Gas well performance

3.1. Gas contained in a sealine

A platform discharges gas to an onshore gas plant through a sealine of nominal diameter 15 inches
and a length of 12,45 km.
Pressure and temperature at flowing conditions are
Platform Gas plant
Temperature, °C 16,9 19,0
Pressure, bar 13 11,2

Average sea temperature at the sealine depth is 14°C

It is asked to calculate:
4. The mass of gas contained in the sealine.
5. The average sealine pressure:
5.1. just after a platform shut down
5.2. two days after the shut down
Assumptions
During shutdown the valves on the sealine at the platform and gas plant close instantaneously.
Gas composition is methane 100% and the compressibility factor = 1

Solution
The mass of gas in the sealine is of course the same in flowing and in shutdown conditions.
The mass of gas is obtained with the gas law
m
Pav V = ( ) zRTav
M
We can obtain m
M
m = Pav V
zRTav
Where
m is the mass of gas in kg, Pav is the average pressure in sealine in atm, Tav is the average
temperature in the sealine in °K, V is the volume of gas in the sealine in m3, z is the compressibility
m3 atm
gas factor and R is the gas constant which, for the units adopted, is 0,082 kmol K

1
Average pressure and temperature are
13+11,2
Pav = = 12,1 bar = 11,9 atm
2
16,9+19
Tav = = 17,9 °C = 290,9 K
2
Volume and mass calculation
πD2 3,14 (15 ∙ 0,0254)2
V= L= 12450 = 1419 m3
4 4

kg
16 kmol
m = (11,9 atm)(1419 m3 ) = 11326 kg
m3 atm
(0,082 ) (290,9 K)
kmol K

Question 2a
The sealine pressure immediately after shutdown is the same as at the gas plant under flowing
conditions, 11,2 bar. The higher pressure at the platform, 13 bar, is due to the friction losses in the
sealine which drop to zero under static shutdown conditions.

Question 2b
After two days of shut down it is reasonable to assume that the gas temperature in the sealine has
reached the surrounding sea temperature of 14°C.
At this temperature we calculate the corresponding pressure by rearranging the ideal gas law
m
P= zRT
MV

11326 kg m3 atm
P= (0,082 ) (14 °C+273) = 11,7 atm
kg kmol K
(16 kmol) (1419 m3 )

A negligible pressure reduction of - 1,7% is found.

2
 3.2. Current and future IPR of a gas well

In a deviated gas well a production test has provided the following results.
Test Qg, Mscf/d Pwh, psia
Static 0 2166
1 4,86 2093
2 13,59 1797

n
It is asked to 1) obtain the value C and n of the Fetkovich equation: Qg = C(P2s - P2wf )
and 2) build the IPR curves for this situation and for the future for a static pressure depletion of 10%
and 20%.

Solution
With the available data we can write the following system of two equations
ln4,86 = lnC+nln(21662 - 20932 )
{
ln13,59 = lnC+nln(21662 - 17972 )
We obtain C = 0,00109 and n = 0,664.
The Fetkovich equation becomes
0,664
Qg = 0,00109(P2s - P2wf )
To calculate the equation after depletion it is common practice to assume constant n (which
represents the pressure drop around the wellbore and the turbulence) but to modify the constant
C which reprresents the reservoir characteristics.
We can assume that C is proportional to the static pressure
Ps,f
Cf = Cc
Ps,c
Where: Cc is the current constant, Cf the future constant, Ps,c is the current reservoir pressure and
Ps,f is the future reservoir pressure.
The future Ps are
Ps,10 = Ps,c ∙ 0,9 = (2166)(0,9) = 1949 psi
Ps,20 = Ps,c ∙ 0,8 = (2166)(0,8) = 1733 psi
Where Ps,10 and Ps,20 are respectively the future static pressure with depletion of 10% and 20%.
The relevant values of C are

3
 Ps,10 1949
Cf,10 = Cc = (0,00109) ( ) = 0,00098
Ps,c 2166
Ps,20 1733
Cf,20 = Cc = (0,00109) ( ) = 0,000872
Ps,c 2166
In conclusion, the future IPR equations are
With 10% of depletion
0,664
Qg = 0,00098(P2s - P2wf )
With 20% of depletion
0,664
Qg = 0,000872(P2s - P2wf )
The graph in Figure 0.1 depicts the IPRs, current and future.

Current situation Future 20% depletion

Future 10% depletion Test data
2500
2000
Pwf, psia

1500
1000

500
0
0 5 10 15 20
Qg, Mscfd

Figure 0.1 - Current and future IPRs for reservoir depletion of 10% and 20%

4
 3.3. Well gas rate performance and decline

In an offshore gas well, the operator carried out a static test and three dynamic production tests
with the following results:
Test Qg, Mscf/d Pwh, psi Pwf, psi
Static 0 1453 1562
1 3,42 1433 1548
2 7,08 1389 1525
3 13,99 1245 1489

The flow equation in the tubing is

P2wf = BP2wh + EQg2
Where B and E are constant values, pressure are in psi and Qg is in Mscf/d.
The well has been put on a regular production of 13,99 Mscf/d and, after 15 years, the rate has
dropped by 50%.
Questions: a) write the analytical equation of the well performance in terms of Pwh vs Qg.
b) Evaluate the exponential decline equation, the percentage decrease per year and the ultimate
cumulative gas production Gp.

Solution
For the flow in reservoir we can use the Fetkovich equation
n
Qg = C(P2s - P2wf )
Which can be re-written as follows
lnQg = lnC+nln(P2s - P2wf )

and represents a line in the graph lnQg vs ln(P2s -P2wf ). Using the three flow tests we obtain the graph
shown in Figure 4.2.

Flow tests
5
y = 0,8554x - 7,935
R² = 0,9927
0
ln(Qg)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-5

-10
ln(Ps^2-Pwf^2)

Figure 0.3 - Calculation of the coefficients C and n of the Fektovich equation

5
From the graph we obtain
lnQg = 0,8554ln(P2s - P2wf ) - 7,935
Thus lnC = -7,935, C = 3,58 ∙ 10-4 and n = 0,8554.
The Fetkovich equation is
0.8554
Qg = 3,58 ∙ 10-4 (P2s -P2wf ) (1)
For what concerns the correlation for the gas vertical flow, the parameter B can be computed with
the static test data (Qg=0):
P2s 15622
B= = = 1,156
P2wh 14532
Focusing on the value of E, we obtain it from the three dynamic tests.
For instance, from the first test
P2wf - BP2wh 15482 - (1,156)(14332 )
E1 = = = 1973,8
Q2g 3,422
Calculations of the coefficient E for the flow tests are reported in Table 0.1.

E1 E2 E3 Eavg
1973,8 1913,3 2175,3 2020,8
Table 0.1 - Coefficient E calculations

Thus, the empirical equation takes the following form

P2wf = 1,156P2wh +2020,8Q2g (2)
To obtain the flow equation representing reservoir and string, we combine the equations (1) and
(2). By eliminating Pwf we have
1
1
Q n 2 Qg 0,5584
P
√ s
2
- ( ) - EQ2
√ 1562 - ( -4 ) - 2020,8Q2g
C g 3,58 ∙ 10
Pwh = =
B 1,156

which can be plotted as in Figure 0.4.

6
 1600
1400
1200
1000

Pwh, psi
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Qg ,Mscf/d
Figure 0.4 - Gas well performance at surface conditions

To investigate future production, three main equations are used:

Qg = Qg,0 e-bt (3)
Qg = Qg,0 (1 - d)t (4)
Qg,0 (1 - e-bt )
Gp = 365 (5)
b

Where Qg , 13,99 Mscfd, is the gas rate at the start (first day, not average in the year), Gp is the
cumulative gas in Mscf/d, t is time in years, b is the coefficient of yearly gas rate decline and d is the
constant exponential decline per year. The number 365 is used to pass from days to years.
Knowing that after 15 years (t = 15), Qg = 0,5Qg,0 from equation 3), it follows that
Qg
ln (Q )
g,0 ln0,5
b= = = 0,0462
-t -15
Combining equations 3) and 4) we obtain the following correlation between b and d
e-b = (1 - d) (6)
and we determine d as follows
d = 1 - e-b = 1 - e-0,0462 = 0,0451
The decline per year is 4,51% and equation 3) is
Qg = 13,99e-0,0462t
Finally, the cumulative gas production after 15 years is
13,99 ∙ 106 (1 - e-(0,0462)(15) )
Gp = 365 = 5,526 ∙ 1010 scf
0,0462
In more practical units this is 55,26 Bscf.

7
It is useful to visualize the trend of Qg and Gp over time as shown in Figure 4.4.

Gp, Bscf Qg, Mscfd

60 16
50 14
12
40

Qg, Mscfd
10
Gp, Bscf

30 8
20 6
4
10 2
0 0
0 5 10 15
Years

Figure 0.5 - Gas rate and cumulative production vs time

8
 3.4. Static condition of a gas well

By using only equations of equilibrium in the tubing, calculate the well head static pressure (Pwh,s)
of a gas well, the average gas density in the string, and the gas hydrostatic pressure.
Data
Vertical depth Gas gravity Reservoir static Average Average gas
H = 2800 m γg = 0,7 pressure temperature in compressibility
Ps = 310 atm the tubing factor
T = 60 °C Z=1

Assumptions: no liquid is present in the string.

Solution
In this problem there are 3 unknowns to be determined (Pwh,s, ΔPh and ρavg), so 3 equations are
needed:
▪ Hydrostatic pressure ∆Ph in kg/cm2 can be calculated as
H
∆Ph = ρavg 10 (1)

Where ρavg is in kg/l, H is in m.

▪ The Gas law provides the density

Pwh,s +Ps
Pavg Mgas ( )γg M
2 air
ρavg = = (2)
RT RT

▪ Pressure balance inside the string is given by

Pwh,s = Ps - ∆Ph (3)
From equation (2) we can write
(0,7)(28,9) 1
ρavg = (P +P ) = 3,652 ∙ 10-9 (Pwh,s +Ps )
(2)(8314)(273+60) 1000 wh,s s
m3 Pa
with ρavg in kg/l, Pwh,s and Ps in Pa. R is 8314 kmolK.

Replacing ρavg in equation (1) (and considering the conversion from kg/cm2 to Pa) we have
2800 101325
∆Ph = 3,652 ∙ 10-9 (Pwh,s +Ps ) = 0,1005 (Pwh,s +Ps )
10 1,03
From equation (3)
Pwh,s = Ps - 0,1005 (Pwh,s +Ps )

Ps (1 - 0,1005) (310)(101325)(1 - 0,1005)

Pwh,s = = = 25669105,1 Pa = 253,3 atm
1+0,1005 1+0,1005

9
Then the other unknowns can be directly calculated
∆Ph = Ps - Pwh,s = 31410750 - 25669105,1 = 5741644,9 Pa = 56,7 atm

and
kg
ρavg = 3,652 ∙ 10-9 (31410750+25669105,1) = 0,208 .
l

10
 3.5. Gas well performance with water production

Estimate the approximated wellhead flowing pressure, Pwh, and bottom flowing pressure, Pwf, of the
flowing gas well with a gas rate Qgas of 100000 Sm3/d and 20 m3/d of water.
Data.
H = 4000 m γg = 0,65 Pavg,string = 20 atm

Assumptions: water is incompressible and the amount of gas dissolved in water and friction losses
are both negligible.

Solution
The two equations needed to solve the problem are:
▪ Average pressure inside the tubing
P +P
Pavg = wh2 wf (1)

▪ Pressure balance inside the tubing

H
Pwh = Pwf - ∆Ph = Pwf - ρavg 10 (2)

The average density is given by

total mass flow rate
ρavg =
total volume flow rate @ Pavg
The total mass flow rate does not depend on temperature or pressure and is constant through the
tubing. It is given by
total mass flow rate = ρw Qw + ρg,sc Qg,sc

where the density of gas is calculated from the definition of gas gravity
ρg,sc γg Psc Mair (101325)(0,65)(28,9) kg
γg = → ρg,sc = = = 0,795 3
ρair,sc zRTsc (8314)(288) m

so
kg
total mass flow rate = (1000)(20)+(0,795)(100000) = 99500
d
Regarding the volume, the water is assumed incompressible, so its volume does not change with
pressure. Since an approximate solution is requested, the volume of gas can be estimated with the
1
rule of thumb: Bg (p) ≈ p with p expressed in atm.

Qg,sc 100000 m3
Qgas@Pavg = = = 5000
Pavg 20 d
Thus
99500 kg kg
ρavg = = 19,8 3 = 0,0198
5000+20 m cm2
11
and
H (0,0198)(4000) kg
∆Ph = ρavg = = 7,9 = 7,7 atm
10 10 cm2
Inserting equation (1) into (2), an expression for direct calculation of the well head pressure is
obtained
∆Ph 7,7
Pwf = Pavg + = 20+ = 23,85 atm
2 2
and
Ph 7,7
Pwh = Pavg - = 20 - = 16,15 atm
2 2

12
 3.6.
3.6. Gas plant seasonal production

An onshore gas plant receives gas from a group of platforms (see scheme). The plant process is
mainly comprised of slug catchers, gas compression and gas dehydration units. After treatment, gas
enters a domestic gas line whose pressure, by contract, changes seasonally between 45 (winter) and
60 bara (summer).

Gas compression is assured by an electric centrifugal compressor.

Regression of field data shows that, for the range of pressure of interest, production performance
of the platform and friction losses in the sealine are respectively represented by these equations

Pptf (pressure at manifold of platform) = 22 - 1,423∙10-11 Qg2

Where P is in bara and Qg in Sm3/d.

∆Pf = 3∙10-12 Qg2

where ΔPf is in bara, Qg in Sm3/d.

Data

Compression power is assumed fixed at 1200 kW.

Avg. delta P through the plant: slug catchers = 0,15 bara; dehydration system = 0,2 bara

Calculate the gas rate delivered to the market in winter and in summer.

Solution
The problem can be solved in two ways: 1) by graphical method and nodal analysis, 2) by solving the
flow equations.
- First solution: graphical method and nodal analysis
13
Let’s fix our node at the manifold of the platform: production is such that pressure upstream of the
node is equal to the pressure downstream of the node.
Pressure downstream Pwh is
Pwh = Pmk + ΔPsealine + ΔPplant + ΔPcompression
ΔPcompression = Pmk - Pin
The relationship between Pmk (exit of compressor) and Pin can be obtained by the general equation
for the power of the compressor
P 0,2
Power = 58,8∙10-4 Qg (( Pmk ) - 1) (1)
in

Where Power is in kW, Qg in Sm3/d, Pmk and Pin are in absolute pressure, bara in our case.
Let’s first make Pin explicit
5
1
Pin = ( Power ) Pmk (2)
(0,00588 Qg)
+1

So ΔP through the compressor is

5
1
Pmk - Pin = Pmk - ( Power ) Pmk (3)
(0,00588 Qg)
+1

Pressure Pwh at the node (downstream) is

5

1
Pwh = Pmk - Pmk + ( ) Pmk + ΔPsealine + ΔPplant
Power
+1
(0,00588 Qg)
That is
5
1
Pwh = ( Power ) Pmk + 3∙10-12 Qg2 + 0,35 (4)
(0,00588 Qg)
+1

The graph of this equation is shown in Figure 4.10.

14
 Pmk = 45 bara Pmk = 60 bara

30,00
25,00
P suction, bara

20,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
0,00
500000 550000 600000 650000 700000 750000 800000 850000 900000 950000 1000000
Qg, Sm3/d

Figure 0.10 - Pressure at the manifold of the platform vs gas rate considering the system sealine,
plant and compression

Finally, we superimpose onto this graph the upstream performance (platform, wells, reservoir) at
the manifold
Pwh = 22 - 1,423∙10-11 Qg2 (5)

The graph obtained is shown in Figure 4.11.

Pmk = 45 bara Pmk = 60 bara Ptf performance

30,00
25,00
P suction, bara

20,00
15,00
10,00
5,00
0,00
500000 550000 600000 650000 700000 750000 800000 850000 900000 950000 1000000
Qg, Sm3/d

Figure 0.11 - Nodal analysis at the manifold of the platform by superimposing the performance of
the downstream system (sealine, gas plant and compression) with the upstream system (reservoir,
wells and platform)

From the graph we can read:

In winter (P network 45 bara): Qg = 630 000 Sm3/d
In summer (P network 60 bara): Qg = 715 000 Sm3/d
These are gross quantities which, of course, must be reduced by consumption of the compressor.

15
- Second solution: solving the flow equations
Combining equations (4) and (5) we have
5
-11 1
2
22 - 1,423∙10 Qg = ( Power ) Pmk + 0,35 + 3∙10-12 Qg2 (4)
(0,00588 Qg)
+1

This is an implicit equation in the unknown Qg which can be easily solved with Goal Seeker of Excel.
Results: Qg gross in winter = 715 428 Sm3/d, Qg gross in summer = 631 206 Sm3/d.
These values are in line with those obtained employing the graphical method shown above.

16
 3.7.
3.7. Gas and condensate or volatile oil?

In the field DG, currently on stream on a platform, in order to investigate the potential of an
unexplored small accumulation underneath the producing reservoir, the operator side tracks and
deepens a watered-out well.
A hydrocarbon bearing structure is found. The subsequent production test provides 15 Million scfd
of gas and 800 bbl/d of liquid hydrocarbons with Ps = 4900 psig and Pwf = 4200 psig.
Unfortunately, the PVT sampling is not properly executed, thus it is impossible obtain reliable data
on the state of the hydrocarbons at reservoir conditions. Neither do correlations for fluid properties
permit to determine this fundamental information with confidence. So, a large uncertainty remains:
is it a gas and condensate reservoir or a volatile oil reservoir?
However, since the volume of the structure is small, the operator decides not to further explore it
and to proceed by completing and producing the well.
In order to get the permission from local authorities to produce the new reservoir it is however
necessary to present them with a PDO, plan of development, with the estimated minimum and
maximum fluids rates expected.
Estimate the maximum and minimum expected fluids rates without choke restriction.

Additional information
In analogy with similar reservoirs of the area, the exponent of the Fektovich equation has: a) for oil
a value of 0,65 with a range of variation of +/- 5%, b) for gas a value of 0,8.
Friction losses for the tubing chosen are ∆Pf = (3,125 10-6)(Qliquid)^2 with an error of +/-10%.
Where Q liquid is in bbl per day and ∆Pf are in psi/1000ft. The estimated dynamic fluid gradient in
the tubing is 0,172 psi/ft, with an error of +/- 10%. The static pressure is 4900 psig. The well has a
vertical depth, H, of 13200 ft with a deviation α=12 °. The separator is close to the well and its
pressure is Psep=300 psig

Solution
The problem is solved by the well performance graph of Pwf vs Q: superimposing IPR and VFP. Let’s
start from IPR. Reservoir fluid can be gas (gas and condensate reservoir) or oil. The possible IPRs
are: (1) in the case of gas, the Fektovich equation; (2) in the case of oil we can have three possible
equations: equation of constant PI, productivity index (bubble point pressure is not available), Vogel
equation and Fektovich equation.
Case of oil in reservoir
Equation of Fektovich is
n
Qliq = C (P2s -P2wf ) (1)

17
Where C is a constant that can be obtained with the available production test data of Qliq-Ps-Pwf
and with the given exponent we get
0,65
Qliq = 0,0302 (49002 -P2wf ) (2)
The relevant IPR is

1⁄
Qliq 0,65
Pwf = √(49002 -( ) ) (3)
0,0302

Equation of Vogel.
Qliq P P 2
= 1 - 0,2 ( Pwf ) - 0,8 ( Pwf ) (4)
Qliq,max s s

Equation (4) is of second order in the dependent variable Pwf (independent variable is Qliq), which
can be put into evidence obtaining the following IPR

0,2 0,2 2 0,8 Qliq

-( )+√( ) -4( 2 )( -1)
Ps Ps Ps Qmax
Pwf = 0,8 (5)
(2) 2
Ps

As for the Fektovich equation, using the available data, we can calculate Qmax = 3322 bpd. Inserting
this value and Ps of 4900 psig into equation (5) we obtain
Qliq
-(40, 81 10^-6)+√1,666 10^-9-4(3,33 10^-8)( -1)
3322
Pwf = (6)
(2)(3,33 10^-8)

IPR with PI constant

Qliq
PI = = 800/(4900-4200) = 1,143 bpd/psi
Ps -Pwf
Pwf for PI constant is simply
liq Q
Pwf = 4900 - 1,143 (7)

Case of gas in the reservoir

Fektovich equation for gas
n
Qgas = C (P2s - P2wf ) (8)
Qgas is in Mscfd
With the available data we obtain
0,8
Qgas = 5,4 10-5 (49002 - P2wf )
And

18
 1
Qgas 0,8
Pwf = √49002 - ( ) (9)
(5,4 10-5 )

Vertical flow performance

The VFP are expressed by
Pwf = Pwh + Ph + ∆Pf (10)
Since the dynamic pressure gradient is assumed constant and ∆Pf is given, equation (10) becomes
H/cosα 2
Pwf = Pwh + (Gradient)(H) + (3,125 10-6 ) ( ) (Qliq )
1000
13200/cos(12°) 2
Pwf = 300 + (0,172)(13200) + (3,125 10^-6) ( ) (Qliq )
1000
2
Pwf = 2570 + (4,22 10-5 )(Qliq ) (11)

Equation (11) is the VFP.

Now we can build the well performance graph with the equations for IPR (three for oil and one for gas) and
with VFP, see Figure 0.12.

5000

4500

4000 IPR FETKOVICH n=0.65

IPR FETKOVICH n=0.6825

3500 IPR FETKOVICH n=0.6175

Pwf, psi

IPR VOGEL OIL

IPR LINEAR OIL

3000
IPR FETKOVICH n=0.8

VFP most likely

2500 VFP +10%

VFP -10%

Test Available
2000

1500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Qliq, bopd

Figure 0.12 - Well performance for possible equations of oil and gas flow in the reservoir
To insert the IPR for gas we have calculated Pwf with equation (9) for various Qgas and then for each Qgas
we have calculated the corresponding Q condensate assuming constant the condensate per Mscf, that is:
800 bbl cond per day/15Mscfd=53,3 bbl cond per day.
In the the graph we have also inserted the IPR from Fektovich equation with +/-5% of the n exponent and
the VFP relevant to +/- 10%.
19
The analysis of the graph put in evidence that the most conservative IPR is the Fektovich with n exponent of
0,6175 (-5% vs the most likely). The most conservative VFP is +10% vs the most likely. Instead, the most
optimistic IPR is with PI constant. The most optimistic VFP is -10%.
Finally, we can estimate the conservative Qliquid at about 1400 bpd and the optimistic one has Qliquid of
about 2600 bpd.
The solutions can also be found by equalizing the equations of IPR and VFP and solving with the function Goal
Seeker of Excel.

20
 3.8. Timing of gas rate recovery after completion of a development well

A gas development well is tested with a temporary completion string just after drilling.
Previous experience on the field showed that there was no formation damage when wells were
tested after drilling. However, in line with the other wells of the field already on stream, the well
was to be completed with gravel packing in order to avoid sand production. Such completions
introduce severe formation damage that can be eliminated only after a long clean up. Thus, the
initial gas rate of the wells in the field after gravel packing is very low.
The other wells have all exhibited a recovery gas rate curve, Qgas, of the following type
𝑄𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 (1 − 𝑒 −(𝑏)(𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠) )
Where Qmax is the maximum producible gas rate without formation damage and b is a coefficient
to be calculated well by well.
Data
Well measured depth= 3469 ft Well deviation=32° Static pressure= 1552 psig
Avg z factor in Avg gas viscosity in
Gas gravity=0,61
string=0,89 string=0,015 cp
Avg temperature in
Tubing roughness=40 micron Tubing diameter=2,992 inch
string=564°R

Data for the flow test and the clean up phase are reported in the following table
Production test Clean up phase (Pwh= 700 psig)
(tubing D=2,992 inch) Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Q gas, Mscfd 13,99 2,73 4,0 5,2 6,35
Pwh, psig 1245
Pwf, psig 1499

Estimate the timing to reach a gas rate of 90% of the maximum and with a flowing well head
pressure, Pwh, of 700 psig.
Tips. Proceed with the following steps: 1) find the flow equation in the reservoir; 2) apply the
theoretical equation for the flow in the tubing and calculate the errorintroduced in the
determination of the bottom hole flowing pressure; 3) correct the theoretical equation with the
tubing roughness that minimizes the error; 4) with these two equations determine Q max; 5)
determine the coefficient b through best fit of the field data; 6) calculate the timing requested.

Solution
The Darcy equation for the steady state of gas flow in reservoir is
k h (Ps ^2 - Pwf ^2)
Qg = 0,702 R (1)
μ Z T[ln( e ) + S]
Rw

21
Where Qg is gas rate in scfd; Ps and Pwf are respectively the static pressure and the bottom hole
flowing pressure in psig; K is the permeability in mD; h is the net pay in ft; Rw and Rw are
respectively the drainage radius and the wellbore radius in ft; 𝜇 is the average gas viscosity in
reservoir in cp; T is the average temperature in reservoir in °R; S is the skin effect.
Equation (1) can be written in the following way
Qg kh
2 2 = 0,702 R (2)
Ps -Pwf μ Z T [ln( e )+S]
Rw

The first term is a sort of productivity index for a gas well (also called pseudo productivity index). It
is reasonably constant because the terms in the second member of the equation are constant if
formation damage does not change. Let’s calculate it
Qg 13,99 106
= = 45,26 scfd/psi2
P2s -P2wf 15522 - 14492

Since the skin during the flow test is supposed zero, this equation is useful to estimate the maximum
producible gas rate.
Qg = 45,26 (P2s -P2wf ) (3)
Concerning the steady state flow in the tubing we have this equation
2
f (Zavg Tavg ) Q2g
P2wf = eA P2wh +0,000671(eA -1) (4)
D5
cosα
With: A = 0,0375 γ L Z
avg Tavg

Where Qg is the gas rate in thousands of scfd; 𝛾 is the gas gravity; Zavg and T avg are respectively
the average gas compressibility and the temperature in the flowing tubing; D is the inside tubing
diameter in inches; f is the friction factor (Darcy-Weinsbach)
Firstly, we simplify equation (4) by introducing the constant values.
cosα (0,0375)(0,61)(3469)(cos32°)
A=0,0375 γ L = =0,134
Zavg Tavg (0,89)(564)
Now let’s group the constant values of the second term of equation (4) and call it B
2
(Zavg Tavg ) ((0,89)(564))2
B = 0,00671 (e -1) A
= 0,000671(e0,134 -1) = 0,101
D5 2,9925
Equation (4) is now
P2wf = 1,143 P2wh + 0,101 f Qg2 (5)
The friction factor depends on the Reynolds number, Re
γQ
Re = 0,0201 Dμg (6)

We insert the values and calculate Re

γQg
Re = 0,0201 = (0,334)(13,99 106 ) = 3,82 106
Dμ

22
With the given roughness of 40 microns we can calculate f in two ways: 1) with the Moody chart; 2)
with the more practical following equation of Papaevangelou.
4
(0,2479-0,0000947(7-log(Re)) )
f= 2 (7)
ϵ⁄D 7,366
(log( + ))
3,615 Re0,9142

Where ϵ is the tubing roughness and D is the tubing internal diameter.

The result is f= 0, 0170.
Now we can use equation (5) to theoretically calculate Pwf
0,5
Pwf = ((1,143)(12452 )+(0,101)(0,0170)(139902 )) = 1452 psig
The error of this calculation is -18,3% on the tubing delta P and -3,1% on the Pwf, see Table 0.2.
Ratio Pwf Error on
Pwf real, Pwf calculated, Error on Error on
Pwh, psig calcul/Pwf delta (Pwf-
psig psig delta % Pwf, %
real Pwh), psig
1245 1499 1452 0,969 -48 -18,3 -3,1

Table 0.2 - Calculation of errors of the theoretical equation (4)

Now we have two methods to correct the theoretical equation (4): 1) correct Pwf calculated by
means of the correction factor 0,994, or (2) calibrate the theoretical equation by modifying the
roughness. The latter is preferable. It can be found by trial and error or with the function Goal Seeker
of Excel. The result is: roughness=165 micron.
With this value the theoretical equation (4) perfectly calculates the Pwf of the test and predicts Pwf
reasonably well for different flowing conditions.
Now we can proceed to estimate the timing to have Qg equal to 90% of the Qmax,
The equation of Qg during the clean-up clearly has a horizontal asymptote equal to Qmax. Let’s
calculate it. We do it by using the equations found for reservoir and string, (3) and (5)
Qg = 45,26 (P2s -P2wf ) (3)

P2wf = 1,143 P2wh + 0,101 f Qg2 (5)

Careful about the units of Qg: scfd and Kscfd respectively for equations (3) and (5).
f is calculated by Papaveangelu’s equation (7) and the Reynolds number by equation (6).
To find Qg we have two methods: a) graph equations (3) and (5) vs Qg and find the intersection
point, b) by using Solver of Excel.
Figure 0.13 shows the graphical method.

23
 2500

2000

1500
Pwf, psi

Pwf 1
1000
Pwf2

500

0
0,00E+00 5,00E+06 1,00E+07 1,50E+07 2,00E+07 2,50E+07 3,00E+07 3,50E+07
Qg, scfd

Figure 0.13 - Pressure at the bottom hole vs Qg found by reservoir and string equation

The solution is 13,9 Mscf. Hence the recovery of the gas rate can be expressed as
Qgas = Qmax (1-e-(b)(days) ) = 13,9(1-e-(b)(days) ) (8)
The coefficient b can be found by best fit (for example using Excel) of the available gas rate of the
first days. The result is b=0.117. Hence, the equation expressing the recovery of the gas rate is the
following
Qgas = Qmax (1-e-(b)(days) ) = 13,9(1-e-(0.117)(days) ) (9)
t is requested to estimate the days to recover 90% of Qg max, that is (13,9*0,9)= 12,51 Mscfd.
Inserting this value in equation (9) we find 20 days. The relevant graph is shown in Figure 0.14.
15,00

10,00
Qg, Mscfd

Q gas
5,00 Q max
90% of Qgas max
0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Days

Figure 0.14 - Recovery of Qgas after completion and time to recover 90% of Qgas max

24
 3.9. Infilling wells to maximize a gas field development

The B gas field started in 2003 with seven producers and in 2008-09 and 2012-13 two infilling well
campaigns completed the field development.
The yearly average gas rates (in MMscfd) over time are reported for the wells in the following table.

Yearly Average Gas Production Rate (MMScfd)

Well- Well- Well- Well- Well-
Year Well-1 Well-2 Well-3 Well-4 Well-5 Well-6 Well-7 Well-8 Well-9
10 11 12 13 14
2003 12 14 48 49 58 48
2004 24 25 54 62 54 35 60
2005 21 22 48 57 58 55 58
2006 23 27 54 61 52 59 57
2007 26 19 55 64 49 56 50
2008 23 20 50 65 40 55 43 47 0
2009 22 29 40 46 28 44 30 29 58 42
2010 13 23 35 52 24 49 27 51 56 45
2011 21 22 45 45 29 45 25 43 46 43
2012 26 19 39 41 27 31 26 36 39 43 28
2013 26 11 25 34 21 22 20 29 29 35 25 15 6
2014 20 7 8 26 15 17 16 22 21 28 20 23 6 5
2015 15 10 15 20 11 14 13 16 17 23 18 16 9 8
2016 12 8 13 17 8 11 8 10 10 17 14 12 7 7
2017 9 7 9 13 6 9 6 6 11 15 11 10 10 7
2018 8 6 8 12 5 7 6 6 10 13 10 7 8 5

It is asked to: a) elaborate the data in a graph in order to visualize the role of the infilling campaigns;
b) with decline curve analysis methods find the equations to predict the future field performance in
terms of gas rate and cumulative production vs time; c) calculate the additional future economic
production assuming a minimum economic gas rate at 2 Bcf/y.
Assumption: at 2 Bcf/y the flowing tubing head pressure of the wells is still sufficient to move the
gas to the processing plant.

Solution
Question a)
When dealing with decline curve analysis we have to be consistent with the time units, in this case
we adopt years for the time and Bcf per year (Bcf/y) for the average yearly gas rate. So, we convert
the available production data into Bcf/y and prepare the graph of Figure 0.15, which puts into
evidence the contribution to production of the two infilling campaigns.

25
 Figure 0.15 - Yearly average gas production rate vs time

Question b)
The most popular decline rate curves are exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic, the equations for
which follow.
Exponential
Qg = Qg,o exp(-b t) (1)
Hyperbolic
Qg = Qg,o /(1+ct)^a (2)
Harmonic
Qg = Qg,o /(1+ct) (3)
Where Qg and Qg,o are respectively the gas rate at time t and the initial gas rate; and a, b, c are
numerical coefficients to be determined by regression analysis of the field data.
Clearly, the harmonic curve is a special case of the hyperbolic curve when a=1.
To find the coefficients and at the same time obtain a straight line to facilitate the best fit of field
data it is convenient to manipulate equations (1), (2) and (3) as follows
Ln(Qg ) = Ln(Qg,o ) - b t (4)
1
Qg a
( ) = 1 + ct (5)
Qg,o

Qg
= 1 + ct (6)
Qg,o

In our case Qg,o is the sum of the average yearly gas rate in Bscf/y for the development wells, for
the infilling wells of 2008-09 and for infilling wells of 2012 at the year 2012 which is 102,2 Bscf/y.
These are presented in Figure 0.16.

26
 Exponential decline curve Harmonic decline curve Hyperbolic decline curve
5,2 1,15

4,7
y = -0,1896x + 4,6413
4,2 R² = 0,9934 1,10
Qo/Q ; LnQ, Bcf/y

3,7
1,05

(Qo/Q)^a
3,2
y = 0,0166x + 0,9981
2,7 R² = 0,993
1,00
2,2
y = 0,3451x + 0,8343
1,7 R² = 0,9679 0,95
1,2

0,7 0,90
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, years

Figure 0.16 - Graph to determine the coefficients of exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic decline
curves

The best fit for exponential decline and harmonic decline are straightforward, whereas for
hyperbolic decline we have to proceed with a trial and error approach (this is easy with the Excel
spreadsheet). The results are in Table 0.3.

a b c r2
Exponential decline 0,1896 0,993
Hyperbolic decline 12 0,0166 0,993
Harmonic decline 1 0,3451 0,968
Table 0.3 - Numerical coefficients and r2 for the decline curves

Thus, the final equations are

Exponential
Qg = 102,2 exp(-0,1896 t) (7)
Hyperbolic
102,2
Qg = (1+0,0166 t)12
(8)

Harmonic
102,2
Qg = (9)
1+0,3451 t

27
Exponential and hyperbolic are equivalent because they have the same coefficient of determination
(R2). However, for this problem we prefer the exponential decline because 1) it is the most widely
used in the oil industry, 2) it is easier to manage (it has only one numerical coefficient), and 3) it
presents the same yearly decline in percent.
The percent decline is given by
d = 1- exp ( b ) (9)
That is d = 1-exp (-0,1896) = 0,173. The percent decline per year is 17,3%

Question c)
For the exponential decline it can be easily demonstrated that the cumulative production N is
correlated with the rate, through the folllowing equation
Qg,o (1- exp(-b t))
N = No + (10)
b

Where No is the cumulative production just before the rate decline.

However, Equation (10) can be used only in the case where the available rates refer to end of the
year values. This is not our case (we have average yearly production). Thus, we use equation (7) to
estimate the future yearly gas rate. Cumulative production is simply calculated as summation of the
yearly gas rates. Results are reported in in Table 0.4 and Figure 0.17.
Years 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Gas rate, Bcf/y 27,10 22,42 18,55 15,35 12,69 10,50 8,69 7,19 5,95 4,92 4,07 3,37 2,79 2,30 1,91
Cumul product., Bcf 1441,4 1463,8 1482,4 1497,7 1510,4 1520,9 1529,6 1536,8 1542,8 1547,7 1551,7 1555,1 1557,9 1560,2 1562,1

Table 0.4 - Forecast of gas rate and cumulative production

Forecast cumulative production Actual cumulative production

Forecast gas rate Actual gas rate

1600
100
1400
Cumulative production , Bcf

1200
Gas rate, Bcf/y

1000

800
10
600

400

200

0 1
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Figure 0.17 - Forecast of gas rate and cumulative production

28
With the economic limit at 2 Bcf/y the table shows that the economic production limit is reached in
about the year 2033 with a cumulative gas production of about 1561 Bcf.
The cumulative production at 2018 is obtained from the input data: 1414 Bcf.
Thus, the economic future gas production is 1561-1414 = 167 Bcf

29
 4.19. Gas performance of a marginal field developed with monopile

An isolated marginal gas field lying 29 km from shore is developed with a single well, a monopile
platform and an 8 inch sealine connected to a gas plant belonging to another operator and where
the separator pressure is 300 psig.

Gas plant
Separator

Level B
Level A

The completion is single selective.Thetwo levels A and B lie few feet from one another, and belong
to the same reservoir hydraulic system. Level A has better lithological characteristics and no water
nearby, thus it is put on stream first. Level B has the water leg close to the perforations, thus with
strong risk of immediate water breakthrough.
At present, the well is depleted and the production situation of level A is as follows
Flow test (current year) with Current production, Flow test available
Status well choked choke fully open from previous years
Pwf, psig 590 456 -
Q, Mscfd 4,40 9,00 13,7
Pwh, psig 582 390 484

The flow test was performed to obtain the additional flow data necessary to update the reservoir
flow equation.
The current static pressure of level A is Ps = 670 psig and gas gravity G = 0,6.

30
Analysis of the well logs for level B allows the reservoir engineer to estimate that the conductivity
(permeability*net pay) is about 32% lower than that of level A. Besides, Ps is expected to be 1450
psig.
Estimate: 1) the gas rate of level A for reservoir pressure depletion of 10%; 2) the gas rate of level A
for a separator pressure decrease of 100 psig; 2) the maximum initial gas rate of level B (with level
A closed).
Assumptions: a) the gas composition of the two levels is the same; b) the z factor and flowing
temperature in the sealine can be considered constant.

Solution
Since an approximate solution is requested, it is not necessary to use complicated models for
calculating the pressure drop in the tubing and in the sealine. We can use simplified analytical
equations calibrated with the field data.
For the tubing the simplified flow equation is
P2wf = B∙P2wh +E∙Q2g (1)
where Pwf and Pwh are respectively the flowing pressure downhole and at wellhead, Qg is the gas
rate, and B and E are numerical coefficients to be calculated.
For the tubing, with two terns of Pwf, Pwh and Qg we can calculate these coefficients. They are
B = 1,1, E = 501,6. So
P2wf = 1,1∙P2wh +501,6∙Q2g (2)
Where pressure is in psig and Qg is in Mscfd.
For the sealine we can use this approximate equation
P2wh = P2sep +AQ2g (3)
Where A is a coefficient to be calculated with the field data available. Please note that only one test
is available (the one with the choke fully open). In fact, in such a case the pressure upstream is equal
the pressure downstream. In the other test the downstream pressure is not available.
So we have
P2wh = P2sep +AQ2g = 3002 +A∙92 = 390^2
and obtain A=766,7psig.
For the reservoir we use the Fektovich equation
n
Qg = C(P2s -P2wf ) (5)
With the two couples of Qg and Pwf we get the coefficients C and n. The final equation is
0,821
Qg = 0,000343(P2s -P2wf ) (6)
Equations 1), 3) and 5) can be rearranged to obtain the general equation for Qg vs reservoir fluid
parameters Ps, C and b

31
 1
Q n
[P2s - ( g) -EQ2g )]/B = Psep ^2+AQg ^2 (7)
C

For the current flowing conditions, it becomes

1
Qg 0,821
[670^2- (0,000343) -38906∙Q2g )]/1,081 = 300^2+766,6Q2g (8)

This is the general flow equation for the complete production system, from reservoir to separator,
for the current operating conditions of level A. It is an interesting equation that allows us to estimate
the gas rate for different conditions of static pressure or separator pressure.
With a depletion of 10%, that is a static pressure of 670-67=603 psig, equation (8), solved for
example with Goal Seeker of Excel, gives a gas rate of 7,4 Mscfd.
In the case of a reduction of the separator pressure from 300 to 200 psig, the gas rate increases to
9,9 Mscfd.
In case of a simultaneous change of separator pressure and depletion of the same values, the gas
rate is 8,5 Mscfd.

Maximum gas rate of level B

Since the term K h, permeability*net pay, is in the coefficient C and, on the basis of Darcy’s law, C is
proportional to K h, we determine C for the level B simply by
C of level B = C of level A * 0,32 = 0,000343 * 0,32 = 0,00011
Concerning the exponent n of equation (5), which represents the additional friction losses because
of gas turbulence, we do not know its value for level B. However, we can make the following
reasonable assumption: since the gas is the same and the reservoir characteristics of level B are
worse than level A it is probable that if the gas rate (still unknown) is greater than level A, n of level
B is lower than level A.
But the problem asks for the maximum gas rate of level B, so let us assume that its n is the same of
level A. This is probably an optimistic assumption but acceptable because the problem asks for the
maximum gas rate of level B, that is, an optimistic option.
Accordingly, the general equation 8) for level B is

1
Q 0,821
g
[670^2- (0,000111 ) -38906∙Q2g )]/1,081 = 300^2+766,6Q2g (8)

We solve the equation (8) as above obtaining a gas rate of 3,8 Mscfd.

32
 4.20. Subsea gas field tie back – Combinations of tubing and sealine sizes

The most convenient development of the gas reservoir gamma is the subsea tie back to the host
platform distant 38000 ft. See scheme. Since the reservoir has limited extension and very high

Host platform

Subsea
well head Sealine sizes: 4, 8, 12 inch

Tubing sizes: 2 7/8, 3 1/2, 4 inch

Small gas reservoir with high

productivity

productivity it is developed with only one well. However, the host platform has a maximum gas
processing capacity of 30 Mscfd and a minimum separator pressure of 600 psig.
The well has been tested during the exploration phase obtaining a static pressure Ps=5185 psig, and
the coefficients of the Fektovich equation C=0,00017 and n=0,79. The reservoir study has produced
the classical correlation between the static pressure, the z factor and the cumulative gas produced,
which is: P/z = 5185 - 0,149*Gp.

6000
5000
P/z, psig

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10000 20000 30000
Gp, Mscf

33
The z factor at reservoir temperature, for a gravity of 0,55, and for different pressures have been
obtained with a commercial software. Regression analysis with a R2 =0,99, has provided the
following correlation (P is in psig):
𝑧 = 10-8 P - 5∙10-5 P + 0,9966
For the pressure drop in the tubing and in the sealine a regression analysis of the values generated
by a commercial simulator has allowed to define the following correlations (errors < 1%)

2
1,53∙106 Qg 184,6 L∙Qg 2
For tubing: Pwf = √1,53 P2wh - 4,8 For sealine: Pwh = √P2sep - 4,8
Dtbg Dline

where Pwf, Pwh, Psep are the pressure downhole, at surface and at the separator in psig, Qg is in
Mscfd, Dtbg and Dline are the internal diameter of the tubing and of the sealine in inches. L is the
length of the sealine in ft.
The optimum combination of tubing size and sealine sizes is obtained by taking into account both
the producible gas and the economics.
It asked to calculate the cumulative gas produced for these combinations of tubing nominal size (2
7/8, 3 ½, 4 inch) and sealine (4, 8, 12 inch). These scenarios are necessary to calculate the economics
(not discussed here).
For the tubings we consider these internal diameters: 2 7/8” Dtbg=2,441 inch, 3 ½” Dtbg=2,992 inch,
4” Dtbg=3,548 inch.
Solution
Let us first list all the required flow equations.
Reservoir material balance
Ps /z = 5185 - 0,149 Gp (1)
2
z = 10-8 Pwh - 5∙10-5 P + 0,9966 (2)
Reservoir flow

1
Qg
Pwf = √P2s - (
0,79
) (3)
0,00017

Tubing

2
1,53∙106 Qg
Pwf = √1,53P2wh - 4,8 (4)
Dtbg

Sealine

184,6L∙Qg 2
Pwh = √P2sep - 4,8 (5)
Dline

34
In the equations (1) – (5), pressure is in psig, G is in Mscf, Qg is in Mscfd, diameter is in inches, and
length is in ft.
Combining the equations (3), (4) and (5) we obtain

1 2
Qg 0,79 184,6L∙Qg 2 1,53∙106 Qg
Ps = √(0,00017) + 1,53(P2sep + 4,8 )+ 4,8 (6)
Dtbline Dtbg

This is a very interesting equation which allows us to calculate the gas rate for each static pressure.
It is first used to calculate the maximum gas rate without surface choke for each combination of
tubing size – sealine size. Of course, this situation occurs at the start of production, so we insert into
equation (6) the initial static pressure of 5185 psig. The equation is implicit in gas rate and has to be
solved iteratively. By using Goal Seeker of Excel we calculate the maximum gas rate for eight
combinations of tubing and sealine diameters. Results are given in
Table 0.5.

2 7/8 - 2 7/8 - 2 7/8 - 3 1/2 - 3 1/2 - 3 1/2 - 4-4 4-8 4 - 12

4 8 12 4 8 12

Qgas 25,5 31,6 31,9 31,5 46,9 47,9 34,7 61,9 64,4
max,
Bscfd

Duration No 0,13 0,15 0,12 0,88 0,9 0,32 1,26 1,31

of plateau
plateau,
years

Table 0.5 – Maximum producible gas rates for combinations of tubing size and sealine size and
duration of the production plateau

We see that, with the exception of the combination 2 7/8” – 4”, all combinations have the maximum
gas rate above 30 Mscfd, the maximum acceptable value of the host platform.
Therefore, these wells will have to be choked to limit their rates to 30 Mscfd.
To calculate the cumulative gas vs time we have first to determine the duration of the plateau. This
phase will end when the wellhead pressure Pwh equates the pipeline pressure Pline. From the
operational point of view, this occurs when the choke is fully opened. Ps at the end of each choked
period, and at Qgas =30 Mscfd, is calculated with equation (6). Then by using equation (2) we
calculate the z factor corresponding to this Ps. Finally, by using equation (1) we calculate the
cumulative gas produced during the plateau (that is the choked period).

35
By dividing Gp and the constant Qg of 30 Mscfd we obtain the duration of the plateau.
Let us do it for the case tbg 3 ½ - sealine 8”. First we calculate Ps with equation (6)

1 2
30 184,6*38000*302 1,53*106 *30
Ps = √ (
0,79
) + 1,53 (6002 + 4,8 ) + = 3540 psig (7)
0,00017 8 2,9924,8

The corresponding z factor is

2
z= 10-8 *Pwh -5*10-5 *P+0,9966=10-8 *35402 -5*10-5 *3540+0,9966=0,945

We get the cumulative gas produced during the plateau with equation (1)
P 3540
5185 - zs 5185- 0,945
Gp = = =9657 Mscf
0,149 0,149
The duration t of the plateau (choked period) is
𝐺𝑝 9657
𝑡= = = 322 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 = 0,88 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
𝑄𝑔 30
The duration of the plateau for the different situations are reported in
Table 0.5.
Now we extend this calculation to the other cases and then we calculate Gp for a set of Qg lower
than plateau at 30 Mscfd. The results are reported in
Table 0.6.

Q, Mscfd
1 5 10 20 30
Gp Time Gp Time Gp Time Gp Time Gp Time
Bscf Years Bscf Years Bscf Years Bscf Years Bscf Years
4 29,2 10,58 25,1 5,3 18,5 3,06 5,8 0,79
2
8 29,3 9,07 26 4,84 20,8 3,02 10,3 1,2 1,5 0,13
7/8
12 29,3 9,02 26 4,82 20,9 3,02 10,5 1,21 1,6 0,15
4 29,3 9,1 26 4,85 20,1 3,02 10,2 1,19 1,3 0,12
3
8 29,3 7,2 27 4,21 23,6 2,92 126,4 1,64 9,7 0,88
1/2
12 29,3 7,12 27,1 4,18 23,7 2,92 16,7 1,65 10 0,91
4 29,3 8,59 26,3 4,68 21,6 2,99 12 1,31 3,5 0,32
4 8 29,3 6,24 27,4 3,89 24,8 2,87 19,1 1,86 13,9 1,26
12 29,3 6,14 27,4 3,85 27,8 2,87 19,4 1,88 14,3 1,31

Table 0.6 - Calculation of cumulative gas Gp for all the combination of tubing and sealine sizes and
at different gas rate Qg

36
With the data of
Table 0.6 we can produce graphs of various types. First of all, we compare, in terms of Qg and Gp,
the extreme situations in terms of pressure drop: the smallest diameters 2 7/8 - 4 with the largest
diameters 4 -12. Results are in the Figure 0.19.
It is evident that the large diameters 4 – 12 assures an accelerated gas recovery: in 6 years more
than 90% of the reserves are produced, whereas for 2 7/8 – 4 the same recovery takes nearly twice
as long: 10 years. All other combinations present results intermediate between these two cases.

Gp 2 7/8 - 4 Gp 4-12 Q 2 7/8 -4 Q 4-12

35000 35

30000 30

25000 25

Qg, Mscfd
Gp, Mscf

20000 20

15000 15

10000 10

5000 5

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Years

Figure 0.19 - Cumulative gas production Gp and gas rate Qg for the most optimistic case (4-12) and
the most pessimistic case (2 7/8 – 4)

To compare such results we have prepared the Figure 4.21 where we compare Gp at 1 year and 5
years of production. The graph is useful because we can see the role played by the diameters.
For example: a) tubing 2/8 is too small irrespective the sealine diameter; b) in case of large tubing
diameter, 4 inch, the recovery at 5 years is similar for the 8 and 12 inch sealines; c) irrespective of
the pipe diameters, after say, 10 years, the gas recovery is practically the same for all cases.

37
Other considerations are possible, but the optimum combination can be defined only with economic
analyses which lie outside the scope of the problem.
1 YEARS 5 YEARS

30000
24000
Gp, Mscf

18000
12000
6000
0

3 1/2 - 8
2 7/8 - 4

3 1/2 - 4

2 7/8 - 8

2 7/8 - 12

3 1/2 - 12

4" - 12
4" - 4

4" - 8
Combinations of tubing size ans sealine size

Figure 0.20 – Cumulative gas produced at 1 year and 5 years for all the combinations of
tubing and sealine size

38
 4.21. Gas field production performance - Optimum vs maximum

The development project of a new onshore gas field is close to completion. The gathering system is
sketched in the scheme.

The five development wells are all completed in the same reservoir. Only well one has been fully
tested during the exploration phase, whereas the productivity of the others has been estimated on
the basis of the logs. The flow in the reservoir is well-described by the Fektovich equation and the
numerical coefficients C and n are reported in the table below.

Well 1 2 3 4 5
C 0,000041 0,000056 0,000026 0,000031 0,000048
n 0,69 0,69 0,69 0,69 0,69

Other data.

Gas gravity Initial reservoir Well vertical Tubing diameter Separator

γ=0,70 static pressure depth H=8720 ft Dtbg =2,992 inch pressure
Ps=3880 psig Psep=1100 psig
Avg well flowing Avg pipeline WC = traces Z factor avg in the Z factor avg in
temperature flowing string =0,84 the pipeline
Twell= 180°F temperature =0,88
Tpipe= 66°F
Cp/Cv=K=1,34 Avg gas viscosity
𝜇=0,012 cp

39
Pipeline geometry

Pipeline 1-A 2-A 3-B 4-B 5-B A -B B-SEP

Diameter, inch 4 4 4 4 4 4 8
Length, ft 4000 200 200 5000 4500 3000 6000

The location of wells 3 and 4 contain the nodes A and B. The expected initial gas field rate is in the
table.
Well 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Qg, Mscfd 13 15 9 11 14 62

It is asked to calculate: a) the choke sizes of each well in order to deliver the expected gas rate, b)
the theoretical maximum gas field rate.

Solution
First we prepare the gas flow equations for reservoir, tubing, choke and pipeline.
Reservoir
C and n are available so we can write the Fektovich equations for the five reservoirs

1
Q n
Pwf = √P2s - ( Cg) (1)

Where Pwf and Ps are bottom hole flowing pressure and static pressure and Qg is the gas rate.
Tubing
For the pressure drop in the tubing we can use the following equation for the steady-state gas flow

2
f*(Zavg ∙Tavg ) Q2g
P2wf = eA ∙P2wh +(0,000671)(eA -1)∙ (2)
D5
H
with: A = 0,0375 γ Z
avg ∙Tavg

and where
Pwf and Pwh are bottom hole flowing pressure and well head flowing pressure in psig
Qg is the gas rate in thousands of scfd
𝛾 is the gas gravity
Zavg and T avg are respectively the average gas compressibility and the temperature in
°Rankine
Dtbg is the inside tubing diameter in inch
f is the friction factor (Darcy- Weinsbach)
H is the well vertical depth in ft
40
Firstly, we simplify equation 2) by introducing the constant values.
H (0,0375)(0,7)(8720)
A = 0,0375 γ Z = = 0,426
avg ∙Tavg (0,84)(180+460)

Then we group the constant values of the second term of equation (2) and call it B
2
A
(Zavg ∙Tavg )
B = 0,000671(e -1) =
D5
= 0,000671(e0,426 -1)(0,84∙640)^2/(2,441^5)=1,19
Equation (2) is now
P2wf = 1,53∙P2wh + 1,19 f∙Q2g (5)
Friction factor depends on Reynolds, Re
γQ
Re = 0,0201 Dμg (6)

Where Qg is in K scfd, µ is the viscosity in cp, D is the pipe diameter in inches.

By using the practical equation of Papaevangelou we calculate the friction factor as a function of Re
and relative roughness ε/D.
ε
D
f = (0,2479 - 0,0000947(7 - LOG(Re))^4)/(LOG( 3,615 ) + 7,366/(Re)^0,9142))^2) (7)

We calculate ε/D
ε 40∙10-6
= = 0,00064 (8)
D 2,441∙0,0254

For the range of Qg of interest for the problem, that is 5-20 Mscfd, Re is in the interval 2,5∙10^6 –
10^7 and the friction factor calculated with equation (7) is between 0,0177 and 0,0179. We can
simplify by assuming an average friction factor of 0,0178 (the error is < 1%).
Inserting f=0,0178 in equation (5) we finally obtain the equation to be used to calculate the pressure
drop in the tubing

Pwf = √1,53∙P2wh + 0,021182∙Qg2 (5)

with Qg in Mscfd.
Pressure drop in the pipeline
The equation for horizontal gas flow is
f∙L∙Zavg ∙Tavg ∙Q2g
P22 = P21 + 2,517∙10-5 ∙ (2)
D5

Repeating the above procedure to calculate the friction factor we obtain for the interval of diameter
4-8 inch, an average value of 0,016. So

0,016∙L∙(66+460)(0,88)∙Q2g
P22 = P21 + 2,517∙10-5 ∙ (2)
D5

41
 L∙Q2g
P1 = √P22 + 186,4 D 5 (5)
pipe

Where P1 and P2 are in psig, Qg is in Mscfd, L is in ft and D is in ft.

Choke
We don’t know a priori if the flow through the choke is critical or subcritical.
The equations for critical and subcritical flow are respectively

Critical flow

k+1
M 2 k-1
Qg = C∙A∙Pwh √( zRT ) (k+1) (3)

Subcritical flow
2 k+1
2M 2k P k P k
Qg = C∙A∙Pwh √( zRT ) (k-1) [( Psep) - ( Psep) ] (4)
wh wh

Where Qg is in Kg/s, A is the choke area in m^2, Pwh is in Pa, T in K.

We can rearrange these equations and convert the mass rate in volumetric rate at SC.
From the gas law of real gas we obtain the correlation between mass rate and volumetric rate at SC
Sm3 kg Psc
Q vol = Qmass (86400 )
d s zsc RTsc
105 kg kg
= (86400)(14,7) Qmass = 5,304∙104 Qmass
1*8314,5*288 s s
Critical flow
k+1
M 2 k-1
Qg = 53040∙C∙A∙Pwh √( )√( ) (3)
zRT k+1

Subcritical flow
2 k+1
M 2k P k P k
Qg =53040∙C∙A∙Pwh √( zRT )√2 (k-1) [( Psep) - ( Psep) ] (4)
wh wh

Where Qg is in Sm3/d, A is in m2, pressures are in Pa, T in °K

Now we have all the necessary equations to solve the problem.
We can neglect the pressure drop for the lines that connect wells 2 and 3 to the nodes, because the
nodes are in their locations with a very short pipeline (200 ft).
Therefore, we can write three equations for the pipeline of the wells 1, 4 and 5, and two equations
for the lines between the nodes: A-B, A – Separator.
In summary, we have twenty-two equations:
42
 • Five for the reservoirs
• Five for the pressure drop in the tubings
• Five for the flow through the choke (critical or subcritical)
• Seven for the pipelines
The unknowns are also twenty-two:
• Five gas rates if the chokes are fixed or vice versa
• Five bottom hole flowing pressures
• Five wellhead flowing pressures
• Five pressures downstream the chokes
• Two pressures at the nodes
With an Excel spreadsheet we simply write the equations in twenty-two cells (let’s call them cells A)
and the tentative values of the unknowns in twenty-four cells (cells B). Then in other twenty-two
cells (cells C) we insert the difference between the parameter calculated (cell B) and the tentative
parameters (cell A). The summation is the function objective that must be zero.
We activate Solver and we put the constraint: cells C equal zero.
Now we are ready to answer the questions.
Question a) determine the choke sizes for the expected gas rates.
In

Table 0.7 we report the calculated choke diameters to obtain the desired gas rates and also the
calculated pressures in all the important points of the system.

Well 1 2 3 4 5
Optimum gas rate
from the reservoir 13 15 9 11 14
point of view, bopd
Choke diameter,
28,6 28,6 24 26,7 29,5
inch/64
P upstream choke,
2735 2636 2690 2668 2777
psig
P downstream
1521 1483 1350 1369 1387
choke, psig.
Critical or subcritical Subcritical Subcritical
Critical Critical Subcritical
flow
Bottom hole
flowing pressure, 3423 3309 3356 3336 3478
psig

Table 0.7 - Calculated choke sizes and pressures for the given gasrates.

43
The pressure at the nodes are node A 1480 psig, node B 1328 psig

Question b). Calculate the theoretical maximum gasfield rate.

The maximum field rate is not necessarily obtained by opening all the chokes. In this case, in fact,
the gathering system and well characteristics are such that, for some wells, if all the chokes were to
be opened, the downstream choke would be larger than upstream pressure and the flow would be
inverted, sending gas into some of the wells! From the operational point of view, where this could
happen, we simply choke those wells.
The calculations of the chokes that maximize the gas production are done by an iterative procedure.
In this case we have used Solver of Excel and the results are given in Table 0.8.

Well 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Maximum gas rate, Mscfd 23 22,6 17,2 20,1 29 111,9
Chokes, bopd Fully 57,6 84,8 99,8 79,5
open
Delta P through choke, psig 0 19 12 11 48
Table 0.8 - Maximum producible gas rate and chokes to be set.

We notice that
• The field maximum production is 111,9 vs 62 Mscd: that is, +80%
• Except for well 5, the chokes are practically open with a minimum pressure loss at the
chokes. If we try to open the choke of well 5, wells 1 and 4 are “lost” because the
downstream pressure exceeds the upstream pressure.

Finally, we compare the wells’ gas rates: optimum, from the reservoir study, and maximum. See
Figure 4.22.

Optimum gas rate Maximum gas rate

35
30
25
Qg, Mscfd

20
15
10
5
0
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5
Figure 0.21 - Well gas rates: optimum and maximum.

44
 4.22. Gas injection from a FPSO (Floating Production System and Offloading)

A new deepwater oil field is on stream with a FPSO and produces 36300 bopd. Since flaring is not
permitted and it is not economically convenient to commercialize the associated gas, this has to be
reinjected with a dedicated riser, beginning on the first day of production. The production scheme
is shown below.

FPSO

Gas
Oil

Subsea gas injection well Subsea gas wells

producers
Manifold

Data.
Water depth Reservoir static Well vertical GOR=540 scf/bbl Gas gravity
Hw=3000 ft pressure depth H=4590 ft γ=0,71
Ps=3555 psig
Tubing diameter Riser length Riser internal Avg temperature Temperature of
Dtbg =2,992 inch L=3900 ft diameter of injected gas in injected gas in
Driser=4 inch the riser T= 54°F the well T=
104°F
Gas consumption on FPSO = 3% of the gas produced Compressor suction pressure
Psuc=200 psig

Additional info: α = 40°.

The pressure drop in reservoir during the gas injection is represented by this equation:

45
 Qinj = 2,62∙10-6 (P2wf -P2s )
Where Q𝑖𝑛𝑗 is the gas injection rate in Mscfd, Pwf is the bottom hole injection gas rate in Psig.
Assumptions: a) the gas flow regime in the piping is turbulent; b) the estimated temperature in the
pipes are approximated at +/- 10%.

It is asked to calculate: a) the surface injection pressure; b) the effect of the approximated
temperature on the injection pressure; c) the power of the gas compressor.

Solution
The surface injection pressure is calculated with the equation,
Pwh=Ps + reservoir pressure drop – well pressure drop - riser pressure drop.
Ps + reservoir pressure is Pwf that can be calculated with the available correlation

Qinj = 2,62∙10-6 (P2wf -P2s ) (1)

First, we find Qinj

Qinj = GOR∙Qo- 0,03∙GOR∙Qo = GOR∙Qo(1-0,03) = (540)(36300)(0,97) = 19,0 Mscfd

We obtain Pwf from equation 1)

P2wf = P2s +Qinj /(2,62∙10-6 )

Q 2 19
Pwf =√P2s + 2,62∙10
inj
-6 =√3555 + = 4460 psig (5)
2,62∙10-6

For the pressure drop in the piping we can use the following correlation.

2
f∙(Zavg ∙Tavg ) Q2g
P22 = eA ∙P21 -0,000671∙(eA -1)∙ 5 (2)
cos (α)*D
H
With: A=0,0375 γ∙ Z
avg ∙Tavg

Where
P1 and P2 are upstream and downstream injection pressure in psig
Qg is the gas rate in thousands of scfd
𝛾 is the gas gravity
Zavg and T avg are respectively the average gas compressibility and the temperature in
°Rankine
D is the pipe diameter in inch

46
 f is the friction factor (Darcy- Weinsbach)
H is the pipe vertical depth in ft and α is the inclination of the pipe vs the vertical in radiants
Since the riser and wells have different geometrical characteristics and different average
temperature, it is convenient to segment the system in two: the riser and the tubing, and apply
separately the equation (2) to each segment. Since the regime is turbulent the friction factor (Darcy-
Weinsbach) can be approximated by this correlation:
.f=0,0175/(D^0,224) for diameters < or = 4,277 inch
.f=0,01603/(D^0,164) for diameters > 4,277 inch
The z factor is not given, but we can calculate it with a commercial program using the graph of Katz
and Standing. The z factor depends on pressure and once it is inserted in equation (2) we have an
implicit equation in pressure. All other parameters are known. To speed up the calculations it is
convenient to find the equation of z factor vs pressure, insert it into equation (2) and solve it
iteratively.
The z factor equation can be simply found by regression analysis of some data points in the range
3000 – 5000 psig, which is the estimated range of the unknown pressure in the piping. We report in
the Table 0.9 the z factors calculated.
Pressure, psig 3000 5000
T avg = 54°F 0,717 0,943
T avg = 54°F +10% 0,724 0,944
T avg = 54°F -10% 0,711 0,942
T avg = 104°F 0,783 0,956
T avg = 104°F +10% 0,796 0,960
T avg = 104°F -10% 0,769 0,953
Table 0.9 – Calculated z factors for different pressures and temperature.

The regression curves (P in psig) are:

For T =54°F: z = 0,378 + 0,000113*P
For T =104°F: z = 0,494 + 0,000965*P
After inserting these equations into equation (2) we find the unique unknown, which is the injection
pressure: the iterations are carried out with Goal Seeker of Excel.
The injection pressure on the FPSO is 3620 psig. The corresponding pressures at the mud line (base
of the riser) and bottom hole are respectively: 3980 and 4460 psig.
Making a sensitivity analysis on the temperature variations (see Table 0.9), we find that the effect
on injection pressures is: + 12 psig (+10%) for sensitivity of temperature and – 24 psig (-10%) for
temperature. The effect of temperature, in the range of uncertainty, can be considered negligible
for practical purposes.
Power of compression
We can use the following correlation

Pout 0,2
Power = 221,3∙Qgas (( ) -1)
Pin
Where Power is in HP, Qgas in Mscfd, pressures are in absolute values.
47
 3620+14,7 0,2
Power = 221,3∙19∙ (( ) -1) = 3232 HP
200+14,7

48
 4.23. Development options for a new gas field

A new offshore gas field is to be developed. It is nearby a mature and depleted gas field that
produces 960 000 Sm3/d of gas through a 5000 m, 8” flowline to an onshore gas plant. See scheme.

New field 2
Mature field 1 on stream Initial condition

Manifold A Gas plant

Development option:
«new in old»

Manifold B Gas plant

Development option:
«stand alone»

Gas plant

Development option:
«old in new»

Manifold C Gas plant

There are three development options for Field 2: 1) “new in old”: connect the new field to the
mature one in order to use the old flowline; 2) option “stand alone”: lay down a new pipeline to
connect the new fields directly to the plant; 3) option “old in new”: take advantage of the new
flowline and use it also for the mature field (connection at the manifold C). The new flowlines will
have a diameter of 12 inches. The distance between the fields is 3800 m and they are in line with
the gas plant. The flow performance of the fields are estimated by the operator at the respective
manifolds: see table.
Field 1, Estimated performance Field 2, Estimated performance at
at the manifold A the manifold B
Q, Msm3/d P, kg/cm2 Q, Msm3/d P, kg/cm2
Flow situation 1 0 41 0 60
Flow situation 2 0,5 32 0,7 43
Flow situation 3 1,31 10
Current production 0,96 18

49
Assumptions: a) the gas composition of the fields is the same; b) the fields are in shallow water; c)
the separator pressure is at 10 kg/cm2; d) the pressure drop between the manifolds A and C is
negligible; e) the chokes of both remain fixed.
It is asked to determine the gas production of each option.

Solution
First of all, we need a flowline equation to correlate the pressure upstream (flow Pupstr), the
pressure downstream (flow Pdownstr), the diameter D, the length L and the gas rate Qg.
We can use equation (1) which is very precise (error < 1%) when it can be calibrated with field data.

L
𝑃𝑢𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑟 = √𝑃2𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟 + E ∗ Q2𝑔 ∗ 1)
D5

Note that E is the same constant for different flowing and geometrical data, so
we can use the current flowing data to calculate it.

E = (𝑃2𝑢𝑝𝑠𝑡𝑟 − 𝑃2𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟 ) ∗ D5 /(Q2𝑔 ∗ L) = (182 − 102 ) ∗ 85 /(0,96^2 ∗ 5000) = 1593

The correlation is
L
𝑃𝐴 = √𝑃2𝑠𝑒𝑝 + 1593 ∗ Q2𝑔 ∗ 2)
D5

Where PA is the pressure at the manifold A, in kg/cm2, Psep is the separator pressure in kg/cm2, Qg
is in MSm3/d, D in inch, L in m.
The equation for the flowline connecting the Field 1 and the gas plant is

𝑃𝐴 = √100 + 243 ∗ Q2𝑔 3)

The graphical representation of the flow of field 1 is shown in

Figure 4.23. The crossing point of the curves representing the commingled wells at manifold A and
the flowline pressure at manifold A is the current flow production: 0,96 MSm3/d with a manifold
pressure of 18 kg/cm2.

50
 Field 1 at node A Flow line 8" at node A
65
60
55
Pressure at manifold A, kg/cm2

50
45 y = -12,953x2 - 11,524x + 41
40
35
30
25
Pa = (Psep^2+243*Qg^2)^0,5
20
15
10
5
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5
Q, Msm3/d

Figure 0.22 – Current flow performance of Field 1.

And now we can separately study the three development options.

Option “New in old”

The new Field 2 is connected to the Field 1 adding its production to that of Field 1 (see scheme). The
easiest way to solve the problem is to “pretend” that Field 2 with its flowline until the field 1, is a
new well to be added to Field 1 at the manifold A (with the well close to the manifold so that the
pressure drop is negligible). To do this we determine the flow performance of Field 2 (P vs gas rate)
at the manifold A: it is simply the flow equation at manifold B reduced by the pressure drop in the
flowline connecting the two fields.
To determine the pressure drop equation in the flowline between the two fields we use equation
(2) with the geometry of the new flow line: D=12” and L=3800 m.

L 3800
PA = √P2B - 1593*Q2g * D5 = √P2B - 1593*Q2g * = √P2B - 24,3*Q2g (4)
125

We calculate the data points of the new equation by simply inserting Qg in equation (4).

The curve of Field 2 at manifold A is represented in Figure 4.24. In the same graph we have left the
performance of the Field 1 (
Figure 4.23) and the flowline (8”) pressure at manifold A.

51
We have then inserted the commingled curve (Field 1 + Field 2) that represents, for fixed pressures
at manifold A, the summation of the gas rates of Field 1 and Field 2. The graph allows us to find the
total gas rate (Field 1 + Field 2): this is given by the crossing point of the flowline curve and the
commingled curve: 1,63 MSm3/d. The contributions from the fields are: 0,65 MSm3/d from Field 1
and 0,98 MSm3/d from Field 2.

Field 2 al node B Field 1 at node A

Field 2 at node A Field 1 + field 2 at node A
Flow line at node A
65

60

55

50

45
Pressure, kg/cm2

40 y = -4,591x2 - 4,0493x + 46,622

35

30

25 y = -12,953x2 - 11,524x + 41

20
y = -22,758x2 - 8,3553x + 60
15

10

5 Pa = (Psep^2+243*Qg^2)^0,5 y = -24,123x2 - 9,1368x + 59,93

0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5

Q, Msm3/d

Figure 0.23 – Flow performance of Field 1 and Field 2 in the development option: “new in old”

Option “Stand alone”

This option regards the stand-alone development of Field 2 by laying down a new 12” flowline to
connect it directly to the gas plant. Field 1 is not touched. The equation of the flowline is as follows

52
 L 2 (3800+4000)
PB = √P2sep +1593Q2g ∙ √
5 = 10^2+1593Qg ∙ =√100+49,9∙Q2g
D 125

The performance graph of Field 2 is shown in

Figure 4.25. The gas rate produced is found at the crossing points of the curves of field performance
at the manifold B and the flowline pressure at the same manifold: Qg=1,24 MSm3/d.

65
60
55
50
45
y = -22,758x2 - 8,3553x + 60
Pressure, kg/cm2

40
35
30
25 y =(100 + 49,9*Qg^2)^2
20
15
10
5
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5
Q, Msm3/d

Figure 0.24 – Flow performance of Field 2 in the development option ”stand alone”.

In alternative to the graphical method, we can use the iterative process (for example with Goal
Seeker of Excel) to solve the equations (all reported in the graphs) of each option: we obtain exactly
the same results.
For the sake of brevity, for the option “Old in new” we report only the results in Table 4.18 together
with those for the other option
Table 0.10.

Development options Field 1 Field 2 Field 1 + Field 2

Qg, MSm3/d
Current situation 0,96 0 0,96
“New in old” 0,65 0,98 1,63
“Old in new” 1,01 1,17 2,18

53
 “Stand alone” 0,96 1,23 2,19

Table 0.10 – Calculated gas rate producible by the three option of development

From the production point of view, the results indicate that: a) using the old flowline also to convey
the new gas is not convenient; b) developing the new field “stand alone” seems to be the best
option; c) in terms of total gas produced, the option to use the new flowline (from Field 2 to gas
plant) to take the gas of Field 1 is practically equivalent to the option “stand alone”, with an increase
of gas from Field 1 and a decrease of the new gas form Field 2.

Of course, the economics must also be considered in order to select the optimum development
option .

54
 4.24.
4.24. Maximum wellhead pressure of a gas well

Before abandoning a gas field at the end of its life, the operator wants to verify the productivity of
a small, over pressured level nearby the exhausted ones. The accumulation is very small, but in the
case of high productivity there is the possibility to briefly prolong the field life. Before opening the
level by wire line operation, the operator wants to verify that the surface facilities are capable of
managing the wellhead pressure of the level.
Calculate the maximum wellhead pressure during production of the new level. Find the solution by
using two methods.
Data
Well vertical depth Expected reservoir Reservoir Gas gravity γ =0,7
H=11800 ft static pressure temperature T=240
Ps=7830 psia °F

Solution
The maximum wellhead pressure occurs after a certain period of steady-state production. It
depends on reservoir characteristics but usually is achieved between 0,5 - 2 days after the well is
shut in. In this period also the well temperature cools down. So, for the calculation we assume well
temperature at the static conditions with a bottom hole pressure equal to the reservoir static
pressure. The equation that correlates wellhead pressure Pwh and bottom hole pressure in a gas
well in static conditions is derived by an integration of the pressure from the bottom to wellhead; it
is
P2s = eA P2wh 1)

γH
with A = 0,0375 2)
Zavg ∙Tavg

Pressure is in psia, H in ft, Tavg in °R

The temperature profile in the well can be assumed to be linear, so
Twell head+T bottom 60+240
Tavg = = = 150°F = 460+150 = 610 °R
2 2
Since z average depends on temperature and pressure, equation 1) is implicit and has to be solved
iteratively. We have now to find the correlation between z and temperature and pressure. Since this
correlation is quite complicated, we opt for using the Standing and Katz diagram. See Figure 0.25.
The input data are the reduced pressure and temperature, whosedefinitions are
Ppred = P/Ppc 3)
Tpred = T/Tpc 4)
55
To calculate the pseudocritical pressure Ppc and temperature Tpc in the absence of the detailed gas
composition, we can use the Standing correlations for gas mixtures
Tpc = 168 + 325 γ -12,5 γ2 5)
Ppc = 677 + 15 γ -35,7 γ2 6)
For our case we have
Tpc = 168 + (325)( 0,7) -(12,5) (0,72 ) = 389 °R
Ppc = 677 + (15)(0,7) -(35,7)(0,72 ) = 670 psia
The reduced temperature and pressure are
Ppred = P[psia]/670
T[°R]
Tpred = = 610/389 = 1,57
389
From the Standing and Katz diagram, Figure 0.25, we read the z reported in Table 0.11.

Pressure, psia 5000 6000 7000 8000

𝑃𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑 7,46 8,96 10,45
z 0,96 1,06 1,16 1,26
Table 0.11 - z factors for different reduced pressures

The regression analysis of these data provides the equation of z vs the average pressure in the tubing
Pavg
z = (0,0001)Pavg +0,46 7)

Now we can introduce the data and equation 7) into equation 2)

0,0375γH (0,0375)(0,7)(6650) 0,304

A= (0,0001Pavg +0,46)T
= (0,0001Pavg +0,46)(573,5)
= (0,0001Pavg +0,46)

Of course, the average pressure Pavg is

Pavg = (Ps +Pwh) /2
Finally, from equation 1) we obtain the equation to find Pwh
0,304 0,5
-
(0,0001Pavg +0,46)
Pwh = 7830 (e )

This is an implicit equation that is solved iteratively. We use Goal Seeker of Excel and the result is

56
Pwh = 6649 psia. This is the maximum expected wellhead pressure for the new level to be put on
stream.
There is another way to solve the problem. It is less precise than the equation 1) and is based on the
following equations.
Pwh = Ps -Ph 8)
Ph = 0,0069ρH 9)
ρavg = Pavg 28,96γ/zRT 10)

Pavg = (Pwh +Ps )/2 11)

z = 0,0001Pavg +0,46 12)

Where Ph is the hydrostatic pressure in psia and 𝜌 avg is the gas density at the average pressure in
lb/ft3.
Rearranging the five equations we obtain
28,96γH
Pwh = Ps -0,0069((Pwh +Ps )/2)) ( )
RT(0,0001Pavg +0,46)
(28,96)(0,7)(11800)
Pwh = 7830-0,0069((Pwh +7830)/2)) ( )
(10,73)(610)(0,0001Pavg +0,46)

And, finally, we have the equation to solve the problem

1,26
Pwh = 7830-(Pwh +7830) ((0,0001P ) 13)
avg +0,46)

This can be elaborated to obtain a 2nd order equation solvable in Pwh. However, it is faster to solve
it iteratively with Goal Seeker of Excel: we get Pwh=6779 psia. That is + 2% vs the value calculated
more rigorously with the method above. The difference is however very limited and acceptable for
many field calculations.

57
Figure 0.25 – Graph of Standing and Katz to find the compressibility factor

58
 4.25.
4.25. Long distance transport of high gas rate in a 30” sealine

The deepwater gas field Z sends the gas from the subsea manifold, which collects gas from six
producing wells, to the gas plant onshore through a sealine 716 000 ft long, and with a diameter of
30 inches.
During the production ramp-up the following three steady-state flow conditions have been
measured:
Flow condition 1 2 3
Qg, Mscfd 910 1070 1300
Pman (subsea manifold), psig 1435 1783 2314
Pplant (on shore slug catcher), psig 1189 1189 1189

The gas has a small content of condensate: 10 bbl condensate/Mscf

Since all correlations in the literature for calculating the pressure drop in a pipe are based on lab
experiments with small pipe diameters, it is desired to test the reliability of some of these models.
For this aim, we have chosen three advanced simulators (one commercial and two developed
internally by important engineering companies) and an analytical correlation.
Data
Gas gravity Temperature at Temperature at z factor at Internal
γ=0,57 the manifold = the arrival = 32,5 manifold diameter =26,96
56,5 °F °F conditions =0,75 inch
Gas viscosity at Gas viscosity at z factor at arrival WC = traces Condensate
manifold arrival conditions =0,77 content = 1,8
conditions conditions bbl/Mscf
𝜇= 0,013 cp 𝜇= 0,024 cp

The sealine elevation is represented by this graph.

59
The gas molar composition in % is as follows

C1 98,3900 C3 0,0772 C6 0,0203 C12-C13 0,0134

N2 0,1624 iC4 0,0743 C7 0,0124 C14-C15 0,0134
CO2 0,7082 nC4 0,0255 C8 0,0089 C16 5,59E-05
H2S 0,0454 iC5 0,0334 C9 0,0050 C17-C18 9,18E-05
C2 0,3371 nC5 0,0166 C10-C11 0,0148 C18+ 2,33E-05

Solution
First, we use the analytical approach and refer to the following analytical formula suitable for
calculating the pressure drop in an inclined pipe for upward steady-state flow. It holds for dry gas,
but my experience suggests that the small amount of condensate (10 bbl/Mscf) can be neglected
with an estimated error < 1%. This is significantly lower than the common error for the prediction
of pressure drop by models (10 -20%).

2
f (Zavg Tavg ) Q2
P2upstrem =eA P2downstream +0,000671(eA -1) sin α D5 g (1)
sin α L
With A=0,0375 γ Z (2)
avg Tavg

Where
Pm and Pgp are the pressures at manifold and at the gas plant in psig
Qg is the gas rate in thousands of scfd
𝛾 is the gas gravity
Zavg and T avg are respectively the average gas compressibility and the temperature in
°Rankine
D is the pipe diameter in inch
f is the friction factor (Darcy- Weinsbach)
L is the pipe length in ft
𝛼 is the average slope of the pipe
Now we proceed in two ways: 1) consider average values for z, T, and 𝛼 calculated between the
manifold and the gas plant; 2) subdivide the sealine into a certain number of tracts and apply
method 1) to each tract.
Method 1
Average values are:
z = (0,75 + 0,77)/2=0,76 T = (32,5 + 56,5)/=44,5 °F µ = ( 0,024 + 0,013)/2 = 0,018 cp
Concerning the average slope, the elevation curve clearly shows three tracts with slope relatively
homogenous: the average is = 0,013 rad = 0,74 deg.

60
To calculate the friction factor f we need the Reynolds number and relative roughness of the pipe.
The Reynolds number is given by
γQ (0,57)(910000)
Re = 20,09 D μg = 20,09 (26,96)(0,018) = (21,6)106 (3)

where Qg is in K scfd, µ is the viscosity in cp, D is the pipe diameter in inches.

For the other flowrates, we have: Re=(25,3)(106 ) for Qg=1070 Mscfd and Re=(30,8)(106 ) for Qg=
1300 Mscfd.
Concerning the roughness ε there is no direct measurement, so we consider, as a first guess, an
average value of 90∙10^-6.
By using the practical equation of Papaevangelou we calculate the friction factor as a function of Re
and roughness ε.
ε
f = (0,2479-0,0000947∙(7-LOG(Re))4 ) / (LOG( 3,615
D
)+7,366/Re0,9142 )^2 (4)

For Qg=910 Mscfd, f=0,0127.

For the other rates, we obtain f = 0,0109 for both the rates Qg=1070 and 1300 Mscfd.
We can now proceed to calculate the pressure drop:
We simplify the equation (2) by introducing the available constant values.
sin (α) L (0,0129)(0,57)(718000)
A = 0,0375 γ Z = = 0,516
avg Tavg 0,76(44,5+460)

Now let us group the constant values of the second term of equation (1) and call it B
2
A
(Zavg Tavg )
B=0,000671(e -1) =
sin( α) D5
((0,76)(504,5))^2
= 0,000671(e0,516 -1) = 0,00036
( sin(0,74) (26.96^5))
Equation (1) is now
P2man = 1,675 P2plant +0,00036 f Q2g
Thus
Inserting Qg in thousand scfd with the relevant friction factors calculated above we obtain

Pman = √(1,675)(11892 )+(0,00036)(0,0127)(9100002 ) = 2489 psig

Likewise, for the other gas rates 1070 and 1300 Mscfd we have, respectively, Pman = 2767 and
3187psig.
We remark that, having considered the compressibility factor, temperature and viscosity constant,
we have introduced an error <0,5%. This has been evaluated by simply repeating the calculations
with the extreme values of each parameter.
61
Method 2
We subdivide the sealine into 10 parts. We apply the above procedure to calculate the pressure at
the end of each part (see Table 1). We obtain a pressure at the manifold of 2520 psig. Likewise, for
the other gas rates 1089 and 1300 Mscfd we have, respectively, Pman=2837 and 3231 psig.

Using three advanced simulator models we have calculated the pressure at manifold. The results in
terms of pressure drop are shown in Table 0.12 along with the two analytical solutions.

Distance 1189 1337 1482 1623 1759 1890 2020 2148 2276 2403 2530
from gas
plant, k ft
Pressure at 0 71,6 143,2 214,8 286,4 358,0 429,6 501,2 572,8 644,4 716,0
part end,
psig

Table 0.12 – Calculation of pressure drop in sealine subdivided in 10 parts

Qg, Mscfd 910 1089 1300

Pressure drop in sealine, psig
Actual 1435 1783 2314
Analytical Analytical 1296 1605 1989
methods method 1
Analytical 1330 1648 2042
method 2
Simulators Model O 1262 1441 1841
Model R 1753 1754 2171
Model M 1227 1574 1978
Table 0.13 – Calculated sealine pressure drop (subsea manifold – gas plant) with various methods

The results are better visualized in Figure 4.29. In general, all methods underestimate the pressure
drop. The absolute average errors are visualized in Figure 4.28.
The first conclusion is that all the methods provide errors in the range 9 – 17%, absolutely in line
with errors normally found for smaller diameters.
A second conclusion is that, in spite of the uncertainty around the pipe roughness, we can compare
the above errors because all methods have considered the same value of roughness of 90*10^-6.
And surprisingly the analytical methods perform better or are in line with the most sophisticated
models. Of course, we cannot generalize this conclusion. But we can say that the use of analytical
methods is reasonable, especially when we do not have all the precise input data required by the
advanced simulators.
62
 Actual Analytical method 1 Analytical method 2
Model R Model M Model O
2400
2200
Pressure drop, psig

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300
Gas rate, Mscfd

Figure 0.27 – Comparison of calculated pressure drop with various methods vs actual

20
Absolute error, %

15

10

0
Analytic Analytic Model O Model R Model M
method 1 method 2

Figure 0.26 – Comparison of absolute errors of pressure drop calculations

A third conclusion is that the subdivision of the sealine into 10 parts has improved the calculation,
with a reduction of the absolute error of about 2 %: from 11% to 9%
Of course, all the methods can be improved for the present case by calibration varying the input
data, starting from the pipe roughness.

63
 4.26. Calculations around exponential gas field rate decline

A gas field during its first year of production has an average gas rate of 100000 Sm3/d and exhibits
a decline of 20% per year.
It is asked to calculate 1) the field gas rate at the start up, 2) at the beginning of the second year, 3)
the average gas rate of the 10th year of production, 4) the cumulative field production after 10 years.
Represent all the calculations in graphical form.

Solution
Purpose of this problem is to emphasize the difference, and find the correlations, between gas rate
at the start and average gas rate in the year. The latter is commonly used in field statistics:
accounting, reservoir studies, and so on.
A constant yearly decline, for example in %, means that the decline is exponential and the equations
for the gas rate decline and the cumulative production are

Qt =Qi (exp(-b t) (1)

Qi 365(1-exp(-b t))
Nt = (2)
b

365 (Qi -Qt )

Nt = (3)
b

Qt =Qi (1-d)^t (4)

Where t is the time in years, Qi is the gas rate at the start (average for the first day of production)
in Sm3/d, Qt is the gas rate at the beginning of the year t, Nt is the cumulative production at the
end of the year t, b is a coefficient of decline.
Equation (3) indicates that there is a linear relationship between the decline Q and N.
Combining equations (1) and (4) we obtain the correlation between d and b

b = - ln(1-d) (4)
Thus
b = - ln(1-d) = - ln(1-0,2) = 0,22314

64
N in the first year, N1, can be calculated because the average gas rate in the first year is available:
N1=(365)(100000)=36 500 000 Sm3.
With equation (2) we now calculate Qi
Qi 365 (1-exp(-bt)) Qi 365 (1-exp(-0,22314 )
Nt = = 36 500 000 =
b 0,22314
Qi = 111572 Sm3/d
The gas rate in the last day of the first year is obtained by Equation (1)

Q2 = Qi exp(-b t) = 111572 exp(-0,22314) = 89258 Sm3/d

Or by equation (4)
Sm3
Q1 = Qi (1-d)t = 111572(1-0,2)1 = 89258
d
Here we must be careful for, if we calculate the average gas rate of the year 1 as the arithmetical
average of Qi and Q1, we don’t obtain the Q avg give =100 000 Sm3/d . In fact

111572+89258
(Qi +Q2 )/2 = = 100415 Sm3/d
2
The difference , +415 bopd that is +0,41%, is due to the fact that Q vs time is not a straight line.
Gas rate in the last day of the second year is obtained by equation (1),
Q2 = Qi exp(-b t)=111572 exp(-0,22314 ∙ 2) = 71406 Sm3/d

Q at the end of the 5th year is

Q5 = Qi exp(-b t) = 111572 exp(-0,22314 ∙ 5) = 36560 Sm3/d
The cumulative gas rate is obtained either with equation (2) or with equation (3)
Equation (2)
Qi 365 (1-exp(-b t)) (111572)(365)(1-exp(-0,22314∙5)
N5 = = = 122699537 Sm3
b 0,22314

N5 = 122,7 MSm3/d
Equation (3)
365(Qi -Q5 ) 365(111572-36560)
N5 = = = 122700457 Sm3
b 0,22314
These give the same result.

65
Year-by-year calculations are reported in Table 0.14. In Figure 4.30 we compare average yearly oil
rates with actual daily oil rates.

Years 1 2 3 4 5
Q avg of the year: Qn=Qn-1 * (1-d) bopd 100000 80000 64000 51200 40960
Cumul in the year: Qavg * 365 bbl 36,50 29,20 23,36 18,69 14,95
Q initial: Equat.2 bopd 111572
Q end of the year: Equat. 1 bopd 89257 71406 57125 45700 36560
N2 cumul. : Equat. 2 bbl 36,5 65,7 89,1 107,7 122,7
N2 cumul. : Equat. 3 bbl 36,5 65,7 89,1 107,7 122,7
Qavg: arithm. avg initial and end of the year bopd 100415 80332 64265 51412 41130
Delta Q avg: actual (avail. data) – arithm. avg
of initial and end of the year bopd 415 332 265 212 170
Delta % % 0,41 0,41 0,41 0,41 0,41
Table 0.14 – Calculation of exponential gas rate decline

Q avg of the year Q actual of the day

130000

110000
Oil rate, bopd

90000

70000

50000

30000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Years

Figure 0.28 – Comparison between gas rate average in the years with actual gas rate

66