flow. The simultaneous flow of liquid and gas
in the production system is very much difficult than that of a single-phase flow because an interface,
which could be smooth or not depending on the flow regime and pattern, may exist between the gases
and the liquids.
Since the inception of the original work on multiphase flow carried out by Poettmann and Carpenter [1],
several authors have developed several correlations and models. Poettmann and Carpenter [1],
Orkiszewski [2] and Ros[3] developed models on pressure drop or pressure gradient along the tubing,
which might only be approximate solutions, meaning that accurate information about pressure
conditions at the bottom of the well due to the fluid column consisting of two or more fluid phases
might not be provided. Their models treated the liquid and gas as a homogenous single-phase flow
without accounting for dissolved gas in oil [4]. Largely, the developed models/correlations can be
classified under three major classes: empirical model, mechanistic model and artificial neural networks.
The empirical model or correlation uses measured experimental production data based on mathematical
equations that are obtained from research facilities. While most of the early pressure drop calculations
were based on this correlation because of its direct applicability and fair accuracy to the data range used
in the model generation [5], they were restrained by the range of data and application for all types of
fluid and conditions encountered in oil and gas fields. Beggs and Brill [6] developed a widely used model
for estimating pressure drop for horizontal, inclined and vertical flow. The model also considered
several flow regimes in the multiphase flow and can be used to predict liquid holdup. The parameters
used were gas flow rate, liquid flow rate, pipe diameter, inclination angle, liquid holdup, pressure
gradient and horizontal flow regime.
The mechanistic model also known as semi-empirical model helps in the determination and estimation
of pressure drop hold up in pipes by dealing with the physical phenomena of the multiphase flow. This
method provides a means of predicting pressure drop for situations that cannot be modeled in a
laboratory and for situations in which dependable and calculable empirical correlations are not
determinable. The mechanistic models are generally accepted to be more reliable and general because
they use flow important parameters [7]. Several researches were conducted by Guo [8] in various areas of
oil and gas well drilling and production technology requiring bottom-hole pressure estimations. Guo[8]
developed a model to simulate 4-phase flow (gas, oil, water and solid particles) in underbalanced
drilling practices but was later seen to be useful for simulating two and three phase fluid flow in
producing oil wells. It was also seen to be useful in simulating simultaneous flow of gas, water and coal
particles in coal-bed methane production wells.
The artificial neural network model came to use some years back as it has been applied in the industry
for so many purposes like PVT properties prediction, enhanced oil recovery and so on [9]. It has been
proven that the empirical and the mechanistic models do not provide a convincing and reliable tool for
the estimation of pressure in multiphase flow wells as high errors are usually associated with these
models. The artificial neural network shows a better performance over the conventional models (the
empirical and the mechanistic models) [10]. Ayoub [9] developed an artificial neural network model for
estimating bottom-hole flowing pressure and pressure drop in vertical multiphase flow, and this model
demonstrated the power of artificial neural network model in solving complicated engineering problems
as the model could simulate the actual physical process of determining bottom-hole pressure and
outperform all existing ones [5].

271 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

The petroleum industry is, however, interested in accurately calculating the pressure losses that occur
for multiphase flow in tubing and pipelines. Accurate predictions of pressure losses in pipes would
enable proper design. Also, pressure determination in a production system in the petroleum industry is
very important as it helps in effective production of oil and gas from the reservoir but of all, the most
important is the determination of flowing bottom-hole pressure, which is the pressure measured in a
well at or near the depth of the producing formation, although surface pressures often can be converted
to bottom-hole pressure values if adequate information is available about the wellbore system. A
knowledge of this pressure is fundamental in determining the most efficient methods of recovery and
the most efficient lifting procedure, yet there is less information about these pressures than about any
other part of the general problem of producing oil [11].
As mentioned earlier, the bottom-hole pressure can be determined from surface pressures like the well
head pressure if adequate information is available about the production system which can be easily
gotten from well testing operations [12] . Since the well head pressure and parameters are easily gotten
from pressure transient analysis whose success depends on the accurate measurement or estimation of
bottom-hole pressure [13], it is therefore desirable and necessary to obtain the bottom-hole pressure from
these data. This will be carried out to further highlight the advantages which is associated with having
adequate knowledge about the bottom-hole pressure of a reservoir.
It is also well known that the knowledge of bottom-hole pressure is also required for the determination
of well productivity index, which is determined by the curve of inflow performance relationship [14];
that is, the plot of bottom-hole pressure against flow-rate. It is then seen that the ability to monitor the
bottom-hole pressure is very important because it provides many advantages for reservoir
management [15] as its inability can cause severe damage to the well, forcing it (the well) into early
breakthrough period. This can also cause early well intervention and may make the well to be abandoned
before its stipulated time.
It is essential and necessary to study ways in which this problem can be corrected within a short period
of time in a cost-effective manner. Therefore, this project is aimed at determining the flowing bottom-
hole pressure of a vertical well from surface pressure and parameters through the modification of the
general energy equation considering only the frictional pressure term.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Model Development: The model presented in this research work was a modification of Guo’s 4-
phase model for multiphase flow in vertical pipes. The model was modified by:
i. using reservoir temperature in estimation rather than an average tubing pressure,
ii. using definite integrals with limits between wellhead pressure and bottom-hole pressure in the
estimations of frictional pressure in contrast to indefinite integrals used in the base model, and
iii. Including a friction gradient component neglected in the base model.
iv. The assumptions made in the development of the model of this research work are as outlined
below:
v. the acceleration/kinetic pressure gradient term was negligible as a result of the small changes
in mixture fluid velocity over incremental distance,
vi. flow was steady and isothermal, and no work was done by the gas in flow,
vii. characterizing gas flow was based on ideal gas law,

272 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

viii. fluid flow velocity was based on oil and gas flow rates,
ix. vertical oil wells have oil and water (mixed) everywhere across the section of the pipe, and
x. Liquid holdup effects were neglected based on small diameter tubing with average high mixture
flow rates.
2.2 Model Modification: The modification of the model was started from the energy equation
neglecting the acceleration/kinetic pressure gradient given in Equation 1 as derived by Guo[8].

 fv 2 
dP   m  m dh (1)
 2 gd 

Modifying the terms of the equation to account for two-phase (fluid mixture) flowing,
 fv 2 
dP   m 1  m dh (2)
 2 gd 

The mixture specific weight, ρm was given as

W Ws  Wl  W g
m   lb / ft 3 (3)
Q q s  ql  q g

Performing necessary unit conversions and substitutions, volumetric flow rate of solid, qs, was obtained
as
Qs
qs   1.157  10 5 Qs ft 3 / sec (4)
86400

From Equation (3), weight flow rate of solid, W s was formulated to be:

Ws   s  q s (5)

Substituting Equation (4) into (5),

Ws  1.157  10 5  s Qs (6)

Ws  1.157  10 5  w s Qs (7)

where  s   w s and  w  62.4lb / ft 3 .

Therefore,
Ws  7.222 104  s Qs lb / sec (8)

Furthermore, the volumetric flow rate of liquid, ql, was given as

 5.615Qo 5.615Qw 
ql      6.499  10 Qo  Qw  ft / sec
5 3
(9)
 86400 86400 

The weight flow rate of liquid, based on oil and water flow rate, W l was given as

Wl   m  ql (10)

Substituting Equation (9) into (10),

Wl  6.499  105  m Qo  Qw  (11)

Wl  6.499  105  mQo  6.499  105  mQw (12)

273 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

Wl  6.499  105  w oQo   w wQw  (13)

where  subs tan ce   w subs tan ce ,  w  62.4lb / ft 3 .

So,
Wl  4.0554  103  oQo   wQw lb / sec (14)

For gases, from ideal gas laws,

 PV   PV 
    (15)
 T  r  T  sc

Denoting volume, V, per unit time as Q,

 PQ   PQ 
    (16)
 T  r  T  sc

Denoting flow rate at reservoir conditions to be qr and flow rate at standard conditions to be Qsc,
Pq g PscQgs
 (17)
T Tsc

PscQgsT
qg  (18)
PTsc

Performing necessary unit conversions and substitutions, the volumetric flow rate of solid, qg was
obtained to be
14.7 144QgsT
qg  (19)
P  86400 520

4.7115105 QgsT
qg  ft 3 / sec (20)
P

Knowing that the weight flow rate of gas, Wg , depends on the volumetric flow rate at the surface
conditions, Qgs, and the specific gravity of the gas. That is,
Qgs
Wg   g  (21)
86400

Furthermore,
Qgs
Wg   air  g  (22)
86400

where  g   air g and  air  0.074887lb / ft 3 .

As such,
Qgs
Wg  0.074887 g  (23)
86400

Wg  8.667  107  g Qgslb / sec (24)

Substituting Equation (4) through (24) into Equation (3),

274 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

7.222  104  sQs  4.0554  103  oQo   wQw   8.667  107  g Qgs
m  (25)
4.7115  105 QgsT
1.157  105 Qs  6.499  105 Qo  Qw  
P

Simplifying Equation (25),

P
QgsT

15.32 sQs  86.07 oQo   wQw   0.0184 g Qgs 
m  (26)
 P 
 0.25Qs  1.38Qo  Qw   1
 QgsT 

Denoting that,

15.32 sQs  86.07 oQo   wQw   0.0184 g Qgs

a (27)
QgsT

and

0.25Qs  1.38Qo  Qw 
b (28)
QgsT

Then, the mixture specific weight can be written as in Equation (29).

aP
m  (29)
bP  1

2.3.2 Modification of mixture velocity, Vm

The mixture fluid flow velocity was derived based on oil and gas flow and cross-sectional area of the
pipe. That is,
Q
V (30)
A

qg  ql
Vm  (31
A
4.7115105 QgsT
 6.499 105 Qo  Qw 
Vm  P (32)
A

A
Noting that, A (sq.in) = ( sq. ft )
144

144  4.7115  10 QgsT 

5

Vm    6.499  105 Qo  Qw  (33)

A  P 

 6.785  103 QgsT 9.359  103 Qo  Qw  

Vm     (34)
 AP A 

If

275 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

6.785 103 QgsT

c (35)
A

and

9.359 103 Qo  Qw 

d (36)
A

Then, Equation (34) can be written as

c
Vm  d (37)
P

Substituting Equation (29) and (37) into Equation (2),

aP  f c  c 
dP  1    d   d  dh (38)
bP  1  2 gd  P  P 

Taking,

f
e (39)
2 gd

and

  
 1  1 
f    (40)
  2    2 
1.74  2 log d   1.74  2 log 
     d 

Then, Equation (38) can be written to be

aP  c  c 
dP  1  e  d   d  dh (41)
bP  1  P  P 

Moreover, the differential pressure was integrated within the limits of wellhead pressure and flowing
bottom-hole pressure to give the flowing bottom-hole pressure at the formation/sand face as given in
Equation (42).

Pwf  aP  c  c  
 dP   
Pwf

1  e  d   d   dh (42)
 bP  1  P  P  
Pwh Pwh

Solving Equation (42),

P  aP1  ed  2aecd 
2
aec2
 dP   
Pwf
 
wf

 dh (43)
Pwh P
 bP  1
wh PbP  1 bP  1 

Splitting Equation (43) into three components as given in Equation (44),

276 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

 dP   dP1   dP2   dP3

Pwf P1 P2 P3

Pwh Pwh Pwh Pwh

(44)

P  aP1  ed    aec2  P  2 aecd 

2

 dP    dh    dh  P 
Pwf 1 P 2 3

   dh (45)
Pwh P
 bP  1 
wh P wh
 PbP  1  wh
 bP  1 

Integrating each component:

For P1,

P  aP1  ed  
2

 dP1   
Pwf 1

 dh (46)
Pwh P
 bP  1 
wh

bP  1 dP  a1  ed dh

 
P1 H
2
(47)
Pwh
P 0

 bP 1 
  P  P  dP  aH 1  ed 
P1
2
(48)
Pwh
 

 1
 b  P  dP  aH 1  ed 
P1
2
(49)
Pwh
 

bP  ln P  aH 1  ed 2 
P1
Pwh (50)

bP1  Pwh   ln P1  ln P wh   aH 1  ed 2  (51)

 P 
bP1  Pwh   ln  1   aH 1  ed 2  (52)
 P wh 

Using appropriate unit conversion, Equation (52) can be expressed as

 P 
144bP1  Pwh   ln  1   aH 1  ed 2  (53)
 P wh 

 P 
144bP1  Pwh   ln  1   aH 1  ed 2   0 (54)
 P wh 

For P2,

P  aec2 
 dP2   
Pwf 2

 dh (55)
Pwh P
 PbP  1 
wh

 PbP  1dP  
P2 H

Pwh 0
aec2 dh (56)

 bP  P dP   aec2 dh

P2 H

Pwh
2
0
(57)

277 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.
P2
 bP3 P 2 
 3  2   aec H (58)
2

 P wh

 bP3 P 2   bP3 P 2 
   
 3  2    3  2   aec H
2 2 wh wh
2
(59)
   

Using appropriate unit conversions, Equation (59) can be written as

 1443  bP3 1442  P 2   bP3 P 2 

   
  3  2   aec H
2 2 wh wh


2
(60)
 3 2   

 bP3 P 2 
995328bP 2
3

 10368P22   aec2 H 
3
 0
wh

2 
wh
(61)


For P3,

P  2 aecd 

 dP3   
Pwf 3

 dh (62)
Pwh P
 bP  1 
wh

 bP  1dP   2aecd dh

P3 H

Pwh 0
(63)

P3
 bP 2 
 2  P   2aecdH (64)
 P wh

P3
 bP 2 P 
 4  2   aecdH (65)
 P wh

 bP32 P3   bPwh 2 Pwh 

   
 4  2    4  2   aecdH (66)
   

Upon unit conversions, Equation (66) turned into

 1442  bP32 144P3   bPwh 2 Pwh 

      aecdH (67)
 2   4 2 
 4

Therefore, finally,

 bP
2
P 
5184bP3  72P3   aecdH  wh  wh   0
2
(68)
 4 2 

278 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

2.3 Model Simulation: In order to simulate the model equations formulated, the following steps were
taken:
i. the parameter (constants) a, b, c, d, and e given in the model were first estimated using the
provided data of the flowing well based on ideal gas law principles,
ii. the differential pressures P1, P2 and P3 were calculated from Equations (54), (61) and (68),
respectively with the aid of a MATLAB mfile program developed (Appendix), and
iii. The sum of the pressure components, P1, P2 and P3, which was the flowing bottom-hole pressure
of the vertical oil well was then estimated also with the aid of the MATLAB mfile program (see
the Appendix).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Raw Data Analysis: Shown in Table 1 are well head pressure, flow rates and fluid gravity for five
wells with different characteristics. It can be seen from the table that the data can be used in conjunction
with the derived model to estimate wells with different conditions such as a case of high GOR well,
which was not producing water and for the heavy oil well, which had no water and solid production.

Table 1: Well head pressure, flow rates and fluid gravity data for five wells

Parameters High Low Low GOR High Heavy

GOR well GOR well well GOR well Oil Well
(Producing (Producing
Water) Water)
I.D (inches) 3.83 2.441 2.441 1.995 1.995
H (feet) 11373 7150 8010 7750 10184
Pwh (psia) 2191 369 210 335 820
BHT (oF) 202 150 152 154 165
Qo (bbl/day) 9922 2201 800 723 2000
Qw (bbl/day) 0 0 200 849 0
Qs (ft3/day) 1.6 0.7 0 0 0
GOR(scf/bbl) 1375 78 160 1122 500
γo 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.90
γg 0.69 0.60 0.65 0.69 0.65
γs 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65
γw 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.07 1.0

3.2 Estimated and Measured Bottom-Hole Pressure Analysis: The flowing bottom-hole pressure of
five different wells with different characteristics were estimated using the derived model as shown in
Table 2. From the table, the measured bottom-hole pressures of the different wells were compared with
those estimated by the derived model, and it was seen that the results obtained from the comparison
showed acceptable practical error limits.

279 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

Table 2: Summary of estimated flowing bottom-hole pressures compared with the measured values
for five wells

Parameters High Low GOR Low GOR well High GOR well Heavy Oil
GOR well well (Producing (Producing Well
Water) Water)

Modified Model 6154.3 3027.6 2616.9 2295.2 4450.6

(psia)

Measured Pressure 6152 2963 2570 2320 4440

Error (%) 0.037 2.18 1.82 1.07 0.24

After ensuring that there were good comparisons between the measured and the estimated bottom-hole
pressures, the profile for each of the wells was considered as outlined thus.

3.2. Bottom-Hole Pressure Profiles

3.2.1 High GOR well pressure profiles: Figure 1 shows the estimated and measured pressure profiles
for the high GOR well. The estimated pressure profile was obtained from the modified model developed
in this work. Based on the observations made from the figure, it was discovered that there was little or
no deviation between the two pressure profiles, and this was found to be an indication that the developed
model provided a very good fit for the estimation of flowing bottom-hole pressure for high GOR wells.

Figure 1: Approximate pressure profiles for high GOR well

280 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

3.3.2 Low GOR well: Shown in Figure 2 are the (estimated and measured) pressure profiles for the
low GOR well. It can be seen from the figure that there was a small deviation between the two pressure
profiles, which might be due to the fact there was a low amount of gas flowing with oil in this case.
Therefore, care should be taken when using the derived model to estimate flowing bottom-hole pressure
for low GOR wells.

Figure 2: Approximate pressure profile for low GOR well

3.2.3 Low GOR-producing-water well: The estimated pressure profile for the low GOR-producing-
water well is shown together with the measured one for the system as shown in Figure 3. As can be
deduced from the figure, there was also a small deviation between the two pressure profiles, and this
might also be as a result of low amount of gas flowing with oil and/or significant production of water
from the well. Just as in the case of the low GOR well, using the derived model to estimate flowing
bottom-hole pressure for this kind of wells should be carried out carefully.

Figure 3: Approximate pressure profile for low-GOR-producing-water well

281 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

.3.3.4 High GOR-producing-water well: Figure 4 shows the pressure profile estimated and the one
measured for the high GOR-producing-water well. The figure revealed that there was a deviation
between the two pressure profiles. This might be due to the fact there was a significant production of
water from the well. In that case, therefore, care should be taken when applying the derived model in
estimating the flowing bottom-hole pressure for the high GOR-producing-water wells.

Figure 4: Approximate pressure profile for high-GOR-producing-water well

3.3.5 Heavy oil well: Given in Figure 5 are the pressure profiles for the heavy oil well, considering the
pressure estimated from the modified model and the measured ones. From the figure, it can be seen that
the deviation between the two pressure profiles in this case was negligible. This was an indication that
the developed model was able to fit the system very well for the estimation of flowing bottom-hole
pressure for heavy oil wells.

Figure 5: Approximate pressure profile for heavy oil well

282 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

4. CONCLUSION
The results obtained from the simulation of the model developed in this work by modifying Guo’s
model have shown that the modified model could be used to estimate bottom-hole pressure. The model
was found to be simple with requirements for little computing time. From the above analyses performed,
it was discovered that the estimations carried out on two of the wells (high GOR well and heavy oil
well) were able to give very good pressure approximations relative to the measured bottom-hole
pressures. For the high GOR-producing-water well, it was found that the derived model could be used
to estimate pressure but the pressure value would not be entirely reliable while for the two other wells
(Low GOR and Low GOR-producing-water wells), the derived model fell short in flowing bottom-hole
pressure estimation due to low gas and high water production. Therefore, caution should be taken when
applying the developed model in these cases.

NOMENCLATURE

A: Pipe cross-sectional area, sq.ft di: Tubing inner diameter, ft.

dh: Incremental depth, ft.
dZ: incremental Depth
ƒ: Dimensional Moody frictional factor
(Nikuradse’s correlation)
gc: gravitational constant, lb-force
lw: lost work
P: Pressure, lb/ft3
Qs: Volumetric flow rate of solid, ft3/day
Qw: Volumetric flow rate of water, bbl/day
Q: Volumetric flow rate of mixture, ft3/sec
ql: Volumetric flow rate of liquids, ft3/sec
Ts: Surface Temperature, oR
Vm: Mixture fluid velocity, ft/sec
W: weight flow rate of mixture, lb/sec
Wl: Weight flow rate of liquids, lb/sec
Z1: Depth of pipe inlet from main sea level, ft
ρm: Mixture specific weight, lb/ft3
ρo: Density of oil, lb/ft3
γo: Specific gravity of oil with respect to water,
dimensionless
γg: Specific gravity of gas with respect to air,
dimensionless
dP: Pressure differential, lb/ft3
ɛ: Pipe wall roughness factor, dimensionless
g: Acceleration due to gravity, ft/s2
K: Universal positive constant with a value
dependent on units employed
Ps: Atmospheric pressure, psia
Pwh: Wellhead pressure, psia
Qo: Volumetric flow rate of oil, bbl/day
Qgs: Volumetric flow rate of gas at standard
conditions, ft3/day
qs: Volumetric flow rate of solids, ft3/sec
qg: Volumetric flow rate of gas, ft3/sec
T: Bottom-hole temperature, oR
V: Volume of flowing fluid, ft3
Ws: Weight flow rate of solids, lb/sec
Wg: Weight flow rate of gas, lb/sec
Z2: Depth of pipe outlet from main sea level, ft
ρw: Density of water, lb/ft3
γs: Specific gravity of solid with respect to
water, dimensionless
γw: Specific gravity of water, dimensionless

283 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Special thanks go to Ambassador Aare Afe Babalola, LL.B, FFPA, FNIALS, FCIArb, LL.D, SAN,
OFR, CON – The Founder and President, and the Management of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti,
Ekiti State, Nigeria for providing a very conducive environment that enabled the accomplishment of
this research work.

APPENDIX

FUNCTION FILE

function f=SimPro1(p)
global H mp pwh

mp = --; %measured pressure (psia) pwh = --; %bottom-hole pressure (psia)

H = --; %Height, (feet)
Qs = --; %Solid flowrate (cuft/day)
Qo = --; %Oil flowrate (bbl/day)
Qw = --; %water flowrate (bbl/day)
GOR = --; %gas oil ratio (scf/bbl)
Dft = D/12; %diameter (feet)
Qgs = GOR * Qo; %gas flow rate (cuft/day)
T = t+460; %temperature (degree R)
g=32.17; %gravitational
(ft/sq.sec)
2*log10(2*E/Dft))); %Dimensional Moody
friction factor, Nikurade's Correlation
b = ((0.25*Qs)+(1.38*(Qo+Qw)))/(T*Qgs);
d = (9.359*10^-3*(Qw+Qo))/A;
f(1) = 144*b*p(1)-144*b*pwh+log(p(1))-
log(pwh)-a*H*(1+e*d^2);
f(3) = (5184*b*p(3)^2)+(72*p(3))-
((a*e*c*d*H)+(b*pwh^2/4)+(pwh/2));
SG = --; %Specific gravity of solid
OG = --; %Specific gravity of oil
WG = --; %Specific gravity of water
GG = --; %Specific gravity of gas
D = --; %diameter (inches)
E = --; %pipe wall roughness factor, dimensionless
t = --; %temperature (degree F)
A = 0.25*pi*D^2; %area(sq.inches)
acceleration ff=(1/(1.74-2*log10(2*E/Dft)))*(1/(1.74-
a=((15.32*SG*Qs)+(86.07*(OG*Qo+WG*Qw))+
(0.0188*GG*Qgs))/(T*Qgs);
c = (6.785*10^-3*T*Qgs)/A;
e = (ff/(2*g*Dft));
f(2) = ((995328*b*p(2)^3)+(10368*p(2)^2))-
((a*e*H*c^2)+(b*pwh^3/3)+(pwh^2/2));
f=f';

SIMULATION FILE

commandwindow
clear all
clc
close all
format short g
global H mp pwh

284 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

p = fsolve('SimPro1',[1 1 1]); pwf = p(1)+p(2)+p(3)

xgraph1 = [pwh pwf]; xgraph2 = [pwh mp];
ygraph = [0 H]; plot(xgraph1, ygraph, '--', xgraph2, ygraph, '-*')
xlabel('Pressure (psia)') ylabel('Height (feet)')
legend('Modified model (psia)','Measured (psia)', Error=((abs(mp-pwf))/mp)*100
'Location', 'NorthWest')

REFERENCES

1. F.H. Poettmann and P.G. Carpenter, Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil and Water through Vertical
Strings with Application to the Design of Gas Lift Installation. Drilling Production Practice.
1952, 257.
2. J. Orikiszewski, Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drop in Vertical Pipe. Journal of Petroleum
Technology,1967, 19, 829-838
3. N.C.J. Ros, Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid as Encountered in Well Tubing. Transaction
AIME, 1961, 222, 1037.
4. O. Adekomaya, F.A.S. Adesina and F. Olugbenga, Predictive Tool for Bottom-Hole Pressure
in Multiphase Flowing Wells. Petroleum & Coal, 2008, 50(3), 67-73.
5. M.A. Musaab and M.A. Ayoub, A Comprehensive Study on the Current Pressure Drop
Calculation in Multiphase Vertical Wells; Current Trends and Future Prospective. Journal of
Applied Sciences, 2014, 14(23), 3162-3171.
6. D.H. Beggs and J.P. Brill, A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes. J. Pet. Technol., 1973,
25, 607-617.
7. L.E. Gomez, O. Shoham, Z. Schmidt, R.N. Chokshi and T. Northug, Unified Mechanistic
Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow: Horizontal to Vertical Upward Flow. SPE J., 2000,
5, 339-350.
8. B. Guo, An Analytical Model for Gas-Water Coal Particle Flow in Coal Bed-Methane
Production Wells. Paper SPE 72369, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held 17-
19th October 2001 in Canton, Ohio, 2001.
9. M.A. Ayoub, Development and Testing of an Artificial Neural Network Model for Predicting
Bottom-hole Pressure in Vertical Multiphase Flow. M.Sc. Thesis, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, Dahran, Saudi Arabia, 2004.
10. E.A. Osman, M.A. Ayoub and M.A. Aggour, Artificial Neural Network Model for Predicting
Bottom-hole Flowing Pressure in Vertical Multiphase Flow. SPE 93632 presented at the 14th
SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition
Centre, Bahrain, 12–15 March 2005
11. C.V. Millikan, and C.V. Sidwell, Bottom-hole Pressures in Oil wells. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 1930, 92(01), 194-205.
12. M.J. Economides, Shut-in and Flowing Bottom-hole Pressure Calculation for Geothermal
Steam Wells, Proc. Fifth Workshop Geoth. Res. Eng., 1979, 139-152.
13. C.U. Omohimoria and C.O. Ayodele, A Simple Analytical Model for Estimating Bottom-hole
Pressure in Gas Condensate Wells. International Journal of Advancements in Research &
Technology, 2013, 2(12), 148-155.

285 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.
 Determination … Clinton Ayomiposi AKINSEYE et al.

14. J.V. Vogel, Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells. JPTQw, 83- 87;
Trans., AIME, 1968, 243.
15. S. Bikbulatov, M. Khasanov, A. Zagurenko, Flowing Bottom-hole Pressure calculation for a
pumped well under Multiphase Flow. (Unpublished), 2005.

*Corresponding Author: Abdulwahab GIWA

*
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, College of Engineering,
Afe Babalola University, KM. 8.5, Afe Babalola Way, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State,
Nigeria

Date of publication online: 15.04.2020

286 JECET; JECET; March 2020- May 2020; Sec. C; Vol.9. No.2, 270-286.
DOI: 10.24214/jecet.C.9.2.27086.

View publication stats