SPE 92049
Improvements for Flow Correlations for Gas Wells Experiencing Liquid Loading
N. Kumar, Murphy Oil Corp.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Western Regional Meeting held in
Irvine, CA, U.S.A., 30 March – 1 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Improvements to pressure traverse (predictions) using simple
modifications to a two phase flow program (Gray1,2
correlation) for gas wells producing some liquids have been
discussed in this paper. The Gray correlation was found to be
the best of several initially tested. Improvements in pressure
traverse predictions with modifications are shown compared to
a set of high quality data. The absolute average error between
the measured data and calculated data for fifteen wells was
reduced from about 28 % to about 22% using suggested
modifications or improvements. Modifications tested included
modeling downhole condensation or vaporization of water, a
correction for water density, use of a regression technique to
minimize error in a program that was written to allow input
constants to help adjust predications to measurements, and
adding multiphase flow regimes in the two phase flow
program. Also, some suggestions for future work to improve
correlations for liquid loaded gas well pressure profile
predications are discussed.
Introduction
Accurate predictions of the flowing bottom hole pressures
(FBHP) for various operating conditions are needed for
analysis of gas wells producing with or without some liquid
production. Later in a gas well’s life, an operating condition
often encountered is that of liquid loading although low
production rates, high surface pressures, and large tubing can
contribute to liquid loading at any time. Under this condition,
produced liquids will accumulate in the well bore leading to
reduced or no production. Correlations exist (for instance
Gray’s1,2 correlation - described in detail in Appendix A) to
predict the FBHP for gas wells producing “limited” amounts
of liquids. An attempt has been made here to show how to
improve multiphase flow correlations in general and in
particular for Gray for gas wells experiencing liquid loading.
The improved correlation is expected to predict pressure
traverses in well bores better than currently available
correlations according to the comparisons made in the paper to
limited but high quality measured well data.
Statement of theory
The objective to develop an improved multiphase flow
correlation for gas wells experiencing liquid loading was
approached with the following steps:
Data used for comparisons. Table 1 provides a brief
description of data obtained from fifteen wells. These wells
are labeled A to O. A detailed description of well test data
from each well is provided in figures 8 to 21. Pressure data
from well test analysis has been referred to as PWTA. The
number of data sets is limited but includes pressure surveys of
each well. Due to the limited number of data sets, any
conclusions reached here serve more as indications to
modifications that may improve predictions of flow
correlations for gas wells with some liquid loading.
Comparison to more data might require adjusting the
modifications presented here.
Best available multiphase flow correlation for gas wells
producing some liquids compared to the available data.
Several multiphase flow correlations are available in literature
which can predict pressure traverses when flowing fluid is gas
and liquids. Comparing measured data to predictions from the
Gray correlation and other correlations has indicated that Gray
correlation is best correlation for gas wells producing some
liquids. This conclusion was made by comparing twelve
widely used correlations in industry (Cullender3 and smith,
Poetman4 and Carpenter, Baxendell5 and Thomas, Fancher6
and Brown, Duns7 and Ros, Orkiszwesky8, Beggs9 and Brill,
Duckler10 et.al, Mukherjee11 and Brill, Aziz12, Govier and
Fogarsi, and original Gray1,2 correlations). See Appendix A for
comparison results. There are other industry correlations to
compare with, some requiring compositional input, but it is
hoped the general ideas here can lead to improvements in
many correlations using PVT correlations. Some of the
modifications are particular to the Gray correlation such as the
input constants for the “Modified Gray” correlation. The
original Gray correlation is a two phase vertical flow
correlation for gas wells to determine pressure gradients with
depth that produce limited amount of condensate fluid or
water. The limits on water and condensate in the original data
set to which Gray compared his model were 10 bbl-
water/MMscf/D and 150 bbl-condensate/MMscfMscf/D. His
model was correlated against 108 well test data sets.
2 SPE 92049
Programmed Correlation. A working version of original
Gray correlation was developed using Fortran 90 as the
programming language. The program has used equations as
described for Gray correlation in API-RP14B2. The program
has as inputs gas, oil and water flow rates, API gravity of the
condensate if any produced, the gas specific gravity, the water
specific gravity, the surface and bottom hole flowing
temperatures, recorded surface and bottom hole pressures,
depth, size and number of tubing strings and their lengths and
depths, the roughness value desired to be used in calculating
the friction pressure drop, and the angle (for vertical wells the
angle is 90 degrees). The calculation starts with dividing the
total depth into a fixed number of equal intervals. PVT
parameters are calculated at each interval. The program is
capable of calculating the pressure traverse from top down or
bottom up as is typical of most industry correlations. The
necessary equations to describe the model are summarized in
Appendix A. The output from program includes pressure
versus depth, pressure drop, elevation, friction and
acceleration gradients and flow rates. If measured test data is
input then output includes differences between predictions and
measurements.
Modifications to Original Gray correlation investigated.
The original Gray correlation has some limitations as
discussed in Appendix A, where a detailed summary of the
original Gray correlation has been provided. Some
modifications which could be made on original Gray
correlation to improve pressure traverse prediction for liquid
loaded gas wells are discussed here. A correction for gas
density affects13 due to depth and PVT conditions down hole
has been investigated. The effect of this correction is small but
visible. The original Gray correlation has also been modified
to include predications of when input water is in the vapor or
free liquid state using Bukacek’s14 solubility chart. By using
the Griffith’s15,16 and wallis’s17 bubble flow and Hagedorn18
and Brown’s slug flow holdup equations, flow regimes were
introduced into the original single phase Gray correlation with
some success. Using a regression technique, pressure profiles
from the “Modified24” Gray correlation were improved
relative to the original Gray correlation by adjustment of two
input constants that allow the user to modify the correlation
from input of these constants. The modified Gray correlation
is discussed in Appendix B. The effects of each of these tested
modifications are described below.
Detailed Description of Corrections to Original Gray
Correlation
Correction for Change in Water Density with Depth.
Gray’s work considers a constant water density for the entire
pressure traverse in a well. Where both water and condensate
are present, Gray correlation takes a weighted average density:
ρ q + ρ wqw
ρl = o o .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 1 . 1
qo + qw
Density at reservoir conditions is determined by dividing
the density at standard conditions by the formation volume
factor of the water at reservoir conditions13.
The change in volume of gas during pressure reduction is
represented by ∆Vwp and the change in volume of gas due to
reduction in temperature is represented by ∆VwT. Figure 1 and
Figure 2 give values of ∆Vwp and ∆VwT as function of
reservoir temperature and pressure. The formation volume
factor of water may be computed from these values using the
following equation:
B w = (1 + ∆ V wp )(1 + ∆ V wT ).......... .......... .......... ........ 1 . 2
Where Bw is the formation volume factor. As shown in
the next section, the effect of the water density correction on
the pressure traverse was limited as might be expected.
Correction and modeling for water condensation. The
original Gray correlation did not account for the condensation
or vaporization of water in the tubing. It was correlated to data
that had condensate up to 154 bc/MMscf/D and water up to 10
bw/MMscf/D. Thus, the form of the relationship for the
holdup was developed to represent the holdup that would
match data for wells in which condensates are the major
contributor to liquid loading. Actually only water and not
condensate is present in many loaded wells. Using existing
correlations19 in literature on modeling condensing water, the
original Gray correlation has been modeled for condensing
water in a tubing downhole.
A downhole pressure survey19 may show where there is
condensation—the pressure gradient can nearly equal a water
gradient in the condensation region, which is usually in the top
portion of a well where the flow stream begin to cool. Figure 3
shows a gradient in the condensation region where the psi/ft
value of the pressure gradient is almost as high as 100% water.
This particular gradient was found to oscillate and this could
be because the condensed liquids are forming slugs and
surfacing as slug flow showing intermittent pressure at a given
location. If water is condensing, the additional liquid where
condensation is occurring can be found by calculating Qc,
where Qc is the barrels of water condensing at a cooler portion
of the tubing as found using the dew point chart for water21.
Figure 4 shows a heavy pressure gradient near the surface
and also at the bottom of a well bore. At the surface the heavy
flowing pressure gradient is due to water condensation while
at the bottom it is because of liquids accumulating. Water
from condensation will add to the pressure drop in the tubing
by adding to the liquid holdup where the water breaks out. If
the velocity in the tubing is low enough, then water will fall
back in the tubing and accumulate at the bottom of the tubing
to add to the pressure drop. This has been shown in a test23 of
using heat from an electrical resistance heated cable to prevent
water condensation. The initial pressure drop was found to be
high where the water condensed in the tubing and then a high
pressure drop area was found at the bottom of the tubing.
When heat was added, both of the high pressure gradients
present were greatly reduced.
The solubility curves for increasing pressure and
temperatures in Bukacek’s14 work were converted into data
points and stored in separate files. The program reads the
pressure and temperature as input and calls the subroutine to
find out water solubility at the given temperature and pressure.
SPE 92049
With increasing temperature and pressure, more and
more surface reported water production is in a vapor state at
depth. In other words, the model can predict that, at reservoir
conditions, water may exist only in vapor form. The program
can then take the surface reported water and predict the
distribution of water vapor and free water at down hole
conditions. If only fresh water is reported at the surface it is an
indication that only condensed water is coming to the surface.
If salt water is reported, then it’s an indication that produced
free water is coming into the well at bottom hole conditions.
Use of the water solubility charts allows one to calculate if
free water and/or water vapor are present at bottom hole
conditions as well.
Figure 5 shows, with 100°F water at 30 psig bottom hole
conditions. 6 bbls/MMscf/D of water as vapor can exist at
these conditions. Since some low pressure gas wells produce
less than 6 bbls/MMscf/D just providing low pressure from
use of a compressor can often be an adequate artificial-lift
technique to eliminate the effects of free water on the pressure
drop in the tubing. The graph in Figure 6 shows an expanded
view of dew point effects on determining if water is in the
vapor phase.
Adding Flow Regimes. The original Gray correlation is a two
phase correlation. The default flow regime for original Gray
correlation is mist flow which is gas flow with some droplets.
This suggested a need to include more flow regimes than the
original Gray correlation provided and investigate any impact
on the accuracy of the predictions. A description of various
standard flow regimes22 can be found in Figure 7. A flow
regime selection criterion given by Orkiszewski8, often used
with multiphase flow correlations has been used in this work.
Other flow regime selection maps are available, but
Orkiszewski’s work takes into consideration the existing well
developed hold-up equations and selection criteria8 available
in industry and puts them together into his flow map.
If a well is flowing above critical rate and associated
velocity as per Turner21, then the flow regime is mist and the
holdup is calculated using original Gray’s criteria. If gas
velocity is below critical velocity then it is directed to the
Orkiszewski’s flow regime subroutine which decides if the
flow is slug, or bubble flow. If a flow map determines slug
flow regime, then Hagedorn and Brown’s18 slug holdup is
evaluated. If the flow map determines the flow condition is
bubble flow, Griffith’s15,16 criteria is used to determine the
liquid holdup. The holdup calculated from respective flow
regimes are then passed on to the pressure gradient equation.
Modified Gray. A regression program was introduced, which
finds the value of two input constants in the modified Gray
holdup expression, which will then yield the minimum
average error between the predictions and the measured data
for pressure drop in the tubing considering the input constants
values. The modified Gray equations are described in
Appendix B and are referenced in reference 24.
In the regression program, an initial guess is made for
maximum and minimum values for the two constants .The
program makes the regression calculations to determine the
two coefficients in the Modified Gray correlation that will
minimize the average error.
3
The use of coefficients found from regression should be
more representative of an improved prediction technique as
the program handles more and more data.
Discussion of Results
See Appendix C for a discussion of errors using the various
modifications. Table 2 shows the output obtained from
original Gray correlation. Note that except for one well, the
pressures for the data set are being over predicted when using
the original Gray correlation. Wells B, H and L are the closest
matches to Gray generated predictions. Table 3 shows some
production data which will be used as results are discussed.
Note that nine wells have total barrels per MMscf/D below the
130 bbls/MMscf/D, which was the limit of the data set
available to correlate the original Gray model. Also, four wells
are producing below 0.12 MMscf/D, i.e. four wells are outside
of Gray’s original data set. The results obtained in terms of
absolute average error, average error and standard deviation
for the pressures obtained at bottom hole by using the various
investigated modifications for the entire data set are
summarized in Table 4.
Results from adding the water density calculation. The
errors in Table 4 and Table 5a / 5b show that effect of the
density correction to original Gray correlation is limited but
quantitatively expressible.
Results from Original Gray Correlation Modified for
Water Condensation. Table 4 and Table 5a / 5b suggests that
modeling the condensation of water in the tubing show
improvement in some wells when comparing predicted
pressures to measured data. This effect was found to be a
major contributing factor for at least three wells
Although the water condensation modification was
applied to nine wells, significant effects can be seen in only
three of them. This is because the rest of the wells were
flowing at very low gas flow rates. For these wells, the
reservoir energy is very low and the problem essentially
demands use of a better gas holdup equation, and not just a
correction for free water present and average density.
Predicted Results from Original Gray Correlation
Corrected for Water Condensation and Density
Correction. Results from Table 4 and Table 5a / Table 5b
suggests that combined density and water correction effects
produced better results than obtained by water correction by
itself, though the correction is slight.
Modified Gray Results. Effects of regression to find values
of two holdup adjusting factors have been applied with
success using the modified Gray correlation. Note that when
regression was applied without any modifications to the Gray
correlation, the pressures predicted for at least one well (well
A) had a large error relative to the measured well test data.
The explanation is the fact that the coefficients being input and
regressed are based on all well data and well A is outside the
original Gray data set. As more and more data sets are added
to the available data, it is hoped that the coefficients predicted
by modified Gray would be more representative of a universal
data set and will not be affected by a single well which may be
4 SPE 92049
somewhat of an exception. However more likely use of the
modified Gray correlation may make the correlation more
suitable for a large group of particular wells with particular
conditions.
From Table 4, regression of input constants was able to
bring the average error down to 0.25% and bring down the
absolute average error to 24.28 %. This regression technique
bring the average error to zero on the entire data set.
Definitely, it can be said that the coefficients provided by the
program for different corrections are the best available
coefficients for this or a particular set of data. The coefficients
obtained are shown in Table 6. Also note that with water
condensation and water density corrections added to Modified
Gray, the coefficients tend to move towards the Gray
evaluated constant value of -2.314 ( Coeff1). Table 5a and 5b
show the percentage error for each well obtained using the
modified Gray correlation. As can be seen, use of the modified
Gray correlation and the regression technique has in general,
provided far better flowing well bottom hole pressure
estimates compared to the original Gray correlation.
Addition of Flow Regimes to Original Gray and Modified
Gray Correlations. The addition of additional flow regimes
was considered to better model water accumulating at the
bottom of the tubing in liquid loaded wells. The flow regime
additions when applied to wells D and E (Figures 11 and 12),
yielded better results than the original Gray / better results
than any other correction applied to original Gray correlation.
Both these wells produce high water rates (991 and 2594
bbls/day). However, In general, addition of flow regimes leads
to over predicting of pressures when the entire data set is
considered. Table 4 and Table 5a / 5b suggest that work with
flow regimes was not in general successful comparing to the
limited data available.
Well Pressure Traverses. Figures 8 thru 21 show the pressure
traverses obtained for each well using different corrections.
Results from these plots have already been discussed in the
tables described above.
Possible Directions for Future Work to Predict
Performance of Liquid Loaded Wells Critical Velocity
Critical velocity is often used in the literature to determine
when a well is accumulating liquids (below critical gas
velocity) and the rate is high enough to lift droplets of liquids
from the tubing (gas velocity above critical velocity). So it
would seem logical that as gas velocity drops to the critical
velocity and below, the holdup would begin to become larger.
Critical velocity given by Turner21 et al. is given by the
following equation:
1.59τ 1/ 4 (ρl − ρg )1/ 4
Vc = ..................................1.3
ρ g 1/ 2
So for vertical flow pressure drop correlations, it is
suspected that the liquid holdup could be correlated as a
function of the critical velocity. Conversely the current critical
velocity expressions are not a function of the amount of
liquids flowing. It is suspected that for larger flow rates of
liquids, liquid droplets of liquids would begin to coalesce and
the droplet model for most critical velocity expressions would
no longer be applicable. At present this amount of liquid flow
vs. the gas flow where droplets begin to coalesce is not
incorporated into a critical velocity expression such as in
Equation 1.3.. If it were predicted, better predications might be
available for critical velocity.
Critical Velocity and Gas Holdup. Figure 22 shows22 that
the flowing pressure gradient (or holdup) is related to the
superficial velocity of gas
Since holdup is related to gas velocity, somewhere on the
velocity axis, the critical velocity will have been reached. As
such it seems it might be possible to relate holdup to how
close or how far away the actual velocity is to the critical
velocity as mentioned above. A better course of action might
include studying the modifications presented here to a larger
data set for additional verification.
Conclusions
• Some few but high qualicty flowing gas well data
with produced liquids is presented.
• Modifications were made to existing correlations to
better fit the measured data.
• The modifications are expected to match gas well
data producing some liquids more accurately in
general than results from the original Gray
correlation.
• Gray’s correlation is a good choice of the correlations
considered here to calculate pressure traverses for gas
wells producing some liquids, provided the well
conditions are similar to those mentioned in Table
A.1.
• The Modified Gray correlation can be used to
distribute errors over an entire data set. The larger the
data set available, the more generalized this approach
may become.
• The modification of adding Orkiszewski’s flow map
to the existing Gray correlation in determining flow
regimes and the holdup for liquid loaded gas well was
met with limited success. It was hoped to better
model accumulation of liquids at the bottom of the
well.
• An increase in pressure drop arising from liquid hold-
up becomes more pronounced in low gas flow rate
wells. A new holdup equation relating liquid holdup
and critical gas velocity may lead to better solutions
for gas wells experiencing liquid loading problems.
• The suggested modifications to allow an existing
multiphase flow computer program to better compare
with measured data are presented for consideration.
However although the data is high quality, the
number of data sets is limited so the suggested
modifications must be tested and perhaps adjusted
before general use. Testing the suggested
modifications to a larger data set could provide
additional insight.
SPE 92049 5

Acknowledgements 7. Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N. C. J.: “Vertical Flow of Gas
The authors thank BP America Inc. and Tom Brown Inc. for and Liquid Mixtures in Wells,” Proc. Sixth World
obtaining the field data and for assistance in some of the study Pet. Congress, Frankfurt (Jun. 19-26, 1963) Section
presented here. Although this research was an integral part of II, Paper 22-PD6.
PhD dissertation at Texas Tech University for the principal 8. Orkiszeweski, J.: “Predicting Two Phase Pressure
author, he is obliged to Murphy Oil Corporation for financial Drops in Vertical Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech. (June, 1967)
support and for allowing him to work on this research while 829-838.
working full time for them. 9. Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P.: “A Study of Two-Phase
Flow in Inclined Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973)
Nomenclature 607-617.
Bw Formation volume factor, dimensionless 10. Dukler, A.E.: “Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, I.
D Pipe diameter, inches Research Results,” AGA-API Project NX-28 (May
∆Vwp Volume change of gas during pressure reduction, psia 1969).
∆VwT Volume change of gas during Temp reduction, oF 11. Brill, J.P., and Mukherjee H.: “Multiphase flow in
ρg Gas density, lb/ft3 wells”, Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME,
SPE Inc, Richardson, Texas, 1999.
ρl Liquid density, lb/ft3 12. Aziz, K.,Govier, G.W. and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure
drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas," Journal of
ρo 3
Oil density, lb/ft
Canadian Petroleum Technology, (July-Sept. 1972)
ρw Water density, lb/ft3 38-48.
ETOT Total error 13. Mc.Cain, William D. Jr.: “The Properties of
ft Friction factor for two phase flow Petroleum Fluids”, Book, second edition, pg. 446-
FBHP Flowing bottom hole pressure, psia 448, PennWell Books, Tulsa, OK, 1990
PREF Reference pressure, psia 14. Bukacek, R.F.: “Equilibrium Moisture Content of
PWTA Pressure from well test, psia Natural Gases,” Research Bulletin, Institute of Gas
qo Oil flow rate , bbls/day Technology, Chicago, 1955
qw Water flow rate , bbls/day 15. Griffith Peter.: “Multiphase Flow in Pipes”. SPE
T Temperature in Fahrenheit 12895, distinguished author series, JPT March 1984.
τ Surface tension for mixture, dyne/cm 16. Griffith P., Wallis, G.B.: “Two Phase Slug Flow,”
Vc Critical velocity for gas, ft/sec ASME Journal of heat transfer, (August 1961), 307.
Vg Gas phase velocity, ft/sec 17. Wallis, G.B.: “One Dimensional Two Phase Flow”
Vt Turner velocity, ft/sec McGraw Hill book Co. Inc, New York, NY, 1969.
Z Real gas compressibility factor, dimensionless 18. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: “Experimental
Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During
ξ In situ volume fraction gas (gas hold-up) Continuous Two Phase Flow in Small Diameter
Vertical Conduits” J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1965) 475-
References 484.
1. Gray, H.E.: “Flowing Pressure Calculations for 19. David A. Simpson and J. F. Lea.: “Coal Bed Methane
Gas/Condensate Wells”, EPR Report 855, Shell Oil Production”, paper SPE 80900 presented at SPE
Corporation, 1955. Production and Operations Symposium held in
2. Gray, H.E.: “Vertical flow correlation in gas wells.” Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 23–25 March
In User manual for API 14B, Subsurface controlled 2003.
safety valve sizing computer program, App. B. (June 20. Sutopo and Pudjo Sukarno.: “Modification of
1974). Flowing Gradient Equation in Gas Wells with Liquid
3. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: “Practical Solution Present”, paper 92-23.11, Twenty First Annual
of Gas-Flow Equations for Wells and Pipelines, Convention of Indonesia Petroleum Association,
Trans. AIME, 1956, p 281-287. October 1992.
4. Poettman F.H and Carpenter, P.G.: “The Multiphase 21. Turner, R. G.; Hubbard, M. G. and Dukler, A. E.
Flow of Gas, Oil and Water Through Vertical Flow “Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for
Strings with Application to the Design of Gas Lift the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells”,
Installations”, Drilling Production Practices, API J. Petroleum Technology, Nov. 1969. pp.1475-1482.
(1952), p 257. 22. Lea J.F., Nickens, H.V. and Wells M.: “Gas well
5. Bexendell, P.B. and Thomas, R.: “Calculation of Deliquification,” Elsevier Press, first edition, 2003.
Pressure Gradients in High-Rate Flowing Wells”, 23. Pigott, M.J., Parker, M.H., Vincente, D., Dalrymple,
Journal of Petroleum Technology (October 1961) p L.V., Cox, D.C., and Coyle, R.A., “Wellbore Heating
1023. to Prevent Liquid Loading,” SPE 77649, presented at
6. Fancher,G.H. & Brown, K.E.: “Prediction of Pressure the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Gradients for Multiphase Flow in Tubing”, Trans Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, September 2, 2002.
AIME 140, 1963. 24. PerformTM, Well Performance Analysis Manual, IHS
Energy group. Version 4.0, December 2001.
6 SPE 92049

Appendix A: Original Gray Correlation using the equation:

Gray Correlation. Gray stated that the equation for
1

steady state, vertical, two phase flow for compressible qo = 0.681qoa βI1So − I 2 − (0.0593− 0.07S0 )(t − 710)....a.2
fluid is:
The parameters used in this equation are defined below.
This is an empirically obtained equation which has been used
2 2
⎛1⎞
dp =
g
(ξρg + (1 − ξ )ρl )dh + f t G dh − G d ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟...a.1 to describe condensate behavior at any depth and pressure.
gc 2g c Dρ mf g ⎝ ρi ⎠ Here, So is the specific gravity of oil and t is temperature at
that specific depth. The value of So is evaluated:
Where: D Conduit traverse diameter, inches :
ft Friction factor for two phase flow
g Gravitational constant, lbm-ft/(lbf-s2) 141.5
So = ...................................................a.3
G Mass velocity, lbm-ft/sec API o + 131.5
h Depth, ft
ξ In situ volume fraction gas (gas hold-up)
Gray has defined β as follows:
ρ Density, m: mixture, lbm/ft3 2
i inertial effects ⎛ P − 1.8 × 10 5 ⎞
β = 1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟ .............................................a.4
5 ⎟
⎝ Pd − 1.8 × 10 ⎠
The above equation can be solved to obtain flowing pressures
provided that:
Where Pd is given by
¾ Suitable definitions of mixture densities ρmf and ρmi
exist. ( )
Pd = 144 1000 + α ............................................a.5
¾ The state of the fluid as a function of pressure and
temperature can be determined and α is provided using the following equation:
¾ Independent information on the variation of
temperature with either pressure or depth is available [
α = A1 S o − A2 − 100 t − 585 + B ' (S o − 0.69)2.05 ..a.6 ]2

¾ Acceptable correlations for holdup and friction loss

factors ξ and ƒt can be developed. A1 and A2 and B’ have been introduced in α. Also, B’ is
Gray’s model considers retrograde phase behavior for decided based on the following conditional statement:
condensates. A brief description of reservoir types is shown in S o > 0.69 → B ' = 1.965 ×10 4
Figure 23. The well known figure shows the different types of
reservoirs: bubble-point, gas-condensate or single phase gas. S o ≤ 0.69 → B ' = 0..............................................a.7
In a bubble point reservoir, above the bubble point pressure,
only the liquid phase exists. From the bubble point down, gas A1 and A2 are also decided based on the specific gravity
comes out of solution. In a condensate reservoir, of condensate. Gray came up with a range of values for A1 and
corresponding for instance to the grey line on the figure, there A2 which are provided here:
is only gas above the dew point pressure (point A). As the
pressure decreases below point A, liquid starts to appear in
increasing proportion. The maximum liquid condensation S o > 0.765
occurs at point B, below which the amount of condensate A1 = 6.380 ×10 8
starts to decrease. The last part of the diagram, to the right of
the phase envelope, corresponds to a single phase gas reservoir A2 = 4.794 ×10 8.................................................a.8
where only gas exists regardless of the pressure. Gray
approximated the dew point boundaries by elliptical arcs in the
S o ≤ 0.765
pressure-temperature plane, and the liquid contents by the
parabolic arcs on a liquid to gas ratio versus pressure diagram. A1 = 8.780 × 10 7
The only independent data needed for the approximation were
the stock tank condensate production and specific gravity. A2 = 5.814 × 10 7..................................................a.9

For gas specific gravity, the model takes into The only undefined parameters in equation a.1 are I1 and
consideration a mass interchange between gas and condensate. I 2.
However, there is no correction for water gravity. As S o > 0.765
temperature increases, water density decreases while increase
in pressure is always accompanied by increase in density. As I1 = 13.03
such, the liquid density has also been taken to be independent
of pressure and temperature13.
I 2 = 9.57...........................................................a.10

Condensate Flow Rate. Gray describes condensate flow rate

SPE 92049 7

S o ≤ 0.765 R + Exp { − 2 . 314 [ N V (1 +

205 . 0 B }
)]
ND
I1 = 2.65 HL = ........ a . 18
R +1
I 2 = 1.72......................................................a.11
730 R
Gas Compressibility. For gas mixtures, pseudo reduced
B = . 0814 [1 − . 0554 Ln (1 + )]........ ..... a . 19
R +1
temperature and pressures are defined as:
T ρ m2 Vsm4
T pr = ....................................................a.12 Nv = ...............................................a.20
T pc gτ ( ρ l − ρ g )
P
Ppr = ....................................................a.13
Ppc g (ρl − ρ g )D 2
ND = ...........................................a.21
Where Tpr and Ppr are pseudo reduced temperature and τ
pressures. For a particular Tpr and Ppr we can obtain a Z. Gray
work, used the Hall Yarborough correlation. The method Vso + Vsw
consists of two steps. First, a non-linear equation is solved R= .................................................a.22
using the Newton Raphson iterative technique and y, the Vsg
reduced density is obtained.
Nv, ND and R are velocity number, nominal diameter and
−1.2 (1− t ) 2 y + y2 + y3 − y4 superficial liquid to gas ratio parameters, which mainly
− 0.06125Ppr te + influence the hold-up for condensate wells.
(1 − y )3
− (14.76t − 9.76t 2 + 4.58t 3 ) y 2 +
Ideal Data Set for Original Gray Correlation. Original
Gray’s correlation was a result of experimental work on data
(90.7t − 242.2t 2 + 42.4t 3 ) y ( 2.18+ 2.82t ) = 0........................a.14 obtained from 108 gas well data sets producing some liquids.
Experimental work included development of an expression for
Here, t is reciprocal of Tpr. Once y is available, it is liquid holdup with various coefficients (-2.314, & 205.0 in the
introduced into the Z factor equation. holdup expression and also 0.0814, 0.0554 and 730 in
expression for B) as described in Appendix A. These
0.06125 Ppr te −1.2(1−t )
2
coefficients strongly affect the determination of original
Z= ...........................a.15 Gray’s liquid and gas holdup and the original Gray’s pressure
y traverse for a well. As these coefficients were determined
Liquid Density. In Gray’s work, both ρmf and ρmi have in using data from original Gray’s data set of 108 wells, it is
effect been taken to be equal to the superficial mixture density, obvious that these coefficients can be best used if the input
which is calculated from local volumetric flow rates and data parameters are similar to Table A1. In other words, tubing
densities of separate phases. In other words, liquid density was ID (an input parameter) should be between 1.049 to 2.992
assumed to be independent of pressure and temperature. inches, gas flow rate should be between 0.12 to 24.2 MMscf/D
Where both water and condensate are present, the Gray (an input parameter), condensate ratio (an input parameter)
correlation takes a weighted average density: should be between zero and 154 bbls/MMscf/D and so on as
per Table A1. In this work, all wells having input parameters
ρ o qo + ρ w qw within the original Gray’s data range are referred to as an ideal
ρl = .......... .......... .......... .......... a . 16 data set.
qo + qw In this work, all wells having input parameters belonging to
original Gray’s data range shall be referred as an ideal data set.
Liquid Holdup. As given in API-RP14BM2, ξ, the gas hold-
up is defined as Limits to the original Gray data set. The original Gray
correlation has not been tested for input parameters beyond the
205 . 0 B } following:
1 − Exp { − 2 . 314 [ N V (1 + )]
ND • flow velocities > 50 ft/sec
ξ = .......... ...... a . 17
R +1 • tubing sizes > 3 ½”, tested only for tubing ID 1.049 –
2.992 in
Where B, Nv, ND and R are described in below • Condensate ratios of >150 bbls/MMscf/D
paragraphs. The conventional liquid holdup Hl, is found as: • Water ratios > 10 bbls/MMscf/D
For gas wells showing liquid loading symptoms, input
Hl = 1 − ξ parameters are often beyond the original Gray’s data range.
Data set obtained from industry differs tremendously from
original Gray’s data as discussed in Table A2. The difference
8 SPE 92049
in data set is in two input parameters; the gas rate in MMscf/D
and free water and condensate production. In this work, all
wells having input parameters beyond original Gray’s data
range are referred as outside of the original Gray’s data set
range.
Effect of Input Parameters outside of the Original Gray
Data Set on Predicted Pressure Traverses. The effect
parameters outside of the Gray data set can be observed by
taking two cases from Table A2. Consider well H which has
all its input parameters within original Gray’s range of data set
and well E which has most of its input parameters as an outlier
to original Gray’s data range. The actual values of input
parameters are shown in Table A3.
The absolute average error seen in predicting pressures
using original Gray correlation on data set from H well
compared to the actual or well measured test data is barely
1.88% at bottom hole conditions. The pressure traverse is
given in Figure A1. Note that the match between predicted
values from original Gray and the actual measured pressure is
excellent throughout the tubing. On the other hand, Figure A2
shows the pressure traverse for well E, which has a free water
ratio of 1314 bbls/MMscf/D. The absolute average error seen
in predicting pressures using original Gray correlation on data
set from E well compared to the actual or well measured test
data is 40.9% at bottom hole conditions. Also, Figure A1
shows a mismatch for predicted pressure traverse from top to
bottom of the well. It can be concluded from these two plots
that the original Gray correlation works very well for wells
like well H (ideal input parameters) while application of
original Gray correlation to wells like well E (outside input
parameters) may (but not necessarily) lead to and erroneous
pressure traverse calculation. Thus, there seems to be a need
for a new correlation which will provide better pressure drops
for liquid loaded wells like well E where the input parameters
are outside of the data originally used by Gray to correlate as
described in Table A1.
Correlations other than original Gray: Are better
correlations generally available other than original Gray?
This question is answered with the help of Figure A2. It is a
comparison plot of the pressure traverse obtained using
various correlations for well H. As can be seen, there is a large
spread in predicted pressures by the various correlations used.
However, for this well, which meets all the conditions under
which original Gray correlation was correlated, it can be
observed that the original Gray correlation predicts with the
least error compared to measured data. The closest prediction
to original Gray’s output is that of Cullender3 and Smith,
which is a single phase gas flow correlation. This plot justifies
the fact that original Gray correlation is the best correlation to
be used for gas wells producing liquids of the correlations
tested here. Other correlations exist but are not tested here
some of which require compositional input. Models using
correlations and not using compositional input are examined
here.. Good comparison to other models is one of the reasons
that API RP 14B recommends the original Gray correlation to
be used for gas wells producing some liquids.
Appendix B: Modified Gray
The modified Gray24 correlation is an attempt to improve
from the accuracy compared to the original Gray correlation
predictions. In original Gray holdup equation, a constant was
used. Gray determined the value for this constant to be -2.314,
based on experimental data from 108 well tests. As discussed
in Appendix A, original Gray’s correlation has its limitations.
The Modified Gray Program is used where two coefficients
can be used to adjust the holdup expression with the idea to
better fit to the field data. Since Gray correlation originally
was for primarily condensate flow the adjustments used in this
discussion to better fit data may realistically be adjusting the
holdup expression to accommodate gas flow with water
instead of originally having the holdup be for representing
condensate flow. Gray’s model has been modified to the
Modified Gray Model using a direct search regression
technique discussed in the paper.
Below are listed the equations from Modified Gray
routine where ξ is the holdup for gas and 1.0 – ξ is the liquid
holdup. The two coefficients that are determined by regression
to field measured data to minimize the average error of
predictions to measured values are shown in Equation b.1.
B
⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞
⎜ R + EXP⎜ COEFF1⎡⎢ N ⎛⎜1 + 205.0 ⎞⎟⎤⎥ ⎟ ⎟
v⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ N D ⎠⎦ ⎟⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎣ ⎝
ξ=⎝ ⎠ . + COEFF 2.......b.1
R + 1.0
Where B and Nv and R are Gray evaluated experimental
values and are described in Appendix A in detail. For the
original Gray correlation the coefficients are COEFF1 = 2.314
and COEFF2 = 0.0. As per Perform24, commercially available
software which has the Modified Gray correlation, suggested
values for COEFF2 are between 0 and 1 and COEFF1 varies
in a narrow range close to -2.314.
Appendix C: Discussion on Errors and standard
deviation
In this section, equation describing errors have been discussed.
The absolute average error, average error and the standard
deviation were found for the output obtained from each model
discussed so far. The errors were calculated as below:
⎛ 100(POUT − PREF1) − (PWTA− PREF1) ⎞
ERROR= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟............c.1
⎝ (POUT − PREF1) ⎠
ETOT = ERROR + ETOT .......... .......... .......... .. c . 2
Where POUT = Output pressure from program, psia
PWTA is the well test pressure data in psia obtained from
industry for wells used here and PREF1 is the surface
pressure, psia
The absolute average error was found by dividing the
absolute value of sum of all errors ETOT by the total number
of errors calculated by the program NDAT. The average error
was found by dividing the sum of all errors ETOT by the total
number of errors calculated by the program NDAT.
SPE 92049 9

Standard Deviation. Standard deviation is the measure of TABLES

tightness of a probability distribution. It is a statistical
measure of volatility. The advantage of standard deviation is
that it uses every value in the population or group of data
being used. The standard deviation for a set of data sigma is
given as:

∑
i=n
( x i − x av ) 2
σ= i =1
.......................................................c.3
N

Standard deviation is more meaningful when there is a

large number of data to analyze. If there is not enough data to
compute a proper standard deviation, use can be made of the
estimate of the standard deviation, S
∑
i=n
i =1
( x i − x av ) 2
S = .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... c.4
N −1

Note that the only difference is the N vs. N-1 in the

denominator. If N is large, Sigma and S become almost
identical. In the case here, the estimated standard deviation is
used. The corresponding codes in the program are as follows:

ABSER = ABS ( ERROR ) + ABSER .......... .......... ....... c . 5

Which gives the total absolute error.

ABSER
MEAN = .......... .................... .......... ....................c.6
NDAT

Where NDAT is the number of data sets used.

SQSUM = ( ABS ( ERROR ) − MEAN ) + SQSUM ...... c . 7
2

Where SQSUM is the sum of difference of mean and each

of error squared for all data sets. Finally standard deviation
was determined using:
SQSUM
DEVSTD = ..................................................c.8
NDAT − 1
10 SPE 92049
SPE 92049 11

FIGURES
12 SPE 92049
SPE 92049 13
14 SPE 92049
SPE 92049 15