OTC-26526-MS

Critical Review of the Existing Liquid Loading Prediction Models for

Vertical Gas Wells
Tural Jafarov, and Sami Al-Nuaim, KFUPM

Copyright 2016, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–25 March 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
Producing gas wells faces with the challenge of liquid loading mostly in later stages of production. Due
to formation of liquid coloumn in the wellbore, the rate decreases below the critical rate. Hence, water
reduces well performance. Depending on the wells, liquid coloumn can form because of either entrance
of formation water to the wellbore in dry gas wells or wet gas liquidification in wet gas wells or
condensation in gas-condensate wells. In all the cases, as a result, bottomhole pressure increases and
reservoir pressure does not have enough pressure to force the liquid to the surface. This leads to
considerable reduction of well production and that may lead into seizure flow in more severe cases. In last
decades, different techniques and correlations have been offered by many authors for determination of
critical liquid loading rate. This paper reviews the existing several widely used liquid loading models and
highlights their advantages and drawbacks. Additionally, at the end of the paper, a case study has been
conducted for these models to identify their applicability conditions and limitations regarding the selection
of best matched based on well data. According to the case study’s results, Guo’s model predicts critical
flow rate more accurately than all other models. There’s no any applicability ranges, which it can be
applied to all vertical gas wells with different wellhead pressures. When it comes to the other models, their
applicability ranges should be taken into account carefully for not to ending with incorrect estimations.
Introduction
Initially, shallow gas wells have low flowing bottomhole pressure. When liquid introduces itself in the
wellbore, bottomhole pressure starts to increase. Sequentially, gas velocity decreases and reaches its
critical rate, which below this rate liquid loading process expands in the wellbore and the flow converts
from unloaded to loaded regime. Fig. 1 schematically illustrates the liquid loading process. As seen from
the figure, liquid rate in gas flow increases from mist to bubble by decreasing gas velocity. The gas well
can enter to one or all of these regimes of its life. Consequently, tubing filled with the liquid increases
bottomhole pressure and reduces production and ultimate recovery.
Observation of onset of liquid loading in most cases is very difficult, because loaded well may continue
to producing for long period without any symptoms. It can be determined through several ways in later
stages of production life of the well. Liquid loading can be easily observed through Nodal analysis by
plotting IPR & OPR curves. In Fig. 2, the red point shows that the well is already loaded and prevention
2 OTC-26526-MS

Figure 1—Liquid Loading Steps in the Well (Lea and Nickens 2004)

methods must be considered to remove liquid from the wellbore and make the well healthy (green point).
Nodal analysis clearly shows that liquid loading problem is very important for gas wells and immediate
actions should be taken as early as possible. Fig. 3 is an example for gas production rate fluctuations. It
is observed from the figure that after a stable production, the rate begins to fluctuate. This is the first
symptom of liquid loading.

Figure 2—Detected liquid loading through Nodal analysis

OTC-26526-MS 3

Figure 3—Detected liquid loading from production data (Sutton et al. 2003)

Many different models have been developed to deal with this problem and forecast future performance
of gas wells. All these models are either based on theory or empirically based on experiments. Some of
the developed models might not be implemented in the industry because of their limitations. The
following part of the paper reviews these models from past to current.

Literature Review

Prediction of Liquid Loading

In the late sixties, Turner et al. (1969) developed the first model for liquid loading by calculating critical
gas velocity. They studied data sets of 106 vertical wells. The pipe diatemeters were 2.5⬙ and wellhead
pressures were above 500 psia. They did two experiments:
– the continuous film model
– entrained drop movement model
After several experiments, Turner et al. found that the droplet model fits best to their well data.
Turner’s droplet model can be expressed by force balance on a single droplet. Force balance includes
upward drag force FD, upward buoyant force FB and downward gravity force FG. According to the droplet
model, droplet will move upward, if FD⫹FB⬎FG, it will accelerate downward, if FD⫹FB⬍FG. The
balance forces - FD⫹FB⫽FG gives critical gas velocity of droplet. Fig. 4 explains force balance of a single
droplet. Turner et al. developed an equation for critical loading velocity based on the experiments:
(1)
4 OTC-26526-MS

Figure 4 —Force Balance of a Single Droplet (Zhou and Yuan 2009)

The critical rate can be calculated as in below:

(2)

where kv is 1.3.
The velocity that can suspend the largest liquid droplet at the wellhead is called ⬙Turner critical loading
velocity⬙. Turner et al. reported that out of 106 wells, 16 are questionable. 66 wells out of 90 best fitted
with their model. Then they adjusted the equation 20% upward and got 77 wells best fitted. Note that
Turner et al. used 30 as a Weber number.
(3)

(4)

However, since Turner’s data sets were mostly consisting of high wellhead pressures (Pwh⬎1000 psia),
they could not determine that 20% adjustment gives incorrect results for low wellhead pressure wells.
Another drawback of Turner’s model was an assumption that the shape of droplet is spherical and does
not change while flowing in the well.
Coleman et al. (1991) firstly reported that Turner’s 20% adjustment does not work with low-rate and
low wellhead pressure wells and should be applied without adjustment. Coleman’s non-adjusted droplet
model is widely used for wells with wellhead pressures less than 500 psia.
Nosseir et al. (2000) by working on Turner’s data set, announced that Turner’s equation is not based
on the flow regimes and this leads to some errors in the calculations. They calculated all Reynolds
numbers for each rate and concluded that Turner’s assumption for Reynolds numbers between
104⬍Re⬍2⫻105 is not correct. Most of the data exceeds this range and shows itself in highly turbulent
regime. As a result, they proposed two new equations regarding the critical velocity: one for transition and
one for highly turbulent flow regime.
For transition regime
(5)

For highly turbulent regime

OTC-26526-MS 5

(6)

Li et al. (2002) unlike Turner’s spherical-droplet model, introduced new flat-shaped droplet model.
They explained that in a high velocity gas flow, the fore and apt portions of droplet have a pressure
difference. This pressure difference changes droplet’s shape from spherical to like a convex bean form,
which has unequal sides. Fig. 5 shows the droplet’s shape changes from spherical to flat in a high velocity.
Compared with spherical droplets, flat ones need low gas velocity and flow rate due to having more
efficient area. For the Reynolds number range 104⬍Re⬍2⫻105, drag coefficient (CD) for Turner’s model
is 0.44, but for flat shaped one is 1.0, which means smaller critical velocity than spherical droplet.
(7)

(8)

Figure 5—Entrained Droplet’s Shape in a High Velocity Gas Stream (Li et al. 2002)

Although, Li et al. introduced the new shaped droplet model and showed Turner’s spherical droplet
model is not completely accurate, they made the correlation based on the assumption that the shape of
droplet is constant and does not convert. They did not consider if droplets coalesce, how it can change
their shape. In reality, experiments show that droplets coalesce and separate many times in the wellbore.
Consequently, they will need more gas velocity to move upward.
Guo et al. (2006) found that Turner’s method is not accurate, because they considered only top of the
wellbore instead of bottomhole conditions in their model. However, since the flow in the wellbore is
multiphase, bottomhole condition should dominate rather than top hole and because of it their assumption
results with the incorrect minimum flow rate prediction. Based on this observation, Guo et al. introduced
new phenomena - minimum kinetic energy criterion for calculation of critical rate for multiphase flow in
gas wells. They showed that gas should exceed the minimum kinetic energy value in order to transport
the liquid droplet to the wellhead. On the other hand, multiphase flow model predicts accurate bottomhole
pressure and fluid density that are used in kinetic energy calculation. They proposed a minimum required
gas production rate calculation based on this new model:
(9)

(10)
6 OTC-26526-MS

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

The calculations are followed through eqns. (10) – (22) and got final ␥ value. This value is compared
with the value of eqn. (9) after substituting the values of eqns. (10) - (22) in (9). The calculations are
repeated until right hand side of eqn. (9) is close to ␥ value of eqn. (14). Eventually, calculated Qgm
becomes minimum flow rate that gas transports the droplet to the surface.
Wang and Liu (2007) offered that for Reynold number ranges between 104 and 106 and Morton
number ranges between 10-10 and 10-12 in gas wells. They determined that most of the droplets are
disk-shaped in gas flow and may be carried to the surface because of having more efficient area similar
like flat-shaped one. They also calculated that drag coefficient (CD) for disk-shaped droplet is 1.17 and
proposed new equations for critical velocity and flow rate:
(23)

(24)
OTC-26526-MS 7

Same as Li et al. model, they also did not consider in their model in case of droplets coalesce and
separate and how it can change the minimum flow rate.
Zhou and Yuan (2009) showed that for gas wells gas velocity usually is very high and the flow is
turbulent. In turbulent flow regime, droplets do not flow just through upward, they flow through all the
directions. Droplets may coalesce and make bigger ones, then may separate to small ones and then again
they may coalesce. This process is repeated continuously. The process is illustrated in Fig. 6. From this
observation, Zhou and Yuan introduced a new definition - liquid holdup to represent liquid droplet
concentration in gas wells:
(25)

where Hl - liquid holdup and ␯sl and ␯sg are superficial liquid and gas velocities, respectively.

Figure 6 —Droplets in Turbulent Flow Regime (Zhou and Yuan 2009)

They explained that conventional Turner’s critical velocity equation is fitted, if liquid holdup is equal
or less than threshold value of liquid-droplet consentration (␤) Hlⱕ␤.
(26)

However, if Hl⬎␤
(27)

where vcrit.–N - critical velocity for new model, ␣ is a fitting constant. From Turner et al (1969) data,
␣ ⫽ 0.6, ␤ ⫽ 0.01 were estimated. The maximum Hl ⫽ 0.24. According to Barnea et al. (1987), when
the liquid holdup becomes higher than 0.24, the multiphase flow changes to slug flow pattern.
Luan and He (2012) by analyzing both Turner et al. (1969) and Li et al (2002) results, determined that
Turner’s model overestimates, whilst Li’s model underestimates the critical velocity of gas wells.
Consequently, they introduced a new dimensionless parameter loss factor - S for their new model to
include the gas energy loss caused by the move of flat-shaped droplets of Li’s model. Thus, the empirical
equation of model
(28)

where vcrit.–T and vcrit.–L are the calculated velocities from Turner’s and Li’s models, respectively.
8 OTC-26526-MS

Luan and He analyzed production data of 300 gas wells in China and observed that S factor ranges
between 0.75 and 0.83. For simplification as an upper limit 0.83 is used.
(29)

(30)

Authors, recommended to use their model with low-pressure gas wells, especially wellhead pressures
less than 500 psia as Coleman’s model.

Case Study

Case Description
A case study has been performed to identify the applicability conditions and limitations of the models
based on Turner’s well data set and provide a deep insight. The critical flow rates have been calculated
based on the application of different models for 68 out of 106 wells reported by Turner et al. The well
parameters have been given in Table 1. The reason not to do the calculations for all the wells is the lack
of some well data in Turner’s original set and being unwilling to make assumptions for them, as it could
result in errors. In addition, the reported 16 questionable wells have not been considered as well, because
of their incorrect well parameters, which even though the calculations can be performed through them. On
the other hand, average z factor has been used for simplifying the calculations. Using an average value
doesn’t have any noticeable impact, because they are closed to each other.

Table 1—Turner’s Data Set

Depth, ft Pwh, psi Condensate Gravity, API yc, bbl/Mscf yw, bbl/Mscf Tubing ID, inch z Factor

6404 725 63.8 6 0 2.441 0.9221

6739 400 – 0 18 1.995 0.9556
6529 108 64.3 9.6 12.4 2.041 0.9878
6700 540 70.8 10.5 10.5 1.995 0.9408
6770 450 61 11.3 0 1.995 0.9503
11200 3607 61 37.4 0 1.995 0.87
11200 3434 61 37.4 0 1.995 0.8608
11340 3660 58 36.8 0 1.995 0.873
11416 3340 56.4 130.8 0 2.992 0.8562
11417 3540 56.4 113.5 0 2.441 0.8663
11426 3525 55 106.9 0 1.995 0.8655
11426 3472 55 106.9 0 1.995 0.8627
11355 3338 55 117.6 0 2.441 0.8561
11355 3092 55 117.6 0 2.441 0.8455
11390 3455 55 104.3 0 1.995 0.8619
8690 3665 60 68.3 0 2.441 0.8733
8690 3615 60 68.3 0 2.441 0.8705
8840 3212 60 54.8 0 2.441 0.8504
8840 3025 60 54.8 0 2.441 0.8431
11850 8215 67.5 10.8 0 2.441 1.29
11850 7405 67.5 10.8 0 2.441 1.19
6995 2226 65 17.9 0 1.995 0.8325
5515 1590 65 13.1 0 3.958 0.8536
5515 1520 65 13.1 0 3.958 0.8576
OTC-26526-MS 9

Table 1 (Continued)—Turner’s Data Set

Depth, ft Pwh, psi Condensate Gravity, API yc, bbl/Mscf yw, bbl/Mscf Tubing ID, inch z Factor

7346 1835 52.7 27.8 0.4 1.995 0.8421

7346 2421 52.7 27.8 0.4 1.995 0.8316
7346 2705 52.7 27.8 0.4 1.995 0.8345
7346 2894 52.7 27.8 0.4 1.995 0.839
8963 5056 43.9 7.5 1.4 1.995 0.9698
8963 4931 43.9 7.5 1.4 1.995 0.9643
8963 4786 43.9 7.5 1.4 1.995 0.9567
8963 4575 43.9 7.5 1.4 1.995 0.941
5294 1902 71 30.9 0 1.995 0.8397
5294 1737 71 30.9 0 1.995 0.8462
5294 1480 71 30.9 0 1.995 0.86
5294 1246 71 30.9 0 1.995 0.8762
5234 1895 71.7 54.1 0 1.995 0.84
5234 1861 71.7 54.1 0 1.995 0.8412
5234 1784 71.7 54.1 0 1.995 0.8442
5234 1680 71.7 54.1 0 1.995 0.8489
7639 2814 53.5 3.3 1 1.75 0.8368
7639 2582 53.5 3.3 1 1.75 0.8326
7639 2104 53.5 3.3 1 1.75 0.8343
7639 1575 53.5 3.3 1 1.75 0.8544
7475 2783 52.4 3.4 0 1.75 0.8361
7475 2655 52.4 3.4 0 1.75 0.8336
7475 2406 52.4 3.4 0 1.75 0.8315
7475 2205 52.4 3.4 0 1.75 0.8327
7546 2574 52.2 4.1 0.6 1.75 0.8325
7546 2224 52.2 4.1 0.6 1.75 0.8325
7546 1839 52.2 4.1 0.6 1.75 0.842
7546 1509 52.2 4.1 0.6 1.75 0.8583
7753 2611 52.6 5.5 0 1.995 0.833
7753 2527 52.6 5.5 0 1.995 0.8321
8162 2556 56.7 7.7 0 1.995 0.8323
8162 2415 56.7 7.7 0 1.995 0.8315
8162 2149 56.7 7.7 0 1.995 0.8335
8162 1765 56.7 7.7 0 1.995 0.845
7531 760 54.9 46.1 45.1 2.441 0.9186
7531 704 54.9 31.6 40.8 2.441 0.9241
7531 822 54.9 26.7 26.3 2.441 0.9127
7531 1102 54.9 26.1 23.8 2.441 0.8876
7531 552 54.9 25.1 22.3 2.441 0.9396
3278 315 50 10 0 7.386 0.9648
3278 422 50 10 0 7.386 0.9533
3278 459 50 10 0 7.386 0.9493
3278 484 50 10 0 7.386 0.9467

Results
Table 2 summarizes the critical gas flow rate calculations for all the models. Fig. 7 through 13 show the
results for the case study in calculating the critical gas flow rates for the wells. All figures have been
divided by blue line to two regions. The right side identifies loaded, while left side identifies unloaded
regions, whilst blue line itself is near loaded-up region. Fig. 7 shows Turner’s original liquid loading
prediction after 20% adjustment. Turner’s correlation shows that it is good for unloaded wells with
wellhead pressures higher than 500 psi. As Coleman reported, 20% adjustment gives incorrect predicted
rates. Since it overestimates, this correlation cannot be used for already loaded wells. Analysis of
10 OTC-26526-MS

Nosseir’s model in Fig. 8 shows that this model works best for the near loaded-up wells with wellhead
pressures less than 1000 psi. The model gave incorrect minimum flow rates for 10 wells out of total 34, which
is a quite high error as a percentage. Investigation of Li’s Model in Fig. 9 displays that unlike Turner’s model
it underestimates the rates for mostly loaded wells. The correlation gave overall 12 incorrect predicted rate
values, which it is due to consideration that droplets are only flat-shaped as explained above. Li’s rates for
unloaded wells are close to Turner’s ones. Review of Guo’s Model in Fig. 10 shows that their correlation
predicts the critical rates correctly almost for all the wells. Although, in the figure 6 incorrect rates have been
shown, 5 of them are close to near-loaded up regime. Guo’s model predicted only 1 well’s critical flow rate
completely incorrectly, which is result acceptable. The results prove that not just wellhead, also bottomhole
conditions in the same time should be considered in estimating the minimum critical flow rate of wells to get
correct values. Similar to Li’s model Wang’s model also underestimates the critical flow rates as shown in Fig.
11. The number of incorrect predicted rates even increases to 17 by the application of Wang’s model. This is
because of an assumption that droplets are only disk-shaped as explained above. Analysis of Zhou’s model in
Fig. 12 shows that introduction of the liquid holdup phenomena increases the accuracy of critical rate
estimation. Furthermore, it is understood that Zhou’s model predicts loaded wells better than unloaded ones.
However, the main poor side of this correlation is its overestimation character. Because of this reason, 11 wells
have been predicted incorrectly. Introduction of the loss factor in Luan’s model, gives more reasonable critical
rate values than Turner, Li and Wang’s Models as displayed in Fig. 13. Compared with those three models (Fig.
7, Fig. 9 and Fig. 11), Luan’s model did only 7 wrong predictions. Additionally, plotting the critical velocity
values against the wellhead pressures graphically proves that Turner’s model overestimates. It also shows that
Li and Wang underestimate.

Table 2—Calculated Critical Flow Rates by Different Models Based on Turner’s Data Set
Turner’s Turner’s
Observed Droplet Adj. Nosseir’s Li’s Guo’s Wang’s Zhou’s Luan’s
Test Rate, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model,
Pwh, psi Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day

725 775 779 935 813 542 880 381 956 841
400 417 583 700 503 270 – 190 579 630
108 568 306 367 264 147 243 104 316 330
540 712 661 793 690 313 500 220 807 714
450 442 419 503 361 286 470 201 421 453
3607 1525 1156 1387 1207 778 1349 547 3936 1248
3434 2926 1150 1380 1671 761 1333 535 3683 1242
3660 3726 1142 1370 – 783 1396 550 3978 1233
3340 2611 2412 2894 2518 1690 3033 1188 17555 2605
3540 1814 1635 1962 1707 1155 2069 811 11627 1766
3525 1792 1108 1330 1157 770 1401 541 7404 1197
3472 2572 1085 1302 1675 765 1411 537 7229 1172
3338 2261 1623 1948 1695 1125 2039 790 10855 1753
3092 3351 1574 1889 – 1086 2001 763 9626 1700
3455 2769 1082 1298 6459 763 1411 536 7054 1169
3665 2542 1660 1992 1733 1173 2052 824 8714 1793
3615 3890 1648 1978 6184 1166 2057 819 8534 1780
3212 2547 1604 1925 1675 1105 1919 777 6251 1732
3025 3517 1569 1883 – 1075 1877 756 5746 1695
8215 3472 1956 2347 2042 1629 2951 1144 8860 2112
7405 6946 1930 2316 – 1570 2810 1103 7738 2084
2226 1959 910 1092 – 623 1036 438 1696 983
1590 3009 3281 3937 3426 2089 3424 1468 3661 3543
1520 4150 3195 3834 3772 2044 3351 1437 3584 3451
OTC-26526-MS 11

Table 2 (Continued)—Calculated Critical Flow Rates by Different Models Based on Turner’s Data Set
Turner’s Turner’s
Observed Droplet Adj. Nosseir’s Li’s Guo’s Wang’s Zhou’s Luan’s
Test Rate, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model, Model,
Pwh, psi Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day Mscf/day

1835 8672 1239 1487 – 568 1032 399 1603 1338

2421 6654 1407 1688 – 648 1160 455 2122 1520
2705 5136 1467 1760 – 682 1213 479 2398 1584
2894 3917 1502 1802 6184 704 1245 495 2591 1622
5056 3376 1770 2124 – 901 1659 633 3042 1912
4931 4830 1732 2078 5004 892 1643 627 2964 1871
4786 6221 1705 2046 – 881 1622 619 2875 1841
4575 7792 1659 1991 – 864 1591 607 2747 1792
1902 1138 851 1021 – 578 936 406 1706 919
1737 1712 814 977 – 554 897 389 1561 879
1480 2473 750 900 – 513 833 360 1347 810
1246 2965 686 823 – 472 768 332 1162 741
1895 1797 875 1050 – 577 941 406 2092 945
1861 2502 859 1031 – 572 938 402 2048 928
1784 3460 832 998 2042 561 926 394 1951 899
1680 4439 803 964 – 545 906 383 1823 867
2814 1596 1216 1459 – 535 924 376 928 1313
2582 2423 1176 1411 – 514 886 361 893 1270
2104 3598 1070 1284 – 467 802 328 815 1156
1575 4410 918 1102 5137 406 696 286 713 991
2783 2939 834 1001 – 532 922 374 924 901
2655 4140 817 980 – 520 902 366 905 882
2406 5820 770 924 – 497 861 349 866 832
2205 6871 746 895 – 477 826 335 832 806
2574 1943 899 1079 – 513 888 360 892 971
2224 2910 833 1000 – 479 827 337 836 900
1839 3742 755 906 – 438 754 308 766 815
1509 4485 683 820 – 398 684 280 698 738
2611 3436 1082 1298 2042 671 1163 472 1167 1169
2527 4471 1058 1270 – 661 1146 464 1150 1143
2556 1550 1026 1231 – 664 1136 467 1156 1108
2415 1804 996 1195 1707 647 1105 455 1127 1076
2149 2385 941 1129 – 612 1044 430 1069 1016
1765 2949 856 1027 – 558 948 392 977 924
760 1247 1148 1378 1199 555 965 390 1901 1240
704 1313 1099 1319 1147 534 924 376 1721 1187
822 1356 1197 1436 1250 577 989 405 1844 1293
1102 1365 1419 1703 1482 665 1139 468 2286 1533
552 1607 958 1150 1000 474 817 333 1392 1035
315 5740 5093 6112 5318 3289 5534 2312 4844 5500
422 3890 5923 7108 6184 3802 6401 2672 5596 6397
459 2780 6186 7423 6459 3963 6673 2786 5832 6681
484 1638 6359 7631 6648 4068 6851 2860 5986 6868
12 OTC-26526-MS

Figure 7—Calculated Critical Flow Rate Based on Turner’s Adjusted Model vs. Test Flow Rate

Figure 8 —Calculated Critical Flow Rate Based on Nosseir’s Model vs. Test Flow Rate
OTC-26526-MS 13

Figure 9 —Calculated Critical Flow Rate Based on Li’s Model vs. Test Flow Rate

Figure 10 —Calculated Critical Flow Rate Based on Guo’s Model vs. Test Flow Rate
14 OTC-26526-MS

Figure 11—Calculated Critical Flow Rate Based on Wang’s Model vs. Test Flow Rate

Figure 12—Calculated Critical Flow Rate Based on Zhou’s Model vs. Test Flow Rate
OTC-26526-MS 15

Figure 13—Calculated Critical Flow Rate Based on Luan’s Model vs. Test Flow Rate

Figure 14 —Critical Velocity Comparisons among Turner, Luan, Wang and Li’s models

Table 3 summarizes the results of the case study. Doing comparisons through all models concludes that
Guo’s model predicts critical gas rates more accurately and gives overall reasonable results. These results
prove that bottomhole conditions have more effects than wellhead conditions in critical rate calculations.

Table 3—Summary of the Case Study

Models Applicability Range Drawback

Turner’s adjusted model Pwh⬎500 psi Overestimates

Nosseir Pwh⬎1000 psi Predicted rates are in reasonable range, but accuracy decreases for loaded wells
Li Pwh⬎500 psi Underestimates
Guo No limitation –
Wang & Liu Pwh⬎500 psi Makes very high underestimation
Zhou & Yuan Pwh⬍500 psi Makes very high overestimation for wells higher than applicability range
Luan & He Pwh⬎500 psi Prediction accuracy decreases for loaded wells
16 OTC-26526-MS

Conclusion
The following conclusions are made:
● Liquid loading is one the most important problems for gas wells, which immediate curavative or
preventive actions should be taken.
● Prediction models for critical flow rate of vertical gas wells have been studied through extensive
literature survey and explained.
● Case study has been performed for the critical flow rate prediction through the different models
and described their advantages and limitations to get more deep understanding.
● It is recommended to use several different models in the same time, while determining critical gas
velocity and rate. Making comparisons between the models, increases the accuracy of calculations.
● This study can also be further broadened for deviated and horizontal wells individually or together.

Nomenclature
vcrit. ⫽critical velocity, ft/sec
␴ ⫽surface tension of liquid to gas, dynes/cm
␳l ⫽liquid density, lbm/ft3
␳g ⫽gas density, lbm/ft3
CD ⫽drag coefficient (recommended value 0.44)
Qcrit. ⫽critical flow rate, Mscf/day
A ⫽cross-sectional area of flow, ft2
p ⫽pressure, psia
z ⫽gas compressibility factor
T ⫽temperature, °F
␳p ⫽liquid drop density, lbm/ft3
␳ ⫽gas density, lbm/ft3
Ai ⫽cross-sectional area of conduit, in.2
Dh ⫽hydraulic diameter, in.
Ekm ⫽minimum kinetic energy required to transport liquid drops, lbf-ft/ft3
f ⫽Moody friction factor
L ⫽conduit length, ft
phf ⫽wellhead flowing pressure, psia
Qgm ⫽minimum gas flow rate required to transport liquid drops, Mscf/day
QG ⫽gas production rate, scf/day
Qo ⫽oil production rate, bbl/day
Qs ⫽solid production rate, ft3/day
Qw ⫽water production rate, bbl/day
Sg ⫽specific gravity of gas, air ⫽ 1
So ⫽specific gravity of produced oil, fresh water ⫽ 1
Ss ⫽specific gravity of produced sloid, fresh water ⫽ 1
Sw ⫽specific gravity of produced water, fresh water ⫽ 1
Tav ⫽average temperature, °F
Tbh ⫽bottomhole temperature, °F
␧’ ⫽pipe-wall roughness, in.
␪ ⫽inclination angle, degrees
Hl ⫽liquid holdup at wellhead
Vsl ⫽superficial liquid velocity, ft/sec
OTC-26526-MS 17

Vsg ⫽superficial gas velocity, ft/sec

Vcrit.–N ⫽critical velocity for Zhou and Yuan (2009) model, ft/sec
␣ ⫽parameter in Zhou and Yuan (2009) model, 0.6 or 0
␤ ⫽the threshold value of liquid droplet concentration, 0.01 for petroleum gas wells
Vcrit.–S ⫽critical velocity for Luan and He (2012) model, ft/sec
Vcrit.–L ⫽critical velocity for Li et al. (2002) model, ft/sec
Vcrit.–T ⫽critical velocity for Turner et al. (1969) model, ft/sec
S ⫽loss factor
Qcrit.–T ⫽critical gas rate for Luan and He (2012) model, Mscf/day
Pfbh ⫽flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
Ptbh ⫽flowing tubinghead pressure, psia
Qg ⫽gas flow rate, Mscf/day
B ⫽factor related to head
C ⫽factor related to friction

References
Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., Dukler, A.E. 1969. Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous
Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells. J. Pet. Tech. 21 (11): 1475–1482
Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G., Norris, L.H.III 1991. Applying Gas-Well Load-Up Technology. J. Pet. Tech.
43 (3): 344 –349
Libson, T.N., Henry, J.R. 1980. Case Histories: Identification of and Remedial Action for Liquid Loading in Gas Wells
– Intermediate Shelf Gas Play. J. Pet. Tech. 32 (4): 685–693
Nosseir, M.A., Darwich, T.A., Sayyouh, M.H., El Sallaly, M. 2000. A New Approach for Accurate Prediction of Loading
in Gas Wells under Different Flowing Conditions. SPE Prod. & Fac. 15 (4): 241–246.
Li, M., Li, S.L., Sun, L.T. 2002. New View on Continuous-Removal Liquids from Gas Wells. SPE Prod. & Fac. 17
(1):42–46.
Lea, J.F., Nickens, H.V. 2004. Solving Gas-Well Liquid-Loading Problems. J. Pet. Tech. 56 (4): 30 –36
Lea, J., Nickens, H.V., Wells, M. Gas Well Deliquification, 2nd Edition. Elseiver, Gulf Drilling Guides 2008.
Guo, B., Ghalambor, A., Xu, C. 2006. A Systematic Approach to Predicting Liquid Loading in Gas Wells. SPE Prod. &
Oper. 21 (1): 81–88.
Guo, B., Ghalambor, A. Natural Gas Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston Texas
2005.
Solomon, F.A., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C. 2008. Critical Review of Existing Solutions to Predict and Model Liquid
Loading in Gas Wells. SPE Paper 115933 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24
September, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Zhou, D., Yuan, H. 2009. A New Model for Predicting Gas-Well Liquid Loading. SPE Prod. & Oper. 25 (2): 172–181.
Luan, G., He, S. 2012. A New Model for the Accurate Prediction of Liquid Loading in Low-Pressure Gas Wells. J. Can.
Pet. Tech. 51 (6): 493–498
Riza, M.F., Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S. 2014. A Pragmatic Approach to Understanding Liquid Loading in Gas Wells. SPE
Paper 170583 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 27-29 October, Amsterdam,
Netherland