SPE-178282-MS

Determination of Pressure Drop in a Natural Flowing Gas Well using Nodal

Analysis
J.A. Dala, Nigerian Petroleum Development Company; O.O. Agbaka, O.A. Olafuyi, and E.S. Adewole, University
of Benin;

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4–6 August 2015.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
If a well loses it producing potential before depletion, then the pressure analysis of the well
system should be carried out to ascertain the cause. Nodal analysis, is one of the analysis
methods which is aimed at analysing pressure distributions across different nodes. This
analysis will serve as a guide to revamping the well. This paper utilizes nodal analysis
simulation approach to study the cause of pressure drop in a well system.
Inflow performance relation (IPR) and vertical lift performance (VLP) were used to determine
the pressure distribution in the well attainable at various flow rates and wellbore condition.
Results show that nodal analysis method can be used to obtain prevailing well bottom hole
pressures at various flow rate , the flow rates responsible for a unit pressure drop in a well
system, the pressure loss across perforation and tubing using IPR and VLP of the well system
respectively. Well completion strategies are adequately advisable from application of nodal
analysis.

Introduction
Total pressure drop is the sum of the pressure drop occurring in all the component of a
system. Since pressure drop through any component varies with producing rate, the producing
rates are controlled by the component selected. Selection and sizing of individual components
is vital and also due to the interaction among these component, a change in pressure drop in
one may change the pressure drop behaviour in all the others. This occurrence is highly
2 SPE 0049

exhibited in gas wells (where flowing fluid is compressible). Hence, pressure drop in a
particular component depends not only on flow rate through the component but also on the
average pressure that exists in the component.
IPR and VLP are the most viable tool that should be deployed in handling the pressure drop in
a well system. A thorough review and analysis of the well completion strategy and deviation
survey is essential for accurate well pressure drop determination. Reservoir rock and fluid
properties, and production history considering a pressure range together with the component
data (tubings, casings, sub-surface safety valves and other relevant restrictions) of the
downhole equipment were used to simulate the IPR and VLP of the well system.
The concept of pressure drop determination in a well performance have been published in
numerous literatures ( Gilbert, W.E 1954, Nind, T.E.W. 1964, Brown, K.E. and Beggs, H.D
1978, Economides M.J., Hill A.D., Economides E.C. 1993, Boyuo G., William C. L., Ali G.
2007). However the practical application of pressure drop determination applicable to
petroleum wells using nodal-analysis ( Dale Beggs H. 1999, 2002, 2003, Schlumberger's Next
2004 ) have also been discussed in details. The aim of this paper is to simulate the IPR and
VLP performance of a natural flowing gas well system. This paper is limited to upstream
performance (IPR and VLP) and as such does not consider downstream performance (flowline
and choke).
Well Pressure Models
A relationship between flow rate and pressure drop must be established for each component in
the system. Flow rate through a system can be determined once the following conditions are
satisfied:
1. flow into the node equals flow out of the node.
2. only one pressure can exist at a node.

Since the pressure drop in the total system at any time is given as:
∆𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 = 𝑃𝑃�𝑟𝑟 − 𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ..........................................................................................................(1)
if well is controlled by surface choke (neglecting separator), equation (1) becomes:
∆𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 = 𝑃𝑃�𝑟𝑟 − 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤ℎ .................................................................................................... (2)
Then the inflow to the node can be accounted for using:
𝑃𝑃�𝑟𝑟 − ∆𝑃𝑃(𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ) = 𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 ....................................................................(3)
Also the outflow from the node written as:
𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤ℎ + ∆𝑃𝑃(𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ) = 𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 .............................................................(4)
 SPE 0049 3

However, the effect of a change in any of the components can be analyzed by recalculating
the node pressure versus flow rate using the new characteristics of the component that was
changed. Hence, the inflow and outflow performances can be used to account for either 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤ℎ or
𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 as shown below:
Inflow to node:
𝑃𝑃�𝑟𝑟 − ∆𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 − ∆𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤ℎ ........................................................................(5)
Outflow from node:
𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + ∆𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤ℎ .........................................................................(6)
Inflow to node:
𝑃𝑃�𝑟𝑟 − ∆𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ...............................................................................(7)
Outflow from node:
𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + ∆𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + ∆𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 .....................................................................(8)

Application Case Study

In a Niger-delta field, Five wells were producing from a reservoir. After eighteen years of
production, three wells tremendously declined in production. It is important to carry-out a
pressure study on these decline wells using nodal-analysis, hence the introduction of
PROSPER becomes relevant.
Prosper Application, Results And Discussion
With a gas gravity of 0.70355, condensate gas ratio of 5stb/MMscf, condensate gravity of
40API, water salinity of 80000ppm, Pressure volume and temperature analysis was carried out
at a reservoir pressure and temperature of 4291psig and 1870F respectively and also at
standard conditions.
Table 1: PVT results at standard temperature
S/N Pressure Gas Gas Gas FVF Z Water Water Water Liquid
(psig) density viscosity (ft3/scf) factor density viscosity FVF /gas
(Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (rb/stb) IFT
(dyne/
cm)
1 0 0.0552 0.010344 0.99689 0.9970 65.9001 1.40939 0.9995 0.206
 4 SPE 0049

2 476.778 2.0408 0.011094 0.026964 0.9010 65.969 1.40939 0.9985 0.206

3 953.556 4.4887 0.012544 0.012259 0.8070 66.038 1.40939 0.9974 0.206

4 1430.33 7.3954 0.014912 0.007440 0.7310 66.1072 1.40939 0.9964 0.206

5 1907.11 10.362 0.018169 0.005310 0.6939 66.1765 1.40939 0.9953 0.206

6 2383.89 12.894 0.021796 0.004267 0.6960 66.2459 1.40939 0.9943 0.206

7 2860.67 14.877 0.025317 0.003698 0.7231 66.3156 1.40939 0.9933 0.206

8 3337.44 16.409 0.028534 0.003353 0.7643 66.3853 1.40939 0.9922 0.206

9 3814.22 17.616 0.031424 0.003123 0.8132 66.4552 1.40939 0.9912 0.206

10 4291 18.593 0.034023 0.002959 0.8664 66.5253 1.40939 0.9901 0.206

Table 2: PVT results at initial reservoir temperature

S/N Pressure Gas Gas Gas FVF Z Water Water Water Liquid/g
(psig) density viscosity (ft3/scf) factor density viscosity FVF as IFT
(Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (rb/stb) (dyne/c
m)
1 0 0.0442 0.012898 1.24235 0.9985 63.851 0.40895 1.0316 0.206

2 476.778 1.5487 0.013356 0.035531 0.9541 63.904 0.40895 1.0307 0.206

3 953.556 3.1771 0.014151 0.01732 0.9163 63.957 0.40895 1.0299 0.206

4 1430.33 4.8924 0.015235 0.011248 0.8880 64.010 0.40895 1.0290 0.206

5 1907.11 6.6272 0.016582 0.008303 0.8719 64.063 0.40895 1.0282 0.206

 SPE 0049 5

6 2383.89 8.3023 0.018138 0.006628 0.8686 64.1166 0.40895 1.0273 0.206

7 2860.67 9.8564 0.01983 0.005583 0.8771 64.1698 0.40895 1.0265 0.206

8 3337.44 11.260 0.02159 0.004886 0.8950 64.2231 0.40895 1.0256 0.206

9 3814.22 12.511 0.023364 0.004398 0.9201 64.2766 0.40895 1.0248 0.206

10 4291 13.621 0.025119 0.004039 0.9504 64.3301 0.40895 1.0239 0.206

Equipment data analysis in consideration of the well deviation survey, downhole completion
equipment, geothermal gradient, and average heat coefficient was done.
Table 3: deviation survey
Measured depth (feet) True vertical depth (feet)
0 0
9500 9500

Table 4: downhole completion equipment

Type Measured Tubing ID Tubing ID Casing ID Casing ID Rate
depth (ft) (inch) roughness (inch) roughness multiplier
(inch) (inch)
Xmas tree 0 - - - - -
tubing 9500 3.992 0.006 8.3 0.0006 1
casing 9500 - - - - 1

Considering a measured depth of zero feet at a standard temperature of 600F and a measured
depth of 9500feet at a temperature of 1870F, an overall heat transfer coefficient of 3Btu/hr/ft2/F
was chosen to determine the geothermal gradient.
The following reservoir system parameter were use to obtain the IPR of the well system.
Table 5: reservoir system input data
S/N parameter
1 Reservoir pressure 4291psig
2 Reservoir temperature 1870F
6 SPE 0049

3 Condensate gas ratio 5stb/MMscf

4 Reservoir permeability 25md
5 Reservoir thickness 50ft
6 Drainage area 340acres
7 Dietz shape factor 3.16
8 Wellbore radius 0.3554ft
9 Perforation interval 40ft
10 Time since production started 0.1days
11 Porosity 20 percent
12 Connate water saturation 20 percent
13 Skin 5

In figure 1, from the IPR plot the absolute open flow of the well system is 66.462MMscf/day.
At a test rate of 4MMscf/day and a test bottom hole pressure of 2108psig, the following VLP
pressures and IPR pressures were obtained:
Table 6: VLP and IPR pressure results
S/N Gas rate VLP pressure (psig) IPR pressure (psig)
(MMscf/day)
1 0.066462 2249 4289
2 4.0 2108 4192
3 14.033 2143 3899
4 28.000 2466 3378
5 31.492 2574 3225
6 34.983 2690 3062
7 41.967 2940 2700
8 55.993 3491 1762
9 59.425 3636 1440
10 62.917 3784 1023

At the above mention test rate and pressure, the solution bottom hole pressure capable of
producing gas at a rate of 41.967MMscf/day is 2700psig.
In figure 2, it is shown that if the well is completed with a 3.99inches ID tubing, a bottom hole
pressure (𝑃𝑃𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ) of 2870psig will accommodate gas production at a rate of 37.426MMscf/day.
SPE 0049 7

Tubing correlation comparison conducted at a depth of 8000feet revealed that if the formation
temperature and pressure is 1860F and 3033psig respectively, pore pressure gradient will be
0.020psi/ft under a constant heat transfer coefficient of 1.44Btu/hr/ft2/F. At the above
temperature, pressure and depth condition, below are results of other determined parameters.
Table 7: tubing correlation comparison result
S/N parameter
1 Friction gradient 0.00608psi/ft
2 Friction pressure loss 48.91psi
3 Gravity pressure loss 114.3psi
4 Slip gas velocity 26.185ft/sec
5 Erosion velocity 124.079ft/sec
6 Tubing rate 37MMscf/day
7 Cumulative gas volume 695.3ft3

In table 8, at an initial reservoir pressure of 4291psig and a zero condensate gas ratio (CGR)
under a skin of 5, inflow calculation were done to show the effect of skin on drawdown and
withdrawal.
From the well system plot in figure 3, a reference well head pressure (WHP) of 1000psig was
selected for the well head pressure/rate forecast. But from table 10 calculation, it was further
reveal that if the well was completed with a tubing ID of 1.16 inches, then a 1000psig WHP
pressure at an initial reservoir pressure of 4291psig would not be suitable for production.
Hence under the above initial reservoir pressure, a VLP pressure of 2853psig under a
wellhead temperature (WHT) of 1690F will be required to produce 39.121 MMscf/day. Other
relevant information obtainable at this operating condition are shown in table 11.
Table 8: inflow/outflow calculation result
S/N Gas rate (MMscf/day) IPR pressure (psig) dP total skin (psi)
1 0.00664 4291 0.0678
2 3.501 4206 35.94
3 6.995 4112 71.92
4 10.489 4011 108.07
5 13.983 3901 144.44
6 17.477 3784 181.14
7 20.971 3659 218.28
8 SPE 0049

Figure 1: IPR plot

Figure 2: IPR/VLP plot

SPE 0049 9

In table 9, it was observed that an IPR pressure of 3225psig will require a VLP pressure of
2586psig to produce 31.49165MMscf/day. Below is a table showing other scenarios.
Table 9: three system variable (tubing/pipe diameter, downhole equipment and reservoir
pressure) consideration.
S/N Gas rate VLP pressure IPR pressure dP total
(MMscf/day) (psig) (psig) skin (psi)
1 3.33 2116 4204 36.65
2 10.54 2104 4009 108.9
3 14.03 2146 3899 145.4
4 21.01 2285 3656 219.5
5 52.44 3374 2037 646.4
6 62.92 3818 1026 1044.7

Figure 3: well system plot

10 SPE 0049

Table 10: solution details

S/N Parameter
1 Oil rate 195.6stb/day
2 Total skin 5
3 Total dP skin 429.44psi
4 dP fiction 539.87psi
5 dP gravity 1292.70psi

However for the effect of VLP and IPR on flow rates to be known, multiple variable calculation
was done considering several completion components, tubing/pipe diameter, tubing roughness
and skin. A close observation revealed that tubing diameter, downhole completion equipment,
permeability and skin have tremendous effect on flow rate when IPR or VLP is in
consideration. These effect also depict high alterations in VLP and IPR pressures. Whenever
skin and permeability is altered, IPR changes. This effect also applies to VLP when tubing ID
changes. More also, the change in pressure due to skin is a high function of wellbore condition
(damaged or stimulated).
Table 11: multiple variable calculation (tubing diameter, downhole equipment,
permeability, skin and roughness)
S/N Gas rate VLP pressure IPR pressure dP total
(MMscf/day) (psig) (psig) skin (psi)
1 0.066759 3406 4291 0.41016
2 2.78673 3214 4228 17.1597
3 5.5067 3135 4160 33.9531
4 10.9466 3120 4008 67.7563
5 15.0266 3166 3878 93.3894
6 32.7064 3645 3147 211.801
SPE 0049 11

Figure 4: IPR versus VLP plot for various tubing sizes

From figure 4, flow rate is severely affected by three parameters (skin, permeability and tubing
diameter). Downhole equipment and tubing roughness may have little effect on VLP and the
solution node pressure but certainly not on flow rate.
Below are results from different scenarios:
Table 12: Variables
parameter
Tubing ID 1.0 inch
Downhole Equipment SSSV
Tubing roughness 0.0054inch
Permeability 20.5md
Skin 2.5
12 SPE 0049

Table 13: Solution

Parameter
Gas rate 26.4798MMscf/day
Solution node pressure 3436.82 psig
Completion skin 2.5
Wellhead liquid density 49.8657ib/cu.ft

Subsequent scenario's show that if a well is completed with a tubing ID of 2.0inches, and
permeability drops to 15.75md due to increase skin of 5, a huge reduction in the solution node
pressure will yield a rate of 21.1206MMscf/day. However if a proper stimulation job is done to
improve the permeability to 30md and as such reduce the wellbore damage (skin) to a
negative value of -5, a robust rate of 37.6912MMscf/day will be realized from a solution node
pressure of 3835.26psig.
Table 14 shows that, the higher the tubing ID, the higher the chances of not exceeding the
erosion velocity limited (i.e tubing integrity that can accommodate certain flow rates). This
scenario is observed especially in small tubing ID completions where flow velocity is high.
Table 14: VLP tubing curve result using tubing ID of 2.98inches and a wellhead pressure
of 850psig
S/N Erosion Gas rate VLP pressure
velocity (MMscf/day) (psig)
limited
1 - 3.558 1797
2 - 14.033 2304
3 - 28.000 3524
5 E 55.933 6295
6 E 66.408 7381

Furthermore WHP calculation were used to account for bottom hole pressure (BHP). Various
reference value were chosen at random at their corresponding temperature conditions. Table
15 show results of calculated BHP using WHP.
SPE 0049 13

Table 15: results of calculated BHP using WHP

S/N Time Gas rate WHP CGR WHT Calculated Heat
(days) (MMscf/day) (psig) (stb/MMscf) (0F) BHP transfer
(psig) coef.
(Btu/h/ft2/F)
1 1 1 500 5 82 1027 0.68457
2 2 1.5 890 5 100 1856 0.55486
3 3 10 1700 5 145 3052 1.02208
4 4 24 1707 5 160 3646 1.41284

CONCLUSION
This paper has shown that nodal analysis techniques utilizes reservoir system (fluid, reservoir
and well properties) data in the determination of pressures occurring at various nodes. Results
obtained show that nodal analysis can be used for the following:
• Account for the pressure distribution responsible for every withdrawal.
• Determine the effect of downhole equipment on well system performance.
• Simulate the IPR and VLP of a well system.
• Determine the THP and BHP suitable for certain production rate.
• Obtain the value of an unknown node from a known node ( e.g. WHP from BHP or vise-
versa).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to the Petroleum Experts IPM 7.5, whose tool were used for this
study.

REFERENCE
Economides M.J., Hill A.D., Economides E.C., 1993 petroleum production systems, upper
saddle river, new jersey: prentice hall. 174-181
Beggs, H.D., 2003. production optimization using nodal analysis, second edition, Tulsa
Oklahoma: OGCI, inc., & Petroskill, LLC. 1-3
Boyuo, G., William, C.L., Ali, G., 2007. petroleum production engineering, ISBN:07506823701,
Elsevier Science & Technology Books. 332-342
14 SPE 0049

NOMENCLATURE
BHP - bottom hole pressure
Bg – gas formation volume factor (cu.ft/SCF)
Bgi - initial gas formation volume factor (cu.ft/SCF)
C – Carbon
C1 – methane
C2 – ethane
C3 – propane
C4 – butane
C5 – pentane
C6 – hexane
C7 – heptanes
Cf – rock compressibility
Cw – water compressibility
CGR – condensate gas ratio
CO2 – carbon dioxide
FVF – formation volume factor
0
F – degree Fahrenheit
HC – hydrocarbon
H2S – hydrogen sulfide
𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 - pound mole
Ib/ft3 - pounds per cubic feet
MMscf - million standard cubic feet
Mstb - thousand stock tank barrel
N2 – Nitrogen
P – Pressure
PS-1 pseudo fluid 1
PVT – pressure volume and temperature
Scf – standard cubic feet
STB – stock tank barrel
SG – specific gravity
T – Temperature
Z – Gas compressibility factor
SPE 0049 15

ℓ − density
ℓ𝑔𝑔 − Gas density
ℓ𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − Saturation density
𝛾𝛾- specific gravity
𝛾𝛾𝑔𝑔 − Gas specific gravity
∆p� – Average pressure change
𝜇𝜇 − Viscosity
𝜇𝜇𝑔𝑔 − Gas viscosity
bbl – barrels
D – depth
GOR – gas oil ratio (scf/bbl)
h - Thickness (ft)
IPR – inflow performance relation
Pi – initial pressure
Psig – pound per square inch gallon
PVT – pressure volume and temperature
Pwf – well flow pressure
q - rate
S – skin
VLP – vertical lift performance
WHP – well head pressure
WHT - wellhead temperature
∅ − porosity
∆P – pressure change
𝜇𝜇 − Viscosity
∆𝑝𝑝𝐷𝐷 − Dimensionless change in pressure
𝜓𝜓𝑖𝑖 − pressure in terms of pseudo effect
(∆𝜓𝜓)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 - Total pressure drop in terms of pseudo effects
16 SPE 0049

APPENDIX A: unit conversion factors

quantity U.S. Field unit To SI unit To U.S. Field SI unit
unit
Length (L) Feet(ft) 0.3084 3.2808 Meter (m)
Mile (mil) 1.609 0.6214 Kilometre(km)
Inch(in) 25.4 0.0937 Millimetre(mm)

Mass (M) Ounce (oz) 28.3495 0.03527 Gram (g)

Pound (Ib) 0.4536 2.205 Kilogram (kg)
Ibm 0.0311 32.17 slug

Volume (V) Gallon (gal) 0.003785 264.172 Meter3(m3)

Cu.ft (ft3) 0.028317 35.3147 Meter3(m3)
Barrel (bbl) 0.15899 6.2898 Meter3(m3)
Mcf (1000ft3) 28.317 0.0353 Nm3(150C,101.3kpa)
Sq.ft (ft2) 9.29x10-2 10.764 Meter2(m2)

Area (A) Acre 4.0469x103 2.471x10-4 Meter2(m2)

Sq. mile 2.59 0.386 (Km)2

Pressure (P) Ib/in2(psi) 6.8949 0.145 Kpa (1000pa)

Psi 0.0680 14.696 atm
Psi/ft 22.62 0.0442 Kpa/m
Inch Hg 3.3864x103 0.2953x10-3 Pa

Temperature F 0.555(F-32) 18C +32 C

(t) Rankine (0R) 0.555 1.8 Kelvin(k)

Energy/work Btu 252.16 3.966x10-3 Cal

(w) Btu 1.0551 0.9478 Kilojoule(kJ)
Ft-Ibf 1.3558 0.73766 Joule (J)
Hp-hr 0.7457 1.341 kW-hr

Viscosity (𝝁𝝁) cp 0.001 1000 Pa-s

Ib/ft-sec 1.4882 0.672 Kg/(m-sec) or (pa-s)
SPE 0049 17

Ibf-s/ft2 479 0.0021 Dyne-s/cm2(poise)

Thermal Btu-ft/hr-ft2-F 1.7307 0.578 W/(m-K)

conductivity
(k)
Specific heat Btu/(Ibm-0F) 1 1 Cal/(g-0C)
(Cp) Btu/(Ibm-0F) 4.184x103 2.39x10-4 J.(Kg-K)

Density (𝓵𝓵) Ibm/ft3 16.02 0.0624 Jk/m3

Permeability md 0.9862 1.0133 mD (=10-15m2)

(K) md(=10-3 9.869x10-16 1.0133x10-15 m2
darcy)