0% found this document useful (0 votes)
80 views12 pages

Chapter 2:-: Faculty of Engineering Petroleum Engineering Department Production Engineering II Fourth Stage

Uploaded by

Omer Ikhlas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
80 views12 pages

Chapter 2:-: Faculty of Engineering Petroleum Engineering Department Production Engineering II Fourth Stage

Uploaded by

Omer Ikhlas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Faculty Of Engineering

Petroleum Engineering Department

Production Engineering II
Fourth Stage

Chapter 2:-
Wellbore performance
Vertical Lift Performance
(VLP)
BSc Petroleum Engineering – Koya University July 2010
MSc Petroleum Engineering- Teesside Uni. United Kingdom October 2013 By:
Petroleum Production Engineering
Sarhad Ahmed 1
Member of Society of Petroleum Engineer (SPE), Onepetro access
© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved. [Link]@[Link]
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

2. Multi Phase Liquid flow

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG


© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
2
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

2. Multi Phase Liquid flow


• In addition to oil, almost all oil wells produce a certain amount of water, gas,
and sometimes sand.
• These wells are called multiphase-oil wells.
• The VLP equation for single-phase flow is not valid for multiphase oil wells.
• To analyze VLP of multiphase oil wells rigorously, a multiphase flow model is
required.
• Multiphase flow is much more complicated than single-phase flow because of
the variation of flow regime (or flow pattern).
• Fluid distribution changes greatly in different flow regimes, which significantly
affects pressure gradient in the tubing.

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG


© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
3
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

2. Multi Phase Liquid flow


• Numerous VLP models have been developed for analyzing multiphase flow in
vertical pipes.
• Brown (1977) presents a thorough review of these models.
• VLP models for multiphase flow wells fall into two categories:
• Homogeneous flow models and
• Separated-flow models.
• Homogeneous models treat multiphase as a homogeneous mixture and do not
consider the effects of liquid holdup (no-slip assumption). Therefore, these models
are less accurate.
• Separated-flow models are more realistic than the homogeneous-flow models. They
are usually given in the form of empirical correlations. The effects of liquid holdup
(slip) and flow regime are considered.
• The major disadvantage of the separated flow models is that it is difficult to code them in computer
programs because most correlations are presented in graphic form.

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG


© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
4
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Homogeneous flow models

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG


© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
5
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Homogeneous flow models


• Numerous homogeneous-flow models have been developed for analyzing the VLP of
multiphase wells since the pioneering works of Poettmann and Carpenter (1952).
• Poettmann–Carpenter’s model uses empirical two-phase friction factor for friction pressure
loss calculations without considering the effect of liquid viscosity.
• Assuming no slip of liquid phase, Poettmann and Carpenter presented a simplified gas-oil-
water three-phase flow model to compute pressure losses in wellbores by estimating mixture
density and friction factor.
• According to the method, the following equation can be used to calculate pressure traverse in a
vertical tubing when the acceleration term is neglected:
𝑑𝑝 𝑓𝑚 𝜌𝑚 𝑣𝑚 2 𝜌𝑚 𝑔
= + 2.7
𝑑𝑧 2𝑑𝑔𝑐 𝑔𝑐
• Where
𝑣𝑚 = is the average mixture velocity over the tubing interval of length 𝑑𝑧 and 𝑑
is the inside diameter of the tubing.
𝜌𝑚 = is the mixture density
The factor 𝒇𝒎 must be determined empirically.
@koya university 2018-2019 PENG
© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
6
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Homogeneous flow models


• liquid hold-up, (HL) may be defined as the volume of liquid actually present in a
certain length of pipe, divided by the volume of that length of pipe; the definition of
gas holdup (Hg) is similar.
𝑉𝐿
𝐻𝐿 =
𝑉𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒
𝐻𝐿 + 𝐻𝑔 = 1.0

• For the case of slip condition;

(𝜌𝑚 )𝑠𝑐 = 𝜌𝐿 𝐻𝐿 + 𝜌𝒈 (1 – 𝐻𝐿) 2.8

• For the case of equal phase velocity, or no-slip conditions;

(𝜌𝑚 )𝑛𝑠𝑐 = 𝜌𝐿 𝐹𝐿 + 𝜌𝑔 (1 – 𝐹𝐿) 2.9

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG


© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
7
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Homogeneous flow models


• 𝐹𝐿 is volume fraction of liquid in the pipe.

𝜌𝐿 = 𝜌𝑜 𝐹𝑜 + 𝜌𝑤 𝐹𝑤
𝑄𝐿 𝑄𝑜
𝐹𝑳 = 𝑜𝑟 𝐹𝑜 = 𝑄
𝑄𝐿 +𝑄𝑔 𝑜 +𝑄𝑤
𝐹𝑤 = 1 − 𝐹𝑜

𝑣𝑚 = 𝑣𝑠𝐿 + 𝑣𝑠𝑔
𝑄𝐿 𝑄𝑔
𝑣𝑠𝐿 = 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑠𝑔 =
𝐴 𝐴
• Where; 𝑣𝑠𝐿, 𝑣𝑠𝑔 = superficial liquid and gas velocity, respectively.

𝒗 𝒎 𝝆𝒎 𝑑
(𝑁𝑅𝑒 )𝑚 = 2.10
𝝁𝒎

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG


© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
8
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Homogeneous flow models


Poettmann and Carpenter
• No slip, no flow pattern consideration, the mixture density is calculated based
on the input gas/liquid ratio. That is, the gas and liquid are assumed to travel
at the same velocity.

(𝜌𝑚 )𝑛𝑠𝑐 = 𝜌𝐿 𝐹𝐿 + 𝜌𝑔 (1 – 𝐹𝐿)

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG


© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
9
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Homogeneous flow models


Poettmann and Carpenter

@koya Figure (2.9), Correlation of field data natural flowing and gas-lift wells.
university 2018-2019 PENG
© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
10
DPTE

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Homogeneous flow models


Example:
Using the Poettmann and Carpenter method, calculate the vertical multiphase-flow pressure

gradient for an oil well is flowing 10000 𝐬𝐭𝐛/𝐝𝐚𝐲 with producing gas/oil ratio of 1000 𝐬𝐜𝐟/𝐬𝐭𝐛 or a

gas production rate of 10 𝐌𝐌 𝐒𝐂𝐅/𝐃𝐀𝐘. The following data are known from the pressure/

volume/ temperature (PVT):

𝐛𝐛𝐥 𝐟𝐭𝟑
𝐁𝐨 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟗𝟕 , 𝐁𝐠 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗𝟏 ,
𝐒𝐭𝐛 𝐒𝐜𝐟

𝐬𝐜𝐟 𝐥𝐛𝐦
𝐑𝐬 = 𝟐𝟖𝟏 , 𝐝 = 𝟔 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐡, 𝛒𝐋 = 𝟒𝟕. 𝟔𝟏
𝐒𝐓𝐁 𝐟𝐭𝟑

𝛒𝐠 = 𝟓. 𝟖𝟖 𝐥𝐛𝐦/𝐟𝐭𝟑.
@koya university 2018-2019 PENG
© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
11
End
DPTE

End of Lecture
@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.


12

You might also like