PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING I

LECTURE: 7

WELLBORE FLOW PERFORMANCE

2020/ 2021
7.1 INTRODUCTION
•Oil and natural gas are usually produced through well strings
such as tubing.
•The higher performance of the well strings, the higher
productivity of the wells.
•A well-designed string ensures that the flow in the wellbore will
not be the limiting factor or bottleneck during fluid production,
this requires that both friction and flow stability be considered.
•The achievable oil production rate from well is determined by:
￮Wellhead pressure;
￮Flow performance of production tubing.
•The flow performance of tubing string is called Tubing
Performance Relationship (TPR), other term such as Vertical
Lift Performance sometimes is also used.

143
•Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR) depends on:
￮Geometries of production string;
￮Properties of produced fluids.
•The fluids in production wells are usually multiple phases: oil,
water and gas, sometimes included sand.
•Wellbore/Tubing performance (TPR) analysis involves
establishing a relationship between:
￮Tubular size;
￮Wellhead and bottomhole pressure;
￮Fluid properties;
￮Fluid production rate.
•Understanding wellbore flow performance is important for:
￮Designing oil well equipment;
￮Optimizing well production conditions.
144
7.2 SINGLE PHASE LIQUID FLOW
•Single phase liquid flow exists in the oil well only when the
wellhead pressure is above the bubble point pressure of oil,
which is usually not a reality.
•However, it is convenient to start from single phase liquid flow
for establishing the concept of fluid flow in oil wells where
multiphase flow usually dominates.
•Consider the fluid flowing from point 1 to point 2 in the tubing
string of length L and height Δz (Fig. 7.1).
•The first law of thermodynamics yields the following equation
for pressure drop:
(7.1)

∆PHHD ∆PKE ∆PFRICT

145
Fig. 7.1: Flow along inclined tubing string

146
•The pressure at the tubing shoe can be calculated by:

(7.2)

￮where:
P1 – pressure at point 1 (Tubing shoe);
P2 – pressure at point 2 (Wellhead);
g – gravitational acceleration;
gc – gravitational conversion factor;
ρ – fluid density;
∆z – elevation increase,[∆z = sin(θ).L];
θ – angel of inclination to horizontal;
fF – Fanning friction factor;
u – fluid velocity, (u = 4q/πD2);
L – tubing length; D – tubing inner diameter.
147
•The first, second and third term in the right hand side of Eq.
7.1 represent pressure drops due to hydrostatic, kinetic
energy and friction, respectively.
•For wellbores, the kinetic energy loss is generally minimal and
can be ignored.
•The Fanning friction factor (fF) can be evaluated based on
Reynolds Number (NRe) and relative roughness of the tubing
string interior (ε).
•The Reynolds number is defined as the ratio of inertial force to
viscous force, and can be calculated as:

(7.3)

￮where:
NRe – Reynolds number;
q – fluid flow rate;
148
 ρ – fluid density;
d – tubing inner diameter;
μ – fluid viscosity.
•For laminar flow regimes, in which NRe ≤ 2000, the Fanning
friction factor is inversely proportional to the Reynolds
number:
(7.4)

•For turbulent flow, where NRe > 2,000, the Fanning friction
factor can be estimated using Chen empirical correlations:

(7.5)

149
 ￮where:
ε – the relative roughness of the tubing string interior, and
calculated as:
(7.6)
￮where:
δ – the absolute roughness of pipe wall.
•The Fanning friction factor can also be obtained from the
Darcy-Wiesbach friction factor diagram shown in Fig. 7.2.
•The Darcy-Wiesbach friction factor might also be referred to as
the Moody friction factor (fM).
•The relationship between Fanning friction factor and Moody
friction factor is expressed as:
(7.7)

150
Fig. 7.2: Darcy-Wiesbach friction factor diagram
151
7.3 MULTIPHASE FLOW IN OIL WELLS
•In addition to liquid oil, almost all oil wells produce some
amount of water, gas and occasionally sand. These wells are
called multiphase oil wells.
•The TPR equation for single phase flow is not valid for
multiphase oil wells.
•To analyze the TPR of multiphase oil wells correctly, the
multiphase flow model is required.
•Multiphase flow is much more complicated than single-phase
flow due to the variation of flow regime (flow pattern).
•The fluid distribution changes greatly in different flow regimes,
which significantly affects pressure gradient in the tubing.
•Pressure drop in the tubing can be determined either by
empirical correlations or gradient curves.

152
7.3.1 FLOW REGIMES IN VERTICAL TUBING
•As shown in Fig. 7.3, in addition to single phase liquid flow, at
least there are five flow regimes have been identified in
gas/liquid two phase flow.
•These flow regimes occur in the progression displaying
increasing gas flow rate for any fixed rate of liquid flow.
1. Bubble Flow – gas phase is dispersed in the form of small
bubbles within a continuous liquid phase.
2. Slug Flow – small gas bubbles coalesce into larger bubbles
that eventually fill the entire pipe cross section. Between the
large bubbles are slugs of liquid that contain smaller bubbles
of entrained gas.
3. Churn Flow – the larger gas bubbles become unstable and
collapse, resulting in a highly turbulent flow pattern with both
phases dispersed.
153
 Mist Flow

Annular Flow

Churn Flow

Slug Flow

Bubble Flow

Fig. 7.3: Schematic view of possible phase changes in tubing

154
4. Annular Flow – gas becomes the continuous phase, with
liquid flowing in an annulus coating the surface of the pipe
and as droplets entrained in the gas phase.
5. Mist flow – the dispersed liquid droplets move in the
continuous gas phase, forming a relatively homogeneous
fluid emulsion.
7.3.2 LIQUID HOLDUP
•In multiphase flow, the volume of pipe occupied by particular
phase is often different from its proportion of the total
volumetric flow. This is due to density differences between
phases.
•Gravity causes the denser phases to slip down within the
upward flow, that is, the lighter phase rises faster than the
denser phase.

155
•Because of this, the in-situ volume fraction of the denser
phase will be greater than the input volume fraction of the
denser phase; the denser phase is “held up” in the pipe
relative to the lighter phase.
•The term liquid “holdup” is defined as:

(7.8)

￮where:
yL – liquid holdup;
VL – volume of liquid phase in the pipe segment;
V – volume of the pipe segment.
•Liquid holdup depends on: flow regime; fluid properties; pipe
size and configuration.
•Its value can be quantitatively determined only through
experimental measurements. 156
7.3.3 TPR FLOW MODELS
•Numerous TPR models exist for analyzing multiphase flow in
vertical pipes.
•TPR models for multiphase flow wells fall into two categories:
Homogeneous flow and Separated flow.
7.3.3.1 HOMOGENEOUS FLOW MODELS
•They treat multiphase as a homogeneous mixture.
•They do not consider the effect of liquid holdup.
•These models are less accurate and usually calibrated against
local operating conditions in the field applications.
•The major advantage of these models comes from their
mechanistic nature:
￮They can be constructed to describe three-phase (gas-oil-
water) and four-phase systems (gas-oil-water-sand);
157
 ￮It is easy to code them in computer programs.
•Numerous homogeneous flow models have been developed for
analyzing the TPR of multiphase wells since the pioneering
works of Poettmann & Carpenter.
•Assuming no-slip of the liquid phase, Poettmann & Carpenter
presented a simplified gas-oil-water three-phase flow model to
compute pressure losses in tubing by estimating:
￮Mixture density;
￮Mixture friction factor.
•According to them, the following equation can be used to
calculate the pressure profile in vertical tubing when the
acceleration term is neglected:

(7.9)

158
 ￮where:
∆P – pressure drop over Δh;
– average mixture density;
∆h – depth incremental;
– mixture friction factor.
•The mixture friction factor can be evaluated as:

(7.10)

￮where:
f2F – Fanning friction factor for two phase flow;
q – liquid production rate;
M – total mass of gas and liquid associated with 1 stb;
D – tubing inner diameter.
159
•The average mixture density can be calculated by:

(7.11)

￮where:
ρ1 – mixture density at bottom of tubing segment;
ρ2 – mixture density at top of tubing segment.
•Because of Poettmann-Carpenter’s model takes a finite-
difference form, it is only accurate for short-depth
incremental Δh.
•For deep wells, this model should be used in a piecewise
manner to get accurate results.
•The tubing string should be broken into small segments and
the model is applied to each segment.

160
7.3.3.2 SEPARATED FLOW MODELS
•They are usually presented in the form of empirical
correlations developed experimentally.
•These flow models are more realistic than the homogeneous
flow models because they incorporate the effects of liquid
holdup and flow regime automatically.
•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.
•A number of separated flow models are available for TPR
calculations, on the basis of an empirical correlation.
•Among many of models the Hagedorn–Brown correlation is
widely used in the industry.

161
•Separated flow models take the following form:

(7.12)

￮where:
Mt – total mass flow rate;
– in situ average mixture density;
um – mixture velocity.

•and: (7.13)

(7.14)

162
 ￮where:
ρL – liquid density;
ρG – in-situ gas density;
uSL – superficial velocity of liquid phase;
uSG – superficial velocity of gas phase.
•The superficial velocity of a given phase is defined as the
volumetric flow rate of the phase divided by the pipe cross-
sectional area for flow.
•The third term in the right-hand-side of Eq. 7.12 represents
pressure change due to the change in kinetic energy, which is
usually negligible for oil wells.
6.4 GRADIENT OR PRESSURE TRAVERSE CURVES
•Gradient curves correlate pressure drop as a function of
tubing length for a set of fixed flow rate, tubing size and fluid
properties.
163
•Gradient curves were originally proposed by Gilbert.
•Field experience lead Gilbert to identify that the main factors in
controlling vertical multiphase flow were:
￮Tubing diameter;
￮Oil flow rate;
￮Gas/liquid ratio (GLR).
• Gradient curves give approximate values, but they are very
handy and fast for field applications.
•Fig. 7.4 shows that different gradient curve is required for
each tubing size, liquid flow rate and fluid properties.
•Each graph consists of a series of lines referring to different
gas/liquid ratio.

164
Fig. 7.4: Examples: Gradient or Pressure Traverse Curves 165
•Fig. 7.5 explains how the gradient curve can be applied to
calculate the flowing bottomhole pressure (Pwf) or the tubing
intake pressure for a fixed wellhead pressure.
•This is then repeated for a series of production rates to derive
the Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR).
•The gradient curve is used as follows:
I. Select the gradient curve appropriate for the specified oil rate
(qo1), tubing size, GLR and oil/gas gravities.
II. Find the point on the X axis at which the pressure equals the
wellhead pressure (Pwh). Move vertically downwards to find
the depth (d1) on the appropriate GLR line that corresponds
to this wellhead pressure.
III. Move downwards by a distance (H), equivalent to the tubing
length.

166
 Pwh Pwf

GLR

Fig. 7.5: Construction of TPR using pressure gradient curves

167
IV. Moving horizontally and then vertically, identify the pressure
on the same GLR line as was used in (II) corresponding to
this new depth (d1+H). This is the required tubing intake
pressure (Pwf1).
V. The process may now be repeated at others oil rates (qo2, qo3
& qo4). Each rate requires use of a different gradient curve
appropriate to these higher rates (tubing size, oil/gas
gravities and GLR are constants).
•The tubing intake pressures (Pwf1, Pwf2, Pwf3 & Pwf4) may now be
plotted as a function of oil rate (qo1, qo2, qo3 & qo4) Fig. 7.6.
•This is the OUTFLOW (TPR) curve specific to the set of
conditions that were used to generate it (wellhead pressure,
tubing size, liquid flow rate and liquid properties).
•The TPR will be combined with the Inflow Performance
Relationship to estimate the well production rate.
168
Fig. 7.6: Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR) curve
169