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

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. Sarhad.ahmed@koyauniversity.org
DPTE
𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕
✓ Introduction
✓ Flow in Vertical Pipe:
✓ Introduction to phase flow in vertical pipe
✓ Flow regimes
✓ Vertical Lift Performance

✓ Factor affecting on VLP
✓ Pressure drop calculation in vertical pipe
✓ Generating VLP curves
@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved.
2
DPTE
Introduction
• The produced reservoir fluids should come to the surface facilities and to
get them so it has to be pushed up by a pressure higher than the
hydrostatic pressure of the fluid inside the tubing,
• And also it should overcome the friction forces that resulted between
flowing fluid and the tubing inner wall.
• Hereby, the VLP can be defined as the ratio between the tubing pressure
intakes (PIN) versus the amount of flow rate (q),
• where PIN is the pressure which inlets into the bottom of the tubing and
it should be able to lift the reservoir fluid inside the well bore to the
surface.

3
DPTE
Introduction
Possible Pressure Losses in a Complete System

4
DPTE
Introduction
• Wells normally produce a mixture of fluids oil, gas and salt-water (sand
sometimes) to the surface facilities.
• Throughout the way from the borehole to the surface a continuous change
in phase will occur along the path.
• When pressure is high enough at the bottom, the single phase flow may be
present.
• Within that system of production a decrease in pressure will cause the
dissolved gas to liberate from the oil (flowing liquid) resulting in a two
phase flow (oil plus gas).
• In two phase flow patterns, for example, gas plus liquid, where one phase
is denser than other.
• This will lead the less dense phase (gas) to flow faster than denser phase
(oil).
5
DPTE
Liquid Hold Up
• The hold-up phenomena is used for analysing two phase flow inside the
vertical pipes (tubing for example) see figure (2.1).
• As a result, the denser phases will slip down which means liquid is held
up, therefore, the liquid holdup can be expressed as the denser phase is
held-up in comparison to the less dense phase.

© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved. Figure 2.1: Schematic of two-phase flow 6
DPTE
Liquid Hold Up
• The liquid holdup is expressed by :
𝑽𝜷
𝒚𝜷 = 𝟐. 𝟏
𝑽
• Where,
𝒚𝜷 = is the liquid holdup faction
𝑽𝜷 = is the liquid phase volume in the pipe, ft3 and
V = is the total volume of pipe, ft3
• Since, the pipe is completely filled with the two-phase flow, the fraction
volume of two volumes can be written as:
𝒚𝜶 = 𝟏 − 𝒚𝜷 𝟐. 𝟐
• Where
𝑦𝛼 is the gas holdup faction.

7
DPTE
Liquid Hold Up
• To combine the two above parameters of 𝑦𝛼 and 𝑦𝛽 , input fractions
(𝜆𝛽 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜆𝛼 ) of each phase is proposed as:
𝒒𝜷
𝝀𝜷 = 2.3
𝒒𝜶 + 𝒒𝜷
• Where,
𝑞𝛽 the volumetric flow rate of denser phase.

8
DPTE
Flow patterns in vertical two-phase flow
• As the pressure on a crude oil containing gas in solution is steadily

reduced, free gas is evolved; as a consequence, the liquid volume
decreases.
• This phenomenon affects the relative volumes of free gas and oil present
at each point in the tubing of a flowing well.
• For instance,
• If the flowing BHP in a particular well is above the bubble point of the crude
being produced, liquid only is present in the lower part of the tubing.
• As the liquid moves up the tubing, the pressure drops and gas bubbles begin to
form. Therefore, the flow regimes changed and that effect on calculations of
pressure drops.

9
DPTE
Flow Regimes
• In the single phase flow, a good distinguish between the laminar and
turbulent flow is observed, while, in two-phase flow further phase
discriminations can be recognised between.
• Typically, in vertical flow the six types of flow regimes can be recognised
(as shown in Figure 2.2 a&b):
• Single phase flow

• Dispersed Bubble Flow
• Slug Flow
• Churn Flow
• Annular Flow
• Mist Flow

10
DPTE
Flow Regimes
Liquid Gas

Figure 2.2 a: Flow Regimes
11
DPTE
Flow Regimes
Figure 2.2 b: Flow

Regimes in vertical pipe
12
DPTE
Flow Regimes
Single-phase liquid
Single-phase liquid flow exists in an oil well only when the wellhead
pressure is above the bubble-point pressure of the oil, which is usually not
a reality.
Bubble flow
Having numerous dispersed bubbles of gas in the continuous liquid phase
flow is called bubble flow regime. Size and shape of these bubbles vary,
but they are generally spherical and much smaller than the tubing size.
Slug Flow
In this situation, gas bubbles will increase and come together creating a
big slug of gas inside the continuous oil phase. The size of these slugs are
similar to the tubing dimension ad their shape is hemispherical

13
DPTE
Flow Regimes
Annular flow
Further increasing gas rate, gas will dominate entire tubing allowing the
liquid phase to flow only as a thin film around the inner wall of tubing.
Mist flow
With more dominating of the tubing by the gas as a continuous phase the
oil film will be destroyed to droplets of liquid.

14
DPTE

• VLP also named Outflow, describes the bottom-hole pressure as a function
of flow rate as shown in figure 2.3.
• The VLP depends on many factors including;
• Liquid Flow Rate, Gas/Liquid Ratio,
• Water Cut,
• Liquid Viscosity,
• Tubing Size and
For you
• Slippage.

15
DPTE
Factor affecting on VLP

• Liquid Flow Rate:
• The relationship between liquid flow to the liquid holdup and fluid velocity is directly
proportional. Therefore, change in liquid flow rate will directly change the
hydrostatic pressure and friction force (figure 2.4).
• Gas/Liquid Ratio:
• It is one of the most sensible variables on the well performance than the others. Any
increase in the GLR the water cut will decrease. Thus, hydrostatic pressure will
reduce (dp/dL)el. and friction term (dp/dL)f. will increase (figure 2.5).

16
DPTE
Figure 2.4: effect of liquid rate. Figure 2.5: effect of GLR.

17
DPTE

Water/Oil Ratio (Water Cut)
• When water cut (fraction, fw) increases the fluid density inside the tubing
will increase and also gas/liquid ratio (GLR) will reduce figure 2.6..

Figure 2.6: effect of water cut
18
DPTE
Liquid Viscosity,
• liquid viscosity effects the liquid

holdup HL and friction figure 2.7.
• It has a direct relation to the pressure
gradient equation, and it also uses to
calculate the REYNOLDS NUMBER
for friction factor parameter.

Figure 2.7: effect of Liquid viscosity
19
DPTE
Pressure drop calculation

in vertical pipe
(TBG)
1. Single-Phase Liquid Flow
2. Multi-Phase Liquid Flow

20
DPTE

• Single-phase liquid flow exists in an oil well only when the wellhead pressure is above
the bubble-point pressure of the oil, which is usually not a reality.
• However, it is convenient to start from single-phase liquid for establishing the concept
of fluid flow in oil wells where multiphase flow usually dominates.
• Consider a fluid flowing from point 1 to point 2 in a tubing string of length L and height
z (Figure 2.8).
• The first law of thermodynamics yields the following equation for pressure drop: first
law of thermodynamics yields to:
∆𝑷 = 𝑷𝟏 − 𝑷𝟐
∆𝑷 = ∆𝑷 𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 + ∆𝑷 𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚 + ∆𝑃 𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑔 𝜌 2
2𝑓𝐹 𝜌𝑢2 𝐿
∆𝑃 = 𝜌∆𝑧 + ∆𝑢 + 2.4
𝑔𝑐 2𝑔𝑐 𝑔𝑐 𝐷

© 2006 Weatherford. All rights reserved. Figure 2.8: Flow along a tubing string.
21
DPTE

𝑔 𝜌 2
2𝑓𝐹 𝜌𝑢2 𝐿
∆𝑃 = 𝜌∆𝑧 + ∆𝑢 + 2.4
𝑔𝑐 2𝑔𝑐 𝑔𝑐 𝐷
• Where:
• ∆𝑃 = 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝, 𝐼𝑏/𝑓𝑡 2 ,
𝐼𝑏
• 𝑃1 = 𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑓𝑡 2
• 𝑃2 = 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝐼𝑏/𝑓𝑡 2
𝑓𝑡
• 𝑔 = 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 32.17 𝑠2 ,
• 𝑔𝑐 = 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 32.17 𝐼𝑏 − 𝑓𝑡/𝐼𝑏 −𝑠 2
𝐼𝑏
• 𝜌 = 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑓𝑡 3
• ∆𝑧 = 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒, 𝑓𝑡,
• 𝑢 = 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑓𝑡/𝑠
• 𝑓𝐹 = 𝐹𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟,
• 𝐿 = 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ, 𝑓𝑡
• 𝐷 = 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝑓𝑡

22
DPTE
The Fanning Friction Factor (𝒇𝑭 ):

• The Fanning friction factor (𝑓𝐹 ) can be evaluated based on Reynolds number and
relative roughness. Reynolds number is defined as the ratio of inertial force to viscous
force. Thus, the Reynolds number is expressed in:
1.48 𝑞 𝜌
𝑁𝑅𝑒 = 2.5
𝑑𝜇
• where
𝑵𝑹𝒆 = Reynolds number 𝒒 = fluid flow rate, bbl/day
𝝆 = fluid density lbm/ft3 𝒅 = tubing inner diameter, in.
𝝁 = fluid viscosity, cp
• For laminar flow where 𝑁𝑅𝑒 < 2,000 and for turbulent flow where 𝑁𝑅𝑒 > 2,100, the
Fanning friction factor is inversely proportional to the Reynolds number as follow:
16
𝑓𝐹 =
𝑁𝑅𝑒
23
DPTE

• Fanning friction factor can be estimated using empirical correlations.
• Among numerous correlations developed by different investigators, Chen’s (1979)
correlation has an explicit form and gives similar accuracy to the Colebrook– White
equation (Gregory and Fogarasi, 1985) that was used for generating the friction factor
chart used in the petroleum industry.
• Chen’s correlation takes the following form:
2.6
• Where:
𝛿
• The relative roughness is defined as 𝜀 = 𝑑 and 𝛿 is the absolute roughness of
pipe wall.

24
DPTE
Darcy–Wiesbach friction factor (𝑓𝑀 ) diagram – Moody Diagram.
𝑓𝑀
𝑓𝐹 =
4

25
DPTE
Example 2.1:
Suppose that 1,000 bbl/day of 40 ֯ API, 1.2 cp oil is being produced through
2 7Τ8 in., 8.6 𝐼𝑏𝑚

ൗ𝑓𝑡 tubing in a well that is 15 degrees from vertical. If the
tubing wall relative roughness is 0.001, calculate the pressure drop over
1,000 ft of tubing.

26
DPTE
Example 2.1:

27
End
DPTE
End of Lecture

28

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faculty Of Engineering

Petroleum Engineering Department

Vertical Lift Performance

✓ Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Flow patterns in vertical two-phase flow

• As the pressure on a crude oil containing gas in solution is steadily

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

• Single phase flow

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Figure 2.2 b: Flow

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Vertical Lift Performance

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Factor affecting on VLP

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Factor affecting on VLP

Figure 2.4: effect of liquid rate. Figure 2.5: effect of GLR.

Vertical Lift Performance

Factor affecting on VLP

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Factor affecting on VLP

• liquid viscosity effects the liquid

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

Pressure drop calculation

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Single-Phase Liquid Flow

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Single-Phase Liquid Flow

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Single-Phase Liquid Flow

The Fanning Friction Factor (𝒇𝑭 ):

Vertical Lift Performance

1. Single-Phase Liquid Flow

The Fanning Friction Factor (𝒇𝑭 ):

@koya university 2018-2019 PENG